Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Recommended Posts

Associated Press, “Police: Man shoots, kills would-be carjacker outside store,” Yahoo News, May 2, 2015, online at http://news.yahoo.com/police-man-shoots-kills-carjacker-outside-store-004403757.html  

 

--the shooting took place in the parking lot of Macey’s grocery in Orem, Utah, about 200 yds from the Utah Valley Regional Medical Center.

 

Can homicide ever be justified?  Do humans have a right of self-defense?  Is concealed-carry all right for civilians?  What does LDS theology say on the matter?

Share this post


Link to post

My daughter and I had a discussion about this general question when we watched Mission to Murder Hitler on Netflix, the story of the group of German officers who attempted to kill Hitler during WWII. The movie said that millions of lives would have been spared if the attempt had succeeded.

 

It perhaps ties into your reference above...the events surrounding Nephi and Laban.

It also relates to this and other passages.

 

That said, I am happy not to have been in a predicament where I have had to make a life-and-death decision.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, self defense is justified.

Share this post


Link to post

As Bluebell statd, in the US we have a concept of being able to defend our home. This has gotten stickier over the years with some states needing some degree of feeling as if you or your family members are personally endangered while others allow you to shoot to kill if someone breaks into your home.  

Our lawyers could better address the issue using a gun in public. That is an even much more stickier situation.  

Share this post


Link to post

 

Associated Press, “Police: Man shoots, kills would-be carjacker outside store,” Yahoo News, May 2, 2015, online at http://news.yahoo.com/police-man-shoots-kills-carjacker-outside-store-004403757.html  
 
--the shooting took place in the parking lot of Macey’s grocery in Orem, Utah, about 200 yds from the Utah Valley Regional Medical Center.
 
Can homicide ever be justified?  Do humans have a right of self-defense?  Is concealed-carry all right for civilians?  What does LDS theology say on the matter?

 

 

Yes it can be. But we better make sure that it is justifiable before we commit a homicide.

 

We have the right to self defense. The law is required to determine if and when it is justified.

 

Only if there is a well substantiated need for such. The last thing we need is more idiots carrying more firearms.

 

LDS theology is that we have the right to self defense. We don't have the right to be an idiot about it.

Share this post


Link to post

If a man breaks into my home with or without a weapon and threatens me or my family, I have the right to stop him and use deadly force as needed. On the other hand , if he breaks in and sees I am armed and runs away, I better not follow him and shoot him because there is no longer an immediate threat.

As for the OP, if the media has the story correct, then the shooting was justified for defense of self and others. The only thing a policeman might have done differently, is shoot the guy while he was still in the vehicle.

Share this post


Link to post

.............................................................   

 

LDS theology is that we have the right to self defense. We don't have the right to be an idiot about it.

Where is this stated in the Standard Works, or in comments by the Brethren?

Share this post


Link to post

Where is this stated in the Standard Works, or in comments by the Brethren?

 

Doctrine and Covenants Section 98:23-48

 

We're supposed to warn our enemies three times then the Lord allows us to use force. The reality is that if you wait three times it is probably too late.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes it can be. But we better make sure that it is justifiable before we commit a homicide.

 

We have the right to self defense. The law is required to determine if and when it is justified.

 

Only if there is a well substantiated need for such. The last thing we need is more idiots carrying more firearms.

 

LDS theology is that we have the right to self defense. We don't have the right to be an idiot about it.

 

What, do you think, constitutes a "well substantiated need for such"? 

 

It used to be the case that only a few states permitted concealed carry.  However, over time this practice has grown considerably until now, as of April 2015, only 14 of 50 states do not have "shall issue" laws.  In other words, in 36 states if you can pass a background check and successfully take a firearms safety course (where required), they the state MUST issue you a permit to carry a concealed pistol.  Check out this interesting Concealed Carry Map.

 

In "shall issue" states you don't have to demonstrate a "need".  And, just so you know, "idiots" are not permitted to carry concealed.  If you use "idiot" in its technical psychological/psychiatric sense, not its name-calling sense. 

 

And the interesting thing is this: despite the fact that more people than ever are now able to carry concealed pistols, virtually no abuse of the privilege is recorded.  Of course some "idiots" do stupid things, but demonstrably not even police officers are immune from misusing firearms.

 

I don't usually talk about this, but since I'm practically anonymous online (ha ha), I will say that I live in a "shall issue" state that doesn't even require a firearms safety class to get a permit.  And I happen to be one of those idiots with a permit to carry a concealed pistol.  I've had the permit for nearly twenty years.  I am acquainted with a number of others who are likewise equipped.  I recall fifteen years ago my wife and I getting together with three other couples from our ward for a dinner at a local restaurant.  During the dinner I suddenly realized that we were probably all armed.  Since we were all good friends I felt I could poll everyone, so I asked: "So who here is exercising his or her rights tonight?"  They all knew what I meant, and all but one (one of the wives) raised their hands (although she had a permit, too, she had decided not to drag along her pistol that night). 

 

I wonder if what I've just said scares anyone here in the thread? 

Share this post


Link to post

...I wonder if what I've just said scares anyone here in the thread? 

 

Actually, it's reassuring.

Share this post


Link to post

Where is this stated in the Standard Works, or in comments by the Brethren?

Ammon killed seven men who were trying to kill him and his companions in a disagreement over stolen sheep.

Share this post


Link to post

What, do you think, constitutes a "well substantiated need for such"? 

 

It used to be the case that only a few states permitted concealed carry.  However, over time this practice has grown considerably until now, as of April 2015, only 14 of 50 states do not have "shall issue" laws.  In other words, in 36 states if you can pass a background check and successfully take a firearms safety course (where required), they the state MUST issue you a permit to carry a concealed pistol.  Check out this interesting Concealed Carry Map.

 

In "shall issue" states you don't have to demonstrate a "need".  And, just so you know, "idiots" are not permitted to carry concealed.  If you use "idiot" in its technical psychological/psychiatric sense, not its name-calling sense. 

 

And the interesting thing is this: despite the fact that more people than ever are now able to carry concealed pistols, virtually no abuse of the privilege is recorded.  Of course some "idiots" do stupid things, but demonstrably not even police officers are immune from misusing firearms.

 

I don't usually talk about this, but since I'm practically anonymous online (ha ha), I will say that I live in a "shall issue" state that doesn't even require a firearms safety class to get a permit.  And I happen to be one of those idiots with a permit to carry a concealed pistol.  I've had the permit for nearly twenty years.  I am acquainted with a number of others who are likewise equipped.  I recall fifteen years ago my wife and I getting together with three other couples from our ward for a dinner at a local restaurant.  During the dinner I suddenly realized that we were probably all armed.  Since we were all good friends I felt I could poll everyone, so I asked: "So who here is exercising his or her rights tonight?"  They all knew what I meant, and all but one (one of the wives) raised their hands (although she had a permit, too, she had decided not to drag along her pistol that night). 

 

I wonder if what I've just said scares anyone here in the thread? 

 

My husband has had a concealed carry permit for years and I'm glad that others do as well.

Share this post


Link to post

What, do you think, constitutes a "well substantiated need for such"? 

 

It used to be the case that only a few states permitted concealed carry.  However, over time this practice has grown considerably until now, as of April 2015, only 14 of 50 states do not have "shall issue" laws.  In other words, in 36 states if you can pass a background check and successfully take a firearms safety course (where required), they the state MUST issue you a permit to carry a concealed pistol.  Check out this interesting Concealed Carry Map.

 

In "shall issue" states you don't have to demonstrate a "need".  And, just so you know, "idiots" are not permitted to carry concealed.  If you use "idiot" in its technical psychological/psychiatric sense, not its name-calling sense. 

 

And the interesting thing is this: despite the fact that more people than ever are now able to carry concealed pistols, virtually no abuse of the privilege is recorded.  Of course some "idiots" do stupid things, but demonstrably not even police officers are immune from misusing firearms.

 

I don't usually talk about this, but since I'm practically anonymous online (ha ha), I will say that I live in a "shall issue" state that doesn't even require a firearms safety class to get a permit.  And I happen to be one of those idiots with a permit to carry a concealed pistol.  I've had the permit for nearly twenty years.  I am acquainted with a number of others who are likewise equipped.  I recall fifteen years ago my wife and I getting together with three other couples from our ward for a dinner at a local restaurant.  During the dinner I suddenly realized that we were probably all armed.  Since we were all good friends I felt I could poll everyone, so I asked: "So who here is exercising his or her rights tonight?"  They all knew what I meant, and all but one (one of the wives) raised their hands (although she had a permit, too, she had decided not to drag along her pistol that night). 

 

I wonder if what I've just said scares anyone here in the thread? 

 

I'm neither a pro-gun nut or a anti-gun nut. I am anti-putting a gun into the hands of a nut.

 

A Private Investigator may qualify, along with a person normally licensed to open carry, could also close carry. There's a few more in there. But the average Jane or John Doe really has no well substantiated need to open or close carry.

 

Far too many people carry firearms, and when you add in the careless, and idiot factors it is even worse.

 

Psychiatry/psychology hasn't used the term idiot for a long time now. Yes it is now a pejorative for someone who does incredibly careless/foolish/dangerous or illegal things. 

 

In the US more guns in more hands means more people will misuse them. Homicide/suicide by firearms is the second leading cause of death in children and teens in the US. For the rest of the world.

SEE http://www.americanbar.org/groups/committees/gun_violence/resources/the_u_s_compared_to_other_nations.html

 

Never said police were immune. I think police should have fewer firearms anyway, as witnessed by recent incidences in the news. If you want a better example the US military has better control of firearms. They keep them in a armory under lock and key. Only those with a well substantiated need are issued firearms. I was a Personnel Sargent in the Air Force. Once a year I carried a firearm. It was at the firing range where we had to yearly qualify for their use. Unfortunately not even the US military is immune from the idiots. IE; Major Hasan.

 

Wow, a state that doesn't require training in the use of a deadly tool in public. But does require the training to drive a vehicle on the public roads. :shok: :shok: :shok:

 

I can't address you personally; but I sincerely hope you have extensive training in the use of that firearm.

 

I've been legally permitted to carry off and on since 1970. For medical reasons about 2 years ago I gave all my firearms to one of my sons.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm neither a pro-gun nut or a anti-gun nut. I am anti-putting a gun into the hands of a nut.

I don't think you'll find anyone to disagree with you on this, except possibly genuine nuts.

A Private Investigator may qualify, along with a person normally licensed to open carry, could also close carry. There's a few more in there. But the average Jane or John Doe really has no well substantiated need to open or close carry.

That is so wrong I hardly know where to start.

Who is licensed to open carry? Nearly half of all states (23 of them) are classified as "permissive" on this issue. This means that the state does not issue licenses for open carry. You want to carry openly in these states, and you're not legally forbidden to possess firearms, then go for it. You might get some police attention if you do it, but if you're not actually threatening people you're fine. Check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry_in_the_United_States#Jurisdictions_in_the_United_States for more information. My state is permissive, so I can carry openly if I want.

You say that "the average Jane or John Doe really has no well substantiated need to open or close carry."

Several years ago the wife of a friend of mine was returning to her home near Portland, Oregon after a shopping trip. It was broad daylight. As she got out of the car, she noticed a man crawling out of one of the basement windows of their house. He was clearly burglarizing, but rather than running off, he immediately headed to the car to confront her. She was licensed to carry and she had her pistol. She pulled out the pistol, pointed it at him, and told him to halt. He ignored the fact that she had a gun and kept coming. She shot and killed him. Turned out he was a career criminal who had just been let out of prison a week or so previously, and was resuming his occupation. The grand jury judged it a righteous kill and would not indict her. Did she have a "well substantiated need" for a concealed carry permit, in your view? I'd bet that she didn't.

Did any of the people in that theater in Colorado where that mass murderer opened fire and killed and injured all those people have a "well substantiated need" for a concealed carry permit? Surely not! And it was too bad nobody in the theater was carrying that night -- the death toll might have been a lot lower.

Far too many people carry firearms, and when you add in the careless, and idiot factors it is even worse.

How do you know how many carry firearms? How often do you think I carry a weapon? I'm not telling you, but I sure hope that many of those with permits are carrying frequently. The criminals in concealed carry states must be cautious about when or where they commit open crimes; the ones who forbid law-abiding citizens from carrying don't have to worry about it so much.

So, when was the last time you heard about a lawfully-carrying citizen who did a stupid or careless thing with a pistol they were carrying? How many times has this happened in the last year, in the entire country? We hear a lot more about criminals who aren't supposed to even touch a firearm using them in crime than we ever do hear about lawfully-carrying citizens making stupid mistakes.

In the US more guns in more hands means more people will misuse them. Homicide/suicide by firearms is the second leading cause of death in children and teens in the US.

Yes, it is tragic when people misuse firearms. But take away the guns and it won't reduce suicide. Japan is a country with virtually no legal ownership of private firearms, but the suicide rate there is very large compared to the US. We have a tall bridge over Interstate 5 in our city that was used for this purpose at least twice a year for decades, until they installed a twelve-foot fence that had insufficient hand- and foot-holds to climb.

I am interested to see that the American Bar Association is citing nearly 20 year old data. Nothing has changed in two decades then? In 1983 the number of homicides committed by handgun was about 14,000. In 2004 it was around 8,000. This was despite a higher population and a higher rate of gun ownership.

Did the ABA's statistic include Switzerland, whose crime rate is very low, but where nearly every adult male citizen keeps automatic weapons in his home, and local governments put on frequent shooting festivals where everyone is invited to come to the range and and compete for prizes.

Just because there's lots of guns does NOT mean there's lots of crime. The subject is much more complicated. Ever hear of John Lott's book, "More Guns, Less Crime"? You might not like his conclusions, but they are based on facts, not squishy feelings.

Never said police were immune.

I never said you said they were. I was just using them as a case in point, that even with training you can still find idiots with guns.

I think police should have fewer firearms anyway, as witnessed by recent incidences in the news. If you want a better example the US military has better control of firearms. They keep them in a armory under lock and key. Only those with a well substantiated need are issued firearms. I was a Personnel Sargent in the Air Force. Once a year I carried a firearm. It was at the firing range where we had to yearly qualify for their use. Unfortunately not even the US military is immune from the idiots. IE; Major Hasan.

Well, Major Hasan isn't a good example. As much as the US government has been trying to label that incident as "workplace violence", it is clear that he had every intention of making a terrorist statement.

I spent 8 years in the US Army and I am well aware of how restrictive they are as to private possession of firearms. But do you know that regardless of rules, I was never once inspected upon entry to the post to make sure I wasn't bringing a private gun on post? The relative safety of any place does not depend upon the rules so much as it depends upon compliance with the rules. This is why your theory of "well substatiated need" is such a crock. A person of law-abiding intent who is carrying a firearm is NOT a danger to the public. Those of non-law-abiding intent are ALWAYS a danger to the public, even if they are unarmed.

Wow, a state that doesn't require training in the use of a deadly tool in public. But does require the training to drive a vehicle on the public roads. :shok: :shok: :shok:

How often do I take out my "deadly tool" in public? Regardless of how often I carry it, I've never ever had to take it out in public, fortunately. How often do I drive my "deadly vehicle" on the public roads? Every darned day. But in my state at least, the only people who are required to get driver training before getting a license are the teenagers. After age 18 you can get your license without one minute of instruction. One of my sons did that. He didn't want to take Drivers Ed, so he patiently waited until he was 18 and got his license without any training (aside from what I provided him, which wasn't really all that much). And despite my firearms training in the Army, I've never been in harms way with a gun, and so there is no way for me to know how well I will react if the balloon every goes up for me.

I can't address you personally; but I sincerely hope you have extensive training in the use of that firearm.

Well, as a former infantryman, believe me I've learned how to handle weapons. But my wife owns a revolver that she occasionally carries, and I've taken her out to the range TWICE. She's a good shot but she's had nearly zero training. Don't worry, she hasn't killed anyone yet.

I've been legally permitted to carry off and on since 1970. For medical reasons about 2 years ago I gave all my firearms to one of my sons.

I hope that your medical situation gets better!

Share this post


Link to post

I'm neither a pro-gun nut or a anti-gun nut. I am anti-putting a gun into the hands of a nut.

A Private Investigator may qualify, along with a person normally licensed to open carry, could also close carry. There's a few more in there. But the average Jane or John Doe really has no well substantiated need to open or close carry.

Far too many people carry firearms, and when you add in the careless, and idiot factors it is even worse.

Psychiatry/psychology hasn't used the term idiot for a long time now. Yes it is now a pejorative for someone who does incredibly careless/foolish/dangerous or illegal things.

In the US more guns in more hands means more people will misuse them. Homicide/suicide by firearms is the second leading cause of death in children and teens in the US. For the rest of the world.

SEE http://www.americanbar.org/groups/committees/gun_violence/resources/the_u_s_compared_to_other_nations.html

Never said police were immune. I think police should have fewer firearms anyway, as witnessed by recent incidences in the news. If you want a better example the US military has better control of firearms. They keep them in a armory under lock and key. Only those with a well substantiated need are issued firearms. I was a Personnel Sargent in the Air Force. Once a year I carried a firearm. It was at the firing range where we had to yearly qualify for their use. Unfortunately not even the US military is immune from the idiots. IE; Major Hasan.

Wow, a state that doesn't require training in the use of a deadly tool in public. But does require the training to drive a vehicle on the public roads. :shok: :shok: :shok:

I can't address you personally; but I sincerely hope you have extensive training in the use of that firearm.

I've been legally permitted to carry off and on since 1970. For medical reasons about 2 years ago I gave all my firearms to one of my sons.

Yeah, why is that? We're required to have training in operating another deadly weapon, a vehicle, but not the gun before owning.

I always think about the wild west when I see more and more people carry guns. There's probably only one good thing about that, and it is for self defence. But which tip the scales the most I wonder, accidental deaths or self defense shootings? I personally don't like my husband or I to carry a weapon, for fear we would handle it wrong or one of our children while young would get to it, or someone would have easy access to a suicide mode, or a criminal using it on us. So a person should have that training and be mentally tested to carry one. I'm not against gun ownership, but there needs to be safeguards put in place.

Share this post


Link to post

............................................

A Private Investigator may qualify, along with a person normally licensed to open carry, could also close carry. There's a few more in there. But the average Jane or John Doe really has no well substantiated need to open or close carry.

 

Far too many people carry firearms, and when you add in the careless, and idiot factors it is even worse.

Many people carrying concealed firearms does not result in greater danger, and the crime rate in concealed carry states is lower than in those that closely control such.

 

Substantiating need is a highly political matter, having nothing to do with actual need.  For example, in Los Angeles County, private investigators are not permitted concealed carry -- despite a real need.  Levels of violence are quite high in certain parts of the County, but people can only keep a gun at home, which makes many of them easy targets-victims when out and about.  Contrarywise, in Arizona, the belief is that people have a right of self-defense -- that they are not simply cattle in the field available for immediate slaughter.

 

........................................................................

.....................In the US more guns in more hands means more people will misuse them. Homicide/suicide by firearms is the second leading cause of death in children and teens in the US. For the rest of the world.

SEE http://www.americanbar.org/groups/committees/gun_violence/resources/the_u_s_compared_to_other_nations.html .

Actually not true.  States and countries with the highest levels of gun possession (especially Switzerland and Israel, with huge numbers of military weapons in individual custody) show no increased levels of violence, but rather reduced levels.

 

While it is true that firearms cause many deaths in the inner city, most of that is gang violence, and the levels of violence in the USA have been decreasing markedly for many years now (same for crime in general).  Moreover, those using the guns to kill others are not permit holders, but felons who prey on the innocent population -- whom you seem to think should be unarmed and vulnerable.

 

Never said police were immune. I think police should have fewer firearms anyway, as witnessed by recent incidences in the news. If you want a better example the US military has better control of firearms. They keep them in a armory under lock and key. Only those with a well substantiated need are issued firearms. I was a Personnel Sargent in the Air Force. Once a year I carried a firearm. It was at the firing range where we had to yearly qualify for their use. Unfortunately not even the US military is immune from the idiots. IE; Major Hasan.

How odd that we do not trust military personnel to carry firearms in garrison/off duty, while we allow law enforcement officers to carry concealed 24/7.  How callous we are to think that a terrorist like Hasan should be given free rein to slaughter unarmed soldiers at will.  There is no reason to believe that our restrictive policies are either wise or effective.

 

I speak as one who has carried firearms nearly all his life, and I was an armorer in the USMC.

 

Wow, a state that doesn't require training in the use of a deadly tool in public. But does require the training to drive a vehicle on the public roads. :shok: :shok: :shok:

 

I can't address you personally; but I sincerely hope you have extensive training in the use of that firearm.

...................................................

Yes, it is absurd that Utah does not require actual training in the use of a firearm before issuance of a CCW permit.  In response, other states have denied reciprocity (recognition of that permit) until Utah changes its rules.  Arizona, for example, actually requires passing a shooting test in order to obtain a permit.

Share this post


Link to post

I've never argued for the banning of firearms. At least in this country that is neither justifiable nor desirable. What I have consistently argued for is more and better training in their use. Along with keeping them out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, it is absurd that Utah does not require actual training in the use of a firearm before issuance of a CCW permit. In response, other states have denied reciprocity (recognition of that permit) until Utah changes its rules. Arizona, for example, actually requires passing a shooting test in order to obtain a permit.

I don't think it's absurd at all. Firearms are quite simple in concept -- the original point-and-shoot interface. We often joke that certain individuals are confused about which end the bullet comes out of, but the fact is NOBODY is confused on that point.

The interesting thing is that Oregon, to Washington's south, requires training, while Washington does not. Their experiences with licensees are pretty much the same: very little trouble. Training probably makes certain folks, such as yourself, feel better, but I would tend to think that most people seeking a license are already knowledgeable about firearms, making a training course a bit unnecessary.

For instance, when my sons turned 12 I took them out to the local gravel pit and gave them that instruction. Rule 1: All Guns Are Always Loaded. Rule 2: Never Point a Gun at Anything You Are Not Willing to Destroy. Rule 3: Always safe your weapon when not in use but remember Rule 1 and that safeties can fail.

Share this post


Link to post

The concept of driving a car is pretty easy too. But as my son said when he was 5 years old what was the first thing he had to be able to do to drive a car was be able to reach the pedals.

Share this post


Link to post

If the only thing you are going to use a handgun for is plinking at some cans on a weekend , then Stargazer's rules are probably adequate. If , on the other hand you feel the need to have a handgun for self protection, then it is very advisable to take and complete a  rigorous training program which emphasizes shooting under pressure and adrenaline.Many stories have been shown in the media where a cop fires  6 + shots at a criminal and only 1 bullet does any damage , showing that even a trained person can be a poor shot under stress.

Share this post


Link to post

If the only thing you are going to use a handgun for is plinking at some cans on a weekend , then Stargazer's rules are probably adequate. If , on the other hand you feel the need to have a handgun for self protection, then it is very advisable to take and complete a rigorous training program which emphasizes shooting under pressure and adrenaline.Many stories have been shown in the media where a cop fires 6 + shots at a criminal and only 1 bullet does any damage , showing that even a trained person can be a poor shot under stress.

And how much does a rigorous training program do for you, do you think? The training the cop you mention did not help him, did it? Soldiers in their first battle, even after many weeks of intensive training, manage to do stupid things that get themselves killed early. Life-threatening pressure strips training down to the nub, and it's only blooded experience that does any good. The vast majority of the people who have a carry permit will never, ever, be called upon to bring out their weapon, let alone fire it. I spent 8 years in the US Army, half of them in combat arms, and never had an opportunity to engage in a real firefight. And I don't expect I will ever need my carry pistol. But consider this: if I ever do need that pistol, it will be when my life or the lives of my loved ones are in peril. I'd rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.

Years ago there was a big-media documentary in which they lured some young man into taking a firearms self-defense course. He was the only participant, except for the fact that there were "ringers" in the course that were in on the joke and were there just to enhance the subterfuge. They took him through this training, and then on the final day of the multi-day "course" they sprung a fake incident with him wearing a special trick pistol loaded with blanks (unbeknownst to him). He failed even to get the gun out of its holster and clear of his clothing. They then made a big deal out of this "failure". The YouTube video has this as the description:

The controlled study documented in these videos show that concealed carry permit holders are fooling themselves if they think they will be able to react effectively to armed aggressors. Most CCW holders won’t even be able to un-holster their gun. They will more likely be killed themselves or kill innocent bystanders than stop the aggressor. For more details, see “Unintended Consequences: Pro-Handgun Experts Prove That Handguns Are a Dangerous Choice for Self-Defense.”

It was a "controlled study" all right. What happened was: they provided the equipment and the firearm, and insisted that the man wear clothing that was apparently designed to impede the drawing of a pistol. They made certain that he would fail.

And their conclusion is utterly specious. How many news stories are there that demonstrate this conclusion, that CCW folks kill innocent bystanders? I haven't been able to find any at all. And will concealed carriers have to "draw" like it was the shootout at the OK Corral? Not likely. Most "engagements" will consist of the CCW-holder pulling the pistol out and scaring the crooks away.

I wrote a blog post in response to the video (and I link to the video). Check it out, if you want: http://iwasabouttosay.com/2013/04/25/yes-armed-citizens-are-clueless-tools-not/

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...