When Seconds Count

[mikeb302000]

http://www.akron.com/akron-ohio-community-news.asp?aID=13204">Akron.com provides a step-by-step account of the movements of the killer. Basically, as we've been reading all week, he went from bouse to house, through backyards, even chasing one victim into a neighbor's house in order to execute him, an 11-year-old.

Hance was killed by a Copley police officer, Mier said, about 10 minutes after the first 9-1-1 call was received.

What that means is the murderous rampage lasted at least 11 minutes, presuming the first call took place some seconds after the first shot. Where were all the armed neighbors? Where were all the local CCW guys?

How many times have we heard that flippant remark, "when seconds count, the police are minutes away." This infers that in places like Ohio where many homes have guns and the percentage of concealed carry permits is high, we don't have to wait for the police to put a stop to things like this.

Yet, http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2011/01/ccw-guys-at-safeway-shooting.html">as we saw in Arizona a few months ago, this is just not the case. As with the Loughner shooting, it's a safe bet that gunowners were on hand but they turned out to be powerless to stop the onslaught of violence.

Why, I don't know, probably several reasons, but I have one theory. The vast majority of gun owners, even concealed carry guys, are not trained for this kind of intervention. They may think they are, but when the SHTF, as they like to say on http://thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/07/robert-farago/self-defense-tip-be-careful-what-you-pretend-to-be/">The Truth Abough Guns, they're not up to the task. It takes quick decisive action to intervene, and courage, knowing that getting involved, you go from being a neutral spectator to a potential target.

Most people are frozen with fear during those critical seconds or minutes. Their owning guns does nothing more than make them feel safe, and of course, increase the chances of gun mishaps of many kinds.

What's your opinion? It seems to me this story illustrates that altough the exemplary action of the police was not as swift as we'd like it to have been, it was pretty good. And once again we count ourselves lucky that none of the local gun owners made it worse.

http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/">(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

What do you think? Please leave a comment.

[TheWraith]

1. If someone had tried to chase this guy down and kill him, you'd be screaming vigilantism.

Unrec for your continual flamebaiting and blog-flogging.

[mikeb302000]

6. not really

If someone in one of the homes had shot the guy, I'd be the first to applaud that as a clean DGU.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

16. Maybe at the heat death of the universe...

You are all agenda and no substance on this issue. You convince no one and shamelessly flog your blog

[Blown330]

The usual.

Unrec for blog flogging. Mike obviously needs to pick up a dictionary and look up "vigilantism".

[mikeb302000]

7. The Wraith is the one who used the word

"vigilantism."

[Blown330]

35. To quote you.

Where were all the armed neighbors? Where were all the local CCW guys?

Asking why CCW holder or those neighbors with guns to go on the offensive is asking for vigilantism. Once again you prove how ignorant you are of the laws regarding defensive use of firearms.

[iverglas]

49. to quote every gun militant in the USofA

If someone had had a gun at Virginia Tech ...

Once again, you prove how disingenuous you choose to be.

[Blown330]

55. Pot calling the kettle black...

...also you don't read very well as by now you'd now this particular criminal WAS stopped by precisely the type of person the OP was talking about. Disingenuous: see also iverglas.

[iverglas]

57. poster strewing straw around after being betttered

If you don't want to reply to a post, DON'T.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Blown330]

2. Duplicate post.

[mikeb302000]

9. wrong

my post is not about the shooting, per se, it's about the feckless armed citizens who did nothing to stop it till the Law arrived and saved the day.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AtheistCrusader]

26. You know that an armed person stood by and did nothing?

Where did you buy your crystal ball? Mine only tells me what I'm having for lunch.

There were two known armed people at the Arizona shooting, one was victim #1, and didn't see it coming. The other was inside the Safeway, and by the time he arrived on the scene, the shooter was down.

Get your history right before you cast aspersions on people you don't know.

And quit flogging your blog.

[ileus]

43. I thought the goal of this forum (for most) as to assure people with guns do nothing.

[PavePusher]

28. You have a list of those folks that were legally armed and verifiably with-in range...

of being able to provide assistance?

Or are you just trying to be an insinuating asshole?

[iverglas]

61. I'll trade you

for a list of the people who not only would have had a permit to carry a concealed firearm but also would have actually been carrying a firearm on the Virginia Tech campus, and a clear description of how (starting with whether) they would have intervened and prevented deaths.

I believe I asked first. Quite some time ago.

The question is open to the class. Do I see any hands?

[ileus]

3. When seconds count the police are minutes away...be prepared

The next time it could be you...

Buy the right firearms, I recommend one Carbine, a shotgun, and a nice handgun. Then train, train, train...Refuse to be a victim.

[Travis_0004]

4. I participate in shooting competitions.

I have experience shooting on the move, even shooting at moving targets. I also know the layout of the inside of my house, and if somebody is breaking into my house I have the element of surprise.

Even if I am outgunned, and he has more training than me, I would rather go down shooting. And I agree with you, that CCW holders may not intervene. Maybe they decided to get the hell out of the situation, which is fine.

And even your own post makes no sense. It says in the story the police had help from a homeowner. Yes he was a former police officer, but he was out there helping the police. If they did a medical investigation to determine which gun killed the guy, then obviously a home owner was armed, and may have even shot at him. If you want a story to prove homeowners with guns are a bad idea, choose a different one.

[mikeb302000]

10. this story illustrates

not that homeowners with guns is a bad idea, we have plenty of other stories for that, this one shows the uselessness of guns and CCW permits when the SHTF.

[Atypical Liberal]

18. Which is more useless?

>this story illustrates not that homeowners with guns is a bad idea, we have plenty of other stories for that, this one shows the uselessness of guns and CCW permits when the SHTF.

If guns were so useless for confronting bad people with guns, the police wouldn't carry them.

You don't even know if any of the victims or anyone nearby had guns. You are completely speculating.

[ileus]

21. because everyone knows criminals are better trained and smarter than the average CHP holder.

just more grabber lies to try and back up the clock 15 years.

[Atypical Liberal]

22. Exactly.

But no matter what, when confronted with a violent assailant, I'll take a gun and no training over no gun and no training every day of the week.

[ileus]

23. I shoot maybe 1k out of my 4 or 5 pistols a year.

not a lot by some peoples standards but I'd bet it's somewhere between 990 and 1000 more than your common criminal. I have faith in me...I really don't care what someone that want's me disarmed thinks. In fact they can go to hell...


That doesn't include 500 or 600 rounds of 223 and another 3 or 400 in my 9mm carbine.

Nor does it include 100's or 22's and shotguns rounds, or any of my heavier caliber rifles.

[mikeb302000]

40. and when was that exactly

when did you have to use your gun to save the day?

[Atypical Liberal]

69. About the same time...

and when was that exactly when did you have to use your gun to save the day?

About the same time as I was last saved by my carbon monoxide detector. Or maybe it was about the last time I used my spare tire.

[iverglas]

50. who's telling lies, now?

because everyone knows criminals are better trained and smarter than the average CHP holder.
just more grabber lies to try and back up the clock 15 years.

Somebody give me an accurate characterization of the assertion that "grabbers" make the statement in the subject line of your post. Please.

Oh, and will somebody tell me why all the sensitive souls who report posts with terms like "gun loon" haven't been alerting away on the ignorant and less than candid insult here?



typo fixed

[AtheistCrusader]

27. YOUR narrative illustrates only the contents of your mind.

CCW is irrelevant, when considering these were people's homes, and permits are not required.
YOU are assuming that the people in this neighborhood are armed. It is statistically possible there isn't a single firearm in this neighborhood. It is statistically possible that none of the people who own firearms were home. etc

[mikeb302000]

41. yean, that's possible (wink-wink) n/t

[gejohnston]

42. gun ownership is highest in rural areas

and lowest in urban and suburban areas. But going out looking for him would still be vigilantism, so your point is not well thought out. On the other hand, are saying CCW folks are vigilantes?

[iverglas]

51. CCW is irrelevant?

Surely if one of the householders had taken a household firearm and left their property with the intent of protecting another person, some sort of authorization would have been needed. I guess if it was a shotgun, there'd be a bit of a catch-22 ...

YOU are assuming that the people in this neighborhood are armed. It is statistically possible there isn't a single firearm in this neighborhood. It is statistically possible that none of the people who own firearms were home. etc

Indeed.

So I can expect you to be the first person to reply to the next person who asserts that if it had been legal to carry a concealed firearm on the Virginia Tech campus ... or anywhere else where a homicide occurs in one of those famous "gun-free zones" ... well, you know how the chorus goes.

[AtheistCrusader]

65. I know you know better than to conflate possibilities with guarantees.

And no, if you go outside gun in hand, even to protect a neighbor across the street, no permit is required in this country. It authorizes concealment only. Nothing more.

[PavePusher]

29. Useless? Bullshit. You have seized upon one incident, for which you do not have evidence....

to support your assertions, and extrapolate that it represents all incidents.

Your roses must grow to prize-winning stature, as you seem to fling enough fertilizer for the purpose.

[iverglas]

52. what evidence have you ever demanded

from anyone asserting that allowing individuals to carry concealed weapons in those "gun-free zones" would prevent injuries/deaths?

Oh. Oops.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php/duboard.php?az=post&forum=118&topic_id=396184&mesg_id=396355

PavePusher
Mon Mar-28-11 05:00 AM
Response to Reply #74
131. Two web sites with thousands of links to actual news reports of self-defense with firearms.

http://www.thearmedcitizen.com /
http://www.keepandbeararms.com /

Yes, the list is massive. Go to town...


MyrnaLoy
Mon Mar-28-11 05:08 AM
Response to Reply #131
135. Did anyone say

self defense? No, we said mass shootings since Luby's. That is what this thread is about. We can however start a new one and discuss self-defense shootings as compared to violent crimes committed with firearms if you like. Wanna do that?


PavePusher
Mon Mar-28-11 05:25 AM
Response to Reply #135

144. Stopping an intended or potential mass murder is not Self-defense?

Wow, you're moving those goal posts again.

I'm happy to keep them where you put them.

That thread was about allowing individuals to carry concealed firearms on university campuses.

Your claim is that third parties with firearms will stop intended/potential mass murders of other people.

Nobody in the scenario presented in the OP was prevented from having a firearm, in all likelihood. In all likelihood, some of them did have.

Oh well.



formatting fixed

[AtheistCrusader]

66. At least one person at Luby's was forced to leave her firearm in the car.

Can I guarantee that she would have stopped the gunman if she had brought it inside? No. It is by chance of seating that she wasn't killed the moment his truck crashed through the front window. Gun would have done her no good in that case.

But by leaving it in the truck she had ZERO possibility of opposing the gunman, and was forced to flee, with the other survivors. To me, that is an unacceptable scenario. Worse, by habitually leaving it in the vehicle, chance of theft is higher.

[iverglas]

68. "No"

Can I guarantee that she would have stopped the gunman if she had brought it inside? No. It is by chance of seating that she wasn't killed the moment his truck crashed through the front window. Gun would have done her no good in that case.

There we go.

But by leaving it in the truck she had ZERO possibility of opposing the gunman, and was forced to flee, with the other survivors.

No, that's not so, and people who have overpowered people with guns have demonstrated that. Arizona.

Worse, by habitually leaving it in the vehicle, chance of theft is higher.

I hate to say it, but ..... duh .....

Leave the fool fucking thing at home locked up where it should be, if there's some reason to own it in the first place. Don't blame someone else for the appallingly anti-social choice to leave a firearm in a car.

[AtheistCrusader]

71. Counter-point, Virginia Tech.

Gunmen are not always overpowered. Loughner was apparently unable to reload quickly. Likely the weapon was jammed.

I will compile some numbers for you, from mass shootings. My impression is, the shooters usually die from direct police opposition, or they kill themselves upon encountering any sort of armed opposition. Police or otherwise.


There is a reason the Glock 18 (the fully-automatic handgun that 32 round magazine was designed for) is only used by one special forces unit in one military in the world, for one particular purpose. It is a fairly unreliable piece of shit. It is not unheard of for these magazines to cause a failure to feed, a total jam, or for the floorplate to break, dumping spring and ammo all over the ground.

[iverglas]

73. and the point was?

Sorry, I missed it.

Virginia Tech?

"Nobody overpowered person with firearm in Case A" doesn't mean it can't be done or hasn't been done. There are a whole lot of factors involved, eh?

Any more than "allowing people to tote firearms with them everywhere" means that there will be someone with a firearm on site or that person will be willing/able to use it to overpower another person with a firearm. Whole lot of factors involved there too.

[mvccd1000]

5. Proved your own point, didn't you?

Here's a violent criminal, shooting people at will... you'd hope that would call for the fastest response time possible. Instead, it took 10 minutes for police to arrive.

In spite of that fact, there are STILL groups of people who feel they're smugly entitled to remove any opportunity for self-defense in such an instance. You have to wonder how their thought processes have gone so far off track.

[pipoman]

8. Unrec for shameless blog pimpin'

Do you have anything which proves that anyone who was effected had defensive guns either ccw or otherwise? Didn't think so. Of coarse you know that ccw and defensive guns in the home are for self defense, not for public safety. So, essentially, your whole diatribe is an assumptive crock-o-shit

[geckosfeet]

11. Because of the potential legal battles. Aside from the pschological issues

of having to shoot someone, and even though you are ostensibly keeping others from being killed, you will be portrayed in court as a blood thirsty killer yourself. Your license will be suspended and your firearms will be confiscated until after everything is settled. In the meantime you will be unlicensed and unarmed.

The castle laws in most states say you (or those in your home) must be in fear of loss of life or serious bodily injury. In general the law does not say anything about chasing down someone you suspect of shooting someone, and then shooting them. Out on the street it is generally recommended that you DO NOT defend strangers unless you are prepared for the legal feeding frenzy that will follow. You will potentially be sued left and right. By victims (for not acting soon enough) and by the bad guys lawyers for your intervention.

I think that in most cases, unless you see someone shoot someone else, and then see that gun turn in your direction, you will have many difficult legal challenges ahead if you shoot.

So my view is that it becomes incumbent on people to take responsibility for protecting themselves. Do not rely on the guy with a ccw to take the responsibility for you. Although there is great variation from state to state the law does not openly encourage, much less allow, others to protect you unless you are in their home.

[HillbillyBob]

13. Local sheriff pointed out that chasin them down after you have shot

them once constitutes murder here. If you shoot the guy once and hes down. Get and keep his weapon away from him if you can, if hes not dead Mr Sheriff said If I come out and there are holes in the suspect and in your floor after already wounding them you get the full legal baggage.
If you just shoot em and let em lay there you are not in so much trouble.
As I said before this is such a low crime area..and the poachers have found out that the gay bears do not play. WE ran off some guys trying to take Turkey hens out of season..shoot they were sittin on nest and these jokers were shooting round and toward our house.
Since partner went out and shot down a bunch of branches over their heads and told them that was apurpose because when he shoots at you he hits you. They have apparently spread the word since we have had no trespassers or poachers since.

[HillbillyBob]

12. All bluster and rhetoric aside

How many here have been on the wrong end of a mugging or home invasion?
I have to both. You have to be aware and on the 'trigger' so to speak. I was not and got my face bashed in with a cast aluminum skillet by a break and enter. Truth be told I had had 3 drinks and was not on the ball, not drunk just at a neighborhood bar and did not see that I had a shadow, the muggings I was outnumbered 5 and 6 to one. I had pepper spray but did not have the speed or wherewithal to use it at the time.
Where we live now it is not likely one of these types can even find their way up here..and I have alarms..6 dogs 50 to 75 pounds. I doubt they would attack as most are herding breeds, but they sure make noise and we keep guns.

[Upton]

14. Italian gun control..

"The measures adopted to restore public order are: First of all, the elimination of the so-called subversive elements. … They were elements of disorder and subversion. On the morrow of each conflict I gave the categorical order to confiscate the largest possible number of weapons of every sort and kind. This confiscation, which continues with the utmost energy, has given satisfactory results.”
- Benito Mussolini, address to the Italian Senate, 1931

http://americainchains2009.wordpress.com/2010/01/24/dictators-and-gun-control/

[Atypical Liberal]

17. Where were the guns, indeed!

What that means is the murderous rampage lasted at least 11 minutes, presuming the first call took place some seconds after the first shot. Where were all the armed neighbors? Where were all the local CCW guys?

How many times have we heard that flippant remark, "when seconds count, the police are minutes away." This infers that in places like Ohio where many homes have guns and the percentage of concealed carry permits is high, we don't have to wait for the police to put a stop to things like this.

It infers nothing of the sort. It simply infers that police take time to arrive at a crime scene. In this case, it took 11 minutes. 11 minutes where the killer was free to do as he pleased until someone with a gun showed up to stop him.

Yet, as we saw in Arizona a few months ago, this is just not the case. As with the Loughner shooting, it's a safe bet that gunowners were on hand but they turned out to be powerless to stop the onslaught of violence.

But in fact, a CCW permit holder was on the scene, coming out of the grocery store and preparing to bring his gun into action when Loughner was subdued while trying to reload.

Why, I don't know, probably several reasons, but I have one theory. The vast majority of gun owners, even concealed carry guys, are not trained for this kind of intervention. They may think they are, but when the SHTF, as they like to say on The Truth Abough Guns, they're not up to the task. It takes quick decisive action to intervene, and courage, knowing that getting involved, you go from being a neutral spectator to a potential target.

Most people are frozen with fear during those critical seconds or minutes. Their owning guns does nothing more than make them feel safe, and of course, increase the chances of gun mishaps of many kinds.


Even if this complete speculation were true, so what? I would rather have at least the possibility to defend myself than have no chance to defend myself.

The simple fact of the matter is that, once again, a bad guy with a gun was stopped by a good guy with a gun. Maybe civilians aren't as trained to defend their lives with a gun (and it certainly doesn't help if your gun is locked away, unready for use), but this is no reason to say that people should not even have the option to try.

What's your opinion? It seems to me this story illustrates that altough the exemplary action of the police was not as swift as we'd like it to have been, it was pretty good. And once again we count ourselves lucky that none of the local gun owners made it worse.

That didn't take much luck, though, since local gun owners hardly every make it worse.

Unrecommended for blog spam.

[Atypical Liberal]

19. AND IN FACT SHOOTER WAS CORNERED BY NEIGHBOR WITH A GUN

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/08/copley.html

"Hance was cornered by a patrolman and a neighbor who was a former police officer who had a gun."

[DWC]

20. A Citizen's first responsibility

is the protection and defense of those in their charge and themselves.

Sadly, all you have shown is that these adult, citizen victims appear to have been unprepared to defend themselves or the child in their charge. They apparently expected this situation to never happen to them and, if it did, expected police to protect them.

You asked where were the CCW neighbors? One armed neighbor did assist in taking the murder down 11 minutes into the attack. The real question is why were the homeowners not armed and prepared to defend themselves and those in their charge?

You have provided an example of tragic situation where guns in the hands of intended victims trained in their use would have saved lives.

Semper Fi,

[rrneck]

24. Feckless hyperbole

that avoids the question: Why couldn't the people who were getting shot shoot back?

Unrecognized for vapid ideological blog flogging.

[PavePusher]

25. Your insinuation is that all incidents are equal.

That is, of course, utter bullshit.

Have fun with your mendacity.

[Glassunion]

30. You don't understand what CCW is for.

1. What is the duty to protect of gun-owners, CCW holders and Law Enforcement?
2. Exactly how many armed neighbors were in this particular neighborhood and where were they in relation to the crime?
3. When you say that the percentage of CCW is high, exactly how many homes in OH have a CCW permit holder?

Answer these questions and you might have a point. Otherwise your entire post is speculation and has no merit.

You see, on my License to Carry, I had to fill out a section on the form as to why I was applying for the License. I had options: Target Shooting, Hunting & Fishing, Employment or Self Defense. Nowhere on the form was I sworn in as a Law Enforcement officer, nor was I deputized by the Sheriff who issued the License. Nor was I at any time informed that I was obligated to intervene in stopping felonies.

Self Defense(MW): the act of defending oneself, one's property, or a close relative

Now answer these questions. I have firearms in my home and I have a License to Carry. If I hear shooting outside of my home, what am I obligated to do? Am I obligated to run out of my home towards some unknown threat? How am I supposed to know the extent of the threat; is this a shooting, who is doing the shooting, am I hearing someone defend themselves? Or... Am I obligated to remain in my home, call the Police and remain with my family? Shouldn't my obligation be to my family to do what I can to insure their safety?

What do you think? Please leave a comment.

[one-eyed fat man]

31. You are woefully ignorant.

Your snide and shallow denigration of the neighbors in this case proves beyond all doubt that you know little about the laws concerning the use of deadly force or self defense.

KRS 503.050
(1) The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by the other person.

(2) The use of deadly physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable under subsection

(1) only when the defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious physical injury, kidnapping, sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat, felony involving the use of force.

503.070 Protection of another.

The use of deadly physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when:

(a) The defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect a third person against imminent death, serious physical injury, kidnapping, sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat, or other felony involving the use of force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to KRS 503.055; and

(b) Under the circumstances as they actually exist, the person whom he seeks to protect would himself have been justified under KRS 503.050 and 503.060 in using such protection.

A person who uses deadly force to intervene to protect a third party is held to a much higher standard than a person who is merely defending himself. For defense of your self the circumstance as they appear, and you believe them to be are sufficient. For example, a robber confronts you with what appears to be a real gun and says he will shoot you if you don't give him your wallet. Under the law you have every right to take him at his word and respond with deadly force. You have justification. As state law says, "In any prosecution for an offense, justification, as defined in this chapter, is a defense."

To defend a third party, the circumstances, IN FACT, not merely their appearance or your belief must justify the use of deadly force. For example, late one night, in a downtown parking garage, you encounter a man holding a gun on a woman in what appears to be a robbery. If, IN FACT, it is a plain clothes policeman arresting a female criminal, YOUR USE OF FORCE IS NOT JUSTIFIED, and you have no defense to any charges.

In the case of self defense, you are given the benefit of the doubt. You do not have to wait until the criminal actually shoots you. As long as he appears to have the means and intent to cause death or serious injury you are justified in defending yourself.

In defending a third party, you must be certain, IN FACT, that the person you are defending would be justified in using deadly force. Unlike a law enforcement officer under the same ambiguous circumstances, your reasonable belief is no excuse. The police have at least an implied duty to affect the arrest of any person who appears to be committing a felony in their presence. There is no presumption of duty on the part of a civilian with a concealed weapons permit, thus the higher standard to justify the use of deadly force when defending a third party.

I have no duty, obligation or inclination to protect you. In fact, if the Brigate Rosse had you bent over saw horse and were sodomizing you on the square, should I deign to make a call to the authorities, I'd be light years ahead of the civic responsibility shown by the New Yorkers in this shameless episode.

[ileus]

32. why do you people treat this as anything but "guns are worthless in the hands of civilians" post?

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GreenStormCloud]

34. I am not a cop. My gun is to protect ME. not you.

Getting involved in somebody else's fight is extremely risky. You may get the good guy and the bad guy mixed up.

[DWC]

45. Actually, a cop's gun is not to protect you either.

It is there to protect the cop.

Semper Fi,

[GreenStormCloud]

46. Yes, that is true. N/T

[krispos42]

36. You got what you wanted. Nobody touched a gun to stop the guy.

That's what you want, right? People not having access to guns, WHICH MUST INCLUDE people not touching a gun to stop an assault?


Here's a question for you. Where were all the non-gun alternatives that responsible citizens are suppose to employ to keep the Evil Evil Guns out of the hands of criminals? The tasers, the pepper spray, the baseball bat?

[friendly_iconoclast]

37. He certainly *did* get what he wanted. And complained about it

Feh!

[shadowrider]

62. Don't forget good old fashioned fists and martial arts training n/t

[spin]

38. Let me ask you a question ...

Do you feel that because I have a concealed weapons permit that the State of Florida expects me to be a police officer?

I'm sitting in my home typing on a computer. How do I know what is happening in my neighborhood? People do not dial my number and ask me to respond, they call the police.

If I hear gun shots, I might suspect a car backfiring or fireworks. I don't immediately jump up at every noise, grab a gun and check out my neighborhood. My son in law often has the TV volume cranked up in another room and he likes action movies.

Now if a neighbor ran up to my door and sought refuge and told me that a lunatic was running around the neighborhood shooting people, I would let him in, get a firearm, make sure the rest of my family was safe, call 911 and seek cover where I could watch the entrances to the house and shoot an intruder if he broke in. I would probably grab my 12 gauge coach gun and I have a good location where I can watch all three entrances. If my daughter and son in law were home, they also would be armed.

I would be very hesitant to leave my home and attempt to clear the neighborhood. It is not a good idea to be running around outside with a gun in your hand while the police may be looking for an armed individual. Suppose I did go outside and I saw a gun with a gun. How do I know who he is? Perhaps he is the bad guy or maybe he is another neighbor who is as foolish as I am. He could even be an off duty or undercover cop or a detective who responded to the situation.

I agree with you that I am not trained to be a police officer or a member of a SWAT team. I don't have a bullet proof vest or a radio to communicate with the police.

I have a carry permit in order to defend myself or my family.

[RagAss]

39. This is an excellent post.

All we can do is protect our doors and our loved ones. I'd do the same with my Rem. 870 in my hands.

[ileus]

44. Very well said...

[Paladin]

47. Well Said, Spin---Particularly In The Overheated Environment Of The Gungeon. (n/t)

[friendly_iconoclast]

48. It's not like it hasn't been said before many times, by myself amongst others.

Where have you been?

Gun owners and/or CCW holders aren't cops, and no one should expect them to be.

[iverglas]

54. what has been said many many many many times

by poster after poster after poster in this place is that firearms possession by individuals carries benefits for other individuals / the public. Over and over and over.

Virginia Tech. Do your own searching.

Where have YOU been in all those instances?

[Blown330]

56. And many many many times....

...you have choose to ignore threads already posted in this forum where a third party was defended by another with a firearm. It's not even a Google search but a glance down the page you passed to get here. Talk about lazy.

[iverglas]

58. your fan--ship seems to be becoming obsessive

Isn't there somewhere else you'd like to spend your chances?

And many many many times....
...you have choose to ignore threads already posted in this forum where a third party was defended by another with a firearm.

Find me one, will ya?

:rofl:


edit, oops -- and prove your assertion that I "chose to ignore" anything and wasn't off, oh, having eye surgery, or working, or beavering away at somebody's ancestral mystery somewhere else ...

Looking forward!

[Blown330]

59. I already said...

...I was a fan of your humorously ridiculous rantings which is why I hadn't put you in the Ignore Box...:rofl:


Find me one, will ya?


See, lazy. Tell you what, you see that arrow at the top of your browser that points to the left? You should click on it and READ a little. Makes all the difference in the world. Oh and this behavior was evident BEFORE you had your eye surgery so I'm sorry that excuse of yours won't hunt.

[iverglas]

60. oh expert on all things moi

I've been having eye surgeries for several years now. Four to date. Plus the co-vivant's three. Plus his two episodes of life-threatening DKA. Plus my sister's cancer and my mother's cancer ... and also since my joining this site a decade ago, my dad's several surgeries and death ...

And I work. And for the last few years I have found vastly more entertaining things to do on the internet than hang around here, most of the time. Both work and entertaining things have been in short supply this summer. A couple of days ago I got handed an interesting ancestral mystery (English, born and orphaned in India, hmm), and I've had a couple of actual work jobs in the last couple of weeks, and I now have a couple for next week, so I'm going to have to get to them today. Consider that my request for a permission slip.

Where you think my back button would take me, I don't know. Nor do I care.

You made a claim, you can't substantiate it, you are a loser. Not that any proof of that was needed.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

53. here's my question

Do you feel that because I have a concealed weapons permit that the State of Florida expects me to be a police officer?

Why do you not ask this same question of every single poster, every single time that one of them claims that allowing individuals to carry concealed weapons in schools, on campuses, etc. etc., would provide protection for THIRD PARTIES, i.e. prevent/reduce the numbers of deaths in intended/potential mass murder situations?

Why is it only when someone else takes that claim and runs with it that a whole load of people get all exercised?

Either "for the benefit of third parties" is an argument for firearms possession or it isn't. Is it?

Anybody care to offer their answer to that, once and for all?



typo fixed

[spin]

63. There are times when a person with a concealed carry permit ...

has intervened in a violent attack on a third party successfully.

For example watch this video. In this case an individual with a carry permit saves the life of a woman. (Note: the announcer starts to narrate after 15 seconds.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soZT__WQKsM&feature=player_embedded

And had a student or teacher who was in one of the classroom at Virgina Tech, he could have quite possibly used his weapon to save lives.

In that situation, Cho was going from classroom to classroom shooting people. The students in some classrooms had time to attempt to barricade the door to the class. Is it unrealistic to believe that an armed student could not have taken cover with his firearm pointed at the barricaded door and waited until Cho forced the door open, made sure that he was the shooter and not a cop, and then shot him?

According to several students, before the shooting began Cho looked into several classrooms. Erin Sheehan, an eyewitness and survivor who had been in room 207, told reporters that the shooter "peeked in twice" earlier in the lesson and that "it was strange that someone at this point in the semester would be lost, looking for a class".<21> Cho's first attack after entering Norris occurred in an advanced hydrology engineering class taught by Professor G. V. Loganathan in room 206. Cho first shot and killed the professor, then continued shooting, killing nine of the 13 students in the room and injuring two others.<1> Next, Cho went across the hall to room 207, in which instructor Christopher James Bishop was teaching German. Cho killed Bishop and four students; six students were wounded.<1> Cho then moved on to Norris 211 and 204.<20> In both of these classrooms, Cho was initially prevented from entering the classroom by barricades erected by instructors and students. In room 204, Professor Liviu Librescu, a Holocaust survivor, forcibly prevented Cho from entering the room. Librescu was able to hold the door closed until most of his students escaped through the windows, but he died after being shot multiple times through the door. One student in his classroom was killed.<22> Instructor Jocelyne Couture-Nowak and student Henry Lee were killed in room 211 as they attempted to barricade the door.<23>emphasis added
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre

Of course, Cho may have never decided to try the massacre had the college not been a gun free zone.


People who have concealed carry licenses are well aware that they are not considered cops. That is emphasized in the courses required to get a carry license and in the literature published by the states on CCW. For example:

Use of Deadly Force for Lawful Self-Defense

***snip***

Q. When can I use deadly force in the defense of another person?

A. If you see someone who is being attacked, you can use deadly force to defend him/her if the circumstances would justify that person's use of deadly force in his/her own defense. In other words, you "stand in the shoes" of the person being attacked.

Q. What if I see a crime being committed?

A. A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman. But, as stated earlier, deadly force is justified if you are trying to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. The use of deadly force must be absolutely necessary to prevent the crime. Also, if the criminal runs away, you cannot use deadly force to stop him, because you would no longer be "preventing" a crime. If use of deadly force is not necessary, or you use deadly force after the crime has stopped, you could be convicted of manslaughter. emphasis added
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html

So yes, a person with a carry permit may be able to save the life or health of another individual. It can indeed be one of a number of arguments for firearms possession.

[iverglas]

64. I keep asking the question

... nobody keeps answering ... even though at great length sometimes.

[spin]

67. I answered it ...

You're just playing an attorney.

And you're damn good at it.

[Scout]

72. really, you did not. words have meaning, and you did not answer the actual question asked. n/t

[iverglas]

74. I tend to take spin as sincere

but sticking to the subject is not his forte. ;)

[Atypical Liberal]

76. Sure.

Either "for the benefit of third parties" is an argument for firearms possession or it isn't. Is it?

Anybody care to offer their answer to that, once and for all?

Yes, firearms can be used for the benefit of third parties.