Author Topic: In other news  (Read 3601 times)

Offline Sixpence

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5265
      • http://www.onpoi.net/ah/index.php
In other news
« Reply #30 on: April 07, 2005, 05:08:33 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
you can actually shoot someone who is beating you with bare fists... it has happened and the concealled carry holder had his jaw broken and was struck multiple times before he finaly ended the beating with a well placed shot to the attacker.

lazs


What if the guy who has the gun and got his jaw broken is the guy who started the fight? Then he feels threatened and has the right to shoot the guy? There seems to be ways to abuse this law.
"My grandaddy always told me, "There are three things that'll put a good man down: Losin' a good woman, eatin' bad possum, or eatin' good possum."" - Holden McGroin

(and I still say he wasn't trying to spell possum!)

Offline Shamus

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3582
In other news
« Reply #31 on: April 07, 2005, 06:56:27 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Good.  I'm a Designated Driver, amongst friends when hanging out.  I am looking to get my CCW here in Michigan this year.  I'm usually sucking down Sprites for free at bars, because of the DD thing.  Funny thing is, 99% of the LAW ABIDING citizens won't be a problem.  You're always gonna have the 1% who are the prettythang*oles, that is life.

Karaya


Bad news Karaya, ya cant carry in a bar in Michigan unless your law enforcement or a PI.

shamus
one of the cats

FSO Jagdgeschwader 11

Offline ASTAC

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1654
In other news
« Reply #32 on: April 07, 2005, 08:21:33 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by rshubert
I have always wondered where the line that Florida was first with a "shall issue" law came from.  IMO, that's an urban myth.  I had a "shall issue" permit in Indiana in 1979, YEARS before Florida set up their system.  The Indiana law stated that they MUST issue a permit to any person who could pass the criminal check for reasons of self defense.

Later, some time after I moved away, they changed the law to make it almost mandatory to have a CCW if you own a handgun, yet kept it sensibly simple to go through the process.  A very enlightened state, that Indiana.

In most states, the criteria for use of deadly force of any kind is the perception by a "reasonable individual" that they (or a person near them) are in danger of grievous bodily harm or death.  In other words, you can't use deadly force on a thief for stealing your stuff, unless you feel threatened.  Most states do not have a requirement for a retreat, as Florida apparently did prior to this legislation.  NO place requires that you be on your own property, or that the assailant be inside your house, or any of the other BS you typically hear.



Just to be clear..the Federal definition as learned by all Naval Security personnel is:

That force which a person uses who knows or should know would create a substancial risk of causing death or seriuos bodily harm. Deadly force is only to be used AS A LAST RESORT when all other lesser means have failed OR CANNOT BE REASONABLY EMPLOYED.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
In other news
« Reply #33 on: April 08, 2005, 09:31:02 AM »
sixpense... it is pretty hard to abuse... all CC holders are well aware of the problems they will face in any shooting no matter how legit.  in the case of the driver I mentioned the guy had rolled up his windows and did not threaten the assailant at all... the bullet magnet had to break in his windows to beat him half to death and was dragging him out (in front of witnesses) through the window.

There are like 10 million concealled carry holders and they have been around for many years... there is no real case of a shooting by one that has been sucessfully prosecuted so far as I know.  

lazs

Offline indy007

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3294
In other news
« Reply #34 on: April 08, 2005, 09:35:10 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
sixpense... it is pretty hard to abuse... all CC holders are well aware of the problems they will face in any shooting no matter how legit.  in the case of the driver I mentioned the guy had rolled up his windows and did not threaten the assailant at all... the bullet magnet had to break in his windows to beat him half to death and was dragging him out (in front of witnesses) through the window.

There are like 10 million concealled carry holders and they have been around for many years... there is no real case of a shooting by one that has been sucessfully prosecuted so far as I know.  

lazs


I haven't verified this, but I've been told by my friend while he was renewing his CHL & I was getting mine, that they no longer keep your qualifying scores on file because a man was prosecuted when he shot a guy in the head. His perfect qualifying score was used against him by the prosecutor to show that he intentionally killed the man, instead of "shooting to disable".

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
In other news
« Reply #35 on: April 08, 2005, 09:45:07 AM »
I have heard a lot of scary rumors about the whole thing... I think they originate because everyone is so paranoid about being involved in a shooting and the media and courts and all.... it is a good thing that we be cautious... I have heard every rumor in around from people being prosecuted because of the ammo they use to even what type of handgun.

The point to shooting someone is to stop them.  the best way to do so would be a head shot if you could relaibly hit it or with enough gun.   The Florida law seems to be a step in the right direction in that.... I don't thing anyone will be quite as concerned about where the bad guys get shot or with what.

lazs

Offline Airhead

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3369
      • http://www.ouchytheclown.com
In other news
« Reply #36 on: April 08, 2005, 10:06:22 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by GScholz
Seems to me that instead of turning a blind eye to people using lethal force to defend themselves they should be picking up these "crack fiends" and removing them from society. Whether or not you want to carry a firearm is beside the point ... you shouldn't have to just to feel safe.


First of all, nobody turns a "blind eye" to shootings, no matter how justified- there's still investigations and every DA I know is more than happy to charge a felony for unjustified shootings. In fact where I live it takes a gun safety course to be issued a CWP, and there's restrictions on when and where you can carry a firearm.

Second of all, we can't just simply "pick up" these "crack fiends" because we have something called Due Process of Law- people have to be charged with a crime within a set amount of time or freed. It would be nice if we could "pick up" all our miscriants- just one time- cause America needs an enema, no doubt.

Thirdly, why are you even commenting on this? Your statements here show you know absolutely nothing about America...you might be better served talking about subjects you are familiar with, if there are any, rather than use a thread like this one to take a cheap shot at the USA. Believe it or not, this isn't the land of crack abuse and drive by shootings.

Offline Airhead

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3369
      • http://www.ouchytheclown.com
In other news
« Reply #37 on: April 08, 2005, 10:44:04 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by GScholz
I was referring to this statement:

 "Yes it was illegal. No he didnt get arrested for it. Although they did take his gun. City cops in St Louis tend to understand reality."

If you had cared to read the quote in my previous post you would have noticed.




I was under the impression that crack-cocaine was an illegal substance in the US. Due Process of Law seems to be lacking.




At least I know something about reading and presenting an argument. Something your statements here show you know absolutely nothing about.


Filing a report and taking his gun is considered to be an "investigation"....hardly "turning a blind eye" towards.

Due Process of Law isn't just rounding people up. (I'd remind you of our overflowing prisons but then you'd bash the USA for incarcerating so many of our citizens.;) )

And you don't know nearly as much as you think you know about the USA and its citizens....you take every opportunity to twist every topic into a slam or a put down of the USA and then, when someone calls you on it, you backtrack or resort to namecalling.

"Great debator?" Sheeesh man, you post your ignore list. LOL here for the debate, my eye.

Offline indy007

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3294
In other news
« Reply #38 on: April 08, 2005, 12:51:07 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by GScholz
Yes you can just round up people if you have probable cause to think they have drugs on them or are in the process of committing other crimes.


Well, unless they have drugs on them at the time (assuming they didn't toss or eat them) they really won't get hit with anything. Maybe public intoxication at the most. They'd be back on the street very, very quickly. If they did do a crackdown, there would be several problems..

1) You'd have a large number of crackheads all detoxing at the same time, with the potential & motivation to very quickly turn violent.

2) Every civil lawyer in the country would come flocking down to sue the city for "racial profiling". The actual demographics are really irrelevant. It's all about money.

3) There'd be a surge of crime when they got out as they all raced around robbing and stealing to get money for some more rocks.

4) Our PD here in Houston was sued when it cracked down on punk kids street racing on the busiest nightlife stretch in one of the largest cities in the country. It cost the city alot in lawsuits, and several officers lost their jobs over it. The press had a field day making them look bad. That was just stupid kids... so it goes back to line 2 when you start clearing out ghettos.


We have entirely too much that should, but won't be, corrected before we could ever just "go and round up the crackheads!"
« Last Edit: April 08, 2005, 12:57:34 PM by indy007 »

Offline Raider179

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
In other news
« Reply #39 on: April 08, 2005, 01:20:24 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2


There are like 10 million concealled carry holders and they have been around for many years... there is no real case of a shooting by one that has been sucessfully prosecuted so far as I know.  

 


In August of 2000, the Violence Policy Center released License to Kill III, a report that details the number of concealed weapons licensees in Texas who have been arrested for crimes after getting a concealed weapons permit. Using data from the Texas Department of Public Safety, the Violence Policy Center found that Texas concealed handgun license holders were arrested for a total of 3,370 crimes between January 1, 1996 and April 30, 2000, including very serious violent offenses like murder, rape, sexual assault, and weapons-related crimes. An analysis of the Texas data also reveals that, between 1996 to 1999, Texas CCW permit holders were arrested for weapon-related offenses at a rate that was 66% higher than that of the general population of Texas.

On July 6, 2001, an unnamed man fatally shot 17-year-old Jacob W. Walton during a road rage altercation in Spokane, WA. Walton was a passenger in a car that got into an altercation with the shooter. According to police, the shooter had a concealed-weapons permit

"Road rage shooter had gun permit," Associated Press report appearing in the Post-Intelligencer, July 10, 2001

During the summer of 2000, Austin, TX, taxi driver Wayne Franklin Lambert Jr. shot and killed two unarmed men, both high-tech professionals, who had been his passengers. According to police, Lambert, a gun enthusiast with a Texas concealed-handgun license shot one of the men three times in the back. The other victim gave a deathbed statement, saying that the taxi driver became angry over something his friend had said and challenged him to a fight. Other cab drivers gave police sworn statements saying Lambert was "very short-tempered" and "always angry at just about everything." One cab driver claimed Lambert once said, "I would shoot someone over a dollar." According to state records, Lambert was charged with assault after beating, choking and threatening to kill another taxi driver in August 1994. Lambert was charged with capital murder, representing the second multiple murder case brought against a Texas concealed-gun licensee in the last three years

On June 11, 2000, Jamie Cokes, 26, of Pittsburgh, PA, shot and killed 30-year-old Leon Blair. In 1998, Cokes had been shot in the face by a robber while driving his cab. He later told a local paper that he had a permit to carry a gun and would shoot the man who had shot him. Cokes and Blair knew each other, and, according to the victim's brother, Cokes "was always talking about shooting people." Cokes later admitted to police that Blair was not the man who shot him in 1998

On May 30, 2000, a fistfight turned into a gun battle outside the home of Dale Cramm, 44, of Everett, WA, resulting in the death of two teens. Cramm's son was later charged in the deaths, and Cramm himself was charged with witness tampering, tampering with physical evidence, and three drug-related felonies. Police also confiscated an arsenal of weapons, including five shotguns, three SKS assault rifles, 3 other rifles, bayonets and high-capacity magazines. Within days after the weapons were confiscated, Cramm, who was out on bail, allegedly went to a local gun show and purchased more firearms. According to police, Cramm used his CCW permit as identification to purchase guns at the gun show

On January 27, 2000, Louis Mockewich, 34, of Philadelphia, PA, shot and killed a neighbor who was shoveling snow behind his rowhouse. The two neighbors had been arguing over where the victim was placing the snow, and Mockewich's solution was to pull out his gun, for which he had a CCW permit, and kill the 31-year-old man. The victim, too had a CCW permit

On December 14, 1999, Adam Sousa, 25 of Naples, FL, pulled a .357 from a holster before leaving the dog track, and shot two men. Sousa, said to have been angry over an argument at the poker table, was asked to leave the game. As he headed toward the door, Sousa pulled the gun and pointed it, threatening to kill the track parking attendant. Sousa then shot two others. Sousa, a CCW permit holder, was intoxicated at the time of the shooting

There are a lot...These are just the ones I found before I got tired of looking. Plenty of killings by CCW holders. Although I gotta say I also saw a lot of "incidents" of CCW holders where the gun went off accidently and shot someone. I would like to see a comparison of the number of justified shootings by CCW holders versus unjustified/accidental.

Offline Airhead

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3369
      • http://www.ouchytheclown.com
In other news
« Reply #40 on: April 08, 2005, 01:42:12 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by GScholz
Yes you do have a lot of problems, but you have to start somehere.  



...And who better than you to point out all the ills in American society, right?

:rolleyes:

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
In other news
« Reply #41 on: April 08, 2005, 02:21:44 PM »
raider... you do realize that the violence policy center (formerly handgun control inc.) is a anti gun nut group whose sole purpose is to ban firearms in the U.S.?   They have been caught in some of the biggest lies ever told like a child is murdered with a firearm every 55 minutes in the U.S.

Dan rather is more honest than they are.

lazs

Offline Raider179

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
In other news
« Reply #42 on: April 08, 2005, 03:05:11 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
raider... you do realize that the violence policy center (formerly handgun control inc.) is a anti gun nut group whose sole purpose is to ban firearms in the U.S.?   They have been caught in some of the biggest lies ever told like a child is murdered with a firearm every 55 minutes in the U.S.

Dan rather is more honest than they are.

lazs


You do realize that only that only the first quote is from them.

Here are some of the sources

"Packing Heat," ABC News 20/20 Downtown, July 16, 2001.

Man Held in Killing Claims Self-Defense," Tribune-Review, July 7, 2000.

Collier man accused of shooting 2 workers at Bonita dog track jailed on $250,000 bond," Naples Daily News, December 16, 1999

The guns of Dale Cramm," Daily Herald, August 14, 2000.

Deadly clash in the snow," Philadelphia Daily News, January 27, 2000.

Oh and your right about children being murdered by firearms. Its not every 55 minutes. Its every 8 hours. At least by the latest statistics  I can find which is 1997 so probably not too reliable but still should be around the same. 2100 juveniles murdered in 1997 56% killed with a firearm.= 3/day

http://www.ncjrs.org/html/ojjdp/nationalreport99/chapter2.pdf

Offline StarOfAfrica2

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5162
      • http://www.vf-17.org
In other news
« Reply #43 on: April 08, 2005, 04:08:15 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by GScholz
........ whether you should have the right to carry firearms is another discussion, however you shouldn't have to carry a firearm to feel safe.


I agree.  I wish it was as simple as some people try to make it sound, that we carry guns because we are paranoid or have some kind of gun fetish.  But its not that simple.  

There really are boogeymen, there really are monsters, and they just happen to look something like us.  Thank God we live in a country that recognizes (for the most part) that the individual has the right to defend himself.  The police are not our bodyguards.  They investigate crimes, and catch those who commit them.  Hopefully, proper prosecution of criminals and a visible police presence will deter crimes, but they cannot arrest people who have done nothing wrong to prevent things from happening.  The average person is EXPECTED, or was when they wrote our Constitution, to be able to defend themselves and their family.  To be able to take part in the Militia in times of need (which may or may not be an anachronism now, I dont believe it is), and to generally help, by their general attitudes as law-abiding citizens and willingness to defend themselves, help to make society a place where criminals will not thrive.  It may be hard for someone who has not grown up here to completely understand the POV of an American.

Offline Skydancer

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1606
In other news
« Reply #44 on: April 08, 2005, 05:42:00 PM »
"The police are not our bodyguards. "



Why does iot say "Protect" on the side of their cars then?:confused: