Video: Concealed carry 1, home invader 0
posted at 4:19 pm on April 10, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
I don’t understand why gun rights aren’t more of a feminist issue. Well, no, that’s not true: Most self-styled feminist intellectuals come from the left, where the dogma on Violence trumps the need for self-defense from miscreants. I can understand worrying about 20-year-old guys running around with assault rifles, but a woman carrying a .38 Special in her purse in case she runs into someone who won’t take no for an answer? If the Patriarchy’s as sinister as they say, you’d think this would be a core plank of the movement.
This incident’s notable for the lack of bloodshed. Would that have been true if she wasn’t carrying? Click the image to watch.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 [2]
Mine is hammerless. Doesn’t get caught in my jacket.
Way to go lady. This discredits the gun-grabbers somewhat. No bloodshed, and a potential assailant turns into a perfect gentleman, politely waiting for the police to arrive.
Texas Nick 77 on April 10, 2008 at 6:54 PM
By public, I meant general public.
A person can only purchase a fully automatic weapon with a class 111 license, and believe me you do not want one of those licenses. The ATF can come into your residence twenty four hours a day and the weapon had better be in your possession.
Johan Klaus on April 10, 2008 at 6:55 PM
what they don’t have is a standard saftey switch…
or Half cock position…
Like the 1911…
So, IMO its not a great gun for those who have not dealt with guns much… especialy one you’re going to carry.
I used to carry one in the pipe with my 1911 (half cocked, saftey on)… won’t do that with the Sig… one of the reasons I worked long and hard on smoothing out the slide.
As long as I have both hands free, its about as fast to get into action as a half cocked saftey on 1911 (from a shoulder holster, or from my buttpack holster)… and much more accurate.
Romeo13 on April 10, 2008 at 6:59 PM
I carry a Kimber ultra carry 45 caliber. It is one sweeeeet tool. I swear my 45 doesn’t kick any worse then my 380 Walther PPK.
trs on April 10, 2008 at 7:47 PM
Yeah, I love the .45 as well. My HK mk23 is always with me. Has been for several years.
Zorro on April 10, 2008 at 7:47 PM
Never, ever carry a 1911 in half-cock position; it wasn’t designed for that and it’s actually more dangerous to carry that way as it’s hard on the sear. “Cocked and locked” is the preferred method and the way it was meant to be carried. Between the thumb safety and grip safety it ain’t going off unless you do something foolish. Manually cocking the hammer in a emergency situation is a recipe for disaster.
As for your Sig being carried without a round in the chamber- I hope you’ve practiced using it as a club, because that’s what you’re carrying. Most self defense situations occur within 10 feet. Assuming that you’ll have both hands free and time to rack the slide is optimistic at best.
Hollowpoint on April 10, 2008 at 7:55 PM
My favorite carry gun is a Kimber Pro Carry in .45 ACP.
Brat, bullet placement is a big thing. While the .38 Special has been passed over for its inability to stop people, there really is no pistol round short of a .357, .45 or .44 Magnum that will reliably result in a one-round stop unless you hit vital organs such as the brain or spine, resulting in full neurological collapse.
This is where the “21-foot rule” came from. When someone is closer than 21 feet, you can hit them fatally with most handguns and they will still have enough time to close the distance and harm you before they die.
That said, the .38 Special is at the low end for self-defense, but if you are of slight build, it may be the best choice for you so that you can shoot accurately and confidently. A .357, as noted, is punishing in a light framed weapon.
Additionally, please consider a Glock 19 or other double action auto in 9mm. Handles much like a revolver, carries more rounds and the 9mm is significantly stronger.
Cannot emphasize enough that you should take classes and practice. If evil comes knocking, you may not have much time and be very surprised, startled. This is where practice and training makes you safer to yourself and non-threats and more dangerous to the threat.
You will be much less likely to miss your target, hitting an innocent or even firing on an innocent because you will deploy the weapon easily and focus on what you think the threat is. If the threat is real, you will be more likely to hit it, which makes it more likely you will come off the winner. Also, many times the fact you are armed may be enough to stop someone. Pulling a weapon smoothly, confidently and looking the bad guy straight on over the sights will let them know you are not fooling around. That might be enough, and God bless you if it is.
The best outcome is never having to draw. The second best is having only to draw.
Nobody in their right mind wants to kill another person. This is reality, whatever leftists say about those who carry or own guns, as if we are crazy Rambo’s.
Keep in mind that you have no rights other than those you can defend. If someone threatens you and you can do nothing about it, you have only the rights that person will allow you. They decide what you say, what you eat, whether you continue to breath. Tyranny on a small scale, but exacly what the Founders were thinking of when they put the 2nd Amendment in place.
“Arms”,”keep” and “bear” are terms of art in law and philosophy far predating 2A or the broad use of firearms. 2A is not about guns at all, it is about self-defense, the sanctity of human life, and freedom of the individual. The Founder’s writings are explicit that you have an inalienable right to self-defense from tyranny large or small, government run amok or petty criminals. When firearms become obsolete, the animating concept will still be valid. The majority opinion by the DC Circuit Court overturning the DC handgun ban, Heller v. DC, is nice primer on the history.
Also, when seconds count, the police are just minutes away 99.9% of the time. Be advised that police have no legal obligation to protect you as an individual from harm. This is long established law, and is fair. Literally, a LEO can watch someone kill you and have no liability other than what the department might do to them.
As for statistics, add Gary Kleck to John Lott. His specialty is estimating non-shooting incidents where display of a firearm stops a criminal.
I also recommend Joyce Lee Malcolm, whose essays on self-defense and particularly the UK situation and results of disarming the law-abiding are glaring indictments of how criminally wrong the Brady Bunch really are. It is past my ken how anyone could look at the violent crime situation in the UK and advocate civilian disarmament, unless it is someone like Dianne Feinstein (CA Senator) or Mike Bloomberg (NYC mayor).
They have millions of dollars in personal wealth to buy all the armed security they could ever want in additon to their taxpayer funded armed bodyguards. Disarming slobs like me will never have an impact on their lives, it will be people like me and you who haven’t wealth, position and power who will do the bleeding and dying. Disgusting, selfish elitism spun fine and so pure.
I spent most of a year getting death threats and I understand up close and personal the effectiveness of police protection and restraining orders against bad people: zip.
Got my carry permit renewal today.
Harry Schell on April 10, 2008 at 7:55 PM
Not quite. The “21 foot rule” is there because at less than 21 feet there typically isn’t enough time to draw, aim and fire at an assailant.
Hollowpoint on April 10, 2008 at 8:06 PM
Harry Schell on April 10, 2008 at 7:55 PM
Good information and well written. Thanks Harry.
Maxx on April 10, 2008 at 8:10 PM
Concealed carry permit holders have the lowest crime rate of almost everyone else in society. Lawful guns stop crime!
Neat lady. Bravo!
petefrt on April 10, 2008 at 8:55 PM
I am glad things worked out well for her. She did err, however, in “going hunting” in the house, rather than staying outside where she was safer and waiting for the police. The fact that she didn’t know if a person, or worse–persons–was still in the house made it a very dangerous situation. “Stuff” can be replaced; your life cannot.
DrMagnolias on April 10, 2008 at 9:00 PM
Are you guys referring to the Tueller Study?
http://www.officer.com/web/online/Operations-and-Tactics/Runnin-with-the-Big-Dogs/332727
Catseye on April 10, 2008 at 9:25 PM
/shameless plug
liquidflorian on April 10, 2008 at 9:32 PM
I can not begin to tell you everything that’s wrong here. Not only with this woman, but from all the comments from people who only think they know what they’re talking about.
First my bona fides: I am a permit to carry owner. I qualified under two different Minnesota laws. I’ve been taught shooting by a SWAT sharpshooter, and Army Ranger, a member of Delta Force, an Air Force Intelligence Officer, Air Force Special Ops, a Certified Range Officer with the BCA (he’s the one who teaches and certifies cops to shoot). I am also a certified firearms instructor and have been for over four years. I am also on the leadership team that got the Minnesota Personal Protection Act through a hostile legislature-twice. I am 6′3″, weigh over 250#.My carry piece is a Kimber Polymer Pro Carry 45 with a double stack magazine. And a double stack backup.
And this woman is lucky to be alive. She proves that God looks out for widows, orphans and fools. She proves she’s the latter.
Oldnuke and RobD got it right. Splashman is of questionable reasoning ability.
One: as soon as she saw that things were amiss, calling 911 was the right thing to do. From her car. Five miles away-minimum. She had no idea what was in that house.
Two: she locked the door behind her, thereby closing off her escape route. And also closing off any potential escape for the intruder. Should she need to flee, she has to stop to unlock the door. If he wants to flee, he can’t and his desperation increases markedly. Cornered animals fight harder. A real stupid move on her part that compounds her first stupid move of being back in the house.
Three- she proceeds, with her firearm, to clear the house-of what? One, two, three armed men? Or more? On meth? Where are they? Waiting for her? ready to jump on her from behind? One jumps her, another stabs her? Trust me, she was never trained to clear a house in her CC class. And you never want to do things with a firearm that you were never trained or have practiced to do. And a quick observation: notice how she has zero muzzle control during the interview? As she demonstrates her clearing technique, she crosses the muzzle across the cameraman and the reporter at least once each.
Four- there were no children, no adults that were in danger in that house. What on earth was she thinking she was doing?
Five- in Minnesota, there is four fold test to use lethal force. All four must be present to justify lethal force. A variant of some or all of these laws are in every state:
1. You must be an unwilling participant-the fact that she went back into the house makes her a willing participant.
2. No lesser force will do-as she had no idea what Mr. Painkiller Visitor had as a weapon, or if he had a weapon she would or could easily fail here if she shot him.
3. Reasonable escape is not possible- she fails again because she re-entered the house AND locked the door.
4. Are in immediate fear of death or great bodily harm(great bodily harm is defined as injury that leads or could lead to death)-she fails here also as there was no threat to her.
This woman recklessly and needlessly put herself into a situation that could have easily proven to be fatal. And she may also have found herself facing jail time had she survived.
I also did an an analysis of a similar situation back here in Minnesota when a citizen decided to play “I’m a cop and Rambo in one” and a local blogger thought that I would be “all over” that story:(link here) (mine is the 2nd comment).
And one last observation: at the end of the interview, to show this woman should seriously reconsider her skills, qualifications and fitness to carry a firearm outside her house, she has her finger on the trigger of the firearm.
She either needs to take the CC course from someone else or from some other certifying agency or get a big dog instead.
She is just plain dangerous to herself and others. I would have failed her taking my course.
I’m glad this turned out where, in spite of her efforts, everyone went to bed that night with the same number of holes in their bodies that they woke up with that morning.
Amendment X on April 10, 2008 at 9:32 PM
Then why don’t you offer it to her, if she has so many defects?
Talk about spoiling a happy ending!
newton on April 10, 2008 at 9:55 PM
Amendment X on April 10, 2008 at 9:32 PM
I was about to post, now I don’t need to!!
Thanks…. well put!!
jerrytbg on April 10, 2008 at 10:08 PM
It could have been a very unhappy ending based on my friend Amendment X’s analysis and I trust it implicitly. Let’s put it this way - if I ever got brave enough to take a CC class it would be from AX. He’s knows his stuff on this issue.
BTW dear - thanks for the link!
LL
Lady Logician on April 10, 2008 at 10:16 PM
hey AXman, looks like you killed the thread. At least it wasn’t me this time. :>)
jerrytbg on April 10, 2008 at 10:31 PM
Well, newton, if she has a need for a CC Permit in Minnesota, I may, repeat may accept her in my class. I have turned down people who I believe make poor candidates to carry a firearm.
And as I intimated, it was a happy ending in spite of this woman’s actions. It could easily have turned out badly. For her and Mr. Painkiller.
Or was I not clear on that point?
Amendment X on April 10, 2008 at 10:39 PM
Oh my- Amendment X, aka “The Thread Killer”.
Just one more moniker I need to bear.
Amendment X on April 10, 2008 at 10:42 PM
I do believe you can handle it!
jerrytbg on April 10, 2008 at 10:47 PM
Catseye and Hollowpoint,
The classes I have taken recently, with LEO instructors, is where I heard about the 21-ft rule. Their position is that even with a drawn weapon, 21 ft is a minimum facing a threat with knife or other weapon. This is based on the nominal expectation that a severed jugular vein or similar injury takes an average of 11 seconds to incapacitate a person. In the meantime, they are functional to some degree, wide variability between people, which you cannot know beforehand. Whatever weapon they have, you have to reckon that even a mortal wound may not stop them from wreaking havoc.
The after-action study of an FBI/drug runner engagement in FL is instructive. One of the BG’s was mortally wounded early on. He managed to climb out of his car and use a shotgun to down two agents. Similarly, one agent was hit multiple times and managed to empty, reload, empty his revolver (.38 Special) and work a pump shotgun one-handed. IIRC, that agent fired the mortal round and his use of the shotgun knocked the bad guy down hard enough that he went out of the fight.
The (very sad, IMO) lesson is that the human body can take incredible punishment and keep going. That works on both sides of the equation, for the good guys and the bad guys. But it does tell anybody in a defensive situation not to expect a single round to stop things.
I have not seen the data so I cannot vouch for it, but IMO with even 5-7 seconds available, someone on a mission could cover 21 feet and have time to do bad things. In the instructors’ view, 30 feet was a better, safer, margin.
Reckoning with “our” lack of LEO experience and mindset, I have to say I would take great care of how close someone gets before I open up on them.
One thing I pray for is never to fire on an innocent, or fire wildly and hit one. The second is to not miss in firing on a legitimate threat.
Details omitted, I have seen film of people taking multiple hits of 9mm and 5.56mm. Read Blackhawk Down. The movies and their one-shot stops are not realistic. This is one reason to arm yourself with handgun, if you make that choice, that you find comfortable. If the time comes, you should launch 2-3 rounds if you think it is time to shoot.
Amendment X, I have to agree with you that one can question whether this lady should have stepped into the breach as she did. Various forums discuss this issue, and I don’t think there is a tight formula for every case. I can see why you would have failed this woman in a course, and it is a very good point.
What do you do when things turn to poo? Attack, retreat, stand your ground? IMO there are too many variables for me to proscribe a formula. In my mind, there may be some overriding goals, submitted for consideration:
+Be skilled enough that you never hurt an innocent, by mistaking them for a threat or by incompetent use of a weapon.
+Be skilled enough to never miss a legitimate threat.
+Avoid if possible a situation where you have to use deadly force.
+If you cannot avoid using deadly force to protect yourself or others, use everything you have, down to your teeth and fingernails, and win if possible. Evil is evil. Those in the community of the law-abiding have to stand as tall as possible in resistance if confronted. If you want to understand what “muddling along” and pretending it isn’t your problem produces, look at the UK. It is hard for me to critcize because the law-abiding have been betrayed by their government. That said, the only real chance the UK has of not having the highest violent crime rates per capita of any “developed” (har!) country rests with its citizens finally refusing to reelect their masters…and demanding “change” (har, again).
+Recognize that whatever legal or political savants try to sell you, you have an inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You may not always be happy or get what you want, but nobody should take those rights from you, and if they try, you have the option to let them do it or resist. This concept is unique in the world, not endorsed by the UN or even some of our own political class, but I digress.
+Don’t ever threaten my children or family. It is a bad choice. Anyone who will give up their kids to evil without a fight…I just don’t know what to say. But there was a conversation with my ex-wife about whether she would use a weapon to save a kid or me from harm. The answer was “no, I couldn’t stand the burden of taking a life”. It is just a question of whose life she was willing to expend. I understand she was willing to toss mine, but not our kids.
I raise this issue as it is a choice you may have to make: who gets hurt or dies? It might be easier for me, but not for others and that is understandable. That quandry, that it exists, is our humanity and celebration of life.
I would prefer never to have to make the choice, and I actively take care to avoid such circumstances. I want no trouble, but I won’t accept much, either. It is a mystery to me that some expect I should accept getting mugged because I lack an effective means to defend myself lawfully.
I am 57, asthmatic, doing a desk job. Four young guys could easily stomp me into the cement, unless I was armed, and maybe even then. I have no chance unarmed, a chance armed, but in Los Angeles CA you don’t get carry permits unless you have a lot more money than I do. All you have to do to see this is to look at a sort of carry permits by zip code. Beverly Hills is in there, but Compton, where the murder rate is off the charts? Nope. So everyone in Compton is a criminal? Ah, my momma raised some stupid children, true, but they are my brother and sister (and this is true, details omitted).
My points are that I do not believe this reverence and very honorable humanity should be used as a pretext to tolerate evil.
I also believe the political class on the left is totally out of touch with reality on this issue, by omission or comission. The numbers of 20+ years of the impact of “shall issue” laws on crime of all stripes are out there and clear. Studies issued by the Joyce Foundation and the Brady Bunch have descended into fabrications over time. Sometimes I am confused what some people use for brains these days…
I don’t like conspiracy theories, but when the objective numbers and history show a path to be wrong…and someone is dedicated to it, I have to wonder.
What do you all think? (okay, I lived in Dallas 14 years)
Harry Schell on April 10, 2008 at 11:10 PM
I can’t speak for AX, but this is my main issue with this woman. She put herself in
possibledanger… with the police on the way…what was she thinking? In my view, this is a nobrainer!!jerrytbg on April 10, 2008 at 11:30 PM
.
That is why I carry a .45 ACP and a .44 Special with hollow points. It will stop the bad guy. You do not want to be in a situation to have to use the weapons, but if there is no other choice you want to stop the bad guys.
Johan Klaus on April 10, 2008 at 11:34 PM
Johan Klaus on April 10, 2008 at 11:34 PM
Both? which one is primary?
jerrytbg on April 10, 2008 at 11:38 PM
Johan Klaus on April 10, 2008 at 11:34 PM
on second thought …never mind!
jerrytbg on April 10, 2008 at 11:46 PM
Harry- You make some excellent points.
I’ve said that if I’m ever in a situation where there is the shadow of a remote possibility that I may have to use deadly force, I’m someplace I rather not be. At that time, I need have practiced and rehearsed in my head enough times where I don’t panic, but rely on my training. As Wyatt Earp said the secret of a gunfight is “to take your time in a hurry”. Meaning that you knew what to do and when to do it. As Kleck pointed out the vast majority of defensive uses of a firearm (over 90%) do not involve its discharge, merely a display.Kleck’s study showed that the defensive use of f firearm takes place between 2.5-3.5MM times a year. And a recent FBI study indicates that Kleck’s number might be conservative. But, as I pointed out in my prior analysis of the “Cop and Rambo” episode, never,ever bluff with a firearm. Ever. If there ever is that situation where you take out your firearm, you must, absolutely must be willing to take a human life. If not, don’t carry a firearm.
As far as 9mm and 5.56- I’ve noticed many LEO’s now carry 40 S&W at a minimum. A friend who is an Airborne Ranger told me that he could shoot me four times in the chest with a 9mm and I could walk over and kick his butt. He always took a 45 ACP into combat. However, the Delta Force vet that I shot with thought the 45 was to slow a round.
A hard lefty once asked me how, as a born again Christian, I could be against abortion and yet carry a firearm. A softball underhand question: Because, as a born again Christian man I am called upon to protect innocent life.
I’m clear that if I ever have to shoot, my life will probably change. If in that shooting, I take a life, my life will change-forever.
A little ago I was looking for research on 911 response times. In less than 5% of the time, the police arrive in time either stop the assault and/or apprehend the perpetrator. Less than 5% of the time.
And another downer: the police are under no, repeat NO legal obligation to protect you. There is ample case law supporting that fact. One of the most egregious comes from Washington D.C.(Warren vs. The District of Columbia). As a matter of fact, the first case of “we don’t have to protect you” was from Minneapolis (Silver vs. the City of Minneapolis).
So, who’s responsible for defending your life? The police? The state?
So, when I hear the lefties say I don’t need a firearm,that’s what police and 911 are for, I’m more than happy to waste my time regaling them with court cases, facts, the truth.
Nah, that’s a lie: I don’t waste much time putting pearls before swine.
It takes away from range time.
Time to go to sleep.
I’ve chewed up enough of Hot Air’s bandwidth on this thread.
Amendment X on April 11, 2008 at 12:04 AM
Correction on the Kleck study: 2MM-2.5MM defensive uses of a firearm. Not 3.5MM.
Amendment X on April 11, 2008 at 12:16 AM
The main reason to carry, is that when seconds count, the police ar minutes away. And when seconds count, you had better make the correct decisions because you can’t bring that bullet back.
Johan Klaus on April 11, 2008 at 12:56 AM
are
Johan Klaus on April 11, 2008 at 12:57 AM
The 21′ rule is in place because, according to my concealed handgun instructor, it’s the distance someone can come at you within 3 steps and 3 seconds while brandishing a knife, gun, club, fist, ets.
21′ = 7 yards. Very close.
And all you folks packing those semi autos here’s something to consider. After every round fired there’s a lot of activity that goes on - sear goes back, round gets ejected, sere goes forward, new round gets placed in a chamber - all after a round has been fired. That’s assuming something hasn’t gone wrong with the magazine release. With a revolver everything occurs up to the point of firing a round and is all inclusive with no separate “body” for the gun - the magazine in the case of a semi auto.
Less moving parts, less worries, and all inclusive.
Don’t get me wrong. A semi auto has its place … a Glock .45 in the center console of a vehicle.
But for personal defense? Concealability Reliability? Just point and pull the trigger?
A revolver is the way to go.
Statistically, gunfights occur by the rule of 3s when it comes to personal defense. It ain’t like the old west or a drive by.
Gunfire occurs within 3 seconds … where talking stuck in a parking spot with someone beating your windshield in with a tire iron ….
With 3 shots fired …
And within 3 FEET of the parties involved … in other words, at arm’s length.
For point and bang, revolvers are the way to go.
BowHuntingTexas on April 11, 2008 at 1:09 AM
Amendment X,
Well said, and thanks.
This is such a hard issue in some ways. At the same time, some parts of it, to me, appear quite simple. I just don’t know what lies ahead or with certainty how to prepare for it.
Hope for the best, plan for the worst. That is one solution. There are many others, and to each his own.
And God bless you all with peace through all your days.
I don’t hope to hear from Brat that her .38 +P’s worked fine. I don’t wish such a time on anyone, but I would rather hear the +P’s performed than read an obit.
Harry Schell on April 11, 2008 at 1:10 AM
If you display a firearm, you had better be ready to use it without hesitation.
Johan Klaus on April 11, 2008 at 1:16 AM
We’ve got 45 rounds of 9mm in the night stand.
“You gotta ask yourself, do I feel lucky?”…
Mojave Mark on April 11, 2008 at 1:20 AM
BHT,
Good points.
This is where Glocks (for example) get close to the revolver in ease of deployment, and practice, practice and some more practice makes the difference.
Without practice, the revolver is likely the best option. I have liked the 1911 for a long time, but it is not easy to use without a lot of practice.
Whatever anyone picks, you have to be comfortable and confident in its use. This is the best antidote to mistakes of any kind, and proper use if you need it.
There are no gun “accidents”. Somewhere in the chain of an “accidental discharge” is human negligence of some sort. The best antidote is practice and the basic four rules, always following them.
Harry Schell on April 11, 2008 at 1:23 AM
You have got to be constantly aware of your situation and surroundings, because in a crisis situation things start happening very fast. You also have got to be aware of what is beyond your target.
Johan Klaus on April 11, 2008 at 1:25 AM
Johan is right, IMO.
If things are ugly enough to draw, you should shoot. Maybe you will see the threat back off as you draw in a half a second after you start, but if not, you are committed to shoot. You have to. This is why practice is so important, so that you can be aware of what is going on rather than worrying about deploying your weapon. That awareness can keep you from firing on an innocent, or hesitating to take down a real threat.
Harry Schell on April 11, 2008 at 1:30 AM
I like the Glock 36 for primary and the Taurus Bulldog for backup. They are both small and they pack a punch.
Johan Klaus on April 11, 2008 at 1:42 AM
Exactly.
People should be able to defend themselves. Revolver or Semi Auto? Which one can you defend yourself with?
It depends on the situation and what one is comfortable with.
Breaking down my front door? I’d go with a .12 guage.
Beating my windshied in with a tire iron when I’m blocked in with no place to go? There’ll be a Glock .45 brought into the discussion.
Someone telling me to hand over my wallet while jabbing a knife in my face? Meet Mr. .38, .357 mag, .22 mag or .327 mag. that I have here where my wallet’s supposed to be.
BowHuntingTexas on April 11, 2008 at 1:52 AM
Yea, the intro guy claimed she was armed with a concealed carry permit - it sure looked like an S&W pistol to me!
electric-rascal on April 11, 2008 at 4:38 AM
Yep. One of the best phrasings of that goes like this: When seconds matter, the police can arrive in minutes!
electric-rascal on April 11, 2008 at 4:49 AM
One shouldn’t have to stop and think about whether he will go to jail if he shoots someone that has broken into his house. Thank God I live in Texas!
pugsly on April 11, 2008 at 7:15 AM
I’m not taking it as picking. I appreciate what I take as genuine concern from all who have warned me. The sticking point though is my husband.
Were I married to a man who believed in gun ownership things would likely be different. But I’m married to my political opposite. After eight years I’ve brought him around on a few things (in high school he considered himself an atheist), but I respect him and didn’t marry him with the intention of changing him.
His opinion might change one day (we do still talk about these things on a regular basis), but until then I won’t disrespect him by purchasing a gun.
Esthier on April 11, 2008 at 9:29 AM
‘History does not entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid.’ - Dwight D. Eisenhower
You are the first line of defense when it comes to your freedom. You decide if it is a Maginot Line or Patton’s Thrid Army, to pick historical opposites in effectiveness.
Harry Schell on April 11, 2008 at 10:55 AM
Yep. I lived in some of the worst areas of Detroit, without a car for years. Running outside for help puts you against unknown assailants with no guarantees anyone will aid you. I would have gone in too, and locked the door to limit the number of threats.
A rabbit can only run so far, and there may be no place to run to.
Sometimes police never came, or they came after a few hours. I had a 911 operator hang up on me.
I once repeat called 911 to tell then to hurry because people were hammering my window and I didnt want to shoot them to be told I have a right to shoot them if they come in. Well yah I knew that but I lived in a slum. First, my door would be smashed and the landlord would fix it after all my property was stolen. There would be blood and guts all over and the landlord would hit me with repairs. I couldnt afford to move and the victim’s friends might come and kill me for revenge.
Probably at the bus stop where I was a sitting duck. I carried an open knife in my pocket at the bus stop
I have had to barricade a door from being kicked in, hold a shotgun on a guy trying to come in a window. He didn’t care. He was high. The police never showed on that one. I and often went room to room armed, kicking doors open, checking closets and hideouts after intrusion attempts so I could sleep nights. I slept with the shotgun next to me in bed under the blankets
I stopped calling 911 for attempted breakins because I needed credibility for serious threats.
Police do not offer protection for chicken stuff in Detroit. One neighbor surprised burglars in the house. Even though police did search the premises, the neighbor walked in on the runner in a closet later that night.
A runner goes in and runs through the house grabbing stuff he piles outside for the others. He could have come out and cut their throats. One on one he chickened and jumped out a window.
I don’t miss those days but it taught me that ultimately it is sometimes better to face danger
entagor on April 11, 2008 at 12:34 PM
Comment pages: « 1 [2]