Posted on 08/14/2016 8:31:19 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax
Current laws should be changed to allow concealed carry (CCW) permit holders to be armed in gun-free zones (GFZ).
Two scenarios to consider:
First, you have a CCW license and are out for a normal day. You find yourself in a GFZ. Therefore, you don’t have your gun as current law prohibits it. A shooting breaks out. Without your gun, what do you do? Do you flee or hide? Being unarmed, your options are limited. The outcome for you and fellow citizens may be completely out of your control. Although law enforcement in our nation is outstanding and officers are trained for such events, their response is reactive, taking several minutes. That means people die.
In the second scenario the law allows holders of a CCW license to be armed in GFZs. You are now a potential first responder rather than a defenseless, likely victim. In this scenario, the criminal has unknowingly lost a vital advantage. Circumstances may allow you to end the threat or at least minimize deaths. And given CCW training mandated in some states, or the application of just plain common sense, you understand the conditions under which it may be best to not engage the shooter if you can’t do so safely.
Which of these provides the potential for a better outcome? What does your gut--your natural survival instinct--tell you?
Statistics show that gun sales and CCW applications spike after news reports of shootings. People instinctively realize the need to assert their inherent, natural right to take responsibility for their own well-being.
In many states, those who apply for a CCW must take a gun safety course that includes shooting range time. Knowledge is power. Individuals who are unfamiliar or uncomfortable with guns become more confident with training and practice. Moreover, both FBI and state statistics...
(Excerpt) Read more at thecoachsteam.com ...
Back in the “Good old days” of the Wild Wild West when everyone was packin’ there was a lot more law abiding and a lot fewer random shoot ‘em ups.
It won’t be long before the PC crowd, in their efforts to prevent “gun violence”, will declare no one can carry in a GFZ...Even the police...
That’ll stop violence...Yes, it will...
if you have a ccw...ignore the unconstitutional laws such as a gun free zone.
A good guy with a gun is no guarantee of a better outcome, but without one, the bad guy has an absolute guarantee he will have his way until cops show up with their chalk.
I always do.
Agreed. It’s not a panacea. However, it does afford one the chance to stay alive.
It should be noted that while training is a good thing, and to be encouraged by the gun carrying public, it is not as essential as you might think.
That is, he cited that the number of permitted concealed carry owners with training who commit crimes is extremely low. But there is no appreciable difference between them and those members of the public *without* training, who also don’t commit crimes, in those states with constitutional carry.
It should also be noted that there is no “crowded theater effect”, in that legal gun carriers everywhere are *very* judicious in firing their weapon. They seek out a clear field of fire, *and* they pay attention to both the foreground and the background of their target.
Finally, gun liberty has restored something that should now be obvious: that “the citizenry *are* the police”.
The uniformed police are just a convenience. There are always too few of them to maintain law and order in society. But the armed citizenry can be *everywhere*, and they are willing to maintain order and *prevent* crime; something the police can only rarely do.
Police are the day and night watch, the gatherers of evidence, the dogged pursuers of those wanted by the courts, and the keepers of order in crowd events and traffic. And with an armed society, this is enough.
Doesn’t it occur to anyone else that before there were gun free zones such as ‘gun free school zone’ that there was no need for gun free zones? The school shootings started when the suggestive ‘gun free school zone’ signs went up.
Most gun free zones have absolutely no protection for civilians when a nut shows up with a gun. Incedentally, the nut with a gun didn’t pay any attention to the ‘gun free’ signs. Why then do we also obey the law?
It seems the time has come for the ‘gun free’ signs should start to come down and with them the knowledge that nobody has a gun for the perpetrator to rely on.
Let’s start to put pressure on legislators to do away with the ‘gun free’ signs.
Doesn’t it occur to anyone else that before there were gun free zones such as ‘gun free school zone’ that there was no need for gun free zones? The school shootings started when the suggestive ‘gun free school zone’ signs went up.
Most gun free zones have absolutely no protection for civilians when a nut shows up with a gun. Incedentally, the nut with a gun didn’t pay any attention to the ‘gun free’ signs. Why then do we also obey the law?
It seems the time has come for the ‘gun free’ signs should start to come down and with them the knowledge that nobody has a gun for the perpetrator to rely on.
Let’s start to put pressure on legislators to do away with the ‘gun free’ signs.
This version is more readable.
“It should be noted that while training is a good thing, and to be encouraged by the gun carrying public, it is not as essential as you might think.”
Quite. As someone with hundreds of hours of high level training:
Armed self defense is pretty simple. Everyone knows pretty much “point gun, pull trigger, target dies”. Basic operation is taught in minutes. Advocate a good holster, teach the Four Rules, and emphasize “keep your booger hook off the bang switch until you’re ready to end someone”, and the rest of training is just getting it all ingrained & removing the innate stupid.
Certainly training is good. Too often it’s used as an excuse to disarm.
I once commented at a local bank branch to the branch manager, "thank goodness for that sign, no criminal would dare bring a gun in to rob the bank!" He laughed, and told me that he always carried at the bank (this was before MO allowed for CCW - I was at the bank working on their network.) If the bank were robbed, he didn't feel comfortable depending on the kindness of a criminal not to kill his workers or customers. If the bank were robbed, he'd cooperate, and never try to stop the robber from getting away with money. He would only draw his weapon if he felt they were in immanent danger of violence, and he knew he'd lose job over it. But he was willing to take that risk.
He agreed that it was a stupid idea, but the GFZ sign was the bank's corporate policy.
Mark
In the meantime, I avoid `gun-free zones’. They don’t get my business or patronage.
And after being stigmatized for years by the left/MSM/public as a `gun nut’, if I wander into a situation my plan is not to be a hero. I’ll shepherd my family and friends out of danger and the sheep are on their own.
BTW, while driving, remember the best way to carry: open waist pack or shoulder holster.
I carry all the time. When I go to the library, I notice the "No Firearms Allowed" sign, and wonder if they know the meaning of "concealed".
It's gone now, but a local casino used to have a sign stating "No illegal guns allowed". I'd like to think the guy who created that sign had a sense of whimsy.
Or, ignore the unconstutional laws that require a person to obtain a ccw permission slip in the first place.
People who get such permission slips should save space in their wallets for a Bible permit and Church license. Makes as much constitutional sense.
As David and Puppage mentioned, carry anyway is not a bad idea.
I’m at Ft Polk with limited Internet, but I think I recall something in TX law that there is an affirmation to the defense if the firearm was used to prevent a crime or for legitimate use. Not sure though, I can try looking it up later
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.