|
|
|
|
|
NERO1
|
Joined: 3/8/2008
Msg: 1 | |
| Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/14/2008 7:28:02 AM | I maintain that if these people did not have the ability to (legally) have this kind of weapon on their person or in their car with them, these crimes (and I'm sure many similar ones as well -- these are merely two examples) never would have happened. Anger and rage are hugely powerful forces in people, and given the fact that it can be quite rough going for people here, in their daily lives, with the sour economy , job losses, home losses, high fuel & medical prices, etc, anger and rage are not forces which should be taken lightly. And should certainly not be allowed to , again I stress *legally* (because the citizens involved were apparently otherwise law-abiding) , be enhanced by the presence of a pistol on or near one's person. The only people who "need" to carry these things, IMO, are cops (on duty) and crooks.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/blog/2008/08/13/
another-concealed-carry-permit-holder-another-
road-rage-incident-ending-in-multiple-criminal-charges/
This time the incident took place in Indiana.
From WISH CBS-8 (Indianapolis):
An Indianapolis man is in trouble with the law following a serious road rage incident on State Road 37 in Fishers.
Fifty-five-year-old Gregory M. Shmoll is facing several charges including pointing a firearm and intimidation.
Police said he took out a .357 magnum and opened fire on the Hummer of a woman driving along side him on I-69 Northbound.
Police said he was upset that he was being crowded by the woman driving the Hummer while trying to merge into his lane. Her left lane just north of I-465 was ending, and she told police she was trying to get over. That's when she said he shot at her and hit her right front fender.
The two kept driving and both got off onto State Road 37. It ended at 126th Street and Reynolds Drive where she told police he pointed the gun at her again and threatened her.
Moments later, he called 911 and reported himself.
...
The woman is said to be doing fine, just a bit shaken up. Shmoll has bonded out of the Hamilton County Jail. He did have a gun permit. However, we understand that state police are reviewing the case to see if he will face more charges in Marion County.
[more]
Say it isn't so. Mr. Schmoll simply couldn't have pointed his .357 at woman - twice - in a road rage incident.
After all, he's a "law-abiding gun owner" with a concealed carry permit.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.bradycampaign.org/blog/?s=Pettit
According to at least two reports.
The first in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel:
... Authorities have charged [James Patrick] Wonder with first degree murder.
Segarra said Wonder was a patient at the dialysis center.
The arrest ends a hunt that included more than 500 police officers from local, state and federal agencies, traffic roadblocks and the use of military Blackhawk helicopters.
Pettit was shot and killed Tuesday morning in the parking lot of the post office.
Police said Pettit was with his daughter when he got into an argument with another driver.
Police on Wednesday said Pettit, an internal affairs agent with U.S. Customs and Border Protection, was on-duty at the time and had his gun in his car.
The shooting left Pettit's family reeling and begging for justice.
"This man has destroyed my family and taken the love of my life," said his wife, Ileana Pettit, at a news conference before the arrest.
Wonder has a concealed weapons permit, according to state records.
[more]
The second in the Miami Herald:
The man who police suspect killed a federal customs agent during a bizarre traffic dispute Tuesday was apprehended a day later in a Davie dialysis center after a massive manhunt, authorities said.
Police arrested James Wonder, 65, of Miramar, and charged him in connection with the shooting death of Donald J. Pettit, 52, of Pembroke Pines.
Pettit was gunned down -- shot once in the head -- in the parking lot of a post office at Pines Boulevard and Dykes Road as his 12-year-old daughter watched.
...
Wonder lives in Miramar with his wife of 30 years, Aurora.
Late Wednesday, she declined to speak with a reporter when reached by phone.
Her husband, who carries a concealed weapons permit, has no prior criminal history, according to public records.
[more]
Is this the kind of person the NRA's Marion Hammer wants to take their guns to work in Florida, say, to Walt Disney World?
James Patrick Wonder, concealed carry permit-holder and "law-abiding gun owner" - right up to the point he was charged with murdering a Federal Customs officer in front of his 12-year-old daughter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
These crimes (and again these are only two very recent examples) simply could not have occurred without "concealed carry" permits being available. Because, for example, a 65-yr old dialysis patient, and otherwise law-abiding citizen (it's not as though he were a career criminal or gangster) would not have kept a gun on his person or evidently within reach in his car had he not been allowed to do so legally. He would not have wanted to risk becoming a felon during any routine speeding stop (as he would be risking here in Chicago for example if he had that on him or near him in the car).
Granted, they were out of control (probably both of them) and they should definitely not have pulled over to continue the dispute, but the worst it could have come to otherwise would have been fists, not a bullet in the head for a husband and father who perhaps lost his temper on the road with another driver.
| |
|
dmotz
|
Joined: 7/25/2006
Msg: 2 | |
| Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/14/2008 7:35:06 AM | Yea....
Just because your against guns does not mean that I have to give mine up. The SECOND amendment says I can have the damn thing. I also have a concealed carry permit and take my weapon with me on long road trips for protection against the idiots of the world.
I would sure hate to be out on the road and have someone try to harm me or my family and not have any means of protection. I guess if all the liberals in the world had their way only outlaws would have guns. This does nothing but make good honest people targets for them.
What am I suppose to do? Beg a guy pointing a gun at me to stop? Tell him I am going to call the cops?
I really have no major issues with gun control...My aim is pretty damn good. | |
|
| Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/14/2008 7:49:37 AM | I think it's a very GOOD thing to have ARMED citizens who have shown their ability to carry a weapon responsibly to be able to have said weapons in public.
This very act gives me a better sense of security as I know the cops cannot be everywhere to protect fellow citizens when the protection is needed.
These law abiding citizens will be able to help others in a time of need.
I hate the government and think they are crooks but I love This land of my fore fathers and wish only the best for ALL of us.
GOD Bless the USA.!!! | |
|
| Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/14/2008 8:05:34 AM | I am in processes of going for my concealed weapon license. I have a crazy neighbor who I have been warned by the cops.....it will only be a matter of time before he comes through the front door at me. I have done every thing legal and it is over a year since the first criminal tresspass and we still have not made it to court. I ride a motorcycle most of the time and ride and live alone.....how vulnerable does that make me?
I am legally within my rights to protect myself from this idiot. I have legally purchased a Tauras light weight hamerless 38. I fully intend to carry it and protect myself.
Saying concealed weapon laws should be changed because of the few bad apples is like saying they should quit selling drills....because some low life might use it to rob a vault.....STUPIDITY!!!! | |
|
| Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/14/2008 8:18:24 AM | It's just something that cannot compete against that "gun myth" I've spoken about in the other threads. It's so deep in the American DNA, that one has to realize that it's one of those given cultural filters I so often refer to.
That's something that's a valid point to consider, whenever one discusses gun laws in the USA.
I don't think that ever will change, quite frankly, and one simply has to accept it as it is. | |
|
NERO1
|
Joined: 3/8/2008
Msg: 6 | |
| Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/14/2008 8:29:28 AM | ^^ True. Still though we anti's are, I feel, well within our rights as well to go on fighting against things such as this. After all, we don't all share the same "American DNA" just by virtue of having been born (something beyond our control, really) within the national boundaries of this one giant country. There are many many Americans who are only "my fellow countrymen" (and vice-versa is the sentiment as well I'm sure) by technicality. Beyond having both been born here we likely share little to nothing in common in many cases, and very very little sense of fellow countryman brotherhood or ... what-have-you.
Granted, that's probably the case nearly everywhere nowadays, to a degree, but I think it's a bit more evident in countries like this where there's such a huge amount of people who are all from such different ethnic & cultural backgrounds, etc, and all of whose families have been here for different amounts of time, etc etc.
I understand what you're saying, definitely, but , as long as I live here I'll not cease being an activist against guns in general but particularly against such craziness as these "concealed carry" laws in or around major cities, suburbs, etc -- as is the case in Florida. | |
|
| Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/14/2008 8:37:14 AM |
Saying concealed weapon laws should be changed because of the few bad apples is like saying they should quit selling drills....because some low life might use it to rob a vault.....STUPIDITY!!!!
A drill is not a gun. There's no reason not to adjust the laws to be more practical or safer for the public at large. If regular people solving their problems through shooting other people in the head becomes a normal occurrence then something needs to be changed.
I honestly don't care if you carry a concealed weapon. Just don't threaten me with it. | |
|
| Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/14/2008 10:42:12 AM | I personally despise guns, particularily combat weapons like handguns and semi autos
long arms.I also think anyone out of their teens who is still playing with guns is an idiot.
And this is from an ex-soldier. Combat weapons have no place in a civilized society.
But given all that I have seen of human nature, I think it has to be all or nothing. Either you have a society where all firearms are banned and removed ( the ideal situtaion) or
one in which everyone of legal age can carry them. You cant argue that horrifying
mass murders like the Virginia Tech shooting wouldnt occur. By the time he had gotten to the second or third victim, someone would have pulled a weapon and
blow his head off. | |
|
| Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/14/2008 11:26:22 AM | My point was that anything in the wrong hands can be used to commit a crime........I think responsibility goes back to #1 raising your children right, #2 the courts punishing the villains, not the victims
Use a gun or don't....some people don't belong behind the wheel of a car either but it is their legal right to do so.....until they prove different. Why? Same thing isn't it? | |
|
| Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/14/2008 11:39:34 AM | Actually that recent police shooting of a Latino teenager once again revealed that there is a deep cultural filter working behind the scenes here in Canada that kind of proves how different those filters can be.
After that shooting, which (at first glance, and before the investigation is completed) was seen as the shooting of an unarmed man who was placing the officers involved in no physical danger - a wave of concern was felt and expressed here by many (including at least one ex police officer).
Police officers here are expected to use a firearm in essentially the exact same way any citizen here is - only as a last resort, against a very real threat to their lives, or other citizens.
In relation to the topic at hand, it serves up perhaps the more important side of the discussion, and the more valuable one to it's central concern.
Why does one feel the need to pull a firearm on anyone, unless they are posing a serious threat to one's life ?
Why is violence so often seen as a solution, before all other options are tried ?
Unlike the firearm debate, with it's cultural limitations, this one is a neutral one. It works just as well with a knife, as it does with a firearm. | |
|
| Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/14/2008 12:20:16 PM | I maintain that none of the below listed atrocities would have occurred were baseball bats not so readily available!
http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&=&q=beaten+to+death+with+baseball+bat&btnG=Google+Search | |
|
| Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/14/2008 12:56:38 PM | MG ~ we are usually on the same page, politically....but I'm going to disagree on this one &side w/ Mr. Th. Jefferson.
"No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
All the rest is of secondary import....as heinous as it may be. | |
|
| Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/14/2008 1:07:55 PM |
MG ~ we are usually on the same page, politically....but I'm going to disagree on this one &side w/ Mr. Th. Jefferson.
Don't misread what I'm trying to say here. Had we been switched at birth, the overwhelming odds would suggest we'd also switch our opinions on the subject - due to those cultural filters.
What works here only does so because we see firearms differently in a cultural sense, and dramatically and distinctly so. The same path won't work for you, for those very reasons I've stated in all those firearms threads I've posted in.
"No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
As I alluded to in my previous post, perhaps the discussion as to what " as a last resort" is more suited to the discussion - in all situations.
Why is pulling a weapon and using it so easily done, and seen as a positive all too often ? Why are some people here (as evidenced in many posts) so willing to pull a weapon (any one) on a fellow human being before exploring all other possibilities ?
I think that's the central question, and it's a good one.
I think even a die hard gun lobbyist would agree (at least I hope they would) that one should only point a weapon at another person under some very stringent limitations, meaning the great possibility that innocent life will be lost.
I think that decision to draw and point a weapon at someone should only be made if there is no other solution - and life is at risk, to a high probability.
That's the only reason I'd ever draw a weapon, any weapon, if I had to. | |
|
| Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/14/2008 1:09:35 PM | By your goofy logic, if there are drunk drivers who mow down pedistrians or kill someone crashing their cars; therefore all our cars have to be taken away because some fool ran amuck with a car.
No. But you make sure people understand that they should not drink and drive and you arrest and prosecute the people at do.
You are an idiot. The bradycampaign is moronic, and as brain dead as the clown it was named after.
James Brady was Assistant to the President and White House Press Secretary why would you call him a clown? The bill he helped get signed into law is there to protect people. That is hardly moronic. | |
|
| Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/14/2008 1:53:17 PM | tealfishie:
>>>>By your goofy logic, if there are drunk drivers who mow down pedistrians or kill someone crashing their cars; therefore all our cars have to be taken away because some fool ran amuck with a car. That type of reasoning is perposterous and offensive to adults. You pull this kinda crap on children only!!
If someone uses a steak knife and fork to stab a neighbor, I got to eat with my fingers? <<<<
Cars are not weapons. They are used for transportation. If some fool ran amok with his car and hurt someone I would not advocate taking cars away from the rest of the population who are using their car for its intended purpose, which is for transportation and not to kill people. (Having said that, I would take cars away from all drunk drivers.)
Same with the steak knife and fork analogy. Again, they are utensils and not weapons. Using it as a weapon is possible but its not the purpose of manufacturing and using a knife and fork. I see no reason in punishing the vast majority of the population who are responsible enough to use these utensils for their intended purposes for the actions of a few who use them as weapons.
Guns, however, are weapons. There are no other uses for a gun except to hurt and kill something or someone. Handguns are manufactured and sold to hurt and kill people. So if guns are being used irresponsibly (and we all know they are) then I do agree they need to be taken away from the population or re-evaluate their accessibility.
I agree that the Concealed Carry Law should only apply to those in some kind of security and law enforcement. | |
|
NERO1
|
Joined: 3/8/2008
Msg: 16 | |
| Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/14/2008 2:31:20 PM | QUOTE: Same with the steak knife and fork analogy. Again, they are utensils and not weapons. Using it as a weapon is possible but its not the purpose of manufacturing and using a knife and fork. I see no reason in punishing the vast majority of the population who are responsible enough to use these utensils for their intended purposes for the actions of a few who use them as weapons.
Guns, however, are weapons. There are no other uses for a gun except to hurt and kill something or someone. Handguns are manufactured and sold to hurt and kill people. So if guns are being used irresponsibly (and we all know they are) then I do agree they need to be taken away from the population or re-evaluate their accessibility.
I agree that the Concealed Carry Law should only apply to those in some kind of security and law enforcement.
^^ I agree. Guns are designed to assault, maim , and kill. Period. Carrying a loaded one on your person, in a crowded city or suburban area, when the state and the country you live in is not at war against armed invaders, and you yourself are not in the business of protecting others' lives (ie, police officer for example), indicates to me nothing but a paranoia and a willingness to resort to lethal violence over possibly any provocation or perceived trespass. It is a potential threat to any of us. It makes it that much easier for the carrier to become lethal in the heat of the moment, over something laughably stupid like a finger-flipping traffic altercation.
The federal agent who was killed, in the above example, would almost certainly not have been shot in the head by a hot-headed 65-yr old dialysis patient, for example, if the latter had not been legally allowed to have that pistol on him in the car on the way to his treatment.
Why, in the name of god, does one need to carry a lethal loaded weapon (reports say he merely drew it from his belt and removed the safety, NOT pulled it out and loaded it first) on one's way to dialysis treatment ?? Is that legally necessary or necessary for this man's safety in this day and age in a modern city in a first-world nation?? He wasn't trying to traverse Baghdad for his dialysis.
There are police on duty, patrolling the streets. What, realistically, could have been this man's likelihood of being carjacked, for example, on the way to his treatment?? And even if he had been (that one in a billion chance we all face), would he really have had the time to draw his weapon when the carjacker was already in the window with HIS gun in the man's face??
And steak knives , by contrast to guns, are designed for cutting meat at the table and are generally not carried on one's person in any case. Cars are designed as a mode of transportation. Neither's value or utility is measured for instance by the question of its "stopping power" when used against another person.
You don't buy a car after considering its man-stopping power versus its competition's. Who goes out and buys a set of cutlery, questioning the seller as to the likelihood of the knives being able to effectively stop , maim, or kill any hypothetical home invader?? It's just simply not their purpose. Whereas it clearly IS the purpose of the gun. The aim of the gun's designer is to make an easily handled and lethally powerful "man-stopper" --- definitely not the case with steak knives , baseball bats, or cars. Sad that we have to re-explain basic childish differences like that to adults. | |
|
| Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/14/2008 2:47:06 PM |
Don't misread what I'm trying to say here. Had we been switched at birth, the overwhelming odds would suggest we'd also switch our opinions on the subject - due to those cultural filters.
What works here only does so because we see firearms differently in a cultural sense, and dramatically and distinctly so. The same path won't work for you, for those very reasons I've stated in all those firearms threads I've posted in.
Canadian criminals[in theory should] share this same cultural thinking.They don't use weapons in an illegal fashion because of cultural background??
If not using weapons......do Canadian people fight back and not allow the scene to go awry in some magical fashion you are not sharing with the world?
I agree that the Concealed Carry Law should only apply to those in some kind of security and law enforcement.
And there are no cops and security personel that may be pushed to some limit of stress that they may illegally use their weapons??None have ever gone thru divorce,child custody,21 items in the 20 lane??
A bad apple is just that....existing laws are there to sift out the bad from the good and overwhelmingly work in the proper application.Bad people will always find a way to a small arm or long gun if they want to.
Lot's of us are very capable of maintaining our composure and assessing the situation at hand.People will always be killed by knives,bats,forks,guns,lampcords.....the list is as long as the variety of choices.Bad people kill people.Good people save people...just depends on the individual.
I own,I carry,I shoot rather well.And I did it the legal way. | |
|
| |
| Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/14/2008 3:09:53 PM |
Canadian criminals[in theory should] share this same cultural thinking.They don't use weapons in an illegal fashion because of cultural background??
If not using weapons......do Canadian people fight back and not allow the scene to go awry in some magical fashion you are not sharing with the world?
You are totally missing the point.
Canadians, generally simply do not feel the same NEED to have a gun for protection and are far less likely to see violence as a solution for any situation that isn't certain to cause death or serious injury. You would be hard pressed to find a significant number of Canadians who feel it is acceptable to kill someone for stealing their tv set (this is where that difference in 'culture' as it relates to guns is highlighted most clearly, in the use of lethal force to protect property).
They don't feel the same NEED to have a gun at their bedside "just in case" or to have a gun tucked away on their person "just in case". Canadians simply don't see the world and others as being the threat to their persons that Americans often do, don't have the same "just in case" mentality and therefore don't see firearms as being an absolute necessity. | |
|
| Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/14/2008 3:19:31 PM |
Cars are not weapons. They are used for transportation.
Guns, however, are weapons. There are no other uses for a gun except to hurt and kill something or someone Guns don't kill as well as cars. People do. They drink&drive, or use firearm irresponsibly.
If I have a gun to protect myself, mostlikely I'll never use it unless my life or my family is in danger.
Before people get the license to carry the gun (BTW you can keep it at home w/o license and still might kill someone who is trying to break into your house) they take the course, which not only teach them how to handle the gun, but also clarify the situations when and how it can be used.
I can tell - there is not too many opportunities to use it. Basicly, you just keep it in your car. You can't take it to most public places, not to any place serving drinks...and BTW you can't drink even legally permitted norm if you have the gun in your car.
You know, the law is already too strict and people generally don't cross it. I bet, someone who bought a gun to kill because he got upset, wouldn't get the license. It's too much hassle plus you know all the consequences of that.
I think if it were more licensed people having weapon, it would be much safer. Most people don't even bother with the license because you don't need it to buy a gun. | |
|
| Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/14/2008 3:19:35 PM | There are no other uses for a gun except to hurt and kill something or someone. Handguns are manufactured and sold to hurt and kill people.
Really? That's funny, I have a whole safe-full that have been used for nothing but punching holes in paper, breaking clay birds and killing EVIL aluminum cans. I guess I bought them for the wrong reasons.
RE: Concealed Carry. Statistics show that CCW holders are much more unlikely to commit a crime than non-holders. Stats also show that in EVERY state that has changed their laws to Shall Issue, violent crime rates have either remained the same or gone DOWN. Of course the gun-grabbing Bradys don't want anyone to know those facts.
Link to multiple articles that uphold my statements above: http://johnrlott.tripod.com/postsbyday/RTCResearch.html
If you want to abdicate your responsibility of self-defense to the police, that's fine. I'd much rather rely on myself. Besides, I am a much better shot than most of the cops I know. | |
|
| Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/14/2008 3:26:14 PM |
You are totally missing the point.
Canadians, generally simply do not feel the same NEED to have a gun for protection and are far less likely to see violence as a solution for any situation that isn't certain to cause death or serious injury. You would be hard pressed to find a significant number of Canadians who feel it is acceptable to kill someone for stealing their tv set (this is where that difference in 'culture' as it relates to guns is highlighted most clearly, in the use of lethal force to protect property).
The point was in regards to Canadian criminals.......not your everyday run of the mill Northern Neighbor.What happens when you get confronted by a bad Canadian?? | |
|
| Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/14/2008 3:37:46 PM | Yes it’s true. We need to keep the guns away from every law abiding citizen by force of legal action. These horrible people who get fingerprinted, background checked, and overall are “good” citizens should NOT be trusted with such a lethal weapon. The criminals on the other hand that want to rob, rape, and kill will surely abide by these laws and by there very nature as criminals would be obliged to follow this law for sure. NO way only the criminals would have these weapons right?? I feel much safer now that there is a LAW to keep the guns out of their hands…..whoo.. Wait.. just how long was murder, rape, and robbery a crime….darn they must have missed those, oh well they’ll be sure to follow the gun law..
As far as that manic that murders..(wait that word again….he must have forgot that one again) would have had no other recourse but to use his 2 tons of steel (car) to kill that person, or nahh.. his fists… well no .. people have never been beat to death by baseball bats or anything of the sort. So yeah, that would have surely prevented the incident.
But if there is no other reason for a gun then to shoot people and kill, and this equipment has NO other purpose, then it stands to reason that every women with her “equipment” has no choice but to be a prostitute. There is NO other reason for that “equipment” either. Same with men…we must be sure to spread our seed everywhere and anywhere. There is nothing we can do about it. We are not responsible for the “equipment” we’re born with. Well unless we had a brain or something. | |
|
| Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/14/2008 3:41:21 PM | Canadian criminals[in theory should] share this same cultural thinking.They don't use weapons in an illegal fashion because of cultural background??
If not using weapons......do Canadian people fight back and not allow the scene to go awry in some magical fashion you are not sharing with the world?
Actually, I can give you some evidence across the board that the cultural basis of using firearms is indeed different.
Montreal's police officers, roughly something like 7,000 men and women, fired their weapons (for ALL reasons, including accidental discharges) only 100 times over the course of five years - including the year of the Dawson College shooting spree.
Each time a weapon is fired, on duty, it's recorded. Those stats were published in the Montreal Gazette.
While the robbery rate dipped only slightly in the decade between 1992 and 2002, the number of robberies involving guns per 100,000 people declined by 62 per cent, according to Statistics Canada data released yesterday.
In 1992, 8,736 robberies were committed across Canada with firearms. By 2002, while the population of the country had grown, the number of robberies with firearms had dropped to 3,472."
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory...
That's 3,472 firearm robberies, in a country that has 33 million people (roughly) - and about 50 or so citizens that can legally carry a concealed handgun for their own protection.
I work occasionally on dispatching hold up alarms here, and in the twelve years I've done that the number of times an actual handgun was used I could count on the fingers of one hand - and I've handle hundreds of such alarms each and every year.
Canadians have free access to baseball bats, knives, and a whole host of other potential weapons - legally.
Our homicide rate is still much lower than yours.
How does this relate to the thread topic ?
It's rather simple, actually.
My contention is that my society, even down to the criminal element, sees using a weapon as being something that's not easily done - except perhaps upon one another. It's quite rare here, across Canada, for a regular citizen to be threatened with a gun by a criminal - or to be shot by one. When it happens, it's generally headline type material.
It's even rarer for a criminal, facing a peace officer , to be shot ....or for a police officer to be shot by a criminal.
That tells me it's simply some cultural filter that's at work, since we do have criminals, gangs, and legal/illegal firearms here. That changes little in the sense of our homicide and robbery rates, in terms of firearm use.
In a sense, to paraphrase an oft used phrase " Guns don't kill people, people who live in societies where gun use is seen as a positive kill people. " 
In the OP's post, there was no reason for a gun to be pulled in the first place as quickly as it was.
If I was living there, and carrying a concealed weapon, no one would ever know I had it except my family members . It would never ever be drawn unless I was in imminent danger of serious harm or death, or some other innocent person was.
If someone was trying to steal my car, or run from my house with my TV - it would not be drawn.
I would practice using it weekly, on static and moving targets, and know my legal rights to use it to a T.
Should that nightmare scenario arrive, and my life (or someone else's ) be in imminent danger from an armed individual , then (and only then) would I reach for it, release the safety, and aim at my attacker. I'd also make sure I understood what was happening as much as possible, and was as close as possible to avoid missing my target.
In this case distance is important, against someone who isn't carrying another firearm. Twenty feet away from me, he poses almost no threat, if carrying only a knife.
Depending on the situation, a quick warning would follow to stop where he was.
Then, and only then, would my finger curl around the trigger, and I'd fire three rounds into his center body mass if he continued in my direction . Should that not stop the attack, more would follow.
At that point my only motive is to stop the attack from occurring, and stop the danger to life involved. My only intent would be to stop the attack, and not kill the attacker.
As long as I had correctly done everything, I would feel little remorse over it, except in the general sense of having taken (potentially) a human life when it could have been avoided had things been different. | |
|
| Concealed Carry Laws in Cities / Suburbs = Terrible Idea
Posted: 8/14/2008 3:42:48 PM | .... And we should take away all American's rights to drive cars since people also use vehicles as weapons to run over people...
I love these arguements.
I'm a concealed carry permit holder. I'm a former Military Officer. In my business, I sometimes carry large amounts of cash. I often drive through areas known for violent activities, and there have been 2 violent home invasions in "safe" neighborhoods in Orlando in the past week.
There are MANY very good reasons for the second amendment. I went through an exhaustive criminal background investigation to get my permit. I regularly (weekly) train with my weapons, and would NEVER consider pulling my weapon unless myself or a loved one was threatened with bodily harm or deadly force.
Our society does not punish the many for the poor decisions of the few... It should not in this case either.
Taking the guns out of the posession of those legally licenced to carry them, leaves only the police, and criminals in illegal posession of those guns. I don't expect the police to sit outside MY house every night to protect me. In fact, I'd prefer they did not...
- A well armed militia of one...
FitSunFun | |
|
|
| Page 1 of 13
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 |
|
Home
login 
Don't post here if you can't keep your "Cool" 
