RE: Police protection v Concealed carry

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Police protection v Concealed carry

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Police protection v Concealed carry

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Police protection v Concealed carry - 1/1/2009 3:10:48 AM

Hippiekinkster

Posts: 5512
Joined: 11/20/2007
From: Liechtenstein
Status: offline

My brother bought a house in PG county, just off the beltway. Almost next door was an apartment complex. People used to cut across his property. I was up there with him when a couple guys sauntered down the driveway and started to traverse his property. My bro had an old washer sitting out in the driveway, close to the house. He grabbed his shotgun, went outside, and fired off a shell into the washing machine. Then he told them to stay the fuck off his property. They RAN back the other way. He never had that problem again, which was actually counterproductive, for another reason.

He shot another asshole who had the nerve to park his car in his driveway at his current house/estate (110 acres) and challenge him. I guess when one has done 3 tours in Nam as an Engineer, and has had several kills, some pencil-dicked county attorney doesn't scare one.

< Message edited by Hippiekinkster -- 1/1/2009 3:11:54 AM >

_____________________________

"We are convinced that freedom w/o Socialism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism w/o freedom is slavery and brutality." Bakunin

“Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone; therefore we are saved by love.” Reinhold Ne

(in reply to Sanity)

Post #: 41

RE: Police protection v Concealed carry - 1/1/2009 3:20:41 AM

ArticMaestro

Posts: 178
Joined: 12/8/2008
Status: offline

But before he went out there he had no idea who it was or what they wanted, or how many there were. He could have turned on the light, yelled, and gotten shot. As has been stated several times with various legal citations, it is not the polices job to show up when called and stop a break in. They file reports after the crime is over. Maybe find some DNA or fingerprints, and might stumble accross the perp later. Hindsight is a bitch. Stealing tools isn't a capital crime, but violating a castle doctrine potentialy is.

Anyone breaking into my home would be putting my loved ones at risk, and they will get shot, the stuff in my home means nothing compared to the lives in it.

I don't know the exact story you are citing. But it could have gone, after the thug broke into the shed to get a prybar to break into the home, he overtook the man, and raped and killed his wife. The man would be incredibly disraught in that case also. And I bet if he had to choose, he would take being sad with his unraped wife. You ever talk with someone who lost a loved one to a horrible crime?

< Message edited by ArticMaestro -- 1/1/2009 3:26:29 AM >

(in reply to rulemylife)

Post #: 42

RE: Police protection v Concealed carry - 1/1/2009 6:37:50 AM

OrionTheWolf

Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

No, what I'm suggesting is that people who feel the need to have a gun for protection will often resort to using the gun first, when other methods might be better, and the situation escalates to the point where they kill someone or get themselves killed.

The masses are too stupid to try something else first, so the government should disarm them for their own good?

quote:

Two weeks after Ohio passed the Castle Doctrine an unarmed teenager in Cleveland was killed after trying to break into a garden shed.

According to the news reports, the kid started running away when he saw the gun but the 65 year-old homeowner yelled for him to "stop and come back here". The kid stopped, turned around, and was shot dead because the owner felt "threatened" even though the kid did exactly what he was ordered to.

The homeowner wasn't charged.

It was legal but was it really worth ending a teenager's life over a lawnmower and some garden tools? Especially when the robbery had already been stopped and the kid would have ran away empty-handed.

Pretty tragic. What does this prove? It proves that people will make the wrong decisions in situations, whether it is with a gun, driving a car, or a whole host of other things.

Not sure who it was that was talking about murder rates but North America has a murder rate of 6.6 and Europe has a murder rate of 5.5, as of 2004 data.

May I ask what your objective is if you had the single power to eliminate guns from private citizens?

_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to rulemylife)

Post #: 43

RE: Police protection v Concealed carry - 1/1/2009 12:04:19 PM

subrob1967

Posts: 4591
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife
No, what I'm suggesting is that people who feel the need to have a gun for protection will often resort to using the gun first, when other methods might be better, and the situation escalates to the point where they kill someone or get themselves killed.

Two weeks after Ohio passed the Castle Doctrine an unarmed teenager in Cleveland was killed after trying to break into a garden shed.

According to the news reports, the kid started running away when he saw the gun but the 65 year-old homeowner yelled for him to "stop and come back here". The kid stopped, turned around, and was shot dead because the owner felt "threatened" even though the kid did exactly what he was ordered to.

The homeowner wasn't charged.

It was legal but was it really worth ending a teenager's life over a lawnmower and some garden tools? Especially when the robbery had already been stopped and the kid would have ran away empty-handed.

How much is a life worth? The perp was going to die from something eventually.

How many man hours did the owner have invested in the tools in his garage? A $5000 Lawn Tractor is a big investment for most people, what gives the perp the right to walk onto private property, and just take whatever he fancied?

Yeah, the homeowner was stupid for shooting the perp, after yelling at him, but just how many times has the owner had to deal with replacing stolen property, or thieves on his land? At what point is enough, enough?

If you get on my land, and somehow avoid our 3 bulldogs, you can be sure to get an ass full of lead if your up to no good... Good luck getting past the dogs tho

(in reply to rulemylife)

Post #: 44

RE: Police protection v Concealed carry - 1/1/2009 3:10:44 PM

Lorr47

Posts: 862
Joined: 3/13/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster

My brother bought a house in PG county, just off the beltway. Almost next door was an apartment complex. People used to cut across his property. I was up there with him when a couple guys sauntered down the driveway and started to traverse his property. My bro had an old washer sitting out in the driveway, close to the house. He grabbed his shotgun, went outside, and fired off a shell into the washing machine. Then he told them to stay the fuck off his property. They RAN back the other way. He never had that problem again, which was actually counterproductive, for another reason.

He shot another asshole who had the nerve to park his car in his driveway at his current house/estate (110 acres) and challenge him. I guess when one has done 3 tours in Nam as an Engineer, and has had several kills, some pencil-dicked county attorney doesn't scare one.

We have a District Court Judge in this county that the citizens love. He has been overwhelmingly reelected judge for over 35 years. However, the State establishment hates him and currently is trying to take him down, again. The ruling thus far is that he must step down (The state has gotten this far before.). However, they timed it wrong and he was reelected (85% +)during the inquisition and usually reelection makes the attempt moot. Attorneys hold him in such high esteem that no one will even run against him even after he was ordered removed. (You have to be an attorney to really appreciate the significance of no opposition when there is a ruling that he must step down.) He is a libertarian who will not enforce the motor cycle helmet laws or other laws relating to such things as seat belts etc. First, they have to go up the appellate ladder and force him to enforce those laws. Then, they have to go back up the ladder again to force him to access penalties for violation (or to stop losing the records of conviction). If a law is passed after the citizenry has voted the law down, you can bet that a decade will pass before he will enforce it, period. The judge is super intelligent and if you harm another you might as well kiss your ass goodbye. (In those situations where you harm another, he is ultra hard.) On the other hand, even if he personally considers the defendant a "scum sucking maggot" if the facts do not support the elements of the crime, he will not convict. Police admire him. Prosecutors admire him. Attorneys admire him. Innocent defendants adore him.

In any case, a bunch of thugs broke into a business establishment. The owner woke up and went downstairs. A gun fight ensued. The thugs got out of the building and back to their vehicles with the owner in hot pursuit. The gunfire continued until the thug's car went over the horizon and the business owner could not see them any more to fire. The police found the bullet riddled car and then the thugs. They were charged. Then, the business owner was charged because he had pursued the thugs until they were out of sight. (He had become the aggressor.) They charged the business owner with I believe attempted murder. The judge threw it out. They filed it again under a different name. The judge threw it out. I cannot remember how many times the charges the brought and then thrown out by the judge. The judge had authority on his side and the state had authority on its side. The case finally went up on appeal and the court of appeals gave up given its track record with the judge. However, I believe it fair to assume that this case and others is the reason the dear judge is saddled with the state's constant attacks on him. Locally, the prosecutors, local bar and judges all sit on the judge's side when the hearings are held and sign petitions and the like supporting the judge. Ditto with local police agencies.

However, at the state level they do not believe in the right to bear arms. (or the right to disagree with them on anything)

What I am getting at is that yes you may have the right to carry. But if you do, have all your paper work in order; do not broadcast that you carry; and be conservative in any given situation; and do not become arrogant. In Michigan you could fire when the bad guy steps over the threshold. However, if you do so you will be arrested. In Michigan you could theoretically walk down the street with hogleg in a holster in open view. However, if you do, you will be arrested. In Michigan, sure you could tell the cop on the road or in Walmart that you have a CCW (as suggested elsewhere) but you will not only be arrested but will be incarcerated (and I would not disagree). Yes, having arms and a CCW will initially protect you but do not forget about the back lash if you use those tools even correctly. A company that provided armed guards trained its guards thoroughly. At the end of all its materials it had the admonition that after the guard had followed all the rules and still had to fire that the guard would be arrested. So, secure the firearm, do not answer questions and call the attorney because you will be arrested.

A good judge may not be around to run interference for you. And, even if a good judge is around, you will see from the shit he takes in protecting your rights that the state wants your butt. The state does not believe in the right to bear arms. They are the ones you have to convince and it is expensive being a test case.

Most of the time you will be before a judge who just believes in doing his job and doesn't want the hassle. He goes home each night and while you remain in jail. Sure you are in the right and that may be enough to satisfy you while you sit in jail.

< Message edited by Lorr47 -- 1/1/2009 3:22:06 PM >

(in reply to Hippiekinkster)

Post #: 45

RE: Police protection v Concealed carry - 1/1/2009 3:18:31 PM

Crush

Posts: 1031
Status: offline

Once someone is committing a crime, they've crossed the line.   In some states, Texas notably, you have the option to use deadly force to protect property. In other states, such as Florida, you can use deadly force only when the bad guy is committing a forcible felony. (See Statute citations below.)

Like a vast majority of those of us that carry, we hope to never have to use our weapon. But if necessary, we'll use our weapon to defend against bad guys.   And we know that every bullet has a lawyer attached.

In Vermont, you don't need a permit to carry concealed or open. I don't see Vermont being tops on the list for crime against persons.   Or people using their weapons irresponsibly.

In fact, here are the statistics for Vermont for 2007:

State Year Population Index Violent Property Murder Forcible Rape Robbery Aggravated assault Burglary Larceny- Theft Vehicle Theft Vermont 2007 49 47 50 45 45 48 50 49 38 41 48Source: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/vtcrime.htm   (See also: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/US_States_Rate_Ranking.html)

Maybe they are on to something in Vermont?

====================

Texas Law:
Sec. 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.Sec. 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.

Florida Statute: 776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

_____________________________

"In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second hand, and without examination." -- Mark Twain

(in reply to subrob1967)

Post #: 46

RE: Police protection v Concealed carry - 1/1/2009 5:03:02 PM

Termyn8or

Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

Much as I agree Crush, Vermont is not a fair comparison due to demographics.

T

(in reply to Crush)

Post #: 47

RE: Police protection v Concealed carry - 1/1/2009 5:31:49 PM

phoenix1heather

Posts: 14
Joined: 7/13/2008
Status: offline

Lorr,

'm kinda curious where you live. I'm thinking there is a second Michigan somewhere as I hold a Michigan CPL and most of what you say is flat out untrue in my Michigan. Our Attorney General Mike Cox is one of the leaders in 2A rights in the nation. You will not...NOT be arrested for telling a cop you have a Gun, in fact, you have to under state law if an officer makes contact with you and you're carrying. Michigan is a Castle Doctrine state. Michigan actually does recognize open carry. It may not be the smartest thing you do all day, but it IS legal under Michigan law and there are groups that do it.

In Michigan you can fire as soon as you feel threatened. It's a Castle Doctrine state and the law specifically reads that citizens maintain the right to self defense up to and including deadly force, in any place where they have a LEGAL RIGHT to be.

You may want to take a CPL course and get the yellow book that gives you all of Michigan's pertinent gun laws. Those books are free from your county clerk, just ask for a CPL application packet.

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Post #: 48

RE: Police protection v Concealed carry - 1/1/2009 5:39:14 PM

Crush

Posts: 1031
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

Much as I agree Crush, Vermont is not a fair comparison due to demographics.

T

The facts stay the same, though T....open carry or concealed in VT and a significantly lower crime rate than neighboring states.

Of course, I may be biased, since half of Burlington is related to me ;)

_____________________________

"In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second hand, and without examination." -- Mark Twain

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Post #: 49

RE: Police protection v Concealed carry - 1/1/2009 9:30:42 PM

Hippiekinkster

Posts: 5512
Joined: 11/20/2007
From: Liechtenstein
Status: offline

Lorr,
1) My brother's not in Michigan
2) He was on his own property
3) He is quite wealthy
4) He is well-connected
5) He's a decorated Nam Vet (the complete opposite of a REMF)
6) He's well aware of what the laws are in his jurisdictions.

The trespasser got hauled off to the hospital. My brother went back inside after he was interviewed. One of these days I'll have to ask him what his personal body count is.

I keep seeing "concealed curry" when I look at the title.
"That's some bad-ass Vindaloo your packin'."

< Message edited by Hippiekinkster -- 1/1/2009 10:27:26 PM >

_____________________________

"We are convinced that freedom w/o Socialism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism w/o freedom is slavery and brutality." Bakunin

“Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone; therefore we are saved by love.” Reinhold Ne

(in reply to Crush)

Post #: 50

RE: Police protection v Concealed carry - 1/1/2009 9:37:03 PM

BamaD

Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

Actuall case for about two years people begged for more cops on New York subways to fight crime there were none availiable.

Then Bernard Getz (I am not sure of the spelling of his name) shot 5 muggers one day and two weeks later police on the subways doubled to, according to officials, "keep people from copuing Getz"

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Post #: 51

RE: Police protection v Concealed carry - 1/1/2009 10:21:52 PM

BamaD

Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

I am 58 and male. Against two or three thugs where they and I are unarmed or have knives I have no realistic choice but to give them anything they want. If we all have guns I have been a disciplined shooter (trained by a police officer from an early age) they have two choices

1 Don't come after me.

2 Die

(in reply to popeye1250)

Post #: 52

RE: Police protection v Concealed carry - 1/1/2009 10:59:50 PM

Lorr47

Posts: 862
Joined: 3/13/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: phoenix1heather

Lorr,

'm kinda curious where you live. I'm thinking there is a second Michigan somewhere as I hold a Michigan CPL and most of what you say is flat out untrue in my Michigan. Our Attorney General Mike Cox is one of the leaders in 2A rights in the nation. You will not...NOT be arrested for telling a cop you have a Gun, in fact, you have to under state law if an officer makes contact with you and you're carrying. Michigan is a Castle Doctrine state. Michigan actually does recognize open carry. It may not be the smartest thing you do all day, but it IS legal under Michigan law and there are groups that do it.

In Michigan you can fire as soon as you feel threatened. It's a Castle Doctrine state and the law specifically reads that citizens maintain the right to self defense up to and including deadly force, in any place where they have a LEGAL RIGHT to be.

You may want to take a CPL course and get the yellow book that gives you all of Michigan's pertinent gun laws. Those books are free from your county clerk, just ask for a CPL application packet.

The recommendation in the other thread was that you should confront an officer and ask if the officer would care to step outside to settle the matter since you are the holder of a CCW. (to see how fast the officer would run in fear) Guess what, they will not run. If you are saying that you will not be arrested somehow doing that, come to Western Michigan and try it. You may not be arrested on a gun charge but "disturbing the peace" or some other crazy charge may be soon coming your way. Then they will revoke your license using the picayune conviction..

I have suffered through any number of hearings relating to CCWs and the false information spouted shows that the goal is to prevent people from having pistols. They have said that you cannot walk down the street with an pistol in an exposed holster without a CCW (open carry). When you corner them on the question, they answer "ever hear of flourishing." (Try and defend that charge. What is flourishing?) They attempt to mislead you at every step to stop people from knowing what the law is on weapons. I believe I have heard three prosecutors say that "open carry" is illegal. If you like defending spurious charges, be, my guest.

We had a transportation issue and they said they would arrest anyone transporting the firearm in a locked box in a trunk. We did get a opinion from the state research bureau through a senator supporting our viewpoint. The powers that be threw it in the waste basket. They were wrong but do you not want to be the test case? The book is not on trial, you are.

You state: " In Michigan you can fire as soon as you feel threatened. It's a Castle Doctrine state and the law specifically reads that citizens maintain the right to self defense up to and including deadly force, in any place where they have a LEGAL RIGHT to be." If you fire as soon as you feel threatened, you are going to prison in many circumstances. Whether "you feel threatened" often is turned into whether "the prosecutor thinks you should have felt threatened." Many times the prosecutor will not feel you should have felt threatened. Do you want your freedom depending on whether the prosecutor feels you had the right "to feel threatened." The prosecutor at trial will be arguing that you did not feel threatened because a reasonable man would not feel threatened. The best answer was by a very colorful but street wise chief of police; wrong doer starts to break in your house; you, your phone and shotgun retreat to the bathroom; if the wrongdoer tries to break in the bathroom then shoot you shoot through the door, just make sure it is not someone who also has a right to be in the house.

I held a CCW for years and helped process CCW applications for years. I stopped because people were getting charged with violating CCW laws because they did not use common sense and take the time to find out how officials would respond given differing fact situations. I would hazard a guess that you have never been involved in the criminal process as a defendant. A prosecutor presenting his case against you to a judge who usually is an x prosecutor and a jury who has read 260 days out of the last 365 days about the last officer shot to death. Good luck.

The person I felt was the most informed as to the CCW laws also had his license revoked three times after which I gave up. His statement was always "but the book says I can do that." Like a used car dealer who will not give you the book value usually says "then sell it to the book." There is the book and there is reality.

< Message edited by Lorr47 -- 1/1/2009 11:15:44 PM >

(in reply to phoenix1heather)

Post #: 53

RE: Police protection v Concealed carry - 1/1/2009 11:50:19 PM

Lorr47

Posts: 862
Joined: 3/13/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster

Lorr,
1) My brother's not in Michigan
2) He was on his own property
3) He is quite wealthy
4) He is well-connected
5) He's a decorated Nam Vet (the complete opposite of a REMF)
6) He's well aware of what the laws are in his jurisdictions.

The trespasser got hauled off to the hospital. My brother went back inside after he was interviewed. One of these days I'll have to ask him what his personal body count is.

I keep seeing "concealed curry" when I look at the title.
"That's some bad-ass Vindaloo your packin'."

In spite of some new gun laws in Michigan, it still is easy to end up in jail. A gentleman in Kent County came out of his house and I believe thought some fellows were stealing something from an out building. The land owner fired saying that he was just trying to scare them off. The pellets stuck the vehicle and wounded one of them. Turned out that they were 17 and 18 year olds who if you believed their story just wanted to Tee Pee a structure. As I remember, the charges against the landowner were much more severe than the charges against the young adults. I am beginning to believe that in all the ruckus about the new gun laws no one is telling these people that the statutory and common laws about the use of force and deadly force have not been changed.

(in reply to Hippiekinkster)

Post #: 54

RE: Police protection v Concealed carry - 1/2/2009 12:22:57 AM

cadenas

Posts: 517
Joined: 11/27/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

Not sure who it was that was talking about murder rates but North America has a murder rate of 6.6 and Europe has a murder rate of 5.5, as of 2004 data.

Ummm... Europe isn't a country but a continent with some 30 or so different countries, including Russia with a pretty severe organized-crime problem that dwarfs Mexico's.

Compare the murder rate between the USA and Germany (two countries with similar economy, demographics and culture), and you will find that the USA murder rate by firearms is about ten times the German one. Meanwhile, the rates for all other crimes - even for murder with other weapons such as knives - is very comparable between the two countries.

(in reply to OrionTheWolf)

Post #: 55

RE: Police protection v Concealed carry - 1/2/2009 1:31:58 AM

rulemylife

Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

Pretty tragic. What does this prove? It proves that people will make the wrong decisions in situations, whether it is with a gun, driving a car, or a whole host of other things.

Not sure who it was that was talking about murder rates but North America has a murder rate of 6.6 and Europe has a murder rate of 5.5, as of 2004 data.

May I ask what your objective is if you had the single power to eliminate guns from private citizens?

The problem here is that you are assuming my comments are directed toward banning guns and they are not.

I own guns, and even if I didn't I don't support the idea of government intervention in what someone can or cannot own.

My objection is with this "Rambo" mentality of shoot first and ask questions later.

I have led far from a sheltered life, but I have never, ever, felt the need to have a gun ready for my protection.

And it always amuses me that the stories about "how having a gun saved my life" always come from those who believe guns are a necessity for self-defense.

Why is it we never hear stories from those who don't have guns talking about the situations in which they wished they had a gun to protect themselves?

Could it be a self-fulfilling prophecy? "I need a gun to protect myself", so any situation, even those that can be settled peacefully, results in a gun being pulled and then the erroneous conclusion that it was the gun that solved the situation.

(in reply to OrionTheWolf)

Post #: 56

RE: Police protection v Concealed carry - 1/2/2009 1:49:42 AM

rulemylife

Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

How much is a life worth? The perp was going to die from something eventually.

How many man hours did the owner have invested in the tools in his garage? A $5000 Lawn Tractor is a big investment for most people, what gives the perp the right to walk onto private property, and just take whatever he fancied?

Yeah, the homeowner was stupid for shooting the perp, after yelling at him, but just how many times has the owner had to deal with replacing stolen property, or thieves on his land? At what point is enough, enough?

If you get on my land, and somehow avoid our 3 bulldogs, you can be sure to get an ass full of lead if your up to no good... Good luck getting past the dogs tho

The news reports did say his shed had been burglarized several times before.

Somehow, I just don't consider that getting to the point of enough is enough involves killing someone.

Personally, I would rather bear the cost of replacing what was stolen rather than bear the weight of having killed someone over so little.

Which is pretty much what the homeowner said after the fact. I'm still trying to find a link to the story.

< Message edited by rulemylife -- 1/2/2009 1:51:16 AM >

(in reply to subrob1967)

Post #: 57

RE: Police protection v Concealed carry - 1/2/2009 5:05:00 AM

phoenix1heather

Posts: 14
Joined: 7/13/2008
Status: offline

I am in no way advocating a "shoot first" mentality. Kent county has been sued a couple of times over the way they handle CPL issues. On that end of it I call myself lucky to live in Calhoun county where they usually are pretty good about it. Oh if you're wrong, you're in trouble without doubt. But if there is a legitimate lethal force situation, you're fine.

Why don't you hear about guns saving lives? Because the press tends to the left and the left's agenda includes massive gun control. It's counter productive to give any air, or ink, to the many thousands of defensive gun uses that occur each day.

Generally speaking, not always of course, but generally, once you present your weapon, the matter is over. If your assailant is genuinely bent on mayhem, things will get a bunch more unpleasant, but usually, the threat stops when you present and they run. Then you get the best description you can and a direction of travel and let the police handle it. If they're truly determined to do evil things, then you're going to have to engage.

To me, it's like car insurance, you have it because if you have an accident, you'll need it. My gun is insurance, like my homeowner's policy, if I need it I need it now and life has just gotten that much more suck added to it. If I never need it, good, but that doesn't make me not want to have it and leave things to chance because the alternative is unacceptable in my mind.

(in reply to rulemylife)

Post #: 58

RE: Police protection v Concealed carry - 1/2/2009 6:12:21 AM

OrionTheWolf

Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

And it always amuses me that the stories about "how having a gun saved my life" always come from those who believe guns are a necessity for self-defense.

Sometimes it is a necessity.

quote:

Why is it we never hear stories from those who don't have guns talking about the situations in which they wished they had a gun to protect themselves?

Sometimes it is because the dead cannot speak.

quote:

Could it be a self-fulfilling prophecy? "I need a gun to protect myself", so any situation, even those that can be settled peacefully, results in a gun being pulled and then the erroneous conclusion that it was the gun that solved the situation.

Sometimes it could be a self fulfilling prophecy, but usually because they have the gun taken from them or is found by someone else that uses it on them.

_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to rulemylife)

Post #: 59

RE: Police protection v Concealed carry - 1/2/2009 6:16:04 AM

OrionTheWolf

Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline

Ummmm North America is a continent too. I used the regional data because someone mentioned Canada. No I will not compare Germany to the US, as their histories and sociology is different. Also, no one has mentioned that 70% of violent crimes are committed with a firearm. Yes if a magic wand could be waved the violent crime rates could be reduced. Glad there are no magic wands.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

Not sure who it was that was talking about murder rates but North America has a murder rate of 6.6 and Europe has a murder rate of 5.5, as of 2004 data.

Ummm... Europe isn't a country but a continent with some 30 or so different countries, including Russia with a pretty severe organized-crime problem that dwarfs Mexico's.

Compare the murder rate between the USA and Germany (two countries with similar economy, demographics and culture), and you will find that the USA murder rate by firearms is about ten times the German one. Meanwhile, the rates for all other crimes - even for murder with other weapons such as knives - is very comparable between the two countries.

_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to cadenas)

Post #: 60

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Police protection v Concealed carry

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.109