The finality of firearms use (mild barf alert)

Milwaukee J-S ^ | Lance Ausing

[rellimpank]

I have put a lot of thought into the debate about concealed-carry legislation in Wisconsin and have watched how this has played out, both in the media and with our representatives.

I wanted concealed carry for the longest time and thought that this would be good for me and for others. I guess my thought process was that for criminals, not knowing I had a gun in my possession was good for deterrence, and I embraced this notion for personal protection. At least that was my justification for why we should have concealed carry in the state.

Then came my service in Iraq.

I served this country faithfully for many years. Having been in the armed forces for so long, I saw so much that I cannot begin to tell you all of it. But I can tell you that once the trigger is pulled, the bullet never comes back.

You never have a second chance, nor does the perpetrator, in the event you are wrong. I think people are failing to realize this fundamental fact in every situation involving a firearm.

[rellimpank]

--several of the commentors demolish this argument--

[Scotsman will be Free]

This article is full of so much BS I don’t know where to start. So, I’ll leave it at this. Lance is a lying, wimpy clown with no concept of real life or defending yourself despite his claims of “being in the military”.

[mikeandike]

This guy must think that people who carry concealed will shoot at anyone that looks at you askance. It’s the same lame argument time and time again. People will shoot each other when they bump shopping carts in the grocery store. etc...etc...

[Jerrybob]

There is a finality when you pull the trigger; no doubt. And having never done it, I have no idea what it's like to have to live with taking a life. But I'm pretty confident when I say the following: if I ever did have to pull the trigger on someone who is attempting to do me or a loved one of mine great bodily harm or worse -- I think the finality of protecting myself or my loved one, against letting that person commit that crime against me or my loved one, would be something I could live with.

What it all boils down to is good versus bad. I'm a law-abiding, peaceable person; the one attempting to commit the crime against me or my loved one is obviously not. I win, he loses; end of story. I go home, he assumes room temperature. That's the way it ought to be. Not a rosy ending, but one that's better than the one that WOULD HAVE BEEN had I not pulled that trigger.

[LRS]

A sad fact of life is that the “finality thing” is the only thing that keeps some people in line...

[mad_as_he$$]

“God created men equal, Col. Colt made them equal...”

[arthurus]

Ask law enforcement officers, and they will tell you how heavily that weighs on them each and every time they strap on their firearms

And then there are the SWATs who revel in the possibilities that are opened up to them on every raid. Citizens need firearms and intense training to resist the SWATs.

[Senator John Blutarski]

If the author is so plagued by uncertainty to the degree that he is personally unwilling to ever defend himself with potentially deadly force, that is absolutely his decision to freely make. He is also free to present his argument in a public forum. But neither he nor the state has any right to DICTATE the conduct of any other citizen in such regards.

[668 - Neighbor of the Beast]

“I believe firearms have no business on anyone’s hips - concealed or otherwise.”

That’s his closing. The man is clearly cranio-rectal.

[Pollster1]

I won't go into detail, but I fully understand the finality of "pulling the trigger". That action is not for being "dissed" on the streets, but that is not when lawful concealed carry citizens pull the trigger. It is for situations when there is an immediate threat to your own life or safety or that of another. In that situation, I am 100% in favor of solving the problem permanently. One should have thought about that situation in detail and already made the decision on whether to shoot and where to aim. One should shoot to put an end to the threat (nothing more than ending the threat even though that's the same point of aim as shooting to kill, but one should never say the intent was to kill). After stopping the immediate threat, one should say as little as possible beyond that it was self-defense to stop an immediate threat, if one says even that much, then shut up except for talking to a good lawyer with experience in that area.

Afterward, there may be guilt, but that is misplaced. The world is a better place without the sort of pedophile who breaks into a home, without an armed robber or carjacker even if that thug was "a good boy who was just turning his life around", or without a rapist. Stopping the threat is a good deed and far more effective than locking up a predator for two or three years of weightlifting.

[Scotsman will be Free]

True. He’s still a lying clown.

[Scotsman will be Free]

No, no, no. Just tase them or use pepper spray you barbarian. According to Lance not only is your life to be endangered by the criminal and his actions you are to risk it further by taking half measures so as to not harm the poor widdle cwiminal.

[freedomfiter2]

Don’t forget the BATF agents that shoot unarmed women in the head while she is holding her baby.

[absolootezer0]

PTSD?

[Flintlock]

This does not pass the smell test from the gitgo.
It’s total made-up BS IMHO.

BTW—all this so-called “non-lethal” stuff is ILLEGAL, TOO. Remember how well it all worked on Rodney King?? I’ll take my old friends Smith and Wesson any day.

[Durus]

I find it odd that a man that has taken an oath to defend the constitution completely ignores said oath while arguing against the constitution.

[DocH]

Don’t forget the BATF agents that shoot unarmed women in the head while she is holding her baby.

BATFAG JBTs have initiated much of the illegal and unecessary violence and carnage directed at innocent U.S. citizens, particularly during the Clinton/Reno Reign-of-Terror, but in the case of the unwarranted assault on Ruby Ridge, it was a FBI HRT sniper named Lon Tomohisa Horiuchi (born 9 June 1954) that murdered Randy Weaver's wife as she was holding her baby in her arms.

As far as I know, he was never prosecuted for the murder (what a surprise).

[edpc]

But I can tell you that once the trigger is pulled, the bullet never comes back.

A silly statement by the author as it's....

Not Always True

[eastexsteve]

Certainly, the use of deadly force should be contemplated. But, contemplated way in advance of having to use it. As far as I am concerned, the thug/rapist/murderer is the one who made the choice. And, it was their choice to make, and not mine. Leave me and my family the hell alone, or get shot. It’s a simple choice.

[Dead Corpse]

It's a liberal thing. I've tried to understand how a liberal can hold two completely opposed ideas in their head. I've come to the conclusion that they can't. It breaks some part of the logical brain that processes and responds to facts and reality.

They should all be on thorazine.