weapon + gun permit = self protection

Ridiculous answer from a judge. So he advocates shootouts all across America does he instead of calling 911 where crime is high and the police overworked? Little old ladies are expected to arm and protect themselves against armed assailants?

Quote:

He told a woman who had been pulled from her car and beaten in the head that she or her mother needed to "purchase a weapon, obtain a gun permit and learn to protect yourself."

He is in effect blaming her for being attacked because she didn't have a gun in her hand when she was pulled from her car and beat up with a gun.

Is this what you guys honestly want to see and happen? Ordinary people arming themselves with guns and using them for any perceived dangerous situation?

0 Replies

Thank you for your ridiculous reply revel :wink:

0 Replies

H2O_MAN wrote:

Thank you for your ridiculous reply revel :wink:

Thank you for your non answer. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

revel wrote:

H2O_MAN wrote:
Thank you for your ridiculous reply revel :wink:

Thank you for your non answer.

Did you pose a serious question?

0 Replies

H2O_MAN wrote:

revel wrote:
H2O_MAN wrote:
Thank you for your ridiculous reply revel :wink:

Thank you for your non answer.

Did you pose a serious question?

As a matter I did and I am interested in an answer. You posted an article of a judge advising a woman who had just been beaten badly with a gun for either her or her mother to get a gun because the police in that part of the area is overworked. I wanted to know if you honestly thought that was a correct response from the judge and if you thought people should really be having shootouts (including old ladies) with armed assailants as an answer the crime ridden cities and overworked policie officers?

When people hear a noise in the night, instead of calling a police responder, they should pull out their guns and start shooting and may be the best one come out alive?

0 Replies

revel wrote:

H2O_MAN wrote:
revel wrote:
H2O_MAN wrote:
Thank you for your ridiculous reply revel :wink:

Thank you for your non answer.

Did you pose a serious question?

As a matter I did and I am interested in an answer. You posted an article of a judge advising a woman who had just been beaten badly with a gun for either her or her mother to get a gun because the police in that part of the area is overworked. I wanted to know if you honestly thought that was a correct response from the judge and if you thought people should really be having shootouts (including old ladies) with armed assailants as an answer the crime ridden cities and overworked policie officers?

When people hear a noise in the night, instead of calling a police responder, they should pull out their guns and start shooting and may be the best one come out alive?

Yes, I agree with what the Judge suggested. Get a gun, get a permit to carry and get good with it.

No. Never start shooting until you have identified the threat and have a clear shot.
Aim small and hit small . . . Bullets are not cheap.

0 Replies

Obviously having a gun means you start shooting at everything that moves.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Obviously having a gun means you start shooting at everything that moves.

The Spray & Pray method rarely works, especially with a hand gun.

http://movieimage1.tripod.com/pulpfiction/pulp17.jpg

0 Replies

revel wrote:

H2O_MAN wrote:
revel wrote:
H2O_MAN wrote:
Thank you for your ridiculous reply revel :wink:

Thank you for your non answer.

Did you pose a serious question?

As a matter I did and I am interested in an answer. You posted an article of a judge advising a woman who had just been beaten badly with a gun for either her or her mother to get a gun because the police in that part of the area is overworked. I wanted to know if you honestly thought that was a correct response from the judge and if you thought people should really be having shootouts (including old ladies) with armed assailants as an answer the crime ridden cities and overworked policie officers?

When people hear a noise in the night, instead of calling a police responder, they should pull out their guns and start shooting and may be the best one come out alive?

You obviously have been brainwashed by the anti gun crowd and you think only criminals should carry guns.

Police and Govt can not protect us 100% of every day.

A gun is one form of self protection and a law abiding citizen should consider it as an option.

If you do not want one, fine. However, do NOT prohibit me from defending myself because you think otherwise.

0 Replies

Of course the police do a good job of protecting people.

In this case, the police did such a good job of protecting people from this perpetrator that he committed a rape a month later, while he was out on bond because even though he'd -admitted- to the crime, the police and courts couldn't be arsed to set his hearing properly.

It's not unreasonable that the police can't be everywhere all at once, and you can't expect the policeman who's not there to protect you from the criminal that's there right now. That's a good reason to own a gun, yes.

At the same time, if the police can arrest the guy and then just let him go his merry way, that brings up a question of how well they'll protect you in ANY circumstances...

0 Replies

Quote:

If you do not want one, fine. However, do NOT prohibit me from defending myself because you think otherwise.

All I am saying is that arming citizens is not a good line of defense for crime ridden cities with overworked police forces. I am not saying they can't have a gun; obviously they can because the SC says they can. I just don't think it was responsible for the judge to advocate a victim of violence to arm herself to prevent such a thing happening again because of the problem of overworked police officers. Professionals need to be involved because they are trained for the unexpected. I mean what if the woman missed shooting the guy and instead of beating her about the head, he shoots her and her mother instead? Obviously there is a problem of crime in the cities that needs to be addressed if there is such a problem of overworked police officers in those cities. The answer to that problem is not just to arm citizens and little old ladies such as the judge recommended.

0 Replies

More guns = Less crime.

Formally trained law abiding citizens packing handguns = less crime.

Don't be a victim.

0 Replies

more guns = more deaths

Where is this training going to take place, who would be in charge and how would it be paid for? What about people who can't afford this training or training is unavailable in the area? What are the options in such a training manuel other than shooting to kill? Who would supervise the trainers to make sure they are not a bunch of nuts training up people to go around killing people indiscriminately? I mean if you and others are truly advocating people go out and get guns to defend themselves rather than to be victims depending on undependable police officers, you got to have something organized to take it's place or else you are going to have some people able to afford guns and able to afford training and others not.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

more guns = more deaths

That is a myth.

0 Replies

H2O_MAN wrote:

revel wrote:
more guns = more deaths

That is a myth.

prove it

0 Replies

revel wrote:

H2O_MAN wrote:
revel wrote:
more guns = more deaths

That is a myth.

prove it

One scholars opinion.

Question: It just seems to defy common sense that crimes likely to involve guns would be reduced by allowing more people to carry guns. How do you explain the results?

John R. Lott, Jr.
John R. Lott, Jr. is a resident scholar at American Enterprise Institute. He was previously the John M. Olin Visiting Law and Economics Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School.

Lott: Criminals are deterred by higher penalties. Just as higher arrest and conviction rates deter crime, so does the risk that someone committing a crime will confront someone able to defend him or herself. There is a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate?-as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent.

Concealed handgun laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. First, they reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals are uncertain which potential victims can defend themselves. Second, victims who have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves.

Question: What is the basis for these numbers?

Lott: The analysis is based on data for all 3,054 counties in the United States during 18 years from 1977 to 1994.

Question: Your argument about criminals and deterrence doesn't tell the whole story. Don't statistics show that most people are killed by someone they know?

Lott: You are referring to the often-cited statistic that 58 percent of murder victims are killed by either relatives or acquaintances. However, what most people don't understand is that this "acquaintance murder" number also includes gang members killing other gang members, drug buyers killing drug pushers, cabdrivers killed by customers they picked up for the first time, prostitutes and their clients, and so on. "Acquaintance" covers a wide range of relationships. The vast majority of murders are not committed by previously law-abiding citizens. Ninety percent of adult murderers have had criminal records as adults.

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

Now what?

0 Replies

revel wrote:

H2O_MAN wrote:
revel wrote:
more guns = more deaths

That is a myth.

prove it

Read the book and prove it to yourself.

http://www.klamathbasincrisis.org/bookstore/images/moreguns.jpg

0 Replies

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/

John Lott

Hardly an unbiased scholar, he does not even provide the study for review to understand how the statics were arrived at. Proof of nothing.

However; I am not arguing that women or people shouldn't carry guns or be able defend themselves. I just don't think we have come to the point where judges should tell victims of crimes they should go out and buy a gun. A lot of people are simply not comfortable with guns and I am not sure how it would work out if people started having shootouts with armed criminals. Perhaps criminals might think twice about taking someone's purse or raping a woman if they knew she had a gun and I am not saying they shouldn't be able to if they wanted to. But as a whole I don't think we should settle our violent crimes wholly between citizens and criminals shooting it out amongst themselves. We should be looking at other answers at why there are more crimes in cities and doing more work in that area plus beefing up our police forces if that is needful as it seems it must be if judges are advising women and elderly people to go out and get a gun because there are not police officers around to protect them.

The whole argument is not well thought out the more you think about it. I mean what about little kids being kidnapped? Do you all think little kids should be toting around guns in schools and playgrounds to keep perverts from snatching them off the streets? Or should their mom's be carrying around guns and then shooting them in a crowded park or teachers in a crowded school? I mean the whole idea once put into actual practice would seem to be one of chaos.

0 Replies

Avatar ADC
DID YOU KNOW THAT THE POLICE ARREST LAW BREAKERS AND JUDGES TURN THEM LOOSE. You need to read up on the justice system.

0 Replies

weapon + gun permit = self protection

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know