Dr Susan Gratia-Hupp - Survivor of the 1991 Kileen TX Lubys Shooting

This is her testimony before Congress. It's a little over 5 minutes, but the sentence on here is priceless, as is her testimony.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sEYGcXSmpQ

This is her testimony before Congress. It's a little over 5 minutes, but the sentence on here is priceless, as is her testimony.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sEYGcXSmpQ Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

At the time, it was illegal to carry a loaded gun in your car. She was already in violation of the law.

She was right. It was stupid to carry a gun in her car but not keep it on her person.

She was as guilty as any party she mentioned. She chose to only violate the law a little bit.

At the time, it was illegal to carry a loaded gun in your car. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

In Texas in 1991?

Here's a commentary in 1981:
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/R_Newman.html

It was considered a defense to prosecution if one was traveling and they had one in their vehicle. There is all kinds of different "Reader's Digest" explanations of "what is traveling" but there was no hard-in-fast rule, which was part of the problem. The legislature finally saw fit to give some guidance for consistency throughout the state ... and prevent the necessity of raising a defense after being arrested ...

but your flat statement has to be modified accodingly.

I also think you will not find "loaded" or "unloaded" in the Texas Penal Code ...

.. an "unloaded" firearm for the purposes of self-defense is a club.... and that's about all.... although if one points an unloaded weapon at another persion (who doesn't KNOW it is unloaded) it can be aggravated assault AND justify the use of deadly force against the person pointing the unloaded weapon .. at another.

If it even LOOKS like a firearm it is sufficient to justify deadly force in response to being confronted with it.

At the time, it was illegal to carry a loaded gun in your car. She was already in violation of the law.

She was right. It was stupid to carry a gun in her car but not keep it on her person.

She was as guilty as any party she mentioned. She chose to only violate the law a little bit. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Didn't watch the video, did you, Münchausenman?

She was as guilty as any party she mentioned. She chose to only violate the law a little bit. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

This does not make much sense to me. As guilty as the shooter? As guilty as those that passed a bad law leaving her defenseless?

As guilty as those that passed a bad law leaving her defenseless? Originally Posted by Laz

Considering the general scope of things, it was not a "bad" law. She could have obtained a CHL and taken adequate traning afterwards to draw down on and elimiate the threat when she saw it ... she chose not to do so.... oh wait ... I guess she couldn't get one!

So, she is brought up why?

Considering the general scope of things, it was not a "bad" law. She could have obtained a CHL and taken adequate traning afterwards to draw down on and elimiate the threat when she saw it ... she chose not to do so.... oh wait ... I guess she couldn't get one!

So, she is brought up why? Originally Posted by LexusLover

I don't think the CHL law was in existence at that time.

I don't think the CHL law was in existence at that time. Originally Posted by Laz

I think you are correct ....

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Considering the general scope of things, it was not a "bad" law. She could have obtained a CHL and taken adequate training afterwards to draw down on and elimiate the threat when she saw it ... she chose not to do so.... oh wait ... I guess she couldn't get one!

So, she is brought up why?"

I regret her losses, and I regret her failure to have her handgun in her purse. But that is not to say that the result would have been any different. And I'm not "anti-carry" by any stretch of the imagination.

But that is not to say that the result would have been any different. Originally Posted by LexusLover

But it MIGHT have been, and that fighting chance is one that all law abiding citizens deserve.

There's a saying in other fields: You miss 100% of the shots you don't take.

But it MIGHT have been, and that fighting chance is one that all law abiding citizens deserve. Originally Posted by mansfield

If I had been born with wings, it would save me some airline fare, but there would be others out there with wings, and the airspace would be treacherous and "unforgiving."

(The toll roads are "treacherous" enough with idiots driving ... well ... like idiots.)

All citizens deserve a fighting chance ... she made a decision ... and had she had CHL at the time ... it is just as likely that Lubby's would put up a sign advising ALL CITIZENS, consistent with the authority of the CHL rules and regulations, to LEAVE THEIR HANDGUNS OUTSIDE!

FYI: Have you seen those signs before?

Or are you one of those CHL carriers who are ....

..... NOT LAW ABIDING?

There's a saying in other fields: You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. Originally Posted by Sidewinder

There's a reality in shooting:

What's your percentage of hits when under fire?

Where do your misses go?

it is just as likely that Lubby's would put up a sign advising ALL CITIZENS, consistent with the authority of the CHL rules and regulations, to LEAVE THEIR HANDGUNS OUTSIDE! Originally Posted by LexusLover

Actually it's not very likely at all. Lubys still doesn't post those signs, nor do most places. They are actually pretty rare in Texas. You see them a lot at corporate type office buildings but pretty rarely at restaurants, retail stores, etc.

I have carried pretty much 100% of the time since the CHL was put in place in Texas and I just dont' run into those signs as I go about my business and, if I do run into a sign on occasion, I don't use that business anymore.

But the truth is the sign is pretty rare here.

What's your percentage of hits when under fire? Originally Posted by LL

The average person with training will hit about 1 out of 4 in a gunfight. The misses do go somewhere, which is what the training is for. You don't shoot at a guy standing in front of 20 people.

There are no guarantees in this world. If you can't take a shot without endangering innocents then you don't take the shot. There is no rule that says a concealed carrier HAS to fire. In fact if you look nationwide you will see that concealed carriers hit bystanders less often than cops in shootouts because cops tend to feel like they HAVE to shoot. Having the option, as a law abiding citizen, to defend ourselves with a firearm, hasn't caused harm to the general population in any of the states with concealed carry laws so your fretting about "what if" is bullshit, the concealed carry programs have been around long enough that if they caused the blood of the innocents to flow in the streets we would have seen it by now. It simply didn't happen.

But the reality is that it's often just the presence of a firearm that is enough for defensive use. I have drawn my carry gun twice and did not have to fire either time. The second time in particular I know for a fact that the 2 guys approaching me were going to kill me, they told the cops as much. But when they saw I was not easy prey they changed their minds and were arrested a few minutes later running like hell. One had a gun and one had a knife.

Why didn't the want to fight? Because they expected to see an unarmed victim. Bad guys don't WANT to get in gunfights. they go into situations expecting they will be the only ones with guns. All people like you want to do is make sure they are able to do that, since the criminals will ignore all your pretty gun laws anyway.

That's sort of the textbook definition of "criminal".

Actually it's not very likely at all.

But the truth is the sign is pretty rare here.



The average person with training will hit about 1 out of 4 in a gunfight. The misses do go somewhere, which is what the training is for. You don't shoot at a guy standing in front of 20 people.


That's sort of the textbook definition of "criminal". Originally Posted by mansfield

Yes, that's why they wear body armour is because they don't expect anyone to carry a firearm when they enter. The rest of your post is speculation, just like mine.

As for your "average person" estimate, 25% is poor, failing, and an excellent statistic to prohibit the carrying of firearms by trained, "average people." But I appreciate your support for my years of posting that CHL training is inadequate for carry purposes.

As for life ... and things going wrong ... it is by definition murder to shoot at someone, miss that person, and hit another innocent person who dies from that hit. So in a Lubby's restaurant, a school, or a move theater, based on your analysis there is a 75% chance of a round striking another innocent person by the "average person" and that does not factor in pass throughs.

We are talking shoot outs in high occupancy facilities.

Why are we talking about this?