Concealed-weapons law increases dangers in life

I didn't publish her name here.

Well, since she did, I will. It's Brenda.

And all I can say is I'm sorry Brenda - you married a NUT. And if he didn't 'practice killing you' with guns, he would have used something else. Like knives.

And BTW, nobody says YOU have to carry a gun. feel free not to. But I'd then suggest you stay of MLK Drive after sundown (assuming you're white), or any part of 'the bad neighborhoods' where you live, as I wouldn't want your car to breakdown.

~~As something would likly go wrong with the inadequate crack-addict mind that needs to use a gun to rob, rape and proably kill you. Then feel free to~~

Forget the above -- insert this;
Brenda you're a moron. Call 911 and have a nice after-life.

I would like to make the public aware of the possible "side effects" of this new bully law

Thanks. I'm obviously too stupid to think for myself.

As for the "side effects" from a personal standpoint, the state now recognizes my Right to carry a tool that I paid for with my own money.

From a societal standpoint, I would expect to see a decline in the violent crime rate, since this has been the experience of most states that have passed CCW laws.

First off, don’t be surprised that if and when you get pulled over by a police officer, he or she comes in full assault fashion with gun drawn and ready to defend his or her life. You’ll have a gun pointed right at you, cocked and ready to fire.

And don't be surprised if I file a lawsuit against the jackboot for excessive force. And don't be surprised if his boss takes him off the street for numerous complaints of acting like a moron.

Don’t panic and do something stupid, because you might get shot

Yeah, and then I might own half the freakin' town if I survive. Or I might just die, then I won't have to listen to the bulls**t from you and your fellow sheep anymore.

After all, he must assume you’re armed

Didn't they assume this before this law was passed?

Or are the officers dumb enough so they just assumed that Mr. Gang Banger would obey the laws against CCW becasue "it's against the law".

Statistics in Texas have shown that citizens with CCW 'permits' are 70% less likely to commit crimes than those without CCW 'permits'.

So tell me again why your average cop would fear a CCW holder? Are they stupid, or do they simply have a superiority complex?

I’m sure many officers have pondered this situation in their daily duties.

If an officer can't handle a peaceably armed citizen, then he or she needs to find a new line of work.

Cops in 35 other states with CCW laws don't seen to have this problem.

Nor do officers in the dozen or more states where open carry is totally legal, or in Alaska or Vermont where anyone can carry open or concealed without a permit.

Do you think Missouri police officers are dumber than those in Vermont?

I will always be against putting more potentially dangerous weapons in the hands of our general public

How do you feel about putting other "potentially dangerous weapons" in the hands of the general public, like ballots or books or cars?

Less lethal avenues should be sought if you feel you need to defend your life 24 hours a day

In other words, you should just hand over your wife and daughters to a burglar/rapist?

There’s something wrong with the inadequate mind that needs to use a gun to feel protected

You mean like all those cops that not only carry guns, but "drawn and in full assault fashion" for a routine traffic stop?

I know, because for 22 years, I was held hostage in my own home as my ex-husband practiced killing me day in and day out with his beloved guns

So let me see if I understand this:

Your husband, which I assume you voluntarily married, held you hostage for 22 years and conspired to murder you every day for 22 years, and you didn't call the cops. You didn't call a lawyer. You didn't leave. (Did he duct tape you to the chair, and only untie you when it was time for you to write your "contribution" to the paper?).

So now you want to take away everyone else's gun for something you accused your ex-husband of doing, and which easily could have been prevented if you had only taken the responsibility of either arming yourself (in most states it is lawful to use deadly force to defend your life or prevent a forcible felony), or utilizing those very resources (the police) which you desire that the rest of us use for our sole source of protection.

Well, here's what I think:

First, the Constitution enumerates my Right to keep and bear arms. In other words, I have a Right to own and carry a gun, regardless of what you think, or your friends think, or your masters in gov't think.

Secondly, I really don't care about your "plight". You're an adult. If you were too stupid to marry a bad guy, then stick with him for 22 years, then that is your problem, not mine. It doesn't give you the Right to tell me what to buy with my money, or what I can carry on my person. Nor does it give you the Right to conspire to overthrow the Bill of Rights.

Finally, I doubt very seriously that your husband was as bad as you claim. You've accused him publicly of multiple forcible felonies, and many men in that position would sue you and your paper for slander in civil court. Such false public accusations may also be grounds for criminal charges.

Most law abiding gun owners don't advocate shooting the messenger...

"Why do you so strongly oppose the government's
registering firearms and licensing gun owners?

Every car is registered; every driver is licensed
or should be. Cars are important and dangerous.
Guns are important and dangerous. So what's the
problem with gun registration and owner licenses?"
>
It's a tough question because it draws on the everyday example
of automobiles, and most everybody seems to accept state
regulation of cars and drivers. Many pro-gun people have real
trouble answering this question, and some among us have even
surrendered the point.
>
Logic and history prove that gun registration and owner
licensing pose grave threats to life and liberty. But we need
to deliver a powerful answer to the question without the social
studies lesson. The answer needs to be a fast effective sound
bite.
>
So we are offering the following three-reason package below.
This formula is the "long version." If you need to give a
quicker answer, then just give the first sentence of each
reason. You can deliver the "long version" in 45 seconds -
and the "short version" answer in less than 30 seconds.
>
Three Reasons in a Nutshell
>
Here is the answer you can give:
>
(1) Practically speaking, registration and licensing laws do
not affect criminals, they only affect innocent citizens.
>
(2) Fundamentally speaking, citizens in a free society do not
have to get permission from anyone to exercise their right to
self-defense, just as they don't need permission to freely
speak or worship. Licensing and registration schemes require
citizens to get permission to defend themselves, so those
schemes don't belong in a free society.
>
(3) Historically speaking, registration and licensing have
been part of "gun control" programs that made possible the
calculated mass murder of between 70 and 170 million people.
Registration and licensing make genocide easier, not harder.
I fight against genocide and I don't want to make genocide
easier anywhere in the world.
>
How to Use the Answer
>
This answer is only 120 words at the most, so you can memorize
it. It's pretty easy to memorize because it makes perfect sense.
>
Why memorize it? Because, when you are challenged, you need
to seize the initiative. A snappy but profound quick answer
gives no opportunity for interruptions. Speed and power are
critically important when the questioner is hostile or you are
being interviewed for radio or television. You don't want to
have to think of the answer - you need to deliver it
immediately.
>
After you give the "long version" answer, you can turn the
tables on the questioner. Ask this zinger question:
>
"Now that you know the truth about registration and
licensing, how can you support those ideas?"
>
Dealing With The Objections
>
Objection # 1: "Driving a two-ton car at 60 mph is a privilege,
not a right. Owning a lethal weapon should be considered a
privilege, too."
>
Your answer: "Driving a car on tax-funded roads might subject
you to the tax-funded government regulations. Exercising the
right to self defense, however, doesn't depend on tax-funded
resources and should never require anybody's permission."
>
Objection # 2: "Gun registration and owner licensing helps
police solve crimes, just like the cars' license plates and
the drivers' licenses."
>
Your answer: "License plates and driver's licenses don't
prevent any crimes, they only help track suspects after the
>fact. Serious criminals frequently use stolen cars and plates;
many drive without valid licenses. Likewise, serious criminals
will not be licensed and will use unregistered or stolen guns,
and the tracking feature is worthless anyway if the cops don't
find the gun."
>
Objection #3: "You're just paranoid; don't you trust our
government to license and register deadly weapons while
preserving your right to shoot?"
>
Your answer: "Wrong question. The government is supposed to
answer to you and me. Why does the government so distrust the
vast majority of decent non-violent firearms owners that it
wants to identify and track every owner and every firearm?"
>
>* * *
>
What happens when the government holds monopoly power over
firearms? How do licensing and registration schemes kill?
Read the bone-chilling facts in Death by "Gun Control": The
Human Cost of Victim Disarmament ($16.95 postage paid). Order
the book by calling (800) 869-1884 or clicking on
http://www.jpfo.org/deathgc.htm . Get two free "Gran'pa Jack"
booklets with your order. Join JPFO -- still only $20 annual
dues.

I wonder if she did shoot her husband?

Oh give me a break! I was pulled over a few years ago in Columbus, GA. When I reached in the glove box to get the insurance card, my husband's hand gun came tumbling out. The cop rolled her eyes at me, like anyone would when confronted with a clumsy bimbo, and waited for me to put the gun back and get the insurance card. She did not panic.

Bump

Click the Pistol to View the *Bang_List

To View All FR Bump Lists Click Here

All of the officers I know always assume everyone is armed.

Some officers also carry a spare they're willing to give you after a mistake shooting.

There’s something wrong with the inadequate mind that needs to use a gun to feel protected.

Your mind is faulty Ping!
Why is there an assault rifle under my desk???

What an idiot.

All cops have always assumed that all stops are potentially going to be met with gunfire, and that every person they deal with is armed. The flat, outright ban on all firearms would do NOTHING to change this.

I wonder if she did shoot her husband?

Just my impression from the way she writes; she nagged the guy to death.

This post "This woman is a nut." sums up the article as well as it can be.

Exactly!

they're willing to give you after a mistake shooting.
LOL! Could be - I've never bben shot by a police "mistake" so I wouldn't have first hand knowlege on this.

Well lets see her personal animosity toward her ex-husband somehow translates into animosity toward guns because he owned guns. If any one needs to seek psychiatric help its this woman.

Most law abiding gun owners don't advocate shooting the messenger...

Let me repeat myself -- Old joke: "Writers who abuse hyperbole should be taken out and shot!"

What I posted was not only a joke, it was also an example of hyperbole, get it?

Examples of the article writer's abuse of hyperbole:

-- First off, don't be surprised that if and when you get pulled over by a police officer, he or she comes in full assault fashion with gun drawn and ready to defend his or her life.
-- You'll have a gun pointed right at you, cocked and ready to fire.
-- Don't panic and do something stupid, because you might get shot.

Don’t panic and do something stupid, because you might get shot. Obey the officer, keep your hands in sight and move slowly when he asks for your license....

Now roll over and bark like a dog.

gun registration and owner licenses
Well first of all the license scheme for automobiles were designed for tax collection reasons. LATER it began to be used for criminal investigations.
Second, the ONLY reason it is useful in criminal investigations is because you are required to have a tag out where everyone can read the number. Try solving a crime where an auto was used without a tag number.
A tag would be a bit awkward for a firearm one is carrying. I guess we could wear our "tag" around our neck.
Third: It is the law of the land that "we the people" put into our Constitution. Not so with automobiles. (Maybe it should be though)
Anyway, that is my short response.

Just so you know what the rules are and how to handle yourself.

5 Rules of Conceal and Carry

"YOUR CONCEALED WEAPON IS FOR PROTECTION OF INNOCENT LIFE ONLY."

"KNOW EXACTLY WHEN YOU CAN USE YOUR WEAPON."

"IF YOU CAN RUN AWAY SAFELY- RUN, RUN RUN!"

"DISPLAY YOUR WEAPON, GO TO JAIL."

"DON'T LET YOUR EMOTIONS GET THE BEST OF YOU."

Detail

5 Rules of Conceal and Carry (like a pistol)

1. YOUR CONCEALED WEAPON IS FOR PROTECTION OF INNOCENT LIFE ONLY.

Draw it solely in preparation to protect yourself or an innocent third party from the wrongful and criminal activities of another.

2. KNOW EXACTLY WHEN YOU CAN USE YOUR WEAPON.

The criminal adversary must have or reasonably appear to have:

A. The ABILITY to inflict serious bodily injury. He is armed or reasonably appears to be armed.

B. The OPPORTUNITY to inflict serious bodily harm. He is positioned to harm you with his weapon, and,

C. His INTENT (hostile actions or words) indicates that he means to place you in jeopardy - to do you serious or fatal physical harm.

When all three of these "attack potential" elements are in place simultaneously, then you are facing a reasonably perceived deadly threat that justifies an emergency deadly force response. Note that these conditions may be defined differently in certain circumstances. For example, a small woman may be justified in using deadly force with a handgun against a much stronger male who is unarmed and attempting to rape or kill her. For a male vs. male encounter the defendant probably would not be justified unless possibly if he was physically handicapped, elderly, etc. This is known as disparity of force.

3. IF YOU CAN RUN AWAY SAFELY- RUN, RUN, RUN!

Just because you are armed doesn't necessarily mean that you must confront a bad guy at gunpoint. Develop your situation awareness skills so that you can be alert to detect and avoid trouble as much as possible. Keep in mind that if you successfully evade a potential confrontation, the single negative consequence involved might only be your bruised ego, which should heal quickly with mature rationalization. But if you force a confrontation, and it escalates into deadly force, you risk the possibility of death or serious injury to yourself and any friends, family members, or innocent bystanders that may be present.

Also you face the possibility of criminal liability and/or financial ruin from a civil lawsuit as a result of your actions. Flee if you can - fight only as a last resort.

Naturally, there are circumstances in which you may be able to flee but it would not be in your best interest or judgment to do so. For example, a situation that you could easily flee from when alone may be difficult to safely avoid if your family was with you. Also it may be a judgment/ethics call on whether or not to fight or flee based on what is happening to potential victims around you.

For example, a gunman may be threatening the life of someone else and not even notice you. If you leave the scene, and go call 911 and just wait for the police to show up, you may have to deal with guilt and emotional issues that result if the gunman kills someone. In contrast, if you intervene, then you may risk your own life. The gunman may have a partner, which you have not identified and involvement may find you outgunned. Remember that self-preservation, and keeping your loved ones safe should be your first priorities. Always remember to stay calm and quickly analyze the situation at hand. Use good judgment on how you will react to any given circumstance.

4. DISPLAY YOUR WEAPON, GO TO JAIL.

You should expect to be arrested by police at gunpoint, and be charged with a crime anytime your concealed handgun is seen by another citizen in public, regardless of how unintentional, innocent, or justified the situation might seem.

Choose a method of carry that reliably keeps your gun hidden from public view at all times. You have no control over how a stranger will react to seeing (or learning about) your concealed weapon. He of she might become alarmed and report you as a "man or woman with a gun". Depending on his or her feelings about firearms, this person might maliciously embellish their story in an attempt to have your gun seized by police or in order to get you arrested. Even though your jacket only blew open for a moment, giving a brief glimpse of your gun, that person may tell the police that you were waving it around like a homicidal maniac. An alarmed citizen who reports a "man or woman with a gun" is going to be a lot more credible to police than you are when you are stopped because you match the "suspect's" description and you are found to have a concealed handgun in your possession. Before you deliberately expose your gun in public, ask yourself "is this worth going to jail for?" The only time this question should warrant a "yes" response is when an adversary has at least both the ABILITY and INTENT and is actively seeking the OPPORTUNITY to do you great harm.

Also, remember that proper concealment of a weapon is more than just covering it up so that it is not physically visible. You want to remove as much as possible any signs that you are armed. For example, you would not wear a tight T-shirt that shows the lines of your gun printing through it, especially if that T-shirt has a firearm related logo or statement on it. Also, a black nylon fanny-pack or a photographer's vest may, in certain areas or in certain modes of dress tell any half-educated person that you are packing a gun. It is also not usually a very good idea to let too many people know that you carry a gun. This fact should be limited to your immediate family and select friends who are "gun people" also. Please, for your sake and the sake of others around you - be discreet!

5. DON'T LET YOUR EMOTIONS GET THE BEST OF YOU.

When you are armed, you must realize that you just lost your right to initiate ANY type of confrontation that could possibly escalate into a violent encounter. You must now have a very mellow attitude on life and your fellow mankind.

You just lost the right to flip off the motorist who just cut you off in traffic. You have to ignore the scumbag who just "wolf-whistled" at your wife/girlfriend. If someone wants to pick a fight with you, you lost the right to respond in any way other than a kind, friendly manner while walking away. As an armed person you must be more likely and willing to avoid trouble that an unarmed person would be. You have the legal and moral obligation of de-escalating any situation that you are presented with unless you are faced by someone displaying all three of the "attack potential" elements. Carrying a loaded firearm among your fellow citizens is an awesome responsibility that is not to be taken lightly.

Remember, once you strap on your weapon, you must carry with it a great measure of discretion and judgment, along with an easy-going attitude.

I will always be against putting more potentially dangerous weapons in the hands of our general public

To B Gray:
Go back to England. They will be happy to keep you disarmed. We founded this country on freedom, not security and the nanny state.