Exploding a gun myth - #1. The crook will take it away and use it on you.

[Silverhair]

This is the first of what I plan will be a series of myths about guns. Some of the myths, like this one, will be from the antigunners. Some will be ones that are told by progunners. I will try to alternate, but I can't guarantee that.

Our first myth is one that antigunners like to say, that a criminal will disarm you and then use your gun on you. The ONLY way that can happen is if you don't know what you are doing.

If you have drawn a gun as a bluff, the criminals can often read it in your body language and know that you don't have the will to pull the trigger. Then you are in real trouble.

If a person is going to keep a gun for self-defense it is absolutely imperative that the person get the proper training. Fortunately, it is easy to learn basic proficiency with a gun. And the laws on the use of deadly force are pretty straight forward.

Inside the home, for use on a home buglar, it doesn't help much if you wake up and the burglar is already in the bedroom with you. You need alarms to sound so that you can be awakened early enough to do something about it. Also, usually the alarms will scare off the burglar so that a shooting can be avoided.

If you do have to draw a gun, and the bad guy doesn't take off running, (They almost always do.)then don't let the guy get within reaching range of you. Make him lie down while you call 911.

If the BG already has his gun out - you are in a really bad situation. However, in most robberies of that type, they like to get close before they bring their gun out. So if you keep a proper alertness you have a reasonable chance of not letting a street hood get withing his preffered striking range.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mythsaje]

2. Oh, yes.

I'm pro self-defense period.

Welcome to DU!

[SnoopDog]

3. The Constitution provides for citizens to own guns..

I see it as a self protection clause or when our country is taken over by enemies - foreign or domestic.

If you have a gun - learn to use it safely.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SnoopDog]

7. The Human body has an intense protection system...

White blood cells attack foreign invaders only when attacked.

The human being should only or must attack when invaded or gravely threaten by invaders - foreign or domestic.

[Wickerman]

5. Welcome to DU

We have the entire forum dedicated to discussion of Gun Rights and Gun Control, dependent on your pleasure. Enjoy!

[Andrew Smith]

6. Yup.

Living in Texas, almost everybody owns a 12 gauge, or just a shotgun at least(like an 8, 10, or 20 gauge, not all shotguns are 12 gauges). So, if somebody comes into my house trying to rob me, the 12 gauge is coming out. If that guy doesn't run or give up, he's putting his life in his own hands.



P.S., I find that a non-pump shotgun usually doesn't get their attention as much as the cha-chun of a round being chambered into a pump action, if you get my drift.


BTW, by no means am I NRA. I do think that we need more gun restrictions, but not to the point that we take all guns up. I think we learned what will happen if you try to ban something common in the Prohibition era. But, when NRA hears the word gun restriction, they start screaming "THEM LIBERALS ARE GONNA BE TAKIN' UP OUR'S GUNS!!!!!!". That's why I'm not a fan of the NRA.

[billbuckhead]

8. The 2nd amendment doesn't guarantee the right to a gun, only for militia

The Second Amendment in the Courts

As a matter of law, the meaning of the Second Amendment has been settled since the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). In that case, the Court ruled that the "obvious purpose" of the Second Amendment was to "assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the state militia.

Since Miller, the Supreme Court has addressed the Second Amendment twice more, upholding New Jersey's strict gun control law in 1969 and upholding the federal law banning felons from possessing guns in 1980. Furthermore, twice - in 1965 and 1990 - the Supreme Court has held that the term "well-regulated militia" refers to the National Guard.

In the early 1980s, the Supreme Court addressed the Second Amendment issue again, after the town of Morton Grove, Illinois, passed an ordinance banning handguns (making certain reasonable exceptions for law enforcement, the military, and collectors). After the town was sued on Second Amendment grounds, the Illinois Supreme Court and the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that not only was the ordinance valid, but there was no individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment (Quillici v. Morton Grove). In October 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of this ruling, allowing the lower court rulings to stand.

In 1991, former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger referred to the Second Amendment as "the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,' on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime... ha(s) misled the American people and they, I regret to say, they have had far too much influence on the Congress of the United States than as a citizen I would like to see - and I am a gun man." Burger also wrote, "The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon...urely the Second Amendment does not remotely guarantee every person the constitutional right to have a ‘Saturday Night Special' or a machine gun without any regulation whatever. There is no support in the Constitution for the argument that federal and state governments are powerless to regulate the purchase of such firearms..."

Since the Miller decision, lower federal and state courts have addressed the meaning of the Second Amendment in more than thirty cases. In every case, up until March of 1999 (see below), the courts decided that the Second Amendment refers to the right to keep and bear arms only in connection with a state militia. Even more telling, in its legal challenges to federal firearms laws like the Brady Law and the assault weapons ban, the National Rifle Association makes no mention of the Second Amendment. Indeed, the National Rifle Association has not challenged a gun law on Second Amendment grounds in several years.
<http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=second>

ACLU on Gun Control

"Why doesn't the ACLU support an individual's
unlimited right to keep and bear arms?"

BACKGROUND
The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times.

We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.

IN BRIEF
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.

Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.

The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.

ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." --Policy #47

ARGUMENTS, FACTS, QUOTES

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The Second Amendment to the Constitution

"Since the Second Amendment. . . applies only to the right of the State to
maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there
can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right to possess a firearm."

<http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/PolicePractices.cfm?ID=9621&c=25>

[SnoopDog]

11. I disagree...

And since these bastards are trashing our Bill of Rights, here is my point of view - and I feel it trumps what 'they' rule...

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

It states that 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". You simply cannot say it is for the militia only. I see it as more of a case that the 'people have a right to FORM a militia".

[billbuckhead]

14. The most fascist regime in US history is the most pro gun

Guns don't make people free, if they did Afghanistan would be the freest place in the world and Ireland would be a gulag.

[SnoopDog]

16. For the record, I don't own a gun...But I do believe in the Constitution.

[billbuckhead]

58. Government for and by corporations?

The US Constitution is relentlessly undemocratic and pro corporate. Like the Bible, it means whatever the powers that be, want it to mean. The eminent domain decision shouldn't have been shocking, corporations have pretty much been having their way in this nation since John Hancock.

The gun lobby and their corporate friends in Congress have even exempted gun making corporations from being sued, another example of corporation having more rights than the citizens. This injustice is compounded when our corporate leadership hide behind bulletproof glass, bodyguards, walls and gates, un effected by the mayhem the advanced world's weakest gun laws and enforcement relentlessly wreak on the masses.

[SnoopDog]

59. Well, first and foremost, our founders created our Constitution for its...

citizens.... Not corporations. Remember, our founders left England to get away from its tyrant rule. The Bill of Rights specifically sought to protect the rights of the Citizens. There are no 'Bill of Rights for Corporations".

It is just that, over the years, our home grown tyrants have destroyed our Constitution with the misinterpretation of the Constitution. Your direct example, our 5th Amendment, states distinctly, that private property cannot be taken, but if done, for PUBLIC use only and compensated.

It is our complacent citizenship who are letting our country be destroyed by our government. And this has been going on for over 60 years...

[billbuckhead]

67. 60 years huh?

Are you a "Consitution in exile" believer?

[sendero]

80. "Whatever we want it to mean"...

... is exactly why we have guns. Americans believe in gun rights. Americans know that if you have to make a last stand against a criminal, a foreign invader or our own government, guns are your only hope.

Get a gun Bill, if for no other reason than the facsists don't want you to have one.

[NightRainFalls]

68. which regime is that?

The regime that rounded up Japanese-American citizens in WWII and locked them in concentration camps, or the regime that supported the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, or the regime that signed the Sedition Act of 1918, or the regime that sent the Cherokee nation on the "Trail of Tears" despite court rulings that forbade it, or the many regimes that supported the importation and enslavement of an entire race, or the regime that was headed by a President who had paid trappers by the head for dead Seminole women and children, or the regime that started having US forces grab foreign nationals and export them to countries that allow torture in order to circumvent US anti-torture laws. Please enlighten me?

Dave

[1971commander]

26. So??????

Don't care what the courts say. I was born with this right and don't need a legal interpetation to justify my rights.

[MrSandman]

69. The US Senate disagrees...

SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSES.

(a) Findings- Congress finds the following:

(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

(2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms.


From S. 397 as passed.

[Loki Coyote]

70. .

As a matter of law, the meaning of the Second Amendment has been settled since the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). In that case, the Court ruled that the "obvious purpose" of the Second Amendment was to "assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the state militia.

You're only quoting part of the ruling. Here is the pertinent part of the ruling, which you can see here

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.

Notice here that there's no mention of "state militia". You also notice the following part of this ruling:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia

There's a reason why there was an absence of evidence. If Miller's lawyer was actually at the Supreme Court, he would have used the same successful argument that he had made in the lower court to overturn the National Firearms Act of 1934 , using evidence of soldiers using sawed-off shotguns during the Great War (Now called World War 1) as trench-guns against soldiers who were a part of the Central Powers.

There's just one problem: Miller's lawyer was not there, and Jack Miller was dead.

The reasons for the lawyer not being there is hazy. Supposedly Miller's lawyer didn't get the correct date in the paperwork he was sent by the Supreme Court clerk. As a result, Miller's lawyer didn't show up. However, the government's lawyers showed up, saying like they said in the lower court, that a shotgun was shorter than 18 inches wasn't related to the efficacy of a well regulated militia.

The court had no evidence presented to them from the Miller lawyer at all, so they ruled for the government, and reversed the lower court rulings.

This was all discovered by Roy Lucas, who did research on the Miller case extensively on the ins and outs.

Now before you accuse Roy Lucas of being a conservative hack, Roy Lucas was the man most responsible for Roe v. Wade, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School district, and other cases where freedom won.

http://keepandbeararms.com/Silveira/cert.pdf

Read for yourself. Roy Lucas co-wrote this petition with Gary Gorski.

In the early 1980s, the Supreme Court addressed the Second Amendment issue again, after the town of Morton Grove, Illinois, passed an ordinance banning handguns (making certain reasonable exceptions for law enforcement, the military, and collectors). After the town was sued on Second Amendment grounds, the Illinois Supreme Court and the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that not only was the ordinance valid, but there was no individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment (Quillici v. Morton Grove). In October 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of this ruling, allowing the lower court rulings to stand.

You certainly aren't suggesting that the Supreme Court "addressed" the issue by merely refusing to hear the case, are you? The only reason that the court didn't hear the Quilici case is because 6 judges didn't want to hear the case, and there could be many reasons for not hearing a case. To suggest otherwise would be fallacy.

Since the Miller decision, lower federal and state courts have addressed the meaning of the Second Amendment in more than thirty cases. In every case, up until March of 1999 (see below), the courts decided that the Second Amendment refers to the right to keep and bear arms only in connection with a state militia. Even more telling, in its legal challenges to federal firearms laws like the Brady Law and the assault weapons ban, the National Rifle Association makes no mention of the Second Amendment. Indeed, the National Rifle Association has not challenged a gun law on Second Amendment grounds in several years.

And thus the term "Miller Mutation".

http://keepandbeararms.com/Silveira/kopel.asp

Somehow, the statement of "Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense" somehow became "The Second Amendment affords no individual right to possess firearms, only to a state militia" in the lower courts, thus the term "Miller Mutation", and more recently when the lower courts keep getting confronted with the actual wording of the Miller case, they keep passing the buck up to the higher courts of appeal saying that they're "bound by that wording because that's what they said about it not being an individual right". Justice Burger can say it's a "fraud" all he wants, but it belies the point that he's obviously uneducated about the history of Miller and the second amendment.

Again, if Miller's lawyer had actually shown up, things would have been a LOT different. The National Firearms Act would have been struck down as unconstitutional, and eventually, when the Supreme Court started striking down black codes in the 1950's and 1960's, many of the more racist gun laws in the south would have been swept aside when the incorporation doctrine came home to roost on the southern states. Of course, that gets into a whole separate section on carrying of arms and the laws against them now, so I will leave that to another thread.

Another another thing to consider: When the 14th amendment was being debated, Congressional members did state that the 2nd amendment would apply to the states via the soon to be 14th amendment, and that persons would be able to keep and bear arms for their personal protection and common defense.

However, black codes came back in force thanks to the US Supreme Court in US v. Cruikshank in 1875 declaring the Enforcement Acts unconstitutional. Then the supreme court ruled in 1883 in Presser v. Illinois turned away a second amendment challenge to a state firearm control law. In both cases, they stated that the second amendment was an individual right against federal encroachment, but not state encroachment, thus the term "incorporation doctrine" came into being. The Supreme Court of that era, essentially wrote the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendment out of existence, only to be applied when the court felt like it. Cruikshank and Presser were to the right to keep and bear arms what the Plessy v. Ferguson case was to equal protection under the 5th amendment.

-Loki Coyote

[MrSandman]

71. One reason...

You certainly aren't suggesting that the Supreme Court "addressed" the issue by merely refusing to hear the case, are you? The only reason that the court didn't hear the Quilici case is because 6 judges didn't want to hear the case, and there could be many reasons for not hearing a case.

There are two outcomes I can see. Either the invalidation of the 2nd Amendment, or the invalidation of local gun control ordinances.

Not a great set of outcomes for a political animal like SCOTUS.

[iverglas]

72. just one little thing

... that people who actually know about things like law know.

Miller's lawyer was not there, and Jack Miller was dead. ... The court had no evidence presented to them from the Miller lawyer at all, so they ruled for the government, and reversed the lower court rulings.

Appellate courts, and especially the Supreme Court of the United States, do not hear evidence when they hear appeals from lower courts.

Oh well.


(Spelling typo fixed on edit)

[Billy Ruffian]

76. But the Supreme Court hears arguments

and in this case, there was no one to present Miller's arguments.

That's the important point. Not that 'evidence can't be presented'.

No one was there to argue Miller's case.

Oh well.

[iverglas]

77. yup

But appellate courts do not ignore the record before them.

Really, do you folks imagine that an appellate court would find for one party for no reason other than the fact that the other party has died??

Miller's case had been argued in more than one court below. The US Supreme Court was hardly unaware of those arguments, and of the manner in which they had been dealt with by the courts below. In order for it to dispose of the appeal, it had to consider the arguments made in the lower courts, and the law and the constitution. Appellate courts really do not just say "oh, okay, you're the only one who bothered to show up, so you win!"

[Billy Ruffian]

78. where did I say that?

Really, do you folks imagine that an appellate court would find for one party for no reason other than the fact that the other party has died??

That claim was not made.

However, if there is only one party present, that party only has to cope with questions from the bench, and not deal with the arguements made by the other party. That's the point.

[Silverhair]

9. True. That is called brandishing.

However, you can reach for it as soon as you reasonably feel that you are in grave danger. That can give the BG a couple of seconds to realize what is happening and run. Admitted, it is a fine line between between "brandishing" and "presenting in preparation to fire".

As always, Florida law not withstanding, the best option is to retreat/avoid if at all possible.

[Pert_UK]

18. What, you new or something?

:evilgrin:

I would say that the majority of people in the Gungeon are pro-gun, but there are a few people who like to come in here and make reasonable points in favour of gun control, like me.

For what it's worth, I'm very much in favour of strict gun control, but last weekend I went clay pigeon shooting (skeet?), so it's not like I'm a big girl's blouse or anything.....

Welcome aboard!

:hi:

P.

[Wickerman]

24. a big girl's blouse or anything..... ?

Ok, Pert, you're a little too English for me today. :D I don't know what the equivalent would be stateside, can ya help?

[Pert_UK]

27. Hmmm......maybe Nancy boy? Big Jessie? Mummy's boy? A wimp?

Not really too sure myself....

Basically, it's not supposed to be any kind of homosexual insult, although it may suggest a certain effeminacy in a man.

[TX-RAT]

29. Big girls blouse, Big Jessie?

That one even got the Queen Rat laughing. Thanks i needed that.

[Wickerman]

30. gotcha, pretty funny term

Big Jesse? Another cool one.

[Pert_UK]

33. FURTHER DEFINITION - "Big girl's blouse"....

"For those in other parts of the English-speaking world who have never heard of this astonishing idiom, let me explain that it is heard now quite widely in Britain (and elsewhere, too, it seems), though it originated in the North of England.

I’ve been vaguely dreading somebody asking this question, because it is one of a set of Northern idioms that are quite impenetrable in their origins. Others are the exclamation of surprise, “well, I’ll go to the foot of our stairs!”...

People do indeed use it to mean an ineffectual or effeminate male, a weakling, though it is often used in a bantering or teasing way rather than as an out-and-out insult (“You can’t drink Coke in a pub, you big girl’s blouse!”; “Blokes who don’t take on dares are big girl’s blouses”). The American milquetoast isn’t quite equivalent (since it has a greater emphasis on meekness rather than on an unmanly nature), but it’s close...

Coincidentally, Brian Edmondson e-mailed me to comment that his Liverpudlian father, who died in 1979, always said “he’s flapping like a big girl’s blouse”. This conjures up an image of ineffectualness that is plausible as a extended idea from which the current version could have derived."

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-big3.htm

[Billy Ruffian]

32. A small matter of opinion

having read many of your points in favor of strict gun control, I would disagree with the description 'reasonable'.

[Pert_UK]

37. You just had to add that, didn't you?

Regardless of whether you agree with my position, I'd hope that the vast majority of my points are at least "reasonable", in so much as they obey the rules of logic.

It is quite acceptable to say that somebody's position is "reasonable" (i.e. they can argue for it sensibly) but that you complete disagree with it.

That's what discussion is about...Two differing but "reasonable" opinions.

But anyway, it all depends on context.....care to share any of my "unreasonable" nuggets? I'm quite happy to admit when I'm wrong or unreasonable....Or do you just want to trade playground insults? I can do that too....

[Billy Ruffian]

45. Didn't see any insults in my post

so there's nothing to trade.

As far as unreasonable, you made a recent post to the effect that if a person 1) had firearms training 2) got permission from the police to make a firearms purchase 3) registered the purchased weapon with the police and 4) kept it locked up at all times, except when in use, you might let them have a firearm. You used the word 'might'.

I find those restrictions unreasonable. #4, that firearms be kept locked up, effectively means that they are unavailable for self defense.

I have no problem with a law that requires firearms owners from keeping children or unauthorized users from their firearms, but object to laws that codify the means I must use.

I consider firearms registration to be unreasonable. I do not see any benefit to the registration of firearms.

[iverglas]

46. no ... but you also didn't see anything in Pert_UK's posts ...

... that look like what you're representing him as having said.

What he did say:

make reasonable points in favour of gun control

(and then elaborate on in a subsequent post by explaining that by "reasonable" he meant logical, supported by fact and argument, however it went).

Now you come and say, twice:

I find those restrictions unreasonable.

Well bully for you, billy.

In point of fact, what you're citing that Pert-UK said are not points in favour of gun control. What you're citing is his personal opinion about something. I don't imagine that he offered that opinion as any kind of "point".

You don't like his personal opinion? Dandy. Perhaps you should have asked him for some points to support it. He generally has a few going spare, and generally only offers personal opinions when asked, as he was in that instance, as I recall.

I consider firearms registration to be unreasonable. I do not see any benefit to the registration of firearms.

And yada yada personal opinion yada. You got any points to make yourself?

[iverglas]

47. and oh, btw ... the point you actually did manage to make

... evidently despite yourself ... was pretty much the self-same point that Pert_UK was making in the first place ...

[Pert_UK]

51. I think you're interpreting me unfairly...

and in a way that suits you so that you can then attack the position you've set me up with:

"So.....to semi-answer your question, I just MIGHT consider allowing you a gun to defend yourself, if and only if you:

passed a training course
passed police checks
registered the weapon with police
stored the weapon in a gunsafe"

I don't know about you, but I store my car in a garage......that DOESN'T mean that I'm never able to drive it. It also doesn't mean that I don't sometimes leave it parked on the street outside my house, or even at work or in town.

Moreover, given that I've said "a gun to defend yourself", don't you think it's unlikely that I meant "a gun to defend yourself which is constantly unavailable for self defense purposes"?

"I have no problem with a law that requires firearms owners from keeping children or unauthorized users from their firearms, but object to laws that codify the means I must use."

Well you see, that's where we differ.....It seems to me that people can't necessarily be relied upon to decide the best way to do things. For example, many people think it's OK to drink-drive, or speed on the motorway.

My problem with this is that if you say to people, "Keep your guns safe" but don't give them any actual basic minimum standards, then the only way that you can determine whether it was stored safely is when something bad happens involving that gun.

Look at the news any day you like and you will find people being violent, robbing and killing themselves and others through their own stupidity and carelessness.....people don't, unfortunately, gravitate towards common-sense.

"I do not see any benefit to the registration of firearms."

How about being able to account for the weapons you've bought in your name? If I buy 10 identical guns this year but nobody knows it, I can lose or sell them all without anybody knowing anything about it.

[gaia_gardener]

10. My biggest problem is with women who carry

their guns in their purse.

Okay, so the mugger is going to wait while you reach into your purse and grab your gun? I don't think so. He's going to get that purse and then he'll end up with a gun.

I don't like guns, but if you are going to have one, get trained (and I'm not saying you aren't, I think we're in agreement here). Too many people are caught up on their "right to own a gun" to worry about their responsibility to be a good gun owner.

And until we can reach those people, I will continue to not like guns.

[Silverhair]

12. Purse is NO place for a gun.

My wife has a special fanny pack with a quick-release compartment. She can put her hand on the gun and still have it concealed, yet have it out and on target in less than a second.

NOTHING is kept in that fanny pack except defense related stuff. Flashlight, some extra ammo, a couple of military battle dressings, a very cheap digital camera ($19.95)and those are in a different compartment from the gun.

The compartment with the gun has ONLY the gun in it.

[Pert_UK]

19. Holy crap! Where do you live??? Fallujah???

Serious question - is the risk really so significant that you need to go out armed and with battle dressings? Does she wear that every time she leaves the house?

Incidentally, as a Englishman I find the term "fanny pack" hilarious, but don't let that worry you....

[Silverhair]

21. Not normally. It depends on where we may be going.

As long as we stay in my small town, we need nothing. But if we go into Dallas then it can be a different story. Sometimes we have to go into south Dallas and then we go ready.

The battle dressing is a collateral item. If you are going to carry a gun, and nothing else, then you are only doing things half-way. You are saying that you are prepared to shoot someone, but not prepared to deal with the aftermath. We use military battle dressing because they are designed for exactly that type of injury.

If, (And I hope we never have to) we ever have to defend ourselves with deadly force, then as soon as the action is over we have the moral obligation to attempt to give first aid to the assailant.

Also, after a shooting, there will be a court investigation - as there should be. If you can show that you rendered first aid on the assailant it looks much better.

Also, there is the possibility that you may take injury yourself, and may need it. If a mugger can get within striking range he will begin his assault suddenly and very violent, usually striking hard to the face.

Here in the states we have some good books on the subject. Masaad Ayoob is one of the most knowledgable writers.

[TX-RAT]

31. If going to Dallas makes you fear for your life.

Might i suggest you not go, there are other towns nearby. Ya know i've been in, around, and through Dallas more times than i can count. I have 2 relatives in Dallas and one in Fort worth, none seem to share the same fears as you.

[Silverhair]

35. Depends on the section of Dallas. NT

[TX-RAT]

36. Sounds more like your looking for a fight.

[Silverhair]

40. Is having smoke alarms and two fire extinguishers in the house...

looking for a fire? I also carry a fire extinguisher and first aid kit in each car. Am I hoping for a fire?

BTW - Twice I have come upon a fire in it's first stages and used them. Once was the start of a brush fire close to some home, back in 1987. I was able to put the fire out.

Then in 1994 the car in front of me sprouted flames. The car pulled over to the side. I hopped out and sprayed under the hood while the lady unbuckled her baby from the child seat. I didn't get the fire out, but I kept it small until after she had the baby out.

Was I looking for those fires - NO. But I was ready.

[TX-RAT]

42. I believe we're discussing concealed carry.

And your fear of Dallas, and what i feel is your fear of people in general.

[Silverhair]

49. You accused me of looking for a fight.

That is what I responded to. We definately do not desire a fight, but are prepared if on comes to us. There is a difference.

[AndyTiedye]

13. How Is This Supposed to Work?

If you have drawn a gun as a bluff, the criminals can often read it in your body language and know that you don't have the will to pull the trigger. Then you are in real trouble.

This would also seem to imply that one must be willing to kill
someone with it.

If a person is going to keep a gun for self-defense it is absolutely imperative that the person get the proper training.

Very good advice, often given, rarely followed.

Fortunately, it is easy to learn basic proficiency with a gun.

To actually be able to aim the thing accurately is another matter.

And the laws on the use of deadly force are pretty straight forward.

They generally say you can't use it against someone unless they threaten you or someone else with deadly force.
"Feeling threatened" is not enough.

If the BG already has his gun out - you are in a really bad situation.

In that case, he gets your gun and everything else you are carrying.

However, in most robberies of that type, they like to get close before they bring their gun out. So if you keep a proper alertness you have a reasonable chance of not letting a street hood get withing his preffered striking range.

How is that supposed to work? If you pull out your gun every time
someone gets within a couple of feet of you then either the cops will
haul you away as a gun-waving maniac, or somebody else who feels
threatened by you and your gun will take out his gun and shoot you.



I have no particular fondness for guns, but I don't want to take away yours.

[billbuckhead]

15. It's not supposed to work, it's NRA-gun lobby bullshit to sell guns.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

44. somebody needs to talk to a lawyer

He continues to approach, giving an excuse why he needs to come up to you. He is now about 15 feet away, you pull the gun and again say, "Stay away. I mean it!". You also start to walk backwards. (Getting back in the car is not an option. The door is locked and by the time you can get the keys out, the door opened, and get in, the guy will have been there long before.)

At this point, if you are that woman in that situation, you have good reason to be in fear of grave injury, and if the man continues to approach you may use deadly force to stop him.

I don't theeeenk so. Maybe in Florida, though ...

[Silverhair]

48. We have already consulted qualified legal advise.

To get a CCW (In Texas called a CHL)you have to take classes on when and how deadly force may be used.

In the situation just described, THE ENTIRE SITUATION, NOT JUST TO PART YOU HIGHLIGHTED, deadly force may be used.

I brought up exactly that scenario and it was discussed in class. Then, during a break I talked with a different one of the instructors. Both gave the same answers. The instructors were state certified to teach the class.

Perhaps you should learn our laws, and read the scenario more carefully.

[iverglas]

52. nah

I really have no desire to learn the laws of any jurisdiction that permits people to kill other people because they SUSPECT that said other people MIGHT be about to do SOMETHING to them.

Those jurisdictions will go the way of the dinosaur soon enough. Well, probably not soon enough, but you get my drift.

The instructors were state certified to teach the class.

Uh, yeah. And I trust they weren't the source of that "qualified" legal advice.

People who give legal advice without being called to the bar are generally called the lawyerly equivalent of "quack". You know ... if it walks like a quack ...

Your gun instructor acquaintances may well be qualified to offer information. They are not qualified, or permitted, to offer legal advice.

I like the way the common law had been for a very long time before throw-back back-waters like Texas got their hands on it.

"Deadly force" may only be used (where there is reasonable apprehension of serious injury or death and no alternative for avoiding it) where the force in question was the minimum necessary and where the intent is not to cause death, just f'r instance. Since the reasonably foreseeable consequence of shooting someone in that "central body mass" or whatever it was is that death will ensue, it looks like intent to me.

And it still looks like people killing other people because they SUSPECT that said other people MIGHT be about to do SOMETHING to them.

Well, actually, so far, just people fantasizing about killing other people because they SUSPECT that said other people MIGHT be about to do SOMETHING to them.

[Silverhair]

54. You don't fully understand violent encounters.

The legal definition is indeed correct, but you err in the logic of the application.

"Deadly force" may only be used (where there is reasonable apprehension of serious injury or death and no alternative for avoiding it) where the force in question was the minimum necessary and where the intent is not to cause death,

Totally correct.

Since the reasonably foreseeable consequence of shooting someone in that "central body mass" or whatever it was is that death will ensue, it looks like intent to me.

Totally wrong. To expand the definitions a bit. The ONLY reason for using deadly force on another human being is that they are doing something SO EVIL that they must be STOPPED immediately, even if a byproduct of stopping them is that the force used to stop them results in their death.

This gets us into the STOPPING POWER vs. KILLING POWER debate. Any bullet CAN kill. A hit with the lowly .22short can result in death, but the person hit will still likely be able to continue their attack long enough to kill their victim. A hit in the torso with a .45 will, 90% of the time, put the hittee out of action immediately. He may survive in the hospital.

In fact, in real gunfights, the person shot with the larger caliber is more likely to survive as they usually only get shot once, and they are stopped. A person who is being stopped by smaller calibers is often hit multiple times before the cumulative body trauma stops them. By that time the internal damage is so great the no doctor can save them.

So my objective is to STOP, not to kill.

Let's now look at point of aim.

Many people who don't understand the subject will think that you might try shooting to merely wound. Here is what is wrong with that:

1.) I am fighting for my life and a shot aimed to only wound may miss completely. By aiming for the center-of-mass I increase my chances of scoring a hit. Even experienced shooters, when under stress can miss. I know one officer who, when he got into a shoot out with an armed robber at about 10 feet distance, put his first three shots into the ceiling. Fortunately, the crook was just as stressed out and his shots went wild too. Then the officer got control of himself and his next shot was accurate.

A deliberate shot to only wound, under extreme stress, is just too damn hard to do.

2.) A deliberate shot to only wound is highly illegal. You can NOT fire until you are convinced that you are in the gravest extreme. That means you are out of time. You have to stop (render physically incapable of further aggression) your assailant - NOW!!!! Not a few seconds later - NOW!!! If you deliberately shoot someone with only a wounding shot (say in the leg)that means that you had the time to fire that shot and evaluate it's effect to see if another shot was needed. Therefore you were NOT in the gravest extreme. This has been used in court before.

Now if your point of aim was center mass and you stressed out and hit the arm, then that's just a miss. You have to insist in your statement that you were aiming center mass.

So any point of aim, other than center mass, is illegal.

BTW - The ONLY state authorized targets for the shooting proficiency test are set up so that hits outside the most vital areas count less. The state requires you to aim center of chest to pass the test. Not quite center of mass but close to it.

I reject your accusation that I am fantasizing and desiring such a fight.

[Silverhair]

55. Texas Legal Code:

The Code is too long to post it all. Here are the main parts. Link is to the whole Code.
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/pe.toc.htm

§ 9.02. JUSTIFICATION AS A DEFENSE. It is a defense to
prosecution that the conduct in question is justified under this
chapter.

§ 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of
force is justified when the use of force is justified by this
chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or
serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as
long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension
that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the
use of deadly force.

§ 9.22. NECESSITY. Conduct is justified if:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is
immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;
(2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm
clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of
reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law
proscribing the conduct; and
(3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification
claimed for the conduct does not otherwise plainly appear.

§ 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in
Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against
another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is
immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or
attempted use of unlawful force.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows
is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace
officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or
search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under
Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or
attempted by the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted
use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly
communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing
he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts
to use unlawful force against the actor; or
(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or
discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences
with the other person while the actor was:
(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section
46.02; or
(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in
violation of Section 46.05.
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is
justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the
peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts
to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search;
and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably
believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself
against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use
of greater force than necessary.

§ 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A
person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.31;
(2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation
would not have retreated; and
(3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect himself against the other's use or
attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not
apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time
of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the
habitation of the actor.


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


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

[iverglas]

56. sigh

Do you really imagine I haven't seen all that before?

I guess I'll just have to say to you what gets said to me so often: your law proves nothing. Nothing beyond the fact that it is your law. Your law is evidence of what the law is where you are.

That's it. Pretty circular.

If you like, I'll explain ... agaaaaaain ... why it is apparent that various bits of your law (not the ones we're on about here specifically) are plainly violations of the US constitution, but first I plan to have supper, watch Big Brother (I dunno, is it on tonight?) and get some needed sleep.

[Silverhair]

60. The post does prove that I know what our law is. NT

[Indy Lurker]

57. 20 ft rule

I have heard from a cop friend that he was taught that if someone has a weapon and ignoring the cops order to stop approaching him, they can shoot once they get within 20 ft if they feel they are in danger.

The thinking is that a criminal can close that distance in a very short period of time.

I don't know if the is settled law, just what he was taught.

[Silverhair]

61. That is what the CCW class taught us.

Easy to test. Take an average young man, put him 20 feet away, and time how fast he can get within touching range of you.

[iverglas]

62. funny thing is

if someone has a weapon and ignoring the cops order to stop approaching him, they can shoot once they get within 20 ft if they feel they are in danger.

... there was no mention of A WEAPON in your scenario:

... He continues to approach, giving an excuse why he needs to come up to you. He is now about 15 feet away, you pull the gun and again say, "Stay away. I mean it!". You also start to walk backwards. (Getting back in the car is not an option. The door is locked and by the time you can get the keys out, the door opened, and get in, the guy will have been there long before.)

So you may know your law (I make no comment -- being able to reproduce the law does NOT mean that your application of that law to a fact situation is correct). But you still haven't explained why, per you, the individual in your scenario would be entitled to shoot the other person dead.

I have heard from a cop friend that he was taught ...

And I'm sure you do know the difference between you (or the individual in your scenario) and a cop.

The cop is presumably engaged in an activity involving the protection of the public. The person threatening the cop is not threatening the cop as individual, s/he is threatening the cop as individual attempting to maintain or restore order, obviously including protecting other people.

The cop's actions cannot be characterized solely as "self-defence"; they are equally, if not more, actions to protect the public. The cop is threatened as a protector of the public, and in the course of performing his/her duty to protect the public must defend him/herself.

A cop is not required to consider alternatives to the use of force against someone threatening his/her life or limb -- such as walking away, or handing over his/her wallet without protest -- because such alternatives would make it impossible for the cop to carry out that duty.

Please tell me that you do see the distinctions.

[Silverhair]

63. You are leaving out the entire scenario.

You have selected part of it only, and are concentrating on that part.

Scenario: Broad daylight, downtown, crowded sidewalk, low crime area, approached by a smaller older person.

NO WAY DOES THIS JUSTIFY ANYTHING BUT COURTESY TO THE APPROACHING PERSON.

Contrast with:

Hours of darkness (6AM), EXTREMELY high crime area, deserted street, small older woman has just parked car and is stepping up to locked door, male steps out of shadows and begins to approach, he is told to STAY AWAY but continues to approach.

After display of the weapon he still tries to approach.

Why in hell is the guy trying to approach a scared woman who is holding a gun on him and telling him to stay away? They guy has been warned twice.

Big difference in the situation.

Perhaps you think that self defense requires the other to speak a threat and display a weapon. It doesn't. In THAT setting, by continuing to approach after being warned, he is making a threat.

[Romulus]

64. there's a VA court case on this

Even though the shooter was the initial agressor. I'll see if I can dig up a free copy of the opinion online.

Edited to add:

I dug it up Connell v. Commonwealth, 34 Va. App. 429, 542 S.E.2d 49 (2001), and the facts were different than I remembered:

Appellant's evidence established he provoked the violence in the hotel parking lot by following the victim, Krupnicka, and Wiesler to that location. He testified that he fired two warning shots over the victim's head when the victim began to advance toward him. He put the pistol on safety and tucked it into his pants. He also twice warned the victim to stay back. Then, he turned to run and ran into the front of his vehicle, which gave the victim the opportunity to catch him. This testimony established more than a mere scintilla of evidence that appellant retreated as far as possible before the victim apprehended him. At this point, appellant tossed his shotgun away. We believe this testimony established more than a mere scintilla of evidence that appellant abandoned the fight.

The victim was 6'1" tall and weighed over 200 pounds, while appellant is 5'6" tall and weighs 180 pounds. Appellant testified the victim hoisted him into the air and told him he was going to kill him. The victim headlocked appellant and dragged appellant. Appellant testified that the victim again told him he was going to kill him. Appellant said he did not have his weight under him and "was like a rag doll in hands." Appellant also testified he was fearful the victim would shoot him with the shotgun. At this point, appellant fired the fatal shot into the victim's side with the pistol. This evidence provided more than a scintilla of evidence that appellant killed the victim out of a reasonably apparent necessity to preserve his own life, and was sufficient to support an instruction on excusable homicide. Therefore, we find the trial judge erred in refusing to instruct the jury on excusable homicide. We reverse appellant's convictions and remand for a new trial if the Commonwealth be so advised.

Reversed and remanded.


So, there was an actual assault before he fired. Oh, well, I guess the memory ain't what it used to be . . . Oh, yeah, the guy was convicted after his second trial, even with the self-defense jury instruction. Back to the regularly scheduled Dungeon Flamefest . . .

[iverglas]

65. and what we're leaving out

(1) even though he started the fight, he tried to break it off and disengage,

(2) he "retreated" as far as he could (i.e., up against the car) before he used deadly force in "self-defense," and

(3) deadly force was reasonably warranted because the two guys kept approaching after being warned of the intent to resort to deadly force(!).

... is ground zero:

he had a reasonable apprehension that they were about to kill him or cause him serious bodily harm (and, in civilized societies, he had no reasonable alternative to the use of force).

Obviously, the court must have found that he did.

Because you just don't get in the "self-defence" door without that one (in a civilized society -- and at least some other excuse for using force, in less-civilized ones).

Your facts sound a lot like the facts in Kevin Alexander Connell.
http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opncavtx/1121022.txt
He had initially been convicted, the conviction was overturned because of the appellate court's disapproval of the judge's instructions to the jury, he was convicted again, and that conviction was upheld on appeal.

So I guess it can't be that case, but I'm not finding another similar case. Perhaps there was some subsequent decision in Connell that I'm not finding.

[iverglas]

66. ah, great minds

[Indy Lurker]

73. The only thing I was trying to add to the conversation...

was the 20 Ft distance. And that at distances closer than that it is considered "close enough for contact"

I have no ideal if this applies to civilians, or even all cops.

That's all I was saying.

[Silverhair]

74. Here is a good discussion of the 21 foot rule.

http://www.policeone.com/writers/columnists/ForceScience/articles/102828/

21 feet, 7 yards, is the distance that an average person can travel in two seconds. It is also the time that it takes an average officer to draw and fire two aimed rounds at a suspect. So if the suspect is showing a knife and charging the officer he needs to go for his gun no later than 21 feet and start shooting as soon as he is on target.

If the suspect is at 21 feet but is not moving toward the officer, the officer is justified in getting their gun out and pointing it at the suspect, but not is shooting - unless the suspect starts to move toward the officer.

For a civilian, it can be different. An officer is expected to be able to deal with a bare fists attack without the use of their gun. An civilian might not. Lots of other things enter into the equation for a civilian, some of them make it easier to shoot and some of them make it harder. That is why it is a good thing to take the state certified classes, as we have done.

[Silverhair]

75. More about the 21 foot thing.

This is from the anti-gun site, Violence Prevention Center. http://www.vpc.org/studies/uninthree.htm


"Disarmament Moves. Is the civilian gun owner prepared when the assailant attempts to disarm him, or simply shoots anyway? Is he aware that some criminals learn specific procedures to do just that? Probably not. But being suddenly disarmed or outgunned is a threat in the real world. "There are many instances where the suspect has drawn a weapon and killed an officer after the officer pointed his weapon and issued the proper challenge. The suspect just plain beat the officer....The Aryan Brotherhood prison gang, along with the Hell's Angels outlaw motorcycle gang, have developed a technique to disarm an officer from a distance of 21 feet. It works in conjunction with an officer's natural lag time."

That may work if the officers gun is holstered. If the gun is already out - it is suicide for the attacker.

[iverglas]

20. "This is the first of what I plan will be a series of myths about guns."

I can hardly wait.

I mean, given how this thread went, the next ones will obviously be stunners.

My only problem is ... I didn't see you saying anything, other than alleging that something is a myth and then going off on a variety of tangents.

If yer gonna call something a myth, doncha think you should then present some back-up for the allegation? You know ... facts ... argument ...

Oh, and then there's the little problem of whose myth it is. Can you refer us to somewhere hereabouts where it's been propagated?

As arguments for firearms control go, that one would be about 93rd on my own list.

There'd already be so many reasons why nobody should be in the position of having a firearm on his/her person, which reasons then justify a prohibition on anybody having a firearm on his/her person and thus significantly reduce the chances of the situation ever arising, that it just wouldn't be worth talking about.

But heck, sure. I'll add this one as a reason not to permit people to wander abroad with firearms on their persons ... given as how you haven't actually given me any reason not to. The risk of those firearms making their way into illegal circulation as a result of theft from the lawful owners wandering around with them is a pretty good reason not to let people wander around with them.

Basically, you haven't just given me no reason to reject it; you've given me a lot of reasons to include it. Like:

If a person is going to keep a gun for self-defense it is absolutely imperative that the person get the proper training.

-- but that's just your opinion, and not necessarily the opinion of the people with the guns.

At the very least, idiots wandering around with guns, by your own words, are at risk of having the guns taken from them by people who ought not to have them. Since there are a lot of idiots in the world, and idiocy can hardly be an operable bar to possessing firearms, I'll add this to the list.

[Silverhair]

22. NOT everyone should be allowed to have a gun.

In a future thread I will deal with what I believe should be the requirements of gun ownership, and how a proper licensing system should work. In that thread I will break ranks with many RKBAers, but at the same time will not come close to the restrictive system that you seem to want.

Indeed, there ARE many idiots that should not be allowed near any type of gun. I know some and shudder to think that that fool is armed. I think all of the other RKBAers can probably think of somebody they know that fits that description.

Now about the question of someone taking the gun away and using it on you. If that danger was so great, why do armies carry guns? Why do police? I recently read that even the famous unarmed British Bobbies are considering taking up arms.

[iverglas]

23. ah, yet another myth we can explode right away

I recently read that even the famous unarmed British Bobbies are considering taking up arms.

Where DO you people do your reading?

Do you never consider checking an AUTHORITATIVE source before tossing off "I recently read ..."??

An overview:
http://www.politics.co.uk/issues/police-arms-and-weaponry-$2120136.htm

The specifics:
http://www.polfed.org/we_stand_firearms.asp
That's the Police Federation of England and Wales.

In April 2003 the Police Federation of England and Wales conducted a survey asking officers for their views on firearms and policing.

The response rate was high and the message emphatic. An overwhelming majority of nearly 80 per cent stated that they did not wish to be routinely armed on duty. This is particularly significant given that there has been almost no change in police officers’ opinions since we conducted the last survey in 1995, and this despite the massive rise in gun related crime in the same time period.

However 80 per cent of respondents called for more police officers to be trained to use firearms, and said that firearms should be issued to trained officers as and when required. In the last 6 years, the police service has seen a 10 per cent drop in the number of Authorised Firearms Officers (AFOs). This trend is likely to continue until the problems surrounding incident investigations, coupled with the decrease in officer downtime, are remedied. Currently few officers perceive an AFO career to be an attractive option.

Indeed, there ARE many idiots that should not be allowed near any type of gun. I know some and shudder to think that that fool is armed.

Well, I look forward to an explanation of how -- if, say, they are able to pass a training course -- they could/would be precluded from toting guns around on their person in jurisdictions where such foolishness is permitted. Let alone from acquiring one for the bedroom.


I found this interesting and on point, as well:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/world/ukcor2.htm

My job is an interesting one. The Research Centre I work for has close links with many UK law enforcement agencies; last week I spent a few days with one. Part of my time there was spent with its firearms division. In the UK not all law enforcement agents are armed; indeed, it is the exception for an officer to be armed, rather than vice-versa. Those who wish to carry a weapon are highly trained, and I visited one centre to see how this training took place.

... read on.

[Wickerman]

25. Indeed, there ARE many idiots that should not be allowed near any type of

gun.

I concur, and my largest complaint about easing of carry rules. Because, of course, you and I are not the arbitrators of the decision of whether such permit is issued. Currently, most states only have provisions of mental illness (near impossible to determine in most applicants and a felonious criminal record). So, unless you have gotten in some serious, simply being an idiot doesn't cover it.

One thing I find horribly alarming is the number of pro-RKBAers who have frequented the Gungeon over the years I have been here who simply choose to disregard our forum rules. The lashing out and the anger displayed brings to mind

I know some and shudder to think that that fool is armed.

Currently, we have some really impressive posters. Very few removals, knowledgable, good debating skills, etc. But, very often, we get RWers who come on here for a fight and name calling, many who have been banned over and over. When those folk can't follow simple rules of a forum, thinking their cause is more important than the rues, I shudder, indeed.

[Pert_UK]

28. Strong words, softly spoken......

All too true mate....

I genuinely welcome the opportunity to debate facts/evidence and opinion with polite, informed people who abide by the rules of logic (and this forum).

My problem (one of my many problems, actually) is people who come in here for a blazing row rather than a discussion.

"I refuse to obey the rules of this forum or of polite debate, but I'm right. In fact, I'm so right that I would refuse to obey any law that I didn't agree with in this respect and I will ignore and insult anyone who doesn't agree with me."

I sometimes wonder if they go home to an empty appartment (OK, empty of real people, full of guns, appartment) and spend the evening shouting out "2nd amendment!" to themselves....they might as well.

I mean, why would you spend the time to log onto a DISCUSSION forum just to repeatedly say the same thing, regardless of the contrary viewpoints and evidence?

Some of these people are indeed the best reason for refusing widespread unregulated gun ownership - if you can't even be civil during a discussion, why on earth should you be allowed a gun?

[Silverhair]

34. Pert, if you please.

You do abide by the courtesies of a proper discussion very well. If you have the time, I would very much like your thoughts on my response post #46 "Where does the balance lie?", in my thread ,"Self defense if the FIRST civil right."

If you would be so kind please.

[Pert_UK]

38. Thank you very kindly, sir...

needless to say, I was including you amongst the intelligent/polite posters in here.

I'll try to digest and post a response.....I'm at work at the moment and don't really have the time to give it the thought it deserves, and I'd hate to write in haste and end up doing either your POV or my own a disservice...I wouldn't want to be accused of being unreasonable!

:-)

Thanks for the kind words, I'll do my best to come back to you.

[Silverhair]

39. Thank you most kindly. Until then. NT

[Pert_UK]

41. For what it's worth...

I've already covered the Tony Martin comment, as I had prepared stock answers......So I've pasted those in. More comments later if I get time.

[mosin]

53. Funny image

I sometimes wonder if they go home to an empty appartment (OK, empty of real people, full of guns, appartment) and spend the evening shouting out "2nd amendment!" to themselves....they might as well.

:spray:

Don't be silly. No one would spend an evening alone shouting out "2nd amendment!" It's either "Molon Labe" or "From my cold, dead hands!"

[TX-RAT]

43. Why do police?

Many Peace Officers have been killed or injured by someone grabbing their weapon.


Would you require Psychological evaluations for those applying for concealed carry permits.

[Silverhair]

50. About officers weapons.

It happens only a few times a year. Billbuckhead, who posts I usually ignore, has given the number for some particular year as being 12. If you compare that to the number of violent incidents that police are engaged in in any year, it is a very tiny number by comparison.

Further, cops have to get close as part of their job, to subdue, handcuff, search, etc. and their gun is in plain sight in a holster where it is easier to grab. In those cases where the cops gun is taken, it almost always begins with the perp grabbing for a holstered gun.

Once a gun is out and in hand, it is only in the movies that it can be taken away. Unless you are not ready to use it, in which case you never should have grabbed it.

Psychological evaluations. That is a topic that I would like to reserve for a different thread.

[Endangered Specie]

79. I would like to see some statistcs on the number of gun deaths due to this

Im sure someone can pull it up, let the numbers do the talking on this one.