Help Texas CHL holders fight local legislation
Jonathan D. Schober
to carry a concealed handgun
I am organizing efforts to defend the CHL in cities where there are
significant political battles being played to stop us from exercising this
right. I have developed a three-prong approach for our attack:
1. Write letters and visit city council members to let them know what you
think about proposed ordinances to limit your right to carry.
2. Write letters to local business encouraging them to allow concealed carry
on their property.
3. Write letters to local employees who are considering limiting the rights of
their employees by not allowing them to carry to/from work.
In addition to those items, we must maintain vigilance and help with the
following long-term goals
1. Keep record of all Texas CHL holders who are able to thwart a crime.
2. Keep records on current crime statistics, and those following January 1.
3. Encourage the next legislature to remove the current restrictions on the
CHL law.
If you are interested in being a part of this organization, please send me
your name, email, snail, FAX, address, preferred method of contact and
employers name.
If you do not want to leave any information, please stay tuned to
http://www.schoneal.com/~jds/rkba/ for further developments (Note: I will
probably have the page up after Thanksgiving)
We plan on organizing the following services to help spread the word and
defend our rights:
1. WWW page
2. Addresses of local politiscums… . .I mean politicians.
3. FAQ on Texas CHL law
4. On-line resource of the Texas CHL
5. Mailing list
6. More…
Thanks for your help!
Jonathan D. Schober
Lars Eighner
the lovely and talented apa...@hpcf.cc.utexas.edu (Frank W. Douma) wrote:
>In article <48t5gr$1t...@ausnews.austin.ibm.com>, <he...@austin.ibm.com> wrote:
>>Absolutely, I concur...
>>
>(Idiotic blathering about how people carrying concealed are going to
> snap and shoot people)
>
>OK Heath, time for a little education:
>
>In order to be _eligible_ for a license to carry the person must:
>
>- Be a legal resident of Texas for the previous 6 months
>- Be at least 21 years of age
>- Have NEVER been convicted of a felony of any type
<much more>
It still appears to me that postal workers can get concealed
weapons permits.
How many more days is it we have now until the bloodbath
begins?
--
=Lars Eighner========================PAWN TO QUEEN FOUR=====a novel=========
=eig...@io.com = ". . . deft, enjoyable . . ." =
=http://www.io.com/~eighner = --Adam Mars-Jones, The New York Times=
=Austin TX==IO: It sucks the least!=========================================
Frank W. Douma
>In our last episode <48t9lc$n...@spica.cc.utexas.edu>,
> the lovely and talented apa...@hpcf.cc.utexas.edu (Frank W. Douma) wrote:
>>In article <48t5gr$1t...@ausnews.austin.ibm.com>, <he...@austin.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>Absolutely, I concur...
>>>
>>(Idiotic blathering about how people carrying concealed are going to
>> snap and shoot people)
>>
>>OK Heath, time for a little education:
>>
>>In order to be _eligible_ for a license to carry the person must:
>>
>>- Be a legal resident of Texas for the previous 6 months
>>- Be at least 21 years of age
>>- Have NEVER been convicted of a felony of any type
><much more>
>
>It still appears to me that postal workers can get concealed
>weapons permits.
>
>How many more days is it we have now until the bloodbath
>begins?
>
Uh, Lars, I know I've seen a post of yours around here before.
Certainly you have been informed of Florida's experience with
creating legal concealed carry in 1987. If not, let me know,
I'll get you a copy of an official press release from their
dept. of justice (I believe). Given that Florida's requirements
are LESS stringent than Texas', and that postal workers work in
Florida as well, it looks like the number of days until the
blood bath you are worried about is INFINITE, 'cause it ain't
gonna happen. (I assume Texans are no less responsible than
Floridians, a safe assumption I believe)
Sorry to disappoint you, concealed carry lets the _good_
guys carry. The bad guys always have, and always will.
Frank D.
I alone am responsible for the above.
John W. Engel
>it's easy to see who the bad guy is if he has a gun.
What, are you clairvoyant? Oh, I see....you've never heard of
an undercover officer before. Get real.
whit
ROSS, GEORGE RAY, JR
>Frank W. Douma (apa...@hpcf.cc.utexas.edu) wrote:
>: In article <48t5gr$1t...@ausnews.austin.ibm.com>, <he...@austin.ibm.com> wrote:
>: >Absolutely, I concur...
>: >
>: (Idiotic blathering about how people carrying concealed are going to
>: snap and shoot people)
>
snip snip snip
>
>I think the right to have a weapon is an important constitutional
>right. And I think the right of an employer to make sure that people
>don't bring that weapon into the workplace is just as important.
>
>
>Heath
>
I have to disagree here. The employer certainly has a right to
maintain a workplace that is safe for his employees and make
sure the workplace has an atomosphere such that employees get
their work done. An employer certainly does not have the right
to force an employee to be more vulnerable when traveling to and
from work.
However, a person carrying a concealed firearm while at work
has no effect on the atmosphere of the workplace if he/she is
carrying properly. Properly meaning no one else knows about the
firearm. Of course your buddy would most likely know you have
a permit, but wouldn't know if you were carrying on a given day.
A person carrying concealed is only increasing his chances of
surviving an attack and protecting those around him/her.
The most dangerous place I can think of that you can't
avoid is a parking lot. By not allowing licensed concealed
carry, an employer is forcing his employees to make a minimum
of two trips every work day through the highest risk area most
people see any given day unarmed. Shopping malls that forbid
licensed concealed carry are likewise placing shoppers in danger.
Employers and shopping malls which forbid licensed concealed
carry are just as guilty of endangering the law-abiding public as HCI.
George Ross
BTW. The local mall in College Station has their NO FIREARMS signs
up now. I think I will write them a letter and I encourage others
to do likewise.
the wharf rat
Frank W. Douma <apa...@hpcf.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
>- Have not been adjudicated as engaging in felony delinquent conduct
> in the previous 10 years
What's that mean?
he...@austin.ibm.com
I need to make sure I can carry a gun into a courthouse... Never
know when some psyco might show up and I need to defend the
constitution, or persuade a judge to see things my way...
I won't rest until the day that I can carry a concealed weapon
into a bar and have a couple of tequila slammers... Never know
when someone might try to insult me and I might have to stand up
for myself...
And I need to make sure I can drop my nephew off at his daycare
with my 9 mm... Might be some child molester lurking somewhere,
and it's safer to shoot first and ask questions later... Speaking
of which, what's this silliness about not being allowed to have
a concealed handgun at a school, I know 80% of those kids are packing,
I'll have to drop him off someday there too...
And the very thought of going to a city council meeting unarmed
gives me the absolute shivers, all the liberals around, never know
when one of them might be packing heat and I can spring to the
defense...
How dare business owners and government leaders try to provide
a non-threatening environment for their customers and employees.
So what if an argument erupts at work, people should know that
after 10 hours of hard training, no concealed weapons licence holder
would do anything rash under any circumstances. Why the very thought...
Just a thought.
------
Heath Newburn -- Happy Contractor Code Grunt
(512) 838-3079 Austin, Republic of Texas
vnet: HEATH@AUSVM6 inet: he...@austin.ibm.com
"How can I speak for IBM when I don't even work for them?"
Wolf
#Absolutely, I concur...
#I need to make sure I can carry a gun into a courthouse... Never
#know when some psyco might show up and I need to defend the
#constitution, or persuade a judge to see things my way...
Had a case a few years ago in Alabama where the loser in a divorce settlement
made it out to his car before his winning spouse got out of the courthouse,
he returned with a gun and shot her, her attorney, and several other people.
Wasn't caught for a few hours, despite the fact that the Sheriff's department
was housed in the courthouse. If SHE or her attorney had been carrying, he
might've been stopped earlier.
#I won't rest until the day that I can carry a concealed weapon
#into a bar and have a couple of tequila slammers... Never know
#when someone might try to insult me and I might have to stand up
#for myself...
If you are so irresponsible as to drink beyond your capacity, you shouldn't
be carrying anyway, and should be punished if you DO do something stupid
under the influence. Of course, I'd have more support for such laws if they'd
apply them equally. Andre' Reisen (formerly of the Atlanta Falcons) is a big
football star, so he doesn't get prosecuted for SHOOTING someone in a bar (and
no, he did NOT have a CCW to carry the weapon there in the first place), but
if I get caught with a firearm in ANY establishment which serves alchohol
(including the burger joint I go to), I can bet I'll get prosecuted to the
maximum extent of the law.
#And I need to make sure I can drop my nephew off at his daycare
#with my 9 mm... Might be some child molester lurking somewhere,
#and it's safer to shoot first and ask questions later... Speaking
#of which, what's this silliness about not being allowed to have
#a concealed handgun at a school, I know 80% of those kids are packing,
#I'll have to drop him off someday there too...
Hrms... and how many of those kids have legal access to firearms? Personally,
I'd like to see Georgia's laws changed so those who have a CCW are not
prevented from defending themselves while at a college or university, especially
considering how many violent predators visit the Georgia Tech campus looking
for easy pickings...
#And the very thought of going to a city council meeting unarmed
#gives me the absolute shivers, all the liberals around, never know
#when one of them might be packing heat and I can spring to the
#defense...
But what about when you AREN'T actually IN the city council meeting? Are there
armed guards to escort you to your car? How about a police escort home, since
if you leave your gun in your car while in the meeting, it could be stolen?
#How dare business owners and government leaders try to provide
#a non-threatening environment for their customers and employees.
#So what if an argument erupts at work, people should know that
#after 10 hours of hard training, no concealed weapons licence holder
#would do anything rash under any circumstances. Why the very thought...
Personally, I avoid any business which advertises that their customers and
employees will be unarmed. Sounds like the perfect place for an armed robbery,
not to mention rapes and robberies in teh parking lot.
#Just a thought.
I wouldn't rate it that high. I'd count it as mindless anti-gun blathering.
James
#------
#Heath Newburn -- Happy Contractor Code Grunt
#(512) 838-3079 Austin, Republic of Texas
#vnet: HEATH@AUSVM6 inet: he...@austin.ibm.com
#"How can I speak for IBM when I don't even work for them?"
John W. Engel
>Just a thought.
Dunno if I'd give it that much credit.
Regards,
Whit
pjpr...@eden.com
>Absolutely, I concur...
>
>I need to make sure I can carry a gun into a courthouse... Never
>
You pink-eyed liberal HOMO SAPIEN! Make fun all you want, I say that
an unarmed populace is a dangerous threat to our security! Shoot them
all! Death to the disarmed desperados!
======================================================================
Joe Barr jb...@i-link.net
Se Habla Dweeb pjpr...@eden.com
The Dweebspeak Primer http://www.eden.com/~pjprimer
======================================================================
Frank W. Douma
>Absolutely, I concur...
>
(Idiotic blathering about how people carrying concealed are going to
snap and shoot people)
OK Heath, time for a little education:
In order to be _eligible_ for a license to carry the person must:
- Be a legal resident of Texas for the previous 6 months
- Be at least 21 years of age
- Have NEVER been convicted of a felony of any type
- Not be charged with a class A or B misdemeanor or felony
- Not be chemically dependent
- Not be of unsound mind
- Not have been convicted of a Class A or B misdemeanor in the
previous 5 years
- Be eligible under both Federal and State law to purchase a handgun
- Be up to date with any child support collected by the Attorney General
- Be up to date on EVERY tax collected by the state or its subdivisions
- Be up to date on any educational loans made under the Education Code
- Not be restricted by a court protective order or restraining order
relating to a spousal relationship
- Have not been adjudicated as engaging in felony delinquent conduct
in the previous 10 years
- Have not lied or misrepresented any information on the application for
a license
(DPS isn't exactly just handing these things out to anyone)
You might also be interested to know what someone has to actually
_do_ in order to get a license to carry. They must give to DPS:
- Completed DPS' application:
- Name/race/sex/height/weight/hair color/eye color
- Place of birth
- Current home and business addresses
- All home addresses for the last 5 years
- All business addresses for the last 5 years
- ANY criminal history
- Drug/alcohol/psychiatric history for the past 5 years
- Provide two color photographs
- Provide two sets of finger prints, taken by law enforcement
- Provide certified proof of age
- Provide proof of residency in Texas
- Provide $140
- Provide notarized affidavits of:
- Knowledge of the laws pertaining to concealed carry/use of force
- Eligibility
- Release ANY of the following records:
- Medical/Psychological records for the previous 5 years
- Child support payments
- State and local taxes/fees
- Juvenile records (which are normally sealed)
- Law enforcement records
- Guaranteed student loan records
- Court records
- Provide proof of the successful completion of the training class given
by DPS trained instructor. The class includes both written
and proficiency examinations.
(You gotta do a heck of a lot more than just show up and ask for one)
Ok, so Heath, do really still believe, given all of the above, that
someone who is legally carrying concealed represents a genuine threat
to you? Or anyone else for that matter? The main point of your
post was that in certain environments, people with guns were going
to starting shooting. Do you really think that people who meet
all of the above are going to start shooting for no legal reason?
If so, why?
(I don't mean the above questions rhetorically, either. How's about
some answers, Heath?)
Karl Rehn
>Coincidental to the passing of the CHL law, 5 children, during 5
>consecutive weeks were killed by Accidental Discharges of pistols.
>This of course can't necessarily be tied to the CHL law itself, but
>can be used as an argument against increased availability of
>firearms.
Correlation does not imply causation. The firearms accident rate
has been declined every single year for the past 30 years or so.
My experience teaching Texas CHL classes indicates that there aren't
many people running out and buying guns because of the permits.
All that is happening is people that were already carrying guns in their
cars or purses are being licensed and trained to do something they were
doing already. Your example can be used as an example for the need for
training. Using your logic I can suggest that 'decreased availability'
of automobiles is needed because we had 12 traffic accidents last week.
If it only saves one life...
>Twice I've seen the shattered bodies of close friends of mine who have
>had their heads blown off by accidental discharges of pistols. I've
>personally witnessed at least 3 accidental discharges that luckily
>missed all who were around.
No offense, but in order for those 'accidental discharges' to have had
deadly effect the basic rules of gun safety had to have been violated --
badly. I've spent the past decade at shooting competitions and ranges
all over Texas and the US, taught competitors and instructors, and I'm
currently teaching CHL applicants. I've spent thousands of hours
around people with guns and not a single one of them has managed to
have an accident more serious than a cut. Care to elaborate on the details of
those specific incidents? Pointing a gun at your (or someone else's head)
isn't an "accident": it's reckless and/or negligent.
>I can tell you, that I'd feel much safer sitting down in Luby's knowing
>that nobody in the place had a weapon and that possibly some nut would
>drive their truck through the front window and start blasting people than
>I would if I knew that 5 or 10 honest people were carrying firearms... some
>with as little as 10 hours of training.
Tell that to Dr. Suzanne Gratia, who watched her parents die.
Do you have a self-defense strategy of any kind other than crossing your
fingers and thinking "it'll never happen to me"? I hate to break it to you
but it's probable that around 1% of Texans have been carrying illegally
for years. It's a shame that you think so little of the judgement of your
fellow citizens. The truth (if you bother to study some basic psychology
and criminology) is that gun ownership isn't a good indicator of the
potential for violent behavior. Other factors, like mental illness, drug
and alcohol abuse, and criminal history are. Maybe that's why Texas
CHL applicants have to sign an affidavit giving DPS the right to open
non-criminal records as part of the background investigation.
Oddly enough in Florida, where they only require 3 hours of training,
there has only been one case of a permit holder 'going postal' in ten
years, and there are over 250,000 permit holders there. So far out of 40
states nationwide with CCW permits none have shown an increase in violence
as a result of the permits. Some states, such as Florida, have seen a
decrease.
Perhaps you'd feel safer in Washington D.C., where private ownership of
handguns is banned. DC still has the highest murder rate in the US, but
you won't have to worry about armed, law-abiding citizens there...
Karl
re...@arlut.utexas.edu
http://www.avaloncorp.com/~rehn/
KR Training: classes for CHL applicants, NRA instructors, IPSC competitors
"owning a handgun doesn't make you armed any more than owning a guitar
makes you a musician" - Col. Jeff Cooper
he...@austin.ibm.com
: >Absolutely, I concur...
: >
: (Idiotic blathering about how people carrying concealed are going to
: snap and shoot people)
My followup was not about people with a CCW license mindlessly
shooting people, it is about the places where it is *ok* to carry
a weapon.
I wholeheartely agree that there is a time and place to carry a
weapon, whether or not is should be concealed is left for discussion.
My mother carried a gun after a divorce from my stepfather, I would
have prerred she had a flame thrower for less chance of her missing.
My concerns stem from 2 people I know who now have a CCW license,
are quite proud of the fact and are angry about their inability
to carry their weapon into the work place.
I own a shotgun, several friends and family members including
law enforcement officers carry weapons on a regular basis. And I
do think that in certain situations it is a *good* idea. However,
by the very fact that in some places only law officers are able
to carry guns, it quickly shows the intentions of people who are
not law enforcement officers and are brandishing a weapon there.
Here's a scenario that I envision:
Someone comes into the Travis County Courthouse with a .357 magnum
(.22 caliber pistol if you prefer) and a guard (or another armed,
nervous person with a handgun) sees you reach into for your wallet,
next to your shoulder holster, what happens next?
Since no one, except law enforement officials, are to carry weapons
into the court house, it's easy to see who the bad guy is if they
have a gun. If everyone is carrying one, who gets pulled to the
side? How does someone else know if a weapon is being pulled out
in self defense or to be used as an offensive weapon?
If this is too paranoid a scenario, I apologize, I think there can
be others.
I appreciate the well thought out and very thorough response, I did
learn some things from what you posted. However, it does not change
the fact that certain individuals are going to be irresponsible with
guns, and giving them a legal license to carry it only boldens there
resolve.
I think the right to have a weapon is an important constitutional
right. And I think the right of an employer to make sure that people
don't bring that weapon into the workplace is just as important.
Heath
Heath Newburn -- Happy Contractor Code Grunt
(512) 838-3079 Austin, Republic of Texas
vnet: HEATH@AUSVM6 inet: he...@austin.ibm.com
J.D. Baldwin
>Just a thought.
"Thought" is an awful strong word for that, don't you think?
--
From the catapult of J.D. Baldwin |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
_,_ Finger bal...@netcom.com |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
_|70|___:::)=}- for PGP public |+| retract it, but also to deny under
\ / key information. |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Cochrane
I'm sure that Dr. Suzanne Gratia didn't think she'd really need her
gun in the middle of the day eating at a restaurant with her parents
either. Nonetheless, if the law hadn't said she couldn't, she would
have carried it in with her and a lot of people who are dead now might
be alive--including her parents.
From your sarcasm, it's obvious that you think that ordinary people
with no previous criminal history and no history of dangerous mental
problems are some sort of threat to you, and obvious that you don't
trust these ordinary people to have potentially dangerous objects
without harming you or someone else.
Why are you so frightened and mistrustful of decent, ordinary people?
>Absolutely, I concur...
>I need to make sure I can carry a gun into a courthouse... Never
>know when some psyco might show up and I need to defend the
>constitution, or persuade a judge to see things my way...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Fear that an ordinary person with a clean record will suddenly,
out of the blue, commit the violent crime of aggravated assault
against a judge.....
>I won't rest until the day that I can carry a concealed weapon
>into a bar and have a couple of tequila slammers... Never know
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Fear that an ordinary person with a clean record will get drunk
while carrying a firearm..... (I do feel that carrying under the
influence should carry the same penalty as DUI. I don't expect
it to happen very often, because I don't expect many alcoholics
to have a clean enough record to get a CHP in the first place.)
>when someone might try to insult me and I might have to stand up
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>for myself...
^^^^^^^^^^
Fear that an ordinary person with a clean record will suddenly,
out of the blue, commit the violent crime of aggravated assault
against someone who says something he/she doesn't like....
>And I need to make sure I can drop my nephew off at his daycare
>with my 9 mm... Might be some child molester lurking somewhere,
>and it's safer to shoot first and ask questions later... Speaking
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Fear that an ordinary person with a clean record will suddenly,
out of the blue, commit the violent crime of aggravated assault
against an innocent bystander....
>of which, what's this silliness about not being allowed to have
>a concealed handgun at a school, I know 80% of those kids are packing,
>I'll have to drop him off someday there too...
This fear is so vaguely stated that I can't quite decipher it, but
it appears to be fear that an ordinary person with a clean record
will suddenly, out of the blue, commit the violent crime of aggravated
assault against a school child.....
>And the very thought of going to a city council meeting unarmed
>gives me the absolute shivers, all the liberals around, never know
^^^^^^^^
>when one of them might be packing heat and I can spring to the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>defense...
^^^^^^^
Fear that an ordinary person with a clean record will suddenly,
out of the blue, commit the violent crime of aggravated assault
against a random citizen with whom he/she presumable disagrees
politically.....
>How dare business owners and government leaders try to provide
>a non-threatening environment for their customers and employees.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Presumption that the presence of ordinary people with clean records
who are armed constitutes a "threatening environment". Basically
a generalized fear of ordinary people with clean records.
>So what if an argument erupts at work, people should know that
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Fear that an ordinary person with a clean record will suddenly,
out of the blue, commit the violent crime of aggravated assault
against a coworker....
>after 10 hours of hard training, no concealed weapons licence holder
>would do anything rash under any circumstances. Why the very thought...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Fear that the lack of suitable armament is the only thing restraining
ordinary people with clean records from acting on violent, homicidal
impulses against others.....
>Just a thought.
Are you such a homicidal maniac that you think that everyone around
you must be one, too? Or are you just convinced that you're one of
the few non-homicidal people and that you're surrounded by raving
homicidal maniacs?
You have an awfully paranoid world view.
Julie
--
Julie Cochrane
* * *
Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration---Thomas Edison
Jonathan D. Schober
>I won't rest until the day that I can carry a concealed weapon
>into a bar and have a couple of tequila slammers... Never know
>when someone might try to insult me and I might have to stand up
>for myself...
Gee, should you be allowed to drive to that bar, or should we pass legislation
forcing you to drive a cab to the perverbial bar...Hmmmm??? Perhaps we should
just prohibit alcohol (Oh, that's been tried before) After all, a whole lot
more innocent people get killed from drunk drivers than by legally licensed
cancelled handgun owners. [Note: I'm not for anyone getting tanked up at a bar
with a weapon, but note the hypocricy here.]
<banter about dropping off kid at daycare deleted>
>And the very thought of going to a city council meeting unarmed
>gives me the absolute shivers, all the liberals around, never know
>when one of them might be packing heat and I can spring to the
>defense...
The real question is why are so many politicians afraid of "the people" Is it
perhaps that they are knowingly governing against the will of the people?
>How dare business owners and government leaders try to provide
>a non-threatening environment for their customers and employees.
What makes you think that not allowing concealed carry provides a "safer"
environment? After all, the reason it's supposed to be concealed is to keep
from having a "threatening" environment.
>So what if an argument erupts at work, people should know that
>after 10 hours of hard training, no concealed weapons licence holder
>would do anything rash under any circumstances. Why the very thought...
Much more likely that our friendly license holder is going to get robbed,
raped, murdured, or (insert your favorite crime) on the way to and from work
(an unfortunate event which happens several times a day around the nation)
Then our good law-abiding, never done much more than get a speeding ticket,
license holder is going to "do anythng rash"...In fact, I'd be more than
interested for you to show me a case where a licensed holder did, in fact "do
anything rash" at work. I believe the stats from Florida will support the
notion that CHL holders are quite law abiding, something like less than 1%
have had the license revoked for _any_ reason, much less "doing something rash
at work"
Lars Eighner
the lovely and talented wr...@io.com (the wharf rat) wrote:
>In article <48t9lc$n...@spica.cc.utexas.edu>,
>Frank W. Douma <apa...@hpcf.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
>> in the previous 10 years
>
>
>
Means "didn't get caught"
pjpr...@eden.com
>he...@austin.ibm.com () writes:
>
>I'm sure that Dr. Suzanne Gratia didn't think she'd really need her
>gun in the middle of the day eating at a restaurant with her parents
>either. Nonetheless, if the law hadn't said she couldn't, she would
>have carried it in with her and a lot of people who are dead now might
>be alive--including her parents.
Hi, Julie
There is a fascinating news item on the CNN WWW server about the fired
employee who went postal and killed four recently. One of the people
he went after was an ex-girlfriend, now remarried. They got some warning
and were leaving as the madman appeared. He fired four shots to get into
their house, but then he got hit twice in the chest by the ex's husband,
who was armed his-own-self.
End of story? Not quite. The bad was wearing a bulletproof vest and
wasn't stopped. Amazing how these situations spiral up the weapon chain,
isn't it.
pjpr...@eden.com
>In article <48t9lc$n...@spica.cc.utexas.edu>,
>Frank W. Douma <apa...@hpcf.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>- Have not been adjudicated as engaging in felony delinquent conduct
>> in the previous 10 years
>
>
> What's that mean?
It means he dint noun no verbs and had a balance between text and
graphics on his web page.
Jim Herring
criminals, psychopaths, and ex-spouses it leaves the honest citizen to protect
themself.
If the police won't do it, I will.
mustang
Richard Aleksander
conditioner (through my kitchen wall). I was relieved when my gun was
stolen. Haven't gotten one to replace it.
Lug
: I'd like to hear more. I've averted about a half-dozen crimes, using a
: flashlight, shouting, or a well-timed phone call. Were none of these options
: suitable in your case? Why was a gun a better (or the only) solution?
If your life is in danger, why use less force than you can? You have
every moral right to maximize your chance of survival, even at the
expense of your assailant's life (you also have the Constitutional
right). If carrying a firearm is distasteful to you, I don't have a
problem with that. However, you ought not impose your discomfort upon
me; my possession/carry of a firearm (especially if you don't know about
it) infringes upon you ZERO. It's my (mis)USE of the weapon that
transgresses your circle of autonomy.
To say otherwise logically implies that I should not own hands or feet,
because those have the potential of harming you.
-- L
Frank W. Douma
>In article <48t9lc$n...@spica.cc.utexas.edu>,
>Frank W. Douma <apa...@hpcf.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>- Have not been adjudicated as engaging in felony delinquent conduct
>> in the previous 10 years
>
>
> What's that mean?
>
It means that the applicant has not had a final judgement of "guilty"
against them with regard to a felony while a delinquent.
The important thing is that requirement coupled with the permission to
open ALL your criminal records, even those of your juvenile years, allows
a complete review of the applicants criminal history.
Usually juveniles are given a lot of second chances, ie "deferred adjudication"
and then their juvenile criminal records are sealed. This can/does mean
that a kid who does a felony, starts with a clean slate upon reaching
adulthood. The concealed carry law prevents this with regard to
concealed carry, denying anyone who has been guilty of a felony AT ANY
TIME IN THEIR LIFE.
Frank W. Douma
>rather than possibly anger potentially paying customers... :) But, I'll
>go against my better judgement on this one....
>
>A little history.... I'm an ex-Marine who attended a 3 week course in
>gunfighting (pistol) as part of anti-terrorism training. Easily 150-200
>hours of initial training supported by over 80 hours of continuing
>training every year while I was in an anti-terrorism unit, which required
>me to carry a pistol (among other weapons) every day. Additionally, the
>last year I was with this unit, I was a marksmanship instructor for both
>pistols and rifles. Needless to say, I, and the men I worked with, were
>VERY well trained to carry pistols and did so each and every day. Finally,
>it's interesting to note that this unit was based in Florida and this was
>during the period that the CHL was passed there..... so this is were I
>get off saying "I KNOW what I'm talking about."
>
IMHO,
No you don't know what your talking about. You've had extensive
combat training and anti-terrorism training. If I need somebody in a
fire fight or want to rescue hostages, you're the man. If I want to
discretely carry a concealed weapon and use it to defend my person against
an attack, you're the last guy I want to see. You know your way around
the hardware (I think, your friends below sure as hell didn't), but
as for tactics and situational training, forget it.
>
>Finally, the most shocking statistic.... out of those approximately
>150 Marines I was based with for those 2 years.... those Marines who
>were, by any standard, EXTREMELY well trained in firearms usage and
>safety.... 2 didn't live to see their discharge dates.... both
>
How were loaded weapons being "safely" pointed at their heads, and then
the triggers pulled?
>
>Never in my life have I witnessed a violent armed robbery.....
>Never in my life have I witnessed a violent murder.....
>Never in my life have I witnessed a rape......
>
Lucky you. Neither have I. But as my instructor likes to say:
"It won't happen to me" isn't a plan.
>
>Twice I've seen the shattered bodies of close friends of mine who have
>had their heads blown off by accidental discharges of pistols. I've
>personally witnessed at least 3 accidental discharges that luckily
>missed all who were around.
>
Heads blown off? If your going to write as if you are an expert, I
am going to have to ask. Do you really mean this? It's my understanding
that sucicides with 9mm FMJ usually penetrate through and through, but
do not, in fact, remove the head. Any possiblility that these very
traumatic events are affecting your thinking on this issue?
>
>If you see one of these "well trained, honest citizens" carrying a weapon,
>my advice is to steer well clear of them.... the absolute worst thing
>that can happen to you is for them to start shooting at a criminal with
>you in the vicinity or for them to pull their weapon to show it to
>somebody else....
>
They'll be breaking the law, and they'll know it, if they pull their
weapon to show it off. My adivice to you is that, as much as I am
loathe to say it, is:
"If you see any of these highly trained Marines carrying a weapon, my
advice is to steer clear of them. Remember, they are combat troops,
and damn fine ones at that, but killing people and destroying things
is their business, but apparently gun safety is something they don't
seem to concentrate enough on."
Lug
: I wholehearted support the opinions and retorts of all who dignified this
: obvious flame bait, but when you respond and keep the thread going you are
: just playing the baiter's game. Resist the temptation to respond to the bait
: as strongly as you would resist the temptation to unload a mag or two if you
: met these people in the middle of nowhere. Bait fests are popping up in groups
: all over.
I'm pretty sure that most responders know exactly what they're doing.
Nothing wrong with a good knock-down, drag-out flamefest once in a
while. ... and the whole Tax-thing was slowing down and had become
entirely boring.
-- L
__________________________
All syllogisms have three parts,
therefore this is not a syllogism.
Mike Tighe
>Twice I've seen the shattered bodies of close friends of mine who have
>had their heads blown off by accidental discharges of pistols. I've
>personally witnessed at least 3 accidental discharges that luckily
>missed all who were around.
No offense meant, but all this tells me is that I do not want to be
around you and your friends when they are in the possession of firearms
or anything else that can cause harm. Obviously these people weren't as
well trained as you thought. It takes a tremendous amount of error to get
shot in the head from an AD. And you were present for all of them? That is
a serious statistical abnormality.
Pyotr Filipivich
firearm.
he...@austin.ibm.com () writes:
|Absolutely, I concur...
|I need to make sure I can carry a gun into a courthouse... Never
|know when some psyco might show up and I need to defend the
|constitution, or persuade a judge to see things my way...
|I won't rest until the day that I can carry a concealed weapon
|into a bar and have a couple of tequila slammers... Never know
|when someone might try to insult me and I might have to stand up
|for myself...
Never been near to many bar brawls have you? In some parts of the
country they're quite content to commit mayhem upon your person with
beer bottles (that's why long necks are so popular) or the furniture.
Talk to the bouncers, or ex-bouncers, about bar fights. SOme can get
pretty lethal without "weapons" (knives or guns). One case I was told
involved the one gentleman getting his skull opened with a chair, and
the other gentleman then departing the bar in haste, getting into his
car and driving into an oncoming car with a mother and kids.
|And I need to make sure I can drop my nephew off at his daycare
|with my 9 mm... Might be some child molester lurking somewhere,
|and it's safer to shoot first and ask questions later... Speaking
|of which, what's this silliness about not being allowed to have
|a concealed handgun at a school, I know 80% of those kids are packing,
|I'll have to drop him off someday there too...
I knew those military schools were tough, but 80%? Is that just the
grade schools or do you include the high schools as well?
|And the very thought of going to a city council meeting unarmed
|gives me the absolute shivers, all the liberals around, never know
|when one of them might be packing heat and I can spring to the
|defense...
|How dare business owners and government leaders try to provide
|a non-threatening environment for their customers and employees.
|So what if an argument erupts at work, people should know that
|after 10 hours of hard training, no concealed weapons licence holder
|would do anything rash under any circumstances. Why the very thought...
|Just a thought.
Really?? Where? Must be somewhere else by now, I don't even see and
spoor....
tschus
pyotr
|Heath Newburn -- Happy Contractor Code Grunt
And HappyNet will make you Safe!
--
py...@halcyon.com Pyotr Filipivich, amongst others.
When I was a boy, we had Outcome Based Education, too.
We called it "Being held back a year"
Vulture
>
> VERY well trained to carry pistols and did so each and every day. Finally,
> it's interesting to note that this unit was based in Florida and this was
> during the period that the CHL was passed there..... so this is were I
> get off saying "I KNOW what I'm talking about."
No you don't; military carry of firearms is in the offense mode, CCW is
a defense carry i.e. the gun is rarely being held much less aimed.
> A few statistics.... over 80% of all police involved gunfights occur
> with less than 10 feet between the participants. Under 40% of the first
> shots fired actually strike the intended target. (Which I infer to mean
> that a significant number of the first shots continue past the
> intended target).
Whereas according to KLECK civilian accuracy is more on the order of 75%
at under 15'.
>
> Coincidental to the passing of the CHL law, 5 children, during 5
> consecutive weeks were killed by Accidental Discharges of pistols.
> This of course can't necessarily be tied to the CHL law itself, but
> can be used as an argument against increased availability of
> firearms.
Funny none of these AD were EVER attributed to Florida CCW holders.
> Never in my life have I witnessed a violent armed robbery.....
seen a couple , called the police
> Never in my life have I witnessed a violent murder.....
don't know if the victim died , the ambulance took him off with an ice-pick
sticking out of his forehead.
> Never in my life have I witnessed a rape......
used my gun to keep him on the ground until the lone LEO showed up
and asked me to put away the gun; then he arrested the perp.
No I am not a LEO but tell it to the rest of Family (3 generations of Law)
>
> Twice I've seen the shattered bodies of close friends of mine who have
> had their heads blown off by accidental discharges of pistols. I've
> personally witnessed at least 3 accidental discharges that luckily
> missed all who were around.
Yeah well my marine buddies who did a tour at the bunker in Lebanon
often related how they put the squad's assholes on point without a
loaded M-16 and then went patroling for snipers. I would guess your two
ADs that were both head shots were of a similar nature.
>
> If you see one of these "well trained, honest citizens" carrying a weapon,
> my advice is to steer well clear of them.... the absolute worst thing
> that can happen to you is for them to start shooting at a criminal with
> you in the vicinity or for them to pull their weapon to show it to
> somebody else....
Please read the law (available through gopher www and whatnot)
IF you see somebody with a gun and they are not using to negate
a criminal act then call the cops; since the point of CCW is for the
pistol to not be discerned.
--
vul...@io.com
Therel Moore on keyboard
Texas Illuminati as backup Project A-kon 7 the Magnificient
Chris White
These were questions, not flamebait, and your condescending tone is totally
unwarranted giving your poor reading comprehension, poorer use of logic, and
your fondness for red herrings.
Steve Lacker <sla...@arlut.utexas.edu> wrote:
>Chris White <chris...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>A few comments and questions:
>>
>>Some potentially violent and unstable people WILL get permits ... shucks, we
>>have potentially violent and unstable law enforcement officers, and they are
>>more closely screened. At this time, their guns could be taken away if they
>>were behaving erratically in public. What options would the police have under
>>the new law?
Hey, I thought this was a pretty mellow way to ask ... but whoah, duck,
incoming!
>
>The same options they have now, of course!! IF anyone is "behaving erratically
>in public" while carrying a gun, they would be arrested. IF they were waving
>the gun around, they would be violating the CHL law and the terms of the
>permit. Why in the name of all thats holy would you assume that the police
>would be less likely to disarm someone who was "behaving erratically" if they
>had a carry permit than if they didnt? Do you really think an officer would
>approach an armed and potentially dangerous person and first ask "do you have a
>permit" before deciding whether to disarm them? THINK about it, man! Read
>Frank's post about the CHL itself- its against the law for a permitted person
>to indiscriminately display a weapon.
There are lots of ways to behave erratically besides displaying a gun: just
shouting angrily at someone in a parking lot. I never said that their erratic
behavoir had anything to do with the gun itself: that's the point, dude. If
they haven't displayed the gun, but are acting in a threatening way, can the
gun be confiscated?
No, I don't think that the officer wold act as absurdly as you suggest in your
post ... I have thought about it. I did read the post. I made no claims about
what you or your kith and kin believe or know. I asked a question, and you
went off on an altogether irrelevant diatribe. The question again:
Will the police be able to remove weapons from individuals acting erratically
(including circumstances that do not directly involve the handgun)?
Don't bother to reply just to flame me, OK?
>
>>
>>The US has the laxest gun laws and highest murder rate of any developed
>>country. Do you really think this is a coincidence? Do you really think the
>>laws need to be made laxer yet?
>
>And the US has the freedom for you and me to have this debate in public, to
>worship or not worship as we choose, to gather together to discuss the what we
>perceive as right and wrong, to criticize our government publicly if we think
>its not doing its job. Besides that, another post has pointed out that the
>highest murder rate in this country is in a place where *all* private ownership
>of handguns is forbidden! Sorry to obliterate your argument, but there you have
>it. Furthermore, CHL is NOT a "laxer" law in any way shape or form.
I really didn't ask about other US laws, and I don't see how they have any
bearing on this discussion at all. Freedom of debate and freedom to carry
conceal weapons are not even remotely related philosophically, practically, or
legally. This paragraph is a whole bunch of flag-waving, pseudopatriotic
pablum that, once again, fails to address my question. This is the part of the
"gun lobby" that really disgusts me: justifying your desire to carry a gun
with patriotism. Yeah, right.
Next, you point out that _in this country_ high rates of crime are not
correlated with local strict gun laws. Well, it's pretty easy to take a gun
into DC from Virginia, eh? In the US, the weakest gun ownership laws basically
apply everywhere, so your argument really has no basis. Further, you say
nothing to address the fact that our gun ownership and murder rates are both
higher than other developing countries. Obliterated my argument? You offered
a meaningless factoid on the ineffectiveness of local gun control, did not
address the fact that I raised, and waved the flag. You didn't even answer the
argument, much less obliterate it.
Finally, how can you say CHL is not laxer than current law? It allows a
handgun to be carried under circumstances that it can not be carried now, and
does not otherwise materially limit handgun possession. How is that not laxer?
--
Chris White e-mail: chris...@mail.utexas.edu
\\// Live long and prosper.
not...@onramp.net
obvious flame bait, but when you respond and keep the thread going you are
just playing the baiter's game. Resist the temptation to respond to the bait
as strongly as you would resist the temptation to unload a mag or two if you
met these people in the middle of nowhere. Bait fests are popping up in groups
all over.
Frank W. Douma
Frank W. Douma <apa...@hpcf.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
>In article <48tnd5$9...@bermuda.io.com>, the wharf rat <wr...@io.com> wrote:
>>In article <48t9lc$n...@spica.cc.utexas.edu>,
>>Frank W. Douma <apa...@hpcf.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>>- Have not been adjudicated as engaging in felony delinquent conduct
>>> in the previous 10 years
>>
>> What's that mean?
>>
>Somewhat roughly,
>It means that the applicant has not had a final judgement of "guilty"
>against them with regard to a felony while a delinquent.
>The important thing is that requirement coupled with the permission to
>open ALL your criminal records, even those of your juvenile years, allows
>a complete review of the applicants criminal history.
>Usually juveniles are given a lot of second chances, ie "deferred adjudication"
>and then their juvenile criminal records are sealed. This can/does mean
>that a kid who does a felony, starts with a clean slate upon reaching
>adulthood. The concealed carry law prevents this with regard to
>concealed carry, denying anyone who has been guilty of a felony AT ANY
>TIME IN THEIR LIFE.
>
>I alone am responsible for the above.
)Q#)*R)Q*)(*Q@#*&#^!%!%#
Meant to "edit", not "send".
Yeah, I see the contradiction myself:
"previous 10 years" and my yelling "AT ANY TIME..."
Ooops.
Anyway, disregard the yelling part, and replace it with:
"less than 10 years ago, if a juvenile when it was committed,
or EVER if you where an adult when it was committed."
Sorry about that.
Frank D.
I alome am responsible for the above.
Roberta and Craig Becker
...
: >Finally, the most shocking statistic.... out of those approximately
: >were, by any standard, EXTREMELY well trained in firearms usage and
: >safety.... 2 didn't live to see their discharge dates.... both
:
: How were loaded weapons being "safely" pointed at their heads, and then
: the triggers pulled?
I confess, I wondered about this also (other sections of Chad's
article would seem to imply that these were head wounds).
Craig
--
-- Craig Becker bec...@bga.com Austin, TX USA --
-- 'Literal immortality? Outliving the universe?' 'That's what the word --
-- means. Not: dying after a very long time. Just: not dying, period.' --
Lug
[authors' names snipped]
: >>- Have not been adjudicated as engaging in felony delinquent conduct
: >> in the previous 10 years
: > What's that mean?
: Means "didn't get caught"
I suppose that's true of any person screened for any position that would
enable them to carry a firearm, including policemen. Are you suggesting
that our policemen, simply not having been caught for all the crimes they
may have committed, not carry firearms? Bobbies in America?
What about military men? It's obvious from the recent incident in North
Carolina (was it NC?) that some soldiers will go crazy from time to time
and kill other soldiers. Should we disallow all soldiers from possessing
weapons?
I guess we'd all be better off -- living in peace and harmony -- if we
dumped all weapons into the bottom of the sea (well, unless you think
that would damage the environment, too).
What color is the sky in your world?
Travis Wheatley
[snip]
|>
|> Coincidental to the passing of the CHL law, 5 children, during 5
|> consecutive weeks were killed by Accidental Discharges of pistols.
|> This of course can't necessarily be tied to the CHL law itself, but
|> can be used as an argument against increased availability of
|> firearms.
|>
What state are you talking about here?
In Texas, it is my understanding that those who have made all applications,
done the training, etc, won't be able to begin carrying until after
the first of the year.
Therefore, there can be absolutly no link between the alleged deaths of
the 5 people that you cite. True, it can be used as an argument against
increased availability of firearms. However, it would be an invalid
argument since the *availability* of firearms has not been affected
by this legislation one bit. The only thing that has been affected is
the ability of law abiding citizens with the proper permit to carry
a firearm in their purse or pocket, and that effect has not even ocurred
yet.
|> Finally, the most shocking statistic.... out of those approximately
|> 150 Marines I was based with for those 2 years.... those Marines who
|> were, by any standard, EXTREMELY well trained in firearms usage and
|> safety.... 2 didn't live to see their discharge dates.... both
|> were killed by Accidental Discharges of 9mm Berratas resulting in
|> massive head wounds... Having personally witnessed the devastating and
|> bloody result of living with a close proximity to weapons in the hands
|> of VERY well trained people, I have to say that I feel very uncomfortable
|> being around "honest, law-abiding citizens who have completed 10 hours
|> of training".
|>
This stretches your credability quite a bit.
I have been around firearms all of my life. I was rased in a small Texas
town by a father who ran cattle on not one but two different sizeable
chunks of land. Of course much of the duties like mending fences, etc...
fell on me. This ment long hours out in boonies with the very real thret
of rattle snakes. Thus, I spent a very large part of my youth with a
.38 strapped to my hip.
Of course, I was well educated in gun safety from the very beginning (when
I was old enough to hold one at around the age of 6 or 7). Because I have
been around guns for all of my life, I have witnessed more than one
accidental discharge. Of course, I, nor anyone else present was injured
because I always follow first rule of gun safety. That rule is *treat
all guns as if they are loaded*. This means *DON'T EVER POINT THE GUN
AT ANYTHING THAT YOU DO NOT INTEND TO PUT A BULLET INTO*.
It seems to me that our Marines need to be told not to point their
guns at their heads.
Is it possible that these were actually suicides that were written off
as accidents for the benifits of the Marines and their families?
|> Never in my life have I witnessed a violent armed robbery.....
|>
|> Never in my life have I witnessed a violent murder.....
|>
|> Never in my life have I witnessed a rape......
|>
Good, I hope that you never do.
|> Twice I've seen the shattered bodies of close friends of mine who have
|> had their heads blown off by accidental discharges of pistols. I've
|> personally witnessed at least 3 accidental discharges that luckily
|> missed all who were around.
|>
Why were your friends pointing guns at their heads?
Look, I'm not trying to make light of the tragedy. I am submitting that
these accidents were most probably the result of personal carelessness.
(Or perhaps suicides written off as accidents for the benifit of the
Marines and their families?)
I am glad to see that you are interested in putting fourth real world
cases to back your arguments rather than the usual "guns are icky-poo"
arguments that most andi-gun folk use. Although, I highly question the
linkage between the 5 children that you mention and a CHL law that is not
even in effect yet, and even question whether all 5 were citizens of the
State of Texas.
In response, I will give you the latest statics regarding firearm
safety that I have.
You will notice that accidental deaths by firearms in this country fall
*way* down on the list. You are almost 43 times more likely to die in an
automobile accident, 12 times more likely to die in a fall, and are even
more likely to die as a result of "Natural/Environmental" factors (i.e.
being struck by lightning) than you are to die in a firearms related
accident. Additionally, even when you add up the non-accidental
death numbers, this number falls *way* below other common causes of
death in this country.
12 LEADING CAUSES OF DEATH IN U.S.
National Center for Health Statistics
ALL CAUSES 2,169,518
Heart Disease 720,862
Cancers 514,657
Strokes 143,481
ACCIDENTS 89,347
Motor Vehicle 43,536
Falls 12,662
Poisoning (solid, liquid, gas) 6,434
Drowning (incl. water transport drownings) 4,685
Suffocation (mechanical, ingestion) 4,195
Fires and flames 4,120
Surgical/Medical misadventures* 2,473
Other Transportation (excl. drownings) 2,086
Natural/Environmental factors 1,453
Firearms 1,441
Chronic pulmonary diseases 90,650
Pneumonia and influenza 77,860
Diabetes 48,951
Suicide** 30,810
HIV Infections (AIDS) 29,555
Homicide and legal intervention*** 26,513
Cirrhosis and other liver diseases 25,429
* A Harvard University study suggests 93,000 deaths annually related
to medical negligence, excluding tens of thousands more deaths from non-
hospital medical office/lab mistakes and thousands of hospital caused
infections.
** Approximately 60% involve firearms.
*** Approximately 60% involve firearms. Florida State University
criminologist Gary Kleck estimates 1,500-2,800 self-defense and
justifiable homicides by civilians and 300-600 by police annually.
Most holophobes out there (those who fear guns) seem to think that CHL
will suddenly turn our streets into something out of a John Wayne movie,
complete with shoot outs on every street corner on a daily basis.
I submit that this is simply not the case. One only need to take a look
at other states in the union that issue CHLs to conferm that the CHL
has little impact on firearms deaths and has a positive impact on crime
rates.
The only thing that a CHL means is that a law abiding firearm owner
with the proper permit can legally carry that firearm in their purse
or pocket when in a public place.
Personally, I'm glad that the good guys are being given the opportunity
to place themselves on equal footing with the loonies for a change.
--
===========================================================================
Travis R. Wheatley | The opinions expressed herein are my own and do
travis....@amd.com | not represent those of anyone else in particular.
===========================================================================
John W. Engel
Well, Chad....you're talking about *Jarheads* here. Not normal people.
Also, since both "AD's" happened to hit the victims in the head, it
brings up the possibility of suicide, definately.
As far as your feeling safer with "nobody" carrying, what makes you
think that the Bad Guys(tm) aren't? Just curious...
Regards,
Whit
Chris White
How many crimes are averted by gun-carrying citizens? What proportion of these
incidents could be considered potentially life-threatening?
Some potentially violent and unstable people WILL get permits ... shucks, we
have potentially violent and unstable law enforcement officers, and they are
more closely screened. At this time, their guns could be taken away if they
were behaving erratically in public. What options would the police have under
the new law?
I've heard concern expressed about not being able to carry guns to work, etc.
Do you REALLY think having all the postal workers armed would prevent the
periodic bloodlettings there?
The US has the laxest gun laws and highest murder rate of any developed
country. Do you really think this is a coincidence? Do you really think the
laws need to be made laxer yet?
--
Josh Karnes
Imagine this: you are a criminal. Let's say you are a mugger. You do this
for money. Generally, you just point a knife at someone, suggest that they
give you their money, and they do.
Now all of the sudden, the next person you decide to mug is likely to be
carrying a pistol, but it is concealed, so you don't know for sure. What if
they decide to shoot you when they are threatened? Your choices are: a)
don't mug them (but, of course, then you'd be without a job ;), or b) get a
gun of your own and be sure you shoot them before they get a chance to shoot
you.
What this means is that crime that might have ended without anyone getting
shot will almost certainly end in a shooting if *both* the good guys and the
bad guys have guns. For the criminal, the stakes go up. The easiest way to
bring the risk back down is to just shoot first and ask questions later.
I don't know about you, but I'm planning to get a bunch of T-shirts with "NOT
CARRYING A GUN" printed on them in big, bold letters. Maybe then all the
criminals will target me, but they will know that I pose no threat of shooting
them and they might be less likely to shoot me as a preventative measure.
And what about the unarmed criminal who subdues his gun-carrying victim before
the victim can get to his or her gun? Then the criminal finds the gun? I bet
you a dollar that victim will wish he or she had not been carrying that gun.
The fact is that guns can kill people. That's what handguns are made for. If
more people are carrying them, then there are more killing tools on the
streets, and there is more of an opportunity for people to get killed.
--
_____________________________________________________________________________
Josh Karnes jo...@tanisys.com
Senior Communications Specialist http://www.tanisys.com/~joshk/home.htm
Tanisys Technology http://www.tanisys.com
Austin, Texas '78 BMW 530i | '72 Datsun 240Z | IZCC #308
_____________________________________________________________________________
*** opinions expressed herein are MINE, ALL MINE!! ***
John W. Engel
>How many crimes are averted by gun-toting citizens?
I've averted two. So far.
Steve Lacker
>have potentially violent and unstable law enforcement officers, and they are
>more closely screened. At this time, their guns could be taken away if they
>were behaving erratically in public. What options would the police have under
>the new law?
The same options they have now, of course!! IF anyone is "behaving erratically
in public" while carrying a gun, they would be arrested. IF they were waving
the gun around, they would be violating the CHL law and the terms of the
permit. Why in the name of all thats holy would you assume that the police
would be less likely to disarm someone who was "behaving erratically" if they
had a carry permit than if they didnt? Do you really think an officer would
approach an armed and potentially dangerous person and first ask "do you have a
permit" before deciding whether to disarm them? THINK about it, man! Read
Frank's post about the CHL itself- its against the law for a permitted person
to indiscriminately display a weapon..
>
>The US has the laxest gun laws and highest murder rate of any developed
>country. Do you really think this is a coincidence? Do you really think the
>laws need to be made laxer yet?
And the US has the freedom for you and me to have this debate in public, to
worship or not worship as we choose, to gather together to discuss the what we
perceive as right and wrong, to criticize our government publicly if we think
its not doing its job. Besides that, another post has pointed out that the
highest murder rate in this country is in a place where *all* private ownership
of handguns is forbidden! Sorry to obliterate your argument, but there you have
it. Furthermore, CHL is NOT a "laxer" law in any way shape or form.
--
Steve Lacker / Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas
512-835-3286 / PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029
sla...@arlut.utexas.edu
Andy Freeman
>by the very fact that in some places only law officers are able
>to carry guns, it quickly shows the intentions of people who are
>not law enforcement officers and are brandishing a weapon there.
No, it doesn't reveal their intentions. Moreover, when their
intentions are bad, it guarantees that no one will be able to
do anything about it.
Police are basically janitors - I'd rather not be a mess.
-andy
pjpr...@eden.com
>
>Never in my life have I witnessed a violent armed robbery.....
>
>Never in my life have I witnessed a violent murder.....
>
>Never in my life have I witnessed a rape......
>
>had their heads blown off by accidental discharges of pistols. I've
>personally witnessed at least 3 accidental discharges that luckily
>missed all who were around.
>
>that nobody in the place had a weapon and that possibly some nut would
>drive their truck through the front window and start blasting people than
>I would if I knew that 5 or 10 honest people were carrying firearms... some
>with as little as 10 hours of training.
>
>If you see one of these "well trained, honest citizens" carrying a weapon,
>my advice is to steer well clear of them.... the absolute worst thing
>that can happen to you is for them to start shooting at a criminal with
>you in the vicinity or for them to pull their weapon to show it to
>somebody else....
>
Excellent post, Chad.
Chris White
>
>>How many crimes are averted by gun-toting citizens?
>
>I've averted two. So far.
I'd like to hear more. I've averted about a half-dozen crimes, using a
flashlight, shouting, or a well-timed phone call. Were none of these options
suitable in your case? Why was a gun a better (or the only) solution?
--
Wolf
#I missed the first part of this thread, so this may have come up :)
#Imagine this: you are a criminal. Let's say you are a mugger. You do this
#for money. Generally, you just point a knife at someone, suggest that they
#give you their money, and they do.
#Now all of the sudden, the next person you decide to mug is likely to be
#carrying a pistol, but it is concealed, so you don't know for sure. What if
#they decide to shoot you when they are threatened? Your choices are: a)
#don't mug them (but, of course, then you'd be without a job ;), or b) get a
#gun of your own and be sure you shoot them before they get a chance to shoot
#you.
#What this means is that crime that might have ended without anyone getting
#shot will almost certainly end in a shooting if *both* the good guys and the
#bad guys have guns. For the criminal, the stakes go up. The easiest way to
#bring the risk back down is to just shoot first and ask questions later.
This scenario has been raised before. Reality seems to be against it. For
one thing, guns are noisy, attracting a LOT of attention. For another, the
police are more inclined to go hunting murderers than they are armed robbers.
Then there is the fact that there is no guarantee that shooting the victim will
kill them (either a miss or not an immediately fatal shot), leaving the criminal
open to being shot by the victim.
#I don't know about you, but I'm planning to get a bunch of T-shirts with "NOT
#CARRYING A GUN" printed on them in big, bold letters. Maybe then all the
#criminals will target me, but they will know that I pose no threat of shooting
#them and they might be less likely to shoot me as a preventative measure.
Of course, they might just shoot you for the hell of it. Happens occasionally
here, which is why I don't assume a criminal's intent is strictly to get my
wallet.
#And what about the unarmed criminal who subdues his gun-carrying victim before
#the victim can get to his or her gun? Then the criminal finds the gun? I bet
#you a dollar that victim will wish he or she had not been carrying that gun.
This actually seldom happens outside of Hollywood, or of cops who got too close
to the criminals they were arresting (I have no obligation to close with a
criminal, and don't intend to unless pressed to it).
#The fact is that guns can kill people. That's what handguns are made for. If
#more people are carrying them, then there are more killing tools on the
#streets, and there is more of an opportunity for people to get killed.
If handguns are made to kill, they're even more poorly designed than the Pinto.
Handgun wounds are only fatal about 25% of the time. And I have at least
one handgun which is NOT optomized for killing. You are arguing based on
supposition and emotion, the verifiable data shows that murder rates fell
relative to the national homicide rate in Florida after passing CCW laws, and
that those areas of the country with the strictest gun control laws also have
the higher crime rates, and that much of the time, the gun control laws predate
the rise in violent crime.
James
#--
#_____________________________________________________________________________
#Josh Karnes jo...@tanisys.com
#Senior Communications Specialist http://www.tanisys.com/~joshk/home.htm
#Tanisys Technology http://www.tanisys.com
#Austin, Texas '78 BMW 530i | '72 Datsun 240Z | IZCC #308
#_____________________________________________________________________________
# *** opinions expressed herein are MINE, ALL MINE!! ***
C. D. Tavares
> A few comments and questions:
> How many crimes are averted by gun-carrying citizens?
Between 600,000 and 2.5 million. Source: Kleck, "Point Blank: Guns and
Violence in America."
> What proportion of these
> incidents could be considered potentially life-threatening?
There's no way to give a defensible answer to this question.
> Some potentially violent and unstable people WILL get permits
Most won't bother -- just like they don't today. They'll still have
the gun.
> I've heard concern expressed about not being able to carry guns to work, etc.
> Do you REALLY think having all the postal workers armed would prevent the
> periodic bloodlettings there?
No -- it would, however, limit the number of victims greatly.
Luby's, 101 California, and the LIRR were massacres precisely BECAUSE
nobody was armed except the wacko.
You didn't hear what happened at the Anniston AL Denny's or the Las
Vegas worker's comp offices a handful of months later, primarily BECAUSE
an armed citizen present thwarted the wackos with no other loss of life.
> The US has the laxest gun laws and highest murder rate of any developed
> country. Do you really think this is a coincidence?
The US has the greatest rate of TV ownership and the highest murder rate
of any developed country. Do you think this is a coincidence?
The US has the greatest number of automobiles and the highest murder rate
of any developed country. Do you think this is a coincidence?
The US has the highest per-capita internet access and the highest murder
rate of any developed country. Do you think this is a coincidence?
I'm out of correlational non-sequiturs -- it's your turn again.
--
c...@rocket.sw.stratus.com --If you presume that I speak for my company,
http://users.aol.com/Tavares/ write today for my special Investors' Packet!
C. D. Tavares
> There is a fascinating news item on the CNN WWW server about the fired
> employee who went postal and killed four recently. One of the people
> he went after was an ex-girlfriend, now remarried. They got some warning
> and were leaving as the madman appeared. He fired four shots to get into
> their house, but then he got hit twice in the chest by the ex's husband,
> who was armed his-own-self.
> End of story? Not quite. The bad was wearing a bulletproof vest and
> wasn't stopped. Amazing how these situations spiral up the weapon chain,
> isn't it.
I beg to differ. According to the news reports, he WAS stopped -- he
just wasn't killed.
What does it take to satisfy some people?
Mike Tighe
>Now all of the sudden, the next person you decide to mug is likely to be
>carrying a pistol, but it is concealed, so you don't know for sure. What
if
>they decide to shoot you when they are threatened? Your choices are: a)
>don't mug them (but, of course, then you'd be without a job ;), or b) get
a
>gun of your own and be sure you shoot them before they get a chance to
shoot
>you.
Criminals do not think like this. This is one of the reasons we cannot
solve the crime problem. Law-abiding citizens are trying to think like
criminals which by definition they cannot do. Anyway, if you had thought
about it before you would have posted, you would have asked yourself what
is happening in states where citizens are already carrying concealed? How
are criminals dealing with the possibility that the victim might be an
armed off-duty law enforcement officer?
C. D. Tavares
> #I won't rest until the day that I can carry a concealed weapon
> #into a bar and have a couple of tequila slammers... Never know
> #when someone might try to insult me and I might have to stand up
> #for myself...
Well then, for heavens sake, get a non-resident CCW from Massachusetts,
hop a plane up here, have a drink, and then get the hell back home to bed.
P.S.: Bar-room shootings are non-existent here. What a real important law.
> #And the very thought of going to a city council meeting unarmed
> #gives me the absolute shivers, all the liberals around, never know
> #when one of them might be packing heat and I can spring to the
> #defense...
While you're up here, armed, take in a public hearing at the statehouse.
Maybe the governor will even appear to testify. Again, all perfectly
legal. I've been to hearings where I'd estimate that half of the 250
people in the auditorium are carrying. And it's NEVER been a problem.
Of course, all this is assuming that your life record qualifies you
for a legal CCW. The jury's still out on that.
> #How dare business owners and government leaders try to provide
> #a non-threatening environment for their customers and employees.
> #So what if an argument erupts at work, people should know that
> #after 10 hours of hard training, no concealed weapons licence holder
> #would do anything rash under any circumstances. Why the very thought...
My old company's policy against weapons on the property sure comforted
me when my co-worker's crazy jealous wife stormed into the common
office area waving a nasty-looking Asian knife, asking everybody where
she could find him.
Given that she could have gotten a gun into the building just as easily
as she got that knife in, it was conforting to know that at least ONE
of us was disarmed. Of course, it wasn't the right one, but that's what
gun control laws do best.
> #Just a thought.
Insufficient evidence of either, I'm afraid.
Lug
: Attention all citizens concerned about local legislation to limit your right
: to carry a concealed handgun
[snnnnnnnnnip!]
We're spamming here ...
This thread ought to be limited to one or two newsgroups. I would vote
that given its current theme, it should be in only tx.guns and tx.politics.
In your followups, please snip the newsgroups to those 2.
Julie Cochrane
>>anything rash" at work. I believe the stats from Florida will support the
>>notion that CHL holders are quite law abiding, something like less than 1%
>>have had the license revoked for _any_ reason, much less "doing something rash
>>at work"
>I normally take the sideline on political discussions in austin.general
>rather than possibly anger potentially paying customers... :) But, I'll
>go against my better judgement on this one....
>A little history.... I'm an ex-Marine who attended a 3 week course in
>gunfighting (pistol) as part of anti-terrorism training. Easily 150-200
>hours of initial training supported by over 80 hours of continuing
>training every year while I was in an anti-terrorism unit, which required
>me to carry a pistol (among other weapons) every day. Additionally, the
>last year I was with this unit, I was a marksmanship instructor for both
>pistols and rifles. Needless to say, I, and the men I worked with, were
>VERY well trained to carry pistols and did so each and every day. Finally,
>it's interesting to note that this unit was based in Florida and this was
>during the period that the CHL was passed there..... so this is were I
>get off saying "I KNOW what I'm talking about."
Well, you know about pistol training in the military.
>A few statistics.... over 80% of all police involved gunfights occur
>with less than 10 feet between the participants. Under 40% of the first
>shots fired actually strike the intended target. (Which I infer to mean
>that a significant number of the first shots continue past the
>intended target).
Police shoot the wrong person more often than private individuals, too.
(As a percentage of total shoots.)
Police shootings are different from civilian self-defense shootings.
One of the ways in which they are different is that the police have to
either try to apprehend (or sometimes shoot) the suspect, while civilians
can allow their attacker to run away unharmed. The attacker runs away
unharmed in 98-99% of situations where the civilian uses a gun in
self-defense.
Shots fired by a civilian in self-defense that continue past the target
and impact (and kill) a bystander would be included in the less than
1,500 accidental gun deaths that occur annually. Shots that impact and
injure (but don't kill) a bystander would be included in the estimated
less than 4,500 accidental gun injuries a year.
(If all the accidental gun deaths were from handguns, there would
be about 4,500 accidental gun injuries, since handgun wounds are fatal
about 25% of the time. Since some of the deaths are from long arms,
which are about 90% fatal, the injury number will be lower.)
By the way, that 1,500 number has been dropping steadily over the past
century, while the population has been growing, the number of guns in
the hands of the general population has been growing, and the percentage
of households having one or more guns has remained roughly constant.
>Coincidental to the passing of the CHL law, 5 children, during 5
>consecutive weeks were killed by Accidental Discharges of pistols.
>This of course can't necessarily be tied to the CHL law itself, but
>can be used as an argument against increased availability of
>firearms.
Well, anything can be used as an argument for or against anything.
Whether it's a good argument or not is another question. :-)
Now, if a year from the passage or implementation of the law the
overall rate of accidental gun deaths goes up in Texas, you might
have a point, but I haven't seen anyone make a case for that in
other states that have implemented concealed carry.
I suspect that you chose the right word when you said "Coincidental",
but you're welcome to check the numbers over the next year or two
and prove me wrong.
>Finally, the most shocking statistic.... out of those approximately
>150 Marines I was based with for those 2 years.... those Marines who
>were, by any standard, EXTREMELY well trained in firearms usage and
>safety.... 2 didn't live to see their discharge dates.... both
>were killed by Accidental Discharges of 9mm Berratas resulting in
>massive head wounds... Having personally witnessed the devastating and
>bloody result of living with a close proximity to weapons in the hands
>of VERY well trained people, I have to say that I feel very uncomfortable
>being around "honest, law-abiding citizens who have completed 10 hours
>of training".
If they were so well trained, why were the barrels of their guns pointed
in an unsafe direction? (ie--at their heads)
If that's what you teach in the military---for people to *ever* point the
barrel of a gun at their heads---then I'm not surprised you have
negligent discharges (a much more accurate term than "accidental" discharge).
Add to that, how did the gun fire? Pistols don't simply "go off" unless
you pull the trigger or are somehow improperly clearing a jam. If you take
the slide and barrel off of the gun before clearing a stubborn jam, there
is no way in hell the firing pin is going to jump up, run across the room,
and hit the primer of that bullet that is lodged in your barrel (for
example).
(Delayed-fire jams will discharge, but will discharge downrange unless
you're totally negligent.)
I suspect at least two basic firearm safety mistakes here, but I can
point to one for sure: Barrel of gun pointed at head.
That's your idea of "VERY well trained"? I don't care how well trained
you are, safety rules don't save you if you don't follow them. The
dropping number of accidental firearms deaths while the population and
number of guns in civilian hands is rising suggests that most people
*do* follow them.
A lot of firearms deaths that are classified as "accidental" are
actually mis-classified suicides. "Barrel of gun pointed at head"
sounds suspiciously like suicidal behavior. "Suicide" doesn't go
over too well in letters to next of kin.
Maybe those two Marines really did make the horrendous mistake of
pointing the barrel of a gun at their heads, and then made whatever second
mistake caused the firearm to discharge. I don't know. I do know that
a lot of intentionally self-inflicted fatal injuries get misclassified
by sympathetic authorities trying to spare the families some grief.
>Never in my life have I witnessed a violent armed robbery.....
Didn't see it, but my good friend was shot in the leg by a robber ten
minutes after I left the place where it happened. He was a combat vet
from Nam and charged the robber. The guy who cooperated with the same
robber 20 minutes before and handed over his money is dead.
>Never in my life have I witnessed a violent murder.....
Didn't see it, but a good friend of my good friends was raped and
murdered a few years ago. She was beaten and strangled to death.
She was unarmed. She was a member of the National Guard and died
with bruises on her knuckles. I sure wish she'd been carrying.
>Never in my life have I witnessed a rape......
Well I have. I guess being the one raped counts as witnessing a rape....
Hint: rapists usually pick times and places where there aren't any
other witnesses.
>Twice I've seen the shattered bodies of close friends of mine who have
>had their heads blown off by accidental discharges of pistols. I've
>personally witnessed at least 3 accidental discharges that luckily
>missed all who were around.
If you're keeping your finger out of the trigger area until you are
on target and intend to fire, and are keeping the gun pointed downrange
while clearing any jams (or have the jam cleared by a competent gunsmith),
how the hell do you manage to discharge your pistol?
More safety violations.
>I can tell you, that I'd feel much safer sitting down in Luby's knowing
>that nobody in the place had a weapon and that possibly some nut would
>drive their truck through the front window and start blasting people than
>I would if I knew that 5 or 10 honest people were carrying firearms... some
>with as little as 10 hours of training.
10 hours of training is long enough to learn the necessary safety rules.
A lifetime of training isn't long enough to protect you from your own
negligence if you don't follow those safety rules.
>If you see one of these "well trained, honest citizens" carrying a weapon,
>my advice is to steer well clear of them.... the absolute worst thing
>that can happen to you is for them to start shooting at a criminal with
>you in the vicinity or for them to pull their weapon to show it to
>somebody else....
The statistics show that ordinary citizens with clear criminal records
and no history of hospitalization for mental illness don't tend to shoot
the wrong people---accidentally or on purpose.
Actually, people who "accidentally" shoot and kill other people closely
resemble murderers in their prior histories of arrests and criminal
convictions.
What happens when an ordinary citizen with a clean record makes a safety
mistake?
Well, I made one once showing my pistol to a friend. I failed to clear
the chamber after dropping the magazine. However, because firearms safety
rules are deliberately redundant, I always had the barrel of my firearm
pointed in a safe direction, and I treated my pistol as a loaded gun
even though I "knew" I'd unloaded it earlier. I treated my pistol as
a loaded gun by personally pulling back and locking back the slide to
verify that the chamber was clear before I handed it to her.
Out popped the bullet, and I immediately realized my earlier mistake.
No negligent discharge occured because I made (and make) a conscious
effort to follow all the safety rules every time I handle my pistol.
I made a mistake, but I would have had to make at least two mistakes
in a row before a negligent discharge could have occured (finger in
the trigger area when not ready to fire), and three before anyone
would have been hurt (barrel of gun pointed in unsafe direction).
My one mistake didn't hurt anyone not because I was "lucky", but
because I am habitually extremely careful. I'm not proud of that
mistake and I've worked *very* hard to avoid a repeat.
One mistake is human, and is good cause to chew yourself out and be
more damned careful in future.
Two or three mistakes in a row when you know you're handling a potentially
dangerous object is negligence, pure and simple.
I'm sorry you know so many negligent people, but the statistics on
people who obtain concealed carry permits indicates that they are
very unlikely to be negligent.
Julie
>Signed.... IMHO
>(By the way.... If you carry, and you want quality Internet service,
>you still can mail in your payment :) :)
>=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+==+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
>Chad Kissinger High Speed SLIP/PPP ch...@onr.com
>President Access 512-322-9200
>Onramp Access, Inc.(tm) in Austin, TX http://www.onr.com
>Publishers of THE AUSTIN INTERNET YELLOW PAGES(tm) at http://www.yp.com
--
Julie Cochrane
* * *
Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration---Thomas Edison
Julie Cochrane
>In <48tl7h$h...@acmex.gatech.edu>, jrc...@prism.gatech.edu (Julie Cochrane) writes:
>>he...@austin.ibm.com () writes:
>>
>>I'm sure that Dr. Suzanne Gratia didn't think she'd really need her
>>gun in the middle of the day eating at a restaurant with her parents
>>either. Nonetheless, if the law hadn't said she couldn't, she would
>>have carried it in with her and a lot of people who are dead now might
>>be alive--including her parents.
>Hi, Julie
>There is a fascinating news item on the CNN WWW server about the fired
>employee who went postal and killed four recently. One of the people
>he went after was an ex-girlfriend, now remarried. They got some warning
>and were leaving as the madman appeared. He fired four shots to get into
>their house, but then he got hit twice in the chest by the ex's husband,
>who was armed his-own-self.
>End of story? Not quite. The bad was wearing a bulletproof vest and
>wasn't stopped. Amazing how these situations spiral up the weapon chain,
>isn't it.
As Ken Barnes pointed out, the attacker was stopped, ran away, the family
lived (unlike the people in the other three houses), and the attacker
was later apprehended, I believe.
In any case, the woman, her husband, and their four children all survived
unharmed.
That's a hell of a lot better than they would have fared if the husband
had been unarmed (as indicated by what happened at the other houses).
The actions of the husband are a good example of how ordinary people
with clean records handle their firearms. Thank you for supporting
my point.
Julie
>======================================================================
>Joe Barr jb...@i-link.net
>Se Habla Dweeb pjpr...@eden.com
>The Dweebspeak Primer http://www.eden.com/~pjprimer
>======================================================================
--
Trenton J. Grale
>If you're at UT, that's prima facie evidence their entrance requirements
>are way too low.
Hahaha! What biting wit you have, you simple-minded cretin!
--Trenton
--
========================================================================
I fear for my country.
Jane Gallion
>In our last episode <48tnd5$9...@bermuda.io.com>,
> the lovely and talented wr...@io.com (the wharf rat) wrote:
>>In article <48t9lc$n...@spica.cc.utexas.edu>,
>>Frank W. Douma <apa...@hpcf.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>> in the previous 10 years
>>
>>
>> What's that mean?
>>
>
>Means "didn't get caught"
I was gonna say 'ain't been busted'
Jane
Bruce Showalter
writes:
>
>A few comments and questions:
>
>incidents could be considered potentially life-threatening?
The numbers you ask for are very,very, hard to establish. Given that a
non-event (detered crime) is difficult to substantiate, why not examine the
alternative. Crime committed by permit holders. There is no evidence that
permits increase violence, and quite a bit to show that it does not. Why deprive
a law abiding citizen of the right to self defense?
>Some potentially violent and unstable people WILL get permits ... shucks, we
>have potentially violent and unstable law enforcement officers, and they are
>more closely screened. At this time, their guns could be taken away if they
>were behaving erratically in public. What options would the police have under
>the new law?
Look at the Florida numbers. One (maybe) unstable individual out of more
than three hundred thousand CCW holders. "Behaving erraticly?" The permit to
carry does nothing to limit LEO's options, and may be revoked for any number of
reasons. There is no evidence to show that permits to carry will increase the
risks to the public. (As for your police missuses, check out their rates of
suicide and alcoholism as it compares to the average citizen.)
>I've heard concern expressed about not being able to carry guns to work, etc.
>Do you REALLY think having all the postal workers armed would prevent the
>periodic bloodlettings there?
Nothing, including strict gun controls, will deter a homicidal
lunatic. Allowing for self defense simply increases the chances that
his body count will be minimized.
>The US has the laxest gun laws and highest murder rate of any
developed
>country. Do you really think this is a coincidence? Do you really
think the
>laws need to be made laxer yet?
Can you provide any support for this assertion? Gun control laws
vary widely across the country and generally show no effective
relationship with crime rates.
Do you really think that criminals pay any attention to gun control
laws? And back to the thread topic, why shouldn't the honest citizen
be allowed to defend himself from assault?
Bruce
Pyotr Filipivich
Well, obviously, you share quarters with Schlereth onboard that ore boat
on the Great Lakes.
But let me see. Vesta was murdered the old fashioned way - with an
edged weapon. I don't know anyone who was shot.
One ex had disuaded a rapist with her husbands gun. But that probably
doesn't count, as we all know how 'peaceful' rapists are. Why you can
ask the 8 student nurses who were raped by Richard Speck. Bring your
ouija board, they've been in the cemetary for nearly thirty years.
|>
|>Twice I've seen the shattered bodies of close friends of mine who have
|>had their heads blown off by accidental discharges of pistols. I've
|>personally witnessed at least 3 accidental discharges that luckily
|>missed all who were around.
That's some pistol to blow a head off. That sort of accident is usually
done with a shotgun.
|>
|>I can tell you, that I'd feel much safer sitting down in Luby's knowing
|>that nobody in the place had a weapon and that possibly some nut would
|>drive their truck through the front window and start blasting people than
|>I would if I knew that 5 or 10 honest people were carrying firearms... some
|>with as little as 10 hours of training.
|>
|>If you see one of these "well trained, honest citizens" carrying a weapon,
|>my advice is to steer well clear of them.... the absolute worst thing
|>that can happen to you is for them to start shooting at a criminal with
|>you in the vicinity or for them to pull their weapon to show it to
|>somebody else....
|>
|Excellent post, Chad.
Yes. Run Away!!! - there are Armed People Out There.
LOOK OUT There's one behind you! Ack!
Run, run! They're everywhere, you can't be sure!!
Hide, hide, the CCW is outside!
Well, enough seriousness.
Obviously - both posters are convinced of the Overwhelming Danger
that Firearms Present. Good thing most of them are wrestled into
submission and kept bound up in leather. (Oooh Baby!)
Well, have fun. Don't let the turkey goose you.
pyotr
--
py...@halcyon.com Pyotr Filipivich, amongst others.
When I was a boy, we had Outcome Based Education, too.
We called it "Being held back a year"
pjpr...@eden.com
>I beg to differ. According to the news reports, he WAS stopped -- he
>just wasn't killed.
>
>What does it take to satisfy some people?
>--
>
>c...@rocket.sw.stratus.com --If you presume that I speak for my company,
>http://users.aol.com/Tavares/ write today for my special Investors' Packet!
The truth? He was arrested at another place further down the road.
Some stop.
Nosy
< In <490c2b$g...@transfer.stratus.com>, c...@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
< >I beg to differ. According to the news reports, he WAS stopped -- he
< >just wasn't killed.
< >
< >What does it take to satisfy some people?
< The truth? He was arrested at another place further down the road.
< Some stop.
His attack upon that household of innocent people was stopped.
Does that bother Barr? Would he be happier if the killing
had gone on?
followups.
john dumas
>
>My concerns stem from 2 people I know who now have a CCW license,
>are quite proud of the fact and are angry about their inability
>to carry their weapon into the work place.
When I was younger, I sure was proud of my mew driver's license and
would really have been pissed if I could not use it in any city
parking lot or more mall parking lots....Sheesh
(Of course, you are not speaking of Texans because NO CHL (not CCW)
PERMITS HAVE BEEN ISSUED BY DPS, YET!)
john
--
A bloated government is an unresponsive government.
A bloated government is an abusive government.
A bloated government is an arrogant government.
A bloated government is an tyrannical government.
Put the beast on a Low-Tax/High-Accountability Diet TODAY!
john dumas
>
[SNIP]
>
>The fact is that guns can kill people. That's what handguns are made for. If
>
like a gun, knife, club, stick, rock, or whatever will somehow control
human behaviour and turn a law abider into a raging maniac. If this is
true - that guns somehow radiate G-rays which turn good folks into
horrific monsters, - then the most at-risk victims are those who have
the most exposure to those G-rays - cops. Disarm 'em QUICK! For our
safety. Quick before they murder us in our sleep!!!...sheech.
You can choose to either use some logic and see what a crock this is
or you can -GASP- look at some real world facts. IT JUST DON"T WORK
THAT WAY! Look at states where responsible carry weapons. Look at the
stats. (The justice dep't will send them to you). Look at Texas where
it is quite legal to carry long guns(not those wimpy handguns) in your
car - with NO background check, etc. Does every traffic accident or
driving error cause shootouts, daily? Not.
Don't believe me or your own emotional fears. Check it out logically
with real world facts...
Responsible people generally behave responsibly. It's just that simple.
Trustworthy people generally deserve that trust. It's just that simple.
john dumas
John W. Engel <wh...@cs.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
>>How many crimes are averted by gun-toting citizens?
>
>I've averted two. So far.
If I'm lucky, it won't have to occur again.
(But I'm not gonna depend on luck)
Gary Davis
>My argument is that these honest citizens, which, if I understand
>correctly, are only required to undergo 10 hours of training, will
>statistically increase the danger of walking the streets. I believe
>that I am safer in a society with only the criminals and the police
>actively carrying concealed weapons than I am with the average
citizen
>carrying weapons also... please re-read the last sentance... I
believe
>that other citizens carrying firearms actually INCREASES the
chance
>of me being shot (and no... I'm not a criminal :) and does very
little
>to deter the chance that I will be the victim of crime.
It does seem that this might be the case, just from a logical point
of view, but the actual numbers I have seen from Florida and
Oregon do not seem to bear it out. There do not seem to be a
significant number of problems of any kind from the registered
gun-carryers. They are apparently behaving much more
responsibly than some believed they would. In Florida, through
mid-1993, only 16 permits of over 160-thousand had been
revoked after issuance because the gun was used illegally.
>It is interesting that a gunowner is statistically MUCH more likely
to
>accidentally kill himself or intentionally commit a homicide with
the
>weapon than actually prevent or thwart an attack from a criminal.
Anti-gunners often say this, but I doubt that it is actually true. A
criminologist from Florida State University has determined that
armed citizens defend themselves from criminals over 1-million
times a year. In 98% of cases, the gun is only brandished, or a
warning shot is fired. And when someone IS shot? Another
criminologist has reported that the percentage of actual
shootings by private citizens that turn out to be erroneous is 2%. (
by police it's 11%).
In the real world, private citizens are surprisingly responsible with
their guns. Even if they were less responsible, there is the
question of power. He who has the guns has the power. If ALL
guns are concentrated in the hands of criminals, the police, and
the military, then they will have ALL the power. I would be willing
to pay for a little more "power to the people" with a slightly higher
risk of getting accidentally shot.
************************************************
Such people were a grave danger to the system.
Civil order was not sustainable in a society populated
by rugged individualists. The dependency of the people
was the source of the state's power...
--- Dean Koontz "Dark Rivers of the Heart"
************************************************
Paul Barnett
>It is interesting that a gunowner is statistically MUCH more likely to
>accidentally kill himself or intentionally commit a homicide with the
>weapon than actually prevent or thwart an attack from a criminal.
This is bullshit, as I'm sure other posters will point out. This
often-repeated lie has several glaring errors:
* The only defensive use considered was when the attacker was shot
and killed. There are multiple sources of either statistical or
survey data detailing the much more common instance of scaring
off a perpetrator by merely brandishing a firearm.
* Not addressed in your statement, but commonly overlooked, was the
fact that most of the family members or acquaintances that were
killed by a gun kept for defensive use were actually committing
a violent crime at the time.
* Suicide is a completely different issue which should be addressed
separately from violent crime. For further study, I'll refer you
to Japan -- handguns are almost non-existent, yet their suicide
rates are at least twice that of the US. It's a little hard to
construct a causal relationship on that basis.
pjpr...@eden.com
>
>Obviously - both posters are convinced of the Overwhelming Danger
>that Firearms Present. Good thing most of them are wrestled into
>submission and kept bound up in leather. (Oooh Baby!)
>
>
>Well, have fun. Don't let the turkey goose you.
>
>pyotr
>
>--
>py...@halcyon.com Pyotr Filipivich, amongst others.
>When I was a boy, we had Outcome Based Education, too.
>We called it "Being held back a year"
Study hard. Seventh grade is beckoning to you.
James F. Mayer
>
>In <490c2b$g...@transfer.stratus.com>, c...@sw.stratus.com (C. D.
Tavares) writes:
>
>>I beg to differ. According to the news reports, he WAS stopped -- he
>>just wasn't killed.
>>
>>What does it take to satisfy some people?
>>
>>c...@rocket.sw.stratus.com --If you presume that I speak for my
company,
>>http://users.aol.com/Tavares/ write today for my special
Investors' Packet!
>
>Some stop.
>
>
on a bullet resistant vest, he would have been severly wounded if not
killed It wasn't from not trying by the fathers use of his weapon..
I'll bet he was bruised real well though.
Karl Rehn
Chris White <chris...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>Some potentially violent and unstable people WILL get permits
Care to explain how you think this will happen? If you know someone
personally who is "violent and unstable" you can file an affidavit with
DPS which could prevent them from getting a permit under the current law.
They would have the opportunity to present their side of the case in a
hearing where you would probably have to testify against them, but you
do have that option. So far in all the other states with CHL laws the
percentage of 'violent and unstable people' getting permits has been
incredibly low: 1 out of 250,000 in Florida in ten years, for example.
Texas' requirements and background check are more restrictive than Florida's.
Instructors also have the responsibility and authority to write affidavits
to DPS if we eject a student from class or otherwise believe that an
individual should not get a permit. This is to prevent that person from
going to another instructor and completing the class. All of the instructors
I know (including myself) feel very strongly about this responsibility.
I'm not going to jeopardize public safety, the success of the CHL program,
my integrity, or my instructor certification just to make another $75.
>they haven't displayed the gun, but are acting in a threatening way, can the
>gun be confiscated?
Sec. 36 of the CHL law says:
A peace officer is authorized to disarm a license holder at any time when the
peace officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the
license holder, peace officer, or other individuals.
That section doesn't change any existing procedure. Cops can basically
restrain, disarm, or arrest anyone at any time for any reason.
Keep in mind that the information about who has a CHL will be in a database
that the police can access 'on the street'. It's the same database that
shows warrants for arrest. Permit holders are required by law to notify
a police officer that they are carrying if the permit holder is asked for
ID of any kind. Even if the permit holder was to lie (which is a class B
misdemeanor offense) the cop will be able to find out if the person has a
permit using that database.
You worry about laws getting 'laxer'. In truth, they are getting tougher --
on those who will be carrying without a permit after Jan 1. In the past the
confusing mess of Texas gun laws has provided certain ill-defined exceptions
and defenses for the crime of Unlawful Carry of a Weapon. These defenses
have protected the rights of law-abiding citizens to carry in certain cases,
but they have also been used (successfully) to free criminals who were
carrying. One example is a case from about 10 years ago in which a man
who was driving from Laredo to Ft. Worth with a carload of cocaine beat the
UCW charge because the courts ruled that he was 'traveling', which is one
of the defenses to prosecution under the law. The ruling stated that the
reason for his traveling (drug dealing) was not important.
What will happen after Jan 1 is that the intepretation of the old laws will
proabably be tightened dramatically, because any law-abiding citizen will
be able to get a permit. Those that continue to carry illegally, whether
they have a criminal record or not, will likely have a more difficult time
beating the UCW charge. Potentially this could result in getting more
gun carrying criminals off the street. Most of the cops I know aren't
as worried about CHL holders as you are. There are at least 4 APD officers
that are also CHL instructors. I certified 3 of them as NRA instructors too.
You might be interested in reading the appropriate statutes.
I've got them on-line on my Web page at
http://www.avaloncorp.com/~rehn/
>The US has the laxest gun laws and highest murder rate of any developed
>country. Do you really think this is a coincidence? Do you really think the
>laws need to be made laxer yet?
The underlying assumption is that More Guns=More Violence.
Could you explain to me how places like Vermont, Arizona, and Wyoming that have
a higher rate of gun ownership per capita than New York, Chicago, and DC
have a significantly lower level of violence? Could it be that poverty,
drug/alcohol abuse, and other issues are better indicators for violence
than mere gun ownership? Professionals who study this sort of thing
(they're called criminologists, sociologists, and psychologists) believe so.
The only "scientific" evidence you're likely to find to support your
position comes from doctors who have bad habit of prejudicially selecting
data to support their previously held convictions. If a criminologist
were to publish a paper on brain surgery, his knowledge of that subject
would be questioned. When these doctors (at the CDC) publish papers on
criminology, their work is widely accepted in certain circles (despite its
lack of credibility), because it fits the current political agenda.
As for your comment about the relative crime rates of Virginia and DC,
keep in mind that across the border in Virginia, where those guns are
"easily available" (as you put it), the murder rate is significantly
*lower* than in DC itself. Care to explain that phenomenon?
Could it be --again-- that gun ownership and availability isn't the
primary problem? Our country has a violence problem. Our non-gun
homicide rate alone exceeds the total homicide rate for most 'civilized'
countries. Denying the law-abiding the right to self-defense won't
change that. Banning guns won't change it either. Introducing the fear
that 1 out of every 100 random citizens is armed might prevent a few
rapes and assaults, though. At the very least it gives those that are
attacked a fighting chance.
Karl
re...@arlut.utexas.edu
http://www.avaloncorp.com/~rehn/
KR Training: classes for CHL applicants, NRA instructors, and IPSC competitors
Trenton J. Grale
>In <490vej$s...@news1.halcyon.com>, py...@coho.halcyon.com (Pyotr Filipivich) writes:
>>py...@halcyon.com Pyotr Filipivich, amongst others.
>>When I was a boy, we had Outcome Based Education, too.
>>We called it "Being held back a year"
>
>Study hard. Seventh grade is beckoning to you.
At least he's qualified to enter 7th grade. You would obviously
fail the entrance exam, you twit!
pjpr...@eden.com
> At least he's qualified to enter 7th grade. You would obviously
>fail the entrance exam, you twit!
If you're at UT, that's prima facie evidence their entrance requirements
are way too low.
======================================================================
Bruce Showalter
<chris...@mail.utexas.edu> writes:
>wh...@cs.utexas.edu (John W. Engel) wrote:
>>
>>>How many crimes are averted by gun-toting citizens?
>>
>>I've averted two. So far.
>
a
>flashlight, shouting, or a well-timed phone call. Were none of these
options
>suitable in your case? Why was a gun a better (or the only) solution?
No one has tried to argue that a gun is always a solution, or even
the best solution to every case. However, there are cases where a gun
is the most effective solution. What is the rational behind denying an
effective crime deterent to law abiding citizens?
Bruce
Pyotr Filipivich
|In <490vej$s...@news1.halcyon.com>, py...@coho.halcyon.com (Pyotr Filipivich) writes:
|>that Firearms Present. Good thing most of them are wrestled into
|>submission and kept bound up in leather. (Oooh Baby!)
|>
|>Well, have fun. Don't let the turkey goose you.
|>
|>pyotr
|>
|>--
|>When I was a boy, we had Outcome Based Education, too.
|>We called it "Being held back a year"
|Study hard. Seventh grade is beckoning to you.
Aha!
Thank you - I've been having odd dreams about entering Grad School,[*]
but I haven't been able to settle on a thesis. Maybe I should go for
the teaching certificate.
Seventh grade as a walk. It had been Sixth, Eight and Tenth that I'd
attempted to fail. No dice - got passed anyway, regardless of my
class work. High Scholl Diploma is like the Good Conduct Medal: Twelve
Years of undetected crime.
tschus
pyotr
[8] You try explaining to a Jacque Custeau clone about the implications
of current Robotic Development on the Subject of the Mind/Brain
interface and Conciousness. And I don't know if West Point even _has_ a
graduate program!
--
pjpr...@eden.com
>In article <492nna$l...@boris.eden.com>, <pjpr...@eden.com> wrote:
>>are way too low.
>
>
>--
>========================================================================
>I fear for my country.
Simple-minded cretin. Why, that's a cliche, isn't it. How fitting.
Andy Freeman
>Which, I suspect, is almost identical to training out of the military.
>In fact, the instructors were trained at a special civilian
>gunfighting school in Arizona. We too learned all of the 4 cardinal
>rules of firearms safety. I find it humorous that so many infer
>that 150 hours of initial Marine Corps training and 80 hours annual
>re-occuring Marine Corps training (all on the pistol) is inferior to
>10 hours of one time civilian training.
The results speak for themselves. Not only was the Marine training in
question inferior to civilian training, it is inferior to NO training.
The loss rate for that group of Marines is orders of magnitude HIGHER
than the civilian rates.
>Please believe me... don't fool yourself in thinking that these (by
>any standard) elite, highly trained Marines were somehow less capable
>or less safe with firearms than the average person getting a carry
>permit... it just isn't the case.
Then why did so many of them manage to kill themselves and others
accidentally? Civilians don't do that.
>fire pistols too. I just don't like the idea of amateurs walking around
>with pistols.
As we've seen from Kissinger's account, said amateurs are much safer,
so his affections are somewhat irrational. It must be the spiffy
uniforms.
>my own mouth off about statistics.... I think we need to actually start
>getting the source of these statistics and whether they were obtained
>from the source or from a selective reprint in some NRA publication. I
They're BJS stats. Their validity does not depend on whether or not
the NRA cites or reprints them.
I do like the smear attempt though.
>I don't think I can agree with that. I think that plenty of "clean
>record" citizens make honest mistakes under duress.
Should we go with Kissinger's "thought", or data from the population
as a whole?
-andy
Michael Agney
Chris White <chris...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>A few comments and questions:
>
>How many crimes are averted by gun-carrying citizens? What proportion of these
>incidents could be considered potentially life-threatening?
Estimates on how many with-gun self defenses occur range from 80,000 to 2
million per year. Where the actual number in this range is, is
uncertain, and in my experience depends on who's doing the guessing ^_^
As to how many of those incidents would be "potentially life-
threatening", that's a difficult thing to estimate; as far as I know, no
one's tried to measure it.
>
>Some potentially violent and unstable people WILL get permits ... shucks, we
>have potentially violent and unstable law enforcement officers, and they are
>more closely screened. At this time, their guns could be taken away if they
>were behaving erratically in public. What options would the police have under
>the new law?
If Texas' population is anything like Florida's, the number of psychos or
just plain violent people who will get CCWs is vanishingly small. And
neither group needs a CCW permit to wreak havoc. So, what options would
the police have? Same as before -- because criminals and crazies don't
tend to bother with the permit process.
>I've heard concern expressed about not being able to carry guns to work, etc.
>Do you REALLY think having all the postal workers armed would prevent the
>periodic bloodlettings there?
>
Perhaps, perhaps not. Most I'll say is it's not going to make things
worse. Again, crazies don't bother with permits.
>The US has the laxest gun laws and highest murder rate of any developed
>country. Do you really think this is a coincidence?
Simply put, yes. The US has a higher NON-gun murder rate than the TOTAL
murder rate of any other developed country -- so even if you could take
guns completely out of the equation (and you can't, anyway, no matter
what laws you pass) the US's murder rate would still be far higher than
that of any other developed country. Do our lax gun laws cause all our
beatings, knifings, stranglings, etc.? Or maybe our problem isn't guns?
>Do you really think the
>laws need to be made laxer yet?
>
Why not? It won't hurt (see Florida, again), and it might help.
>--
>Chris White e-mail: chris...@mail.utexas.edu
>\\// Live long and prosper.
>
--
Michael Agney
pjpr...@eden.com
>
>In article <48vpk1$1...@deepthought.cs.utexas.edu> wh...@cs.utexas.edu writes:
>
>> Well, Chad....you're talking about *Jarheads* here. Not normal people.
>> Also, since both "AD's" happened to hit the victims in the head, it
>> brings up the possibility of suicide, definately.
>
>I'd give that rating an almost certainly. I have a friend who was in the same
>Marine Reaction unit this guy is. He's out on permanent disability. This
>unit is probably the highest-stress job you could ever have. Good psych
>evaluation can only go so far...
>
Great judgement on your part, especially since it been confirmed by
Chad that the victims were not doing the shooting. I suppose you will
be a card carrying militia of one any day now.
pjpr...@eden.com
>In article <495g2f$4...@boris.eden.com>, <pjpr...@eden.com> wrote:
>>In <znr817231874k@Digex>, cro...@access.digex.net (Francis A. Ney, Jr.) writes:
>>Great judgement on your part, especially since it been confirmed by
>>Chad that the victims were not doing the shooting. I suppose you will
>>be a card carrying militia of one any day now.
>
>this nonsensical phrase is supposed to mean?
>
> I guess you're illiterate too, eh JoeBob?
>
>--Trenton
>--
>========================================================================
>I fear for my country.
Yes, of course I am, Trenton. Good judgement. Seems to be epidemic
under that rock.
Paul Barnett
>Please forward the complete name of "BJS".
"BJS" is the Bureau of Justice Statistics, a department of the
US Department of Justice.
You will be able to find more information about them among all the
departments listed at:
http://www.usdoj.gov/alpha.html
john dumas
Julie Cochrane <jrc...@prism.gatech.edu> wrote:
[Snip - story of armed hubby saving family]
>
>That's a hell of a lot better than they would have fared if the husband
>had been unarmed (as indicated by what happened at the other houses).
>
>The actions of the husband are a good example of how ordinary people
>with clean records handle their firearms. Thank you for supporting
>my point.
>
>Julie
-Armed, Law Abiding Citizens-
Remember: If it saves _just ONE_ life, it's worth it!
cheers,
john
--
"Government is not reason. It is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire,
it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master!
- - George Washington - -
Trenton J. Grale
[...]
>Simple-minded cretin. Why, that's a cliche, isn't it. How fitting.
Never heard it before, so AFAIK it's not a cliche. It is, however,
fitting to describe you, you notch-eared knave!
pjpr...@eden.com
>
>>10 hours of training is long enough to learn the necessary safety rules.
>
>But is it enough actual experience to impress on the need to follow
>them? No. People do stupid things.... if you respond to this, please
>respond to those 4 words... please tell me that people don't do stupid
>things even though they've been warned of the consequences. Please
>tell me that doing stupid things with a pistol can't kill somebody...
>please tell me increasing the exposure to people with pistols, who
>are prone to do stupid things doesn't increase the danger of being
>hurt.
Another excellent post, Chad. (I trimmed the list of newsgroups to just
austin.general so the gun mob doesn't send another posse for me.) Here
in Texas, the first state in the union to manage to kill more people by
handgun than by automobiles in the last fifty or sixty years, we really
don't need to increase the opportunities for death by bullet.
Francis A. Ney, Jr.
> Well, Chad....you're talking about *Jarheads* here. Not normal people.
> Also, since both "AD's" happened to hit the victims in the head, it
> brings up the possibility of suicide, definately.
I'd give that rating an almost certainly. I have a friend who was in the same
Marine Reaction unit this guy is. He's out on permanent disability. This
unit is probably the highest-stress job you could ever have. Good psych
evaluation can only go so far...
---
Frank Ney EMT-A N4ZHG LPWV NRA(L) GOA CCRKBA LEAA JPFO 'M-O-U-S-E'
Sponsor, BATF Abuse Page http://www.access.digex.net/~croaker/batfabus.html
"A wise man once pointed out that the American eagle eats carrion, never picks
on anything its own size and will soon be extinct. That being so, perhaps
Americans ought to select a symbol more in keeping with their current
condition, like a milked cow, a sheared sheep, a plucked chicken, or a
slaughtered steer."
- L. Neil Smith, speaking as W.W. Curringer, _Pallas_
Trenton J. Grale
>In <znr817231874k@Digex>, cro...@access.digex.net (Francis A. Ney, Jr.) writes:
[...]
>Great judgement on your part, especially since it been confirmed by
>Chad that the victims were not doing the shooting. I suppose you will
>be a card carrying militia of one any day now.
"A card carrying militia of one any day now"--what do you suppose
this nonsensical phrase is supposed to mean?
I guess you're illiterate too, eh JoeBob?
--Trenton
Trenton J. Grale
>Yes, of course I am, Trenton. Good judgement. Seems to be epidemic
>under that rock.
Aw c'mon, JoeBob! You couldn't come up with anything better than
this poor excuse for an insult? Talk about cliches! I'm disappointed
in you.
:^)
Richard K. Weaver
says...
>
>wh...@cs.utexas.edu (John W. Engel) wrote:
>>
>>>How many crimes are averted by gun-toting citizens?
>>
>>I've averted two. So far.
>
>I'd like to hear more. I've averted about a half-dozen crimes, using a
>flashlight, shouting, or a well-timed phone call. Were none of these options
>suitable in your case? Why was a gun a better (or the only) solution?
>
If Nocole Simpson had a .45 the whole country would have been saved the agony
of
months of wasted TV time. There is a time and palce for everything, including
a
large caliber weapon.
kw
aaron r clements
>In article <490o2s$6...@mari.onr.com>, ch...@onr.com says...
>>It is interesting that a gunowner is statistically MUCH more likely
>to
>>accidentally kill himself or intentionally commit a homicide with
>the
>>weapon than actually prevent or thwart an attack from a criminal.
>
>Anti-gunners often say this, but I doubt that it is actually true.
The argument is based on the "43 to 1" statistic that HCI has been
spouting for years, and which has been debunked as many times. HCI,
though, continues to put out this garbage (without even quoting the
statistic right), apparently believing that if they say it enough times,
it'll become truth.
The statistic is something to the effect that a firearm in the home is
supposedly 43 times more likely to be used to kill a family member or
friend than it will be used to kill an intruder.
HCI rephrases that last part to "stop an intruder".
The research on which this statistic is based is fundamentally flawed.
The "research" was based on King Co., Washington police stats; the 43
number includes suicides (which account for 37 of the 43, if I recall
correctly), and (again, if I recall correctly) defines 'friend' to be
someone whose identity was known to the shooter. And since it is well
established that that the vast majority of self-defensive uses do not
involve a discharge of a firearm, much less the death of the intruder/
perpetrator, this statistic is completely useless in attempting to make
a cost/benefit analysis of firearms ownership.
I'm sure there's someone out there who can correct any errors or gaps
in my memory.
pjpr...@eden.com
Pardon me for bowing out here, Trenton, but I've got bigger fish to
fry. Blackbird, for one. Ziff-Davis for another. But I do want to
encourage your frothing at the mouth at the mention of anything more
intellectual than 'Ready on the left! Ready on the right!' etc. You
know the drill, create a mental image of the pro-gun poster boy
blasting away at those who are eternally just out of his mental grasp.
Nosy
< It is interesting that a gunowner is statistically MUCH more likely to
< accidentally kill himself or intentionally commit a homicide with the
< weapon than actually prevent or thwart an attack from a criminal.
Kissinger is regurgitating a lie from HCI, and not doing
that very well.
I don't believe Kissinger was ever in any "special unit",
nor that he was ever a Marine; Marine's do not lie, but
this Kissinger does.
Henry Ayre
>I missed the first part of this thread, so this may have come up :)
>
>Imagine this: you are a criminal. Let's say you are a mugger. You do this
>for money. Generally, you just point a knife at someone, suggest that they
>give you their money, and they do.
>
>Now all of the sudden, the next person you decide to mug is likely to be
>carrying a pistol, but it is concealed, so you don't know for sure. What if
>they decide to shoot you when they are threatened? Your choices are: a)
>don't mug them (but, of course, then you'd be without a job ;), or b) get a
>gun of your own and be sure you shoot them before they get a chance to shoot
>you.
>
>What this means is that crime that might have ended without anyone getting
>shot will almost certainly end in a shooting if *both* the good guys and the
>bad guys have guns. For the criminal, the stakes go up. The easiest way to
>bring the risk back down is to just shoot first and ask questions later.
>
>I don't know about you, but I'm planning to get a bunch of T-shirts with "NOT
>CARRYING A GUN" printed on them in big, bold letters. Maybe then all the
>criminals will target me, but they will know that I pose no threat of shooting
>them and they might be less likely to shoot me as a preventative measure.
>
>And what about the unarmed criminal who subdues his gun-carrying victim before
>the victim can get to his or her gun? Then the criminal finds the gun? I bet
>you a dollar that victim will wish he or she had not been carrying that gun.
>
>The fact is that guns can kill people. That's what handguns are made for. If
>more people are carrying them, then there are more killing tools on the
>streets, and there is more of an opportunity for people to get killed.
>
>--
>_____________________________________________________________________________
>Josh Karnes
It seems to be cartoon time in the land of reason. Mr. Karnes has it that
the mugger will automatically arm himself if he fears his victims are
carrying concealed weapons. It is far more likely in the realm of my
reason that he will go into some other form of crime where he does not
stand the risk of an armed confrontation. Then Mr. Karnes "bets the
homestead" by saying that the mugger, now armed, will decide to shoot
first and then rob his downed, dying, or dead victim! Dear Mr. Karnes,
have you ever heard of probability? What you suggest is the most
outrageously IMprobable series of developments I have ever heard. Here is
a person who is essentially a lazy coward and you dote him with the
intellect of a college professor. You cause him to metamorphose from a
lazy coward into a cold blooded killer risking life imprisonment or death
in a shootout with police because "without mugging he would be out of a
job."
If I were your employer, Mr. Karnes, YOU would be out of a job! H. Ayre.
Henry Ayre
>In article <48tf20$1f...@ausnews.austin.ibm.com>, <he...@austin.ibm.com> wrote:
>>by the very fact that in some places only law officers are able
>>to carry guns, it quickly shows the intentions of people who are
>>not law enforcement officers and are brandishing a weapon there.
>
>No, it doesn't reveal their intentions. Moreover, when their
>intentions are bad, it guarantees that no one will be able to
>do anything about it.
>
>Police are basically janitors - I'd rather not be a mess.
>
>-andy
Entirely correct. The police are not distinguished for preventing crimes,
rather for catching the "bad guy" ( occasionally instead catching the
good guy) and doing a so-so job collecting evidence, usually with
preconceived notions in mind. H. Ayre.
Nosy
<>The results speak for themselves. Not only was the Marine training in
<>question inferior to civilian training, it is inferior to NO training.
<>The loss rate for that group of Marines is orders of magnitude HIGHER
<>than the civilian rates.
<A bold assertion....
Not as bold as Kissinger's assertion that one shot from
a 9x19mm FMJ "blew off" an adult male head.
<please forward your calculated rates in the Marine
<unit I was talking about (this is going to be interesting... since you
<have no idea how many Marines there were, or how many Man/Hours they
<actually carried weapons....)
Or what the unit name was, where it was, when Kissinger
was allegedly part of it...gosh, we're missing a whole
lot of data from Kissinger, aren't we?
<Then, please forward the source of the civilian rates which are so low.
Freeman has already done so.
<>>my own mouth off about statistics.... I think we need to actually start
<>>getting the source of these statistics and whether they were obtained
<>>from the source or from a selective reprint in some NRA publication. I
<>
<>They're BJS stats. Their validity does not depend on whether or not
<>the NRA cites or reprints them.
<True. But only if the NRA completely reprints them... instead of
<selectively reprinting them. Please forward the complete name of "BJS".
Kissinger assumes the NRA has anything at all to do with
the cite Freeman has produced, is that a reasonable
assumption?
<>I do like the smear attempt though.
<No smear attempt.... I'd just like to see the whole, uninterpreted
<report.
Looks like a smear attempt to me. Still does.
<>>I don't think I can agree with that. I think that plenty of "clean
<>>record" citizens make honest mistakes under duress.
<>
<>Should we go with Kissinger's "thought", or data from the population
<>as a whole?
<Again... specifically what data?
Again: BJS reports.
Followups.
Henry Ayre
>wh...@cs.utexas.edu (John W. Engel) wrote:
>>
>>>How many crimes are averted by gun-toting citizens?
>>
>>I've averted two. So far.
>
>I'd like to hear more. I've averted about a half-dozen crimes, using a
>flashlight, shouting, or a well-timed phone call. Were none of these options
>suitable in your case? Why was a gun a better (or the only) solution?
>
>--
>Chris White e-mail: chris...@mail.utexas.edu
>\\// Live long and prosper.
>
Mr. Engel has averted two crimes by carrying a pistol. His number is
clear and definite. Mr White states his number is "about a half-dozen
crimes, using a flashlight, shouting, or a well-timed phone call." First,
Mr. White's number seems to be a bit fuzzy. Was it five, or six, or seven
crimes, Mr. White? (Or more or less than these?) Second, it appears that
Mr. White depended on frightening away the potential criminal, so it
would be helpful to know the exact circumstances of these
roughly half-dozen events.
A pistol is better than a flashlight or a shout because, although you may
still use these other means, a pistol, rifle, or shotgun will
incapacitate a criminal who may be triggered to come AT you rather than
run away. Of course, Mr. White may be able to shout loudly enough
literally to blow away the criminal, but the rest of us would rather
depend on the tool made specifically for this purpose. H. Ayre.
Kim Kinnison
>From: Henry Ayre <he...@alaska.net>
>Subject: Re: Help Texas CHL holders fight local legislation
>Date: 25 Nov 1995 21:04:47 GMT
>Chris White <chris...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>wh...@cs.utexas.edu (John W. Engel) wrote:
>>>
>>>>How many crimes are averted by gun-toting citizens?
>>>
>>>I've averted two. So far.
>>
>>I'd like to hear more. I've averted about a half-dozen crimes, using a
>>flashlight, shouting, or a well-timed phone call. Were none of these options
>>suitable in your case? Why was a gun a better (or the only) solution?
>A pistol is better than a flashlight or a shout because, although you may
>still use these other means, a pistol, rifle, or shotgun will
>incapacitate a criminal who may be triggered to come AT you rather than
>run away. Of course, Mr. White may be able to shout loudly enough
>literally to blow away the criminal, but the rest of us would rather
>depend on the tool made specifically for this purpose. H. Ayre.
A friend of mine surprised a female car thief going thru a van. He asked what
she was doing. She responded by charging after him with a pair of scissors.
My friend was unarmed, so he ran like hell.
My personal opinion is that confronting a criminal while unarmed (unless,
of course you have no choice) is a sign of low intelligence.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Of what importance is all that, if I range men firmly within a
discipline they cannot escape? Let them own land or factories
as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State,
through the Party, is supreme over them regardless of whether
they are owners or workers. All that is unessential; our socialism
goes far deeper. It establishes a relationship of the individual
to the State, the national community. Why need we trouble to socialize
banks and factories? We socialize human beings.
Adolf Hitler to Herman Rauschning, regarding the nationalization
of industry or private property
Andy Freeman
> Finally, the most shocking statistic.... out of those approximately
> 150 Marines I was based with for those 2 years.... those Marines who
> were, by any standard, EXTREMELY well trained in firearms usage and
> safety.... 2 didn't live to see their discharge dates.... both
> were killed by Accidental Discharges of 9mm Berratas resulting in
> massive head wounds...
In a previous posting, I showed that the comparable civilian rate was
0.5 per 100k per year. Here we see that Kissinger's unit had a rate
of 1 per 150 per year, or 6.6 per 1k. In other words, it is over
1300 times the civilian rate.
I guessed wrong - I guessed that Kissinger's unit was 100x as unsafe
as mostly untrained civilians. I was way off.
Perhaps he'll tell us why that accident rate demonstrates competence.
(I've never seen a marine, or ex, who was 100 times as unsafe as the
typical person, let alone 1300 times. What was special about
Kissinger's group?)
-andy
WDarty
Jo> I don't know about you, but I'm planning to get a bunch of T-shirts
Jo> with "NOT
Jo> CARRYING A GUN" printed on them in big, bold letters. Maybe then all
Jo> the criminals will target me, but they will know that I pose no
threat
Jo> of shooting
Jo> them and they might be less likely to shoot me as a preventative
Jo> measure.
I'm intrigued. If you actually do this, would you contact a couple of
gun control organizations to offer these shirts for sale? By all means,
contact the media and get a feature story produced so that my
family will have something to laugh at one evening in the future while
watching the TV news.
Please keep us updated on the number of times you are mugged/robbed.
If we don't hear from you again, then we'll assume that you ran
afoul of the occasional criminal who really doesn't care whether you
pose a threat to his safety or not, because he felt like killing
something.
*********************************************************
* Wayne Dougherty *
* Brunswick MD *
*********************************************************
Trenton J. Grale
>Pardon me for bowing out here, Trenton, but I've got bigger fish to
Begone with thee, thou noisome varlet!
Nosy
< rather than possibly anger potentially paying customers... :) But, I'll
< go against my better judgement on this one....
< A little history.... I'm an ex-Marine who attended a 3 week course in
< gunfighting (pistol) as part of anti-terrorism training. Easily 150-200
< hours of initial training supported by over 80 hours of continuing
< training every year while I was in an anti-terrorism unit, which required
< me to carry a pistol (among other weapons) every day.
Uh huh. Pardon me for being blunt, but I've run across more
"firearms experts" who were part of "special military units"
on the net than anywhere else, including in the "personals"
section of _Soldier of Fortune_ magazine. All I or anyone
else knows about Kissinger is what he tells us in little
ASCII symbols.
So I humbly and politely request supporting information;
unit numbers, dates, names of instructors, that sort of
thing.
Otherwise, my BS detector goes off (actually, it already has,
but I'm being polite).
< Additionally, the
< last year I was with this unit, I was a marksmanship instructor for both
< pistols and rifles. Needless to say, I, and the men I worked with, were
< VERY well trained to carry pistols and did so each and every day. Finally,
< it's interesting to note that this unit was based in Florida and this was
< during the period that the CHL was passed there..... so this is were I
< get off saying "I KNOW what I'm talking about."
< A few statistics.... over 80% of all police involved gunfights occur
< with less than 10 feet between the participants. Under 40% of the first
< shots fired actually strike the intended target. (Which I infer to mean
< that a significant number of the first shots continue past the
< intended target).
So far, so good.
< Coincidental to the passing of the CHL law, 5 children, during 5
< consecutive weeks were killed by Accidental Discharges of pistols.
< This of course can't necessarily be tied to the CHL law itself, but
< can be used as an argument against increased availability of
< firearms.
It absolutely cannot be tied to the CCP law, for obvious
reasons. Kissinger is implying that coincidence == causation.
Hogwash.
Kissinger reminds me of a roommate some years back who
happened to turn on three electric lights in a row, and each
one of the bulbs failed upon being turned on. His conclusion?
The electric company was "doing something funny"; well, one
can't expect a philosophy major to understand that lightbulbs
have a finite life, and that if one stocks a house with all
new lightbulbs upon moving in (because the previous tenant
left none behind) it's not too unusual for several to fail
at about the same time, or that most incandescent bulbs fail
on turnon...but one can expect a so-called "specially trained
Marine" to understand what coincidence is...
< Finally, the most shocking statistic.... out of those approximately
< 150 Marines I was based with for those 2 years.... those Marines who
< were, by any standard, EXTREMELY well trained in firearms usage and
< safety.... 2 didn't live to see their discharge dates.... both
< were killed by Accidental Discharges of 9mm Berratas resulting in
< massive head wounds...
Why was someone pointing a handgun at their own head or the
head of someone else, please?
Obviously these "highly trained" Marines either weren't trained
very well (never heard of Rule #2 and Rule #3, maybe Rule #4
or even Rule #1) or they killed themselves.
[chop]
< Twice I've seen the shattered bodies of close friends of mine who have
< had their heads blown off by accidental discharges of pistols.
BS alert: "Heads blown off" by 9x19mm FMJ? I don't believe
it. In fact, I now don't believe anything Kissinger has to say;
he's either lying outright or telling someone else's war story,
and either way he's shoveling fertilizer, not dealing in facts.
[further hogwash deleted]
Followups set.
Nosy
<In article <48vvjj$3...@acmex.gatech.edu>, jrc...@prism.gatech.edu (Julie Cochrane) says:
<>Well, you know about pistol training in the military.
<Which, I suspect, is almost identical to training out of the military.
Obviously not the case; any civvie school that had two
deaths in any period of time would likely be out of business.
What unit was this, again? I see that Kissinger is still
not telling us the whole story.
<In fact, the instructors were trained at a special civilian
<gunfighting school in Arizona.
And the name of this school? I know what it is, and I'm not
claiming any "special Marine unit" experience; surely Kissinger
can tell us the name?
<We too learned all of the 4 cardinal rules of firearms safety.
Not. Had the rules been learned properly, they'd be
followed, had they been followed (a) no I.D's would have
occurred, ever, and (b) no deaths would have resulted from
any I.D's that did occur.
It takes a violation of rule #2 *and* Rule #3 and possibly
#1 and even #4 to "accidentally" shoot oneself in the
head, or shoot another person "accidentally" in the head.
<I find it humorous that so many infer
<that 150 hours of initial Marine Corps training and 80 hours annual
<re-occuring Marine Corps training (all on the pistol) is inferior to
<10 hours of one time civilian training.
I find it humorous that we are supposed to take Kissinger's
"war story" at face value, absent any supporting evidence,
when the "special gunfighting school" in Arizona has had
in 10+ years of operation ONE (1) I.D. that resulted in
a very minor injury.
<You are fooling yourself if you think that somehow these civilians will
<be even near as well trained or as safe as those Marines.
Really? They why don't the numbers tell the story, hmm?
Numbers don't lie, unlike "special forces" types on the net;
the numbers from Washington State to Florida to Maine to
Georgia to Arizona to New Hampshire to Idaho to Vermont
to Oregon to Pennsylvania to Wyoming to Mississippi and
on to all the rest of the *majority* of States that now
have CCP systems tell the same fact: citizens with CCP's
are very safe.
THey don't 'accidentally' shoot themselves in the head, unlike
Kissingers Marines in his scuttlebutt story.
<There is no doubt in my mind that you are a completely safe individual
<to be around with a weapon. I regularly go hunting and I like to
<fire pistols too. I just don't like the idea of amateurs walking around
<with pistols.
Well, I don't like poseurs that claim to be "vets" of "special
units" on the net, personally.
<>If they were so well trained, why were the barrels of their guns pointed
<>in an unsafe direction? (ie--at their heads)
<Please re-read the original post. I obviously wasn't clear enough...
<several responders were confused.... the Marines didn't accidentaly
<shoot themselves. They were accidentaly shot by others.... incidents
<which were witnessed by other Marines present.
These would be the "highly trained" Marines, who knowingly
(a) pointed a loaded firearm at the head of a brother Marine
and (b) pulled the trigger?
Oh, brother, pull the other leg, it's got bells on!
<>If that's what you teach in the military---for people to *ever* point the
<>barrel of a gun at their heads---then I'm not surprised you have
<>negligent discharges (a much more accurate term than "accidental" discharge).
<See above... they didn't point their weapons at their heads. And they
<didn't mean to point their weapons at their friends heads. They simply
<made a mistake.... more on that later....
Yeah, they made one heck of a mistake, and they weren't trained.
And 9x19mm FMJ "blew off the head" of an adult male, right?
Kissinger's war story is getting better and better.
<>That's your idea of "VERY well trained"? I don't care how well trained
<>you are, safety rules don't save you if you don't follow them.
<I too believe in Safety Rules.... as did they... More on that later.....
Obviously they didn't believe Rule #2 and #3.
[blather deleted]
<>The statistics show that ordinary citizens with clear criminal records
<>and no history of hospitalization for mental illness don't tend to shoot
<>the wrong people---accidentally or on purpose.
<I can't argue with this... because I've been shooting (pardon the pun :)
<my own mouth off about statistics....
That, and a bit more. What unit, again? Dates? Names? Places?
<I think we need to actually start
<getting the source of these statistics and whether they were obtained
<from the source or from a selective reprint in some NRA publication.
The stats in question come from the Bureau of Justice
Statistics, but Kissinger's little attempt to smear the
numbers via "guilt by association" is duly noted.
[blather deleted]
Oh, look, Kissinger never got around to telling us "more later";
what's the matter, does he have to run around to the bar to
meet up with his buddy to get another "war story" to tell us,
perhaps?
Followups set to appropriate groups.
Kim Kinnison
>>Now all of the sudden, the next person you decide to mug is likely to be
>>carrying a pistol, but it is concealed, so you don't know for sure. What if
>>they decide to shoot you when they are threatened? Your choices are: a)
>>don't mug them (but, of course, then you'd be without a job ;), or b) get a
>>gun of your own and be sure you shoot them before they get a chance to shoot
>>you.
>It seems to be cartoon time in the land of reason. Mr. Karnes has it that
>the mugger will automatically arm himself if he fears his victims are
>carrying concealed weapons. It is far more likely in the realm of my
>reason that he will go into some other form of crime where he does not
>stand the risk of an armed confrontation.
Exactly, Mr Ayre. The problem with criminals adopting a "shoot first" tactic
in a community with armed civilians is that after the first few shootings the
citizens will kill any criminal caught attempting a crime in their
neighborhood.
Francis A. Ney, Jr.
> >Great judgement on your part, especially since it been confirmed by
> >Chad that the victims were not doing the shooting. I suppose you will
> >be a card carrying militia of one any day now.
>
> "A card carrying militia of one any day now"--what do you suppose
> this nonsensical phrase is supposed to mean?
He's trying for an insult and falling flat on his face.
Matter of fact, I'm a member of several militiae: the federal one, the West
Virginia one, and my community fire & rescue company.
Take that, BillyJoeBob...