Sure they can. Training and experience.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Woman with Conceal Carry Permit Shoots at Fleeing Shoplifter
- Thread starter InTheLight
- Start date
Sure they can. Training and experience.
If there is one thing that the 18th amendment taught us is that prohibition doesn't work. All it does is produce a criminal underclass to meet the demands of the public.
There is not a single gun control law on the books that takes guns out of the hands of criminals for the very simple reason criminals don't obey the law. That is why they are criminals!
Not a single passed or proposed gun control law would have prevented any of the mass shooting of the past 20 years. None. All they do is take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens or make them much harder to buy.
I believe Robert Heinlein was right when he said "An armed society is a polite society." If a significant percentage of the law abiding population is armed the criminal element will look elsewhere for a "soft target."
Just look at how the gun control laws are working today. The three cities in the US with the strictest gun control laws are Chicago, New Orleans, and Washington DC. Which also (and it is not a coincidence) have the highest crime rates, highest murder rates, and highest rates of gun crimes in the nation. Why? I'm glad you asked! Because law abiding citizens have been disarmed and can no longer protect themselves from the drug dealers, car jackers, muggers, and other members of the criminal element.
As to "educating people into a different mentality when using and carrying a firearm." Again, look at the statistics. How many people licensed to carry firearms have committed crimes? 0.00672 percent. Yes, that is what I said. 0.00672 percent. In just the state of Florida, where 2.5 million people are licensed to carry, only 168 have committed gun crimes since Florida started issuing CHLs in 1987. We (CHL holders) are the least likely people in any demographic to commit a crime using a gun.
Look at drunk driving. 8.3% of licensed drivers admit to having driven drunk. 1,200 times as many drivers are idiots than gun owners. Do you suggest making drivers pass a background check before being allowed to buy a car? Do you suggest limiting the size, horsepower and size of the gas tank in cars? Why not? Those laws make more sense than limiting the size of a magazine in a pistol. How, exactly, is a pistol with only 7 rounds in the magazine (New York law) less deadly than a pistol with 8 rounds in the magazine?
Why is a semi-automatic rifle that is painted black more deadly than one that is silver or blued?
If you can come up with a gun control law that only takes guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill, but not put restrictions on law abiding citizens, I will support you 100%. Until then I will stand in unwavering support of the 2nd amendment and demand that the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens "not be infringed."
Just louder, not necessarily more.
There is also a "growing voice" in defense of the 2ND Amendment. Not only more, but louder as well. IMHO
Polls indicate an overwhelming majority still believe in following the constitution.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/108394/americans-agreement-supreme-court-gun-rights.aspx
Americans in Agreement With Supreme Court on Gun Rights
by Jeffrey M. Jones
Nearly three in four say Second Amendment guarantees right of Americans to own guns
PRINCETON, NJ -- The Supreme Court's ruling on Thursday that a District of Columbia ban on handgun ownership is unconstitutional appears to be solidly in step with public opinion. A clear majority of the U.S. public -- 73% -- believes the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the rights of Americans to own guns. And almost 7 out of 10 Americans are opposed to a law that would make the possession of a handgun illegal, except by the police.
Last edited:
Well, that guy is in the UK I think, so he probably doesn't really have much of a clue as to what's going on in this country but I can tell you that gun control here is more unpopular than ever and gun sales are through the roof.
That being said, I'm not in Houston and Light's original article said this:
Okay, that sounds like a carjack, a vigilante and a bad shoot (reckless endangerment?) but this other source claims:
http://abc13.com/news/witness-who-fired-on-carjackers-sought-after-nw-houston-attack-/1004386/
That sounds like a beating, a carjack and shooting at a truck. So what really happened here?
That being said, I'm not in Houston and Light's original article said this:
Okay, that sounds like a carjack, a vigilante and a bad shoot (reckless endangerment?) but this other source claims:
http://abc13.com/news/witness-who-fired-on-carjackers-sought-after-nw-houston-attack-/1004386/
That sounds like a beating, a carjack and shooting at a truck. So what really happened here?
pwarbi
Member
I'm assuming that when you said 'that guy' you was referring to me and your quite right, I am from the UK but what as that got to do with anything? I haven't even given my opinion as to what I think the US will or won't, should or shouldn't do in the circumstances.
I have asked a person whose had a license to carry a firearm for over 50 years and who IS an American his views though.
So what's with the dismissive tone that just because I don't live in the US, I don't have the right to comment?
pwarbi
Member
If there is one thing that the 18th amendment taught us is that prohibition doesn't work. All it does is produce a criminal underclass to meet the demands of the public.
There is not a single gun control law on the books that takes guns out of the hands of criminals for the very simple reason criminals don't obey the law. That is why they are criminals!
Not a single passed or proposed gun control law would have prevented any of the mass shooting of the past 20 years. None. All they do is take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens or make them much harder to buy.
I believe Robert Heinlein was right when he said "An armed society is a polite society." If a significant percentage of the law abiding population is armed the criminal element will look elsewhere for a "soft target."
Just look at how the gun control laws are working today. The three cities in the US with the strictest gun control laws are Chicago, New Orleans, and Washington DC. Which also (and it is not a coincidence) have the highest crime rates, highest murder rates, and highest rates of gun crimes in the nation. Why? I'm glad you asked! Because law abiding citizens have been disarmed and can no longer protect themselves from the drug dealers, car jackers, muggers, and other members of the criminal element.
As to "educating people into a different mentality when using and carrying a firearm." Again, look at the statistics. How many people licensed to carry firearms have committed crimes? 0.00672 percent. Yes, that is what I said. 0.00672 percent. In just the state of Florida, where 2.5 million people are licensed to carry, only 168 have committed gun crimes since Florida started issuing CHLs in 1987. We (CHL holders) are the least likely people in any demographic to commit a crime using a gun.
Look at drunk driving. 8.3% of licensed drivers admit to having driven drunk. 1,200 times as many drivers are idiots than gun owners. Do you suggest making drivers pass a background check before being allowed to buy a car? Do you suggest limiting the size, horsepower and size of the gas tank in cars? Why not? Those laws make more sense than limiting the size of a magazine in a pistol. How, exactly, is a pistol with only 7 rounds in the magazine (New York law) less deadly than a pistol with 8 rounds in the magazine?
Why is a semi-automatic rifle that is painted black more deadly than one that is silver or blued?
If you can come up with a gun control law that only takes guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill, but not put restrictions on law abiding citizens, I will support you 100%. Until then I will stand in unwavering support of the 2nd amendment and demand that the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens "not be infringed."
I asked you for your opinion on what, if anything can or should be done regarding this matter, and as the man with so many years of holding a licence I wanted to hear your view on the topic.
So in the last paragraph, I'm a little unsure why or what you would be supporting me 100% with? I haven't given an opinion yet on the thread, just asked questions about the situation, and asked for yours.
Yes. That is why my statement begins with the word "If."
The word "If" introduces a conditional clause. The condition for my supporting a gun control law would be that it takes guns out of the hands of criminals but does not burden law abiding citizens in their ownership or carry rights.
Got it now?
pwarbi
Member
Got it now? Oh VERY much so...And I'm also starting to 'get' all of a sudden where this thread is going and so on that note...As an irrelevant Englishman, in future I shall have to remember to think on, and know better than to try and understand an American's point of view on a subject, simply by asking a question.
I think I'll leave it at that, thank you for your time.
I think I'll leave it at that, thank you for your time.
Asking the question was fine. It was the answer you didn't like. As my dear old departed dad used to say, "If you don't want to hear the answer don't ask the question."Rolleyes
Last edited:
There are way too many people legally licensed to care firearms, and it appears they are quick to use them to harm another person without thinking about the consequences or outcome of their actions. This person didn't consider the fact that not only could she have killed the shoplifter but also innocent bystanders. There were other ways she could have helped besides firing a gun, example, she could have attempted to get a license plate number or a description of the shoplifter and their vehicle. Using a firearm, licensed or not, in a public place is reckless and I have to agree with a few other bloggers, I hope they take her license to carry away from her.
I am not sure if you really mean to say this. Maybe you just worded your though poorly. What this says is every single one of those "way too many people legally licensed to care[sic] ...."
Surely you did not intend to paint with such a broad brush.
pwarbi
Member
The answer itself was fine, It was the way it was answered that I didn't like, that along with the other remarks on the various other posts.
Seeing as nobody still hasn't asked my opinion, I shall give it to you all anyway before I go and say that I actually agree with what @TCassidy says, and I think you should defend your constitution as you always have done. While there will be calls for firearms to be made illegal and who knows what other sanctions will be put in place, if you give in to this, it will only be the tip of the iceberg and who knows which of your rights you'll be asked to give up next?
Your right not everyone that is licensed to carry or own a firearm is irresponsible. What I should have said is there are some individuals being allowed to own/carry a firearm that while their intentions are noble, trying to help catch a thief, their actions are reckless and can possibly cause harm to innocent people. When I say, "too many people are legally allowed to own/carry a firearm", I am also referring to the increase in mass shooting that have been occurring and the fact that in most of the incidents the firearms used were legally owned. Thank you for correcting me! I appreciate your feedback.
Last edited:
Really? And how many is that? And what percentage of them commit gun crimes? And what percent of the general public not licensed to carry commit crimes of violence?
So because one person was an idiot you want to penalize those who obey the law and conduct themselves rationally?
I' m speaking on individuals that legally own firearms in general. While this specific situation is rare there have been a large amount of gun related deaths recently by individuals who own or have access to legally owned firearms. I personally have no problem with responsible individuals owning guns.
You contention is not backed up by the facts. I suggest some research.
Sorry to offend but I am speaking more in regards to the increase in incidents of gun violence/murder recently not in regards to gun ownership in general. I never mentioned anything about taking away a persons right to own a firearm, just this woman mentioned in this article. I personally have no problem with a responsible person owning a gun.
And what increase is that? Here is a chart showing the actual facts. Gun violence is on the decrease. Largely due to armed law abiding citizens fighting back.
One thing to keep in mind, for the most part simple possesion of non-automatic action firearms is not licensed in the US. Concealed Carry is.
When I say too many people legally own firearms I am speaking in regards to individuals that are killing large amounts of innocent people with legally owned guns. I am aware not everyone who owns legally owns guns is irresponsible and I don't think a person's right to own a gun should be taken from them.