Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I believe what happens to some who simply obtain a handgun, strap it on and go out in public is their thoughts are filled with fanciful notions about their armed status and its responsibilities. So when something stressful takes place they have no substantive reference to manage their response and they do the wrong thing, which probably accounts for this fellow's precipitous action. I'm sure if he had been properly instructed he would have been more restrained.If someone is that paranoid maybe it's best they don't own, let alone carry a firearm. The victim had already been carjacked and the suspects were driving away when the shots were fired. I don't think self defense of himself or the victim could be applied here. He clearly realized his actions weren't lawful. This turd makes the rest of us (gun owners) look bad. Exercising your right "to keep and bear arms" also comes with great responsibilities.
There is quite a difference between sitting at home with a 12 gauge shotgun in your closet and walking or driving around in public with a handgun in a waistband or shoulder holster. But hopefully one knows how to use that shotgun and is well enough informed to wait until the door-kicker is inside before shooting him.Becoming involved in a situation which might result in the use of a gun calls for sitting at home minding your own business when some crack head starts kicking in your door.
You don't need training to know that the crack head with a knife kicking in your door is a bad guy and needs to be "deterred".
Where little old ladies are concerned it might be better for them to have a .410 shotgun in the closet rather than a 12 ga. Smaller, lighter, less recoil, but still very lethal at close range.Requiring such training will mean that some of the little old ladies that are sitting at home when this occurs will not have a gun they might otherwise have had.
Texas ‘good guy with a gun’ shoots carjacking victim in head — then runs away
At least he didn't kill him.
Shooter needs to go to jail. Good example of concealed carry creating crime.
Texas ‘good guy with a gun’ shoots carjacking victim in head — then runs away
At least he didn't kill him.
Shooter needs to go to jail. Good example of concealed carry creating crime.
How did the concealed carry by passer cause the carjackers to commit their crime?
The carjackers caused the carry guy to committ a crime. You can't just shoot people.
Indeed. But, if that was the case, there is a significant probability that the weapon was carried illegally, negating any honest argument regarding LEGAL concealed carry because a cause of anything.It would be a pretty rough night for that guy if he got car jacked at the same time as someone was coming to kill him.Presumably."Just shoot people" is very misleading here.
The shooter was aiming to stop a crime. THat is hardly "just shooting people".
He may also have been trying to kill the driver.
Either way, it is impossible to soundly or honestly argue that concealed carry created any of the crimes involved here.
Now watch as Brain continues to lie to you.
But, yes, it is a possibility.
Now watch as Bran continues to lie to you.
I love how you are too scared to debate me.
NOpe. I was obviously making a reference to intent.
You just lied again, by pretending to not understand me.
Do you doubt he was aiming at the criminals?
Doesn't matter he was negligent in shooting innocent person. Also left the crime.
Big difference from if he targeted an innocent man, or accidentally shot an innocent.
It "matters" from a legal and moral and ethical perspective.
What world are you from?
Leaving the crime scene certainly sounds bad. There could be charges there.
Interestingly enough in that case, the thing that probably caused him to commit that crime is fear of anti-gun people like you (no offense).
Ironic, isn't it?
And he clearly should be prosecuted.
Ironic is the idea guns make us safer and the only person shot was the innocent victim of a car jacking. How was he made safer?
Not really. YOu have millions of crimes and millions of defensive uses of guns in such crimes, you will have some that don't have happy endings.
THis guy? Was likely NOT made safer as he was accidentally shot.
Well we know who gets shot and killed by guns, and by far it is the owner of the gun(accidently and intentionally). That hardly makes it a safety device.
Studies show many defenses are not lawful btw.
Big difference from if he targeted an innocent man, or accidentally shot an innocent.
It "matters" from a legal and moral and ethical perspective.
What world are you from?
Leaving the crime scene certainly sounds bad. There could be charges there.
Interestingly enough in that case, the thing that probably caused him to commit that crime is fear of anti-gun people like you (no offense).
Ironic, isn't it?
And he clearly should be prosecuted.
Ironic is the idea guns make us safer and the only person shot was the innocent victim of a car jacking. How was he made safer?
Not really. YOu have millions of crimes and millions of defensive uses of guns in such crimes, you will have some that don't have happy endings.
THis guy? Was likely NOT made safer as he was accidentally shot.
Well we know who gets shot and killed by guns, and by far it is the owner of the gun(accidently and intentionally). That hardly makes it a safety device.
Studies show many defenses are not lawful btw.
It is pretty obvious that to be able to HONESTLY state that guns are not "a safety device" you would have to consider all the defensive gun uses, that do not result in anyone getting shot.
Why do you hold a position that you know you can't HONESTLY defend?
Well most defensive gun uses are a myth. We do however know who gets shot and killed, by far the owner.
Nope. Some of my friends are in higher crime areas.
You ever ASK them if they have ever used their guns in self defense?
Yes.
Well, statistics work like that. I might know two, you might not know any, someone else might know 6.
There isn't a statistic. Most of them are a myth. They aren't supported by any real statistic.
Then how do you know they are a myth if, as you claim, there are not any hard numbers on them?
You ever ASK them if they have ever used their guns in self defense?
Yes.
Well, statistics work like that. I might know two, you might not know any, someone else might know 6.
There isn't a statistic. Most of them are a myth. They aren't supported by any real statistic.
Then how do you know they are a myth if, as you claim, there are not any hard numbers on them?
I did not say all are a myth. Well we know there are about 230 criminals shot and killed in defense each year. Then there are 50 or so stories that make the news each year. They happen, but not in any significant numbers.
Since when you or I are not responsible for the consequences of our accidents?
Mmmm, well, for one, since some one else might be responsible.
If you slip and fall on an icy sidewalk, are you to be held "responsible"? Or the person responsible for clearing the sidewalk of ice?
This is more a person gets pushed and falls. Yes the pusher is responsible.
Who created the dangerous situation of a "icy sidewalk/violent crime" in the two situations?
The pusher and the shooter.
Shooter didn't create the crime. The carjackers did that.
Why do you want to give them a pass for the results of the crime they committed?
You as generous with slumlords who don't clean their sidewalks?
The 2.5 million crimes prevented figure by fire arms include the police.
Then how do you know they are a myth if, as you claim, there are not any hard numbers on them?
I did not say all are a myth. Well we know there are about 230 criminals shot and killed in defense each year. Then there are 50 or so stories that make the news each year. They happen, but not in any significant numbers.
You stated that "most of them are a myth".
How do you know that if there are no "real statistics"?
The number of criminals shot and killed obviously leaves out the number of criminals shot and wounded, and the number of times that criminals were deterred with just the presence of a gun.
When you said that "none" of your carry friends have defended themselves, were you only counting the ones that shot and killed criminals in self defense, or all of those that used a gun, in any fashion to defend themselves from a crime?
Well some people claim millions each year. those numbers aren't even mathematically possible based on current crime rates and ownership rates. So if somebody thinks there are millions, than most of those are a myth.
When you said that "none" of your carry friends have defended themselves, were you only counting the ones that shot and killed criminals in self defense, or all of those that used a gun, in any fashion to defend themselves from a crime?
Here is a study of actual confirmed defenses:
Analysis of Five Years of Armed Encounters (With Data Tables)
34% ended with death of criminal.
Overview
For the period 1997 – 2001, reports from “The Armed Citizen” column of the NRA Journals were collected. There were 482 incidents available for inclusion in the analysis. All involved the use of firearms by private citizens in self defense or defense of others. No law enforcement related incidents were included. The database is self-selecting in that no non-positive outcomes were reported in the column.
When you said that "none" of your carry friends have defended themselves, were you only counting the ones that shot and killed criminals in self defense, or all of those that used a gun, in any fashion to defend themselves from a crime?
Any fashion obviously.
"Obviously"? It is the exact opposite of obvious.
YOu have set the standard for everyone else to only count, as defensive uses, those that shoot and kill the criminal(s) in question.
Indeed, it is odd that you would use a different standard for what you count as defensive uses with your friends than you use for the issue at large.
Where did I say that? Have you lost your mind?
Your words.
"Well we know there are about 230 criminals shot and killed in defense each year. Then there are 50 or so stories that make the news each year. They happen, but not in any significant numbers."
Yes I was stating what we know. I didn't state those are the only ones.
You have been linked to DOZENS of studies and research that prove that the number is between 750,000 a year to several million. You are just to STUPID to read them.Stop your lying.
YOu used that number to base your conclusion "They happen, but not in any significant numbers".
Yes not in significant numbers, I didn't put a number on it. You are dense.
NO, you're lying.
You made your claim and you are playing games instead of supporting it.
You are the one lying and making things up. Where did I put a number on it?
Well most of those are very old and put in todays numbers would be 30% less. The largest study by the ncvs says 108k.
Sure it is. It's a general number, and you used it to base your conclusion.
Stop using semantics to lie.
Why do you hold a position that you have to purposefully lie about in order to defend it?
You are the one lying and making things up.
So what is your number?
I already told you. A lot more than you think.
I see so you want to lie and avoid answering questions. Let me know when you grow up.
Hey, I haven't seen you post credible numbers on how many defensive gun uses there are a year.
The largest study was done by the NCVS and arrived at about 108k per year.
108k is also about 1/3 the number of all gun-related crimes.Yeah, I was wondering why he kept pretending is was an insignificant number.108k is >13x the number of gun-related murders.INJURYPREV : Injury PreventionLink and explain why you think that is the best study.
It is a survey of 90k households. Other surveys are far too small to be accurate.
Really? Plenty of the other surveys I have heard about have sounded large enough to be considered.
ANd 108k a year is hardly " but not in any significant numbers"."
A hurdle, yes. But not all that large. I've taken such a training course but in spite of that and my pristine background the State of New Jersey still will not issue a carry permit. That is what is standing between me and my right to bear arms. The training was a minor inconvenience -- but very worthwhile. I learned a great deal from it.And you just put a large hurdle between the American people and their Right to Self Defense.
Few of us are so fortunate as to live in the wide open spaces. Most parts of this Nation have become extremely crowded and living in these densely packed places has, because of the rules of Law which attend them, become rather complicated. Becoming involved in a situation which might result in the use of a gun calls for some extremely important conditioned reflexes, which is what a well-structured training course will initiate.
Using a gun often occurs during a situation in which there isn't time to adequately think things over. If one doesn't have a pre-conscious reference for the proper action the chance of making a mistake is greatly enhanced.
Before you may legally drive (own) a car you must be trained not only in how to properly use it but in the rules of the road. Requiring some essential training does not prevent one from driving (owning) a car -- or carrying a gun. It just makes our crowded world safer.
Cars and the requirements for legally driving them are analogous to guns and legally carrying them. Both are very dangerous mechanisms which require extensive knowledge to safely, and lawfully, make use of them.What do cars have to do with guns?
Exactly how will these "anti-gun nuts" pump up a simple training requirement to put guns out of the reach of ordinary citizens? How?AND anti-guns nuts will take any "reasonable" training requirements and pump it up every chance they get until they put guns out of the reach of all except the rich and powerful, or the criminal class.
If your concern is being able to afford attending a training course, if such courses were widely required they could be made available for a relatively small fee, or they could be federally subsidized. In any case, if one can afford the price of a handgun the price of a required training course would not add substantially to it.
I paid for my course, $44.50, (even though it didn't help me obtain a CCW in New Jersey) and I am by no means wealthy. The fee for the four hour course was $40, plus $4.50 for fifty .38 wad-cutter cartridges.
