Medical Examiner: McKinney Gunman Killed Himself
Records show that Patrick Gray Sharp of Anna was licensed by the Texas Department of Public Safety to work as a security guard in 2004. Three years earlier, he was licensed as a jailer by the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education
Still no motive as to why he did what he did. But...at least HE was the only one to die.
- QueenSophie
- 08-19-2010, 03:22 AM
- Guest030911
- 08-19-2010, 11:43 AM
- hwygnome
- 08-19-2010, 07:16 PM
Just a thought about the McKinney situation:
If you were an officer dealing with this incident and saw another person with a weapon that was not in uniform or easily identifiable as an officer, what would you do?
Now on to the Luby's thing:
Imagine you had just come from the bathroom as the shooting starts and you pull out your weapon thinking your going to save the day. As you come around the corner you see a guy with a weapon in his hands and fire thereby taking care of the problem. WRONG. Seems the guy you just shot had taken care of the problem just before you came around the corner blazing away.
Also put yourself in the spot of the first guy to whip it out to take care of the scum doing this dastardly dead and suddenly you see somebody coming around a corner weapon first so you turn and take care of the second bad guy. In either case one or two GOOD guys get shot if you only hit each other. Likely outcome is several more people get hit. And heaven forbid a fourth person comes storming in from the outside and sees two guys shooting it out. Guess what happens then.
Just because you have a weapon, concealed or not, does not mean it is smart nor safe to bring it out.
If you were an officer dealing with this incident and saw another person with a weapon that was not in uniform or easily identifiable as an officer, what would you do?
Now on to the Luby's thing:
Imagine you had just come from the bathroom as the shooting starts and you pull out your weapon thinking your going to save the day. As you come around the corner you see a guy with a weapon in his hands and fire thereby taking care of the problem. WRONG. Seems the guy you just shot had taken care of the problem just before you came around the corner blazing away.
Also put yourself in the spot of the first guy to whip it out to take care of the scum doing this dastardly dead and suddenly you see somebody coming around a corner weapon first so you turn and take care of the second bad guy. In either case one or two GOOD guys get shot if you only hit each other. Likely outcome is several more people get hit. And heaven forbid a fourth person comes storming in from the outside and sees two guys shooting it out. Guess what happens then.
Just because you have a weapon, concealed or not, does not mean it is smart nor safe to bring it out.
- uspc40
- 08-25-2010, 11:48 AM
LL, I have a CHL as well, but you know as well as I do that it's illegal to have a gun at school (even college campus'). You can't keep it in your car, you can't carry it on a school campus. Originally Posted by CoHornThis is correct as I learned of this law first hand. It is a felony to possess a firearm on any school as well as state / federal property. I was lucky to have it kicked down to a misdemeanor. It is a gift to myself that keeps on giving even when I don't want it to.
- LazurusLong
- 08-25-2010, 02:09 PM
This is correct as I learned of this law first hand. It is a felony to possess a firearm on any school as well as state / federal property. I was lucky to have it kicked down to a misdemeanor. It is a gift to myself that keeps on giving even when I don't want it to. Originally Posted by uspc40Yes. Makes you really question why they can let free speech abound yet they permit restrictions that the 2nd amendment prohibits.
The right to keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED.
I'm guessing that rather than severely punish those who use weapons for bad things, too many people have surrendered to the progressives concept of freedom means giving up your rights one by one starting with the guns.
- Guest032213-02
- 08-25-2010, 02:27 PM
"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." OK. People who want concealed handguns are not facing, nor have a well-regulated government militia. Nor are they keeping the free State secure. Why do 2nd Amendment freaks refuse to associate the first half of the amendment? Because, it is GUN CONTROL. The amendment means, that if we have to defend ourselves against an invading militia, we can have all the guns we want. Not that everybody in the world should have a gun.
- LazurusLong
- 08-25-2010, 03:29 PM
Well regulated doesn't mean what progressives have taught for too many years in this country.
Txn5inthick and others who fall into that trap.
Look at a recent movie "300".
Just how did the 300 Spartans hold off tens of thousands of Persian warriors? Ignoring the movie special effects, the fact that 300 men who were trained (well regulated) in the use of their weapons meant they were able to hold off the invasion.
Now go back and research the meaning of the term "well regulated" when President George Washington was out there walking about. The "Father" of this country was a military man. As were most of those who were in charge of writing our Constitution.
The US Constitution doesn't permit a standing Army yet we have one and as a result, the original framers of the Constitution who felt that every sitizen (male at that time) should be "well regulated" in the use, care, and storage of arms have been cast aside.
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html
Scroll to the portion that shows citations back to the Federalist papers.
Well Regulated
The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:
1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.
3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.
4) To put in good order.
[obsolete sense]
b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.
1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.
We can begin to deduce what well-regulated meant from Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 29:
The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
--- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.
Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training. Note the use of 'disciplining' which indicates discipline could be synonymous with well-trained.
This quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 also conveys the meaning of well regulated:
Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.
--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.
In the passage that follows, do you think the U.S. government was concerned because the Creek Indians' tribal regulations were superior to those of the Wabash or was it because they represented a better trained and disciplined fighting force?
That the strength of the Wabash Indians who were principally the object of the resolve of the 21st of July 1787, and the strength of the Creek Indians is very different. That the said Creeks are not only greatly superior in numbers but are more united, better regulated, and headed by a man whose talents appear to have fixed him in their confidence. That from the view of the object your Secretary has been able to take he conceives that the only effectual mode of acting against the said Creeks in case they should persist in their hostilities would be by making an invasion of their country with a powerful body of well regulated troops always ready to combat and able to defeat any combination of force the said Creeks could oppose and to destroy their towns and provisions.
--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.
I am unacquainted with the extent of your works, and consequently ignorant of the number or men necessary to man them. If your present numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the best regulated militia that can be got.
--- George Washington (The Writings of George Washington, pp. 503-4, (G.P. Putnam & Sons, pub.)(1889))
The above quote is clearly not a request for a militia with the best set of regulations. (For brevity the entire passage is not shown and this quote should not be construed to imply Washington favored militias, in fact he thought little of them, as the full passage indicates.)
But Dr Sir I am Afraid it would blunt the keen edge they have at present which might be keept sharp for the Shawnese &c: I am convinced it would be Attended by considerable desertions. And perhaps raise a Spirit of Discontent not easily Queld amongst the best regulated troops, but much more so amongst men unused to the Yoak of Military Discipline.
--- Letter from Colonel William Fleming to Col. Adam Stephen, Oct 8, 1774, pp. 237-8. (Documentary History of Dunmore's War, 1774, Wisconsin historical society, pub. (1905))
And finally, a late-17th century comparison between the behavior of a large collection of seahorses and well-regulated soldiers:
One of the Seamen that had formerly made a Greenland Voyage for Whale-Fishing, told us that in that country he had seen very great Troops of those Sea-Horses ranging upon Land, sometimes three or four hundred in a Troop: Their great desire, he says, is to roost themselves on Land in the Warm Sun; and Whilst they sleep, they apppoint one to stand Centinel, and watch a certain time; and when that time's expir'd, another takes his place of Watching, and the first Centinel goes to sleep, &c. observing the strict Discipline, as a Body of Well-regulated Troops
--- (Letters written from New-England, A. D. 1686. P. 47, John Dutton (1867))
The quoted passages support the idea that a well-regulated militia was synonymous with one that was thoroughly trained and disciplined, and as a result, well-functioning. That description fits most closely with the "to put in good order" definition supplied by the Random House dictionary. The Oxford dictionary's definition also appears to fit if one considers discipline in a military context to include or imply well-trained.
What about the Amendment's text itself? Considering the adjective "well" and the context of the militia clause, which is more likely to ensure the security of a free state, a militia governed by numerous laws (or the proper amount of regulation [depending on the meaning of "well"] ) or a well-disciplined and trained militia? This brief textual analysis also suggests "to put in good order" is the correct interpretation of well regulated, signifying a well disciplined, trained, and functioning militia.
And finally, when regulated is used as an adjective, its meaning varies depending on the noun its modifying and of course the context. For example: well regulated liberty (properly controlled), regulated rifle (adjusted for accuracy), and regulated commerce (governed by regulations) all express a different meaning for regulated. This is by no means unusual, just as the word, bear, conveys a different meaning depending on the word it modifies: bearing arms, bearing fruit, or bearing gifts.
Security of a Free State
Most likely "security of a free State" is synonymous with "security of a free country," as opposed to security of one of the States of the Union against federal oppression (see UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh's commentary).
The Swiss issue and require all men to not only own weapons, specifically assault weapons, to be able to come to the defense of their country, but the citizens are required to be trained and "well regulated".
Claiming well regulated means that you can pass laws saying when and where a free person of this country can carry their arms is most likely making the signers of the Constitution spin in their graves.
Txn5inthick and others who fall into that trap.
Look at a recent movie "300".
Just how did the 300 Spartans hold off tens of thousands of Persian warriors? Ignoring the movie special effects, the fact that 300 men who were trained (well regulated) in the use of their weapons meant they were able to hold off the invasion.
Now go back and research the meaning of the term "well regulated" when President George Washington was out there walking about. The "Father" of this country was a military man. As were most of those who were in charge of writing our Constitution.
The US Constitution doesn't permit a standing Army yet we have one and as a result, the original framers of the Constitution who felt that every sitizen (male at that time) should be "well regulated" in the use, care, and storage of arms have been cast aside.
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html
Scroll to the portion that shows citations back to the Federalist papers.
Well Regulated
The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:
1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.
3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.
4) To put in good order.
[obsolete sense]
b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.
1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.
We can begin to deduce what well-regulated meant from Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 29:
The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
--- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.
Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training. Note the use of 'disciplining' which indicates discipline could be synonymous with well-trained.
This quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 also conveys the meaning of well regulated:
Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.
--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.
In the passage that follows, do you think the U.S. government was concerned because the Creek Indians' tribal regulations were superior to those of the Wabash or was it because they represented a better trained and disciplined fighting force?
That the strength of the Wabash Indians who were principally the object of the resolve of the 21st of July 1787, and the strength of the Creek Indians is very different. That the said Creeks are not only greatly superior in numbers but are more united, better regulated, and headed by a man whose talents appear to have fixed him in their confidence. That from the view of the object your Secretary has been able to take he conceives that the only effectual mode of acting against the said Creeks in case they should persist in their hostilities would be by making an invasion of their country with a powerful body of well regulated troops always ready to combat and able to defeat any combination of force the said Creeks could oppose and to destroy their towns and provisions.
--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.
I am unacquainted with the extent of your works, and consequently ignorant of the number or men necessary to man them. If your present numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the best regulated militia that can be got.
--- George Washington (The Writings of George Washington, pp. 503-4, (G.P. Putnam & Sons, pub.)(1889))
The above quote is clearly not a request for a militia with the best set of regulations. (For brevity the entire passage is not shown and this quote should not be construed to imply Washington favored militias, in fact he thought little of them, as the full passage indicates.)
But Dr Sir I am Afraid it would blunt the keen edge they have at present which might be keept sharp for the Shawnese &c: I am convinced it would be Attended by considerable desertions. And perhaps raise a Spirit of Discontent not easily Queld amongst the best regulated troops, but much more so amongst men unused to the Yoak of Military Discipline.
--- Letter from Colonel William Fleming to Col. Adam Stephen, Oct 8, 1774, pp. 237-8. (Documentary History of Dunmore's War, 1774, Wisconsin historical society, pub. (1905))
And finally, a late-17th century comparison between the behavior of a large collection of seahorses and well-regulated soldiers:
One of the Seamen that had formerly made a Greenland Voyage for Whale-Fishing, told us that in that country he had seen very great Troops of those Sea-Horses ranging upon Land, sometimes three or four hundred in a Troop: Their great desire, he says, is to roost themselves on Land in the Warm Sun; and Whilst they sleep, they apppoint one to stand Centinel, and watch a certain time; and when that time's expir'd, another takes his place of Watching, and the first Centinel goes to sleep, &c. observing the strict Discipline, as a Body of Well-regulated Troops
--- (Letters written from New-England, A. D. 1686. P. 47, John Dutton (1867))
The quoted passages support the idea that a well-regulated militia was synonymous with one that was thoroughly trained and disciplined, and as a result, well-functioning. That description fits most closely with the "to put in good order" definition supplied by the Random House dictionary. The Oxford dictionary's definition also appears to fit if one considers discipline in a military context to include or imply well-trained.
What about the Amendment's text itself? Considering the adjective "well" and the context of the militia clause, which is more likely to ensure the security of a free state, a militia governed by numerous laws (or the proper amount of regulation [depending on the meaning of "well"] ) or a well-disciplined and trained militia? This brief textual analysis also suggests "to put in good order" is the correct interpretation of well regulated, signifying a well disciplined, trained, and functioning militia.
And finally, when regulated is used as an adjective, its meaning varies depending on the noun its modifying and of course the context. For example: well regulated liberty (properly controlled), regulated rifle (adjusted for accuracy), and regulated commerce (governed by regulations) all express a different meaning for regulated. This is by no means unusual, just as the word, bear, conveys a different meaning depending on the word it modifies: bearing arms, bearing fruit, or bearing gifts.
Security of a Free State
Most likely "security of a free State" is synonymous with "security of a free country," as opposed to security of one of the States of the Union against federal oppression (see UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh's commentary).
The Swiss issue and require all men to not only own weapons, specifically assault weapons, to be able to come to the defense of their country, but the citizens are required to be trained and "well regulated".
Claiming well regulated means that you can pass laws saying when and where a free person of this country can carry their arms is most likely making the signers of the Constitution spin in their graves.
- Lust4xxxLife
- 08-25-2010, 04:57 PM
LL - respectfully - none of what you posted has anything to do with handguns or CHL permits, in my opinion.
I think guns - all guns - are great fun. I also think that a society that knows how to use weapons and can be armed if necessary is a positive thing. Switzerland and Israel are a couple of good examples. However, I also believe these points:
1. There is no need for individuals to own or carry handguns. Handguns have nothing to do with national security or the intent of the 2nd amendment. We would all be far better off without handguns because the easy availability of handguns to nutjobs makes naive non-nutjobs feel the need to arm themselves with handguns.
2. Same for automatic weapons. These are military weapons and there is no reason why an individual should own one.
3. If guns were regulated and handguns were severely restricted, only criminals would have handguns. This is a fact. But it's also a fact that fewer non-criminals would be shot and killed. If you own a handgun, your odds of getting shot increase. If you have a CHL, your odds of getting shot increase. There are other non-lethal alternatives for self defense in close quarters that are just as effective.
4. Hunters and others who live off the land should be able to own non-automatic rifles and shotguns. But there should be more extensive background checks for people applying for permits.
5. There should be more licensed ranges where gun-nerds can go to play, and play with anything. Handguns, Automatic weapons, Bazookas, whatever. And if people want to purchase and own specialty weapons – no problem. But the weapons stay on premise in secure lockers. They don't get released into society.
All comments welcome. This is just my opinion and it comes from living in a lot of different places around the world. I like the dialog.
I think guns - all guns - are great fun. I also think that a society that knows how to use weapons and can be armed if necessary is a positive thing. Switzerland and Israel are a couple of good examples. However, I also believe these points:
1. There is no need for individuals to own or carry handguns. Handguns have nothing to do with national security or the intent of the 2nd amendment. We would all be far better off without handguns because the easy availability of handguns to nutjobs makes naive non-nutjobs feel the need to arm themselves with handguns.
2. Same for automatic weapons. These are military weapons and there is no reason why an individual should own one.
3. If guns were regulated and handguns were severely restricted, only criminals would have handguns. This is a fact. But it's also a fact that fewer non-criminals would be shot and killed. If you own a handgun, your odds of getting shot increase. If you have a CHL, your odds of getting shot increase. There are other non-lethal alternatives for self defense in close quarters that are just as effective.
4. Hunters and others who live off the land should be able to own non-automatic rifles and shotguns. But there should be more extensive background checks for people applying for permits.
5. There should be more licensed ranges where gun-nerds can go to play, and play with anything. Handguns, Automatic weapons, Bazookas, whatever. And if people want to purchase and own specialty weapons – no problem. But the weapons stay on premise in secure lockers. They don't get released into society.
All comments welcome. This is just my opinion and it comes from living in a lot of different places around the world. I like the dialog.
- LazurusLong
- 08-25-2010, 07:26 PM
Lust,
Actually you are correct on one point. We do need more gun ranges.
Because citizens of the greatest nation in the world have been convinced for about a century now that guns are only for the police and the military, many people have to be taught the honest truth of the principles of what the original intent of the 2nd amendment truly meant. I hate to say it but in my opinion you are 100% wrong when it comes to handguns. That slope of controlling WHAT guns a person should have is how the progressives have convinced people for decades that guns are bad and serve no purpose.
The 2nd amendment meant that no matter how corrupt or how controlling the Federal government or the state and local governments get, WE THE PEOPLE have the right to keep and bear arms. ALL arms. Not just long guns. And not just for self protection or for defense of the country. As a matter of history and law, the argument that handguns are bad shows you have bought into the progressive lies.
If there are people who choose not to own guns of any kind, fine.
But those who don't want to be at the ready to use their own weapon of choice for anything the original founders may or may not have spelled out should not be controlled by the weakened thoughts of the sheeple.
Check this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...s_Constitution
"In no particular order, early American settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes:[29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36]
It should not be yours, or anyone else's ability to impose on ME or others like me who feel strongly that my right to own guns of any kind are just as important as your right to follow the lead of progressives who want us all to believe blindly that someone else knows better than each individual.
I should not have to explain to you or anyone else, especially not to the State of Texas or the Congress of these United States why I want to own and use handguns.
As long as I am not using them to violate one of your rights of life or of ownership of property or anything related to those basic rights.
The moment any gun is used to rob, steal, take a life or injure a person unjustly, punish them and punish them severely.
Severe punishment for using any weapon, whether a car, a sword, a steak knife or a hangun or rifle must be done.
There is no difference in the murder charges if a person uses an AK-47, 12 gauge shotgun, or a .22 target pistol to kill another person.
So what gives you or anyone else the right to tell me what kind of arms I can and cannot own?
----------------------
Let's examine one item closely.
You claim that something which is simply a hypothesis is actually a fact.
I'll bite and ask what alternate timeline did you examine to prove this would be a fact?
If you want to try and look to other countries where handguns are severely restricted, one need only look south of the US border to Mexico to see how well these strict gun laws are keeping non-criminals alive. I've read the claims and stats about the UK and Australia but most of those stats overlook the incredible rise in other violent crime.
A good percentage of those violent crimes are rapes and assaults against women. unlike the US Freedom of the press doesn't really work over there and the police aren't releasing just how many women are being raped or assaulted. in the past, those women might have been able to shoot and kill the assailant but no longer.
Ask around your civilian female friends about whether they'd be safer if they were forced by this country to give up handguns that might protect them from violent crime.
As a relevant statistic, look at car jacking. Prior to the CHL, carjacking was a very violent and frequent crime. Once states began letting people carry handguns, almost immediately car jacking went away with very rare incidents any more.
If more women were educated and trained that they do in fact have a right to keep and bear arms, especially a handgun, I'd expect the rate of rapes and assaults in this country would drop.
Actually you are correct on one point. We do need more gun ranges.
Because citizens of the greatest nation in the world have been convinced for about a century now that guns are only for the police and the military, many people have to be taught the honest truth of the principles of what the original intent of the 2nd amendment truly meant. I hate to say it but in my opinion you are 100% wrong when it comes to handguns. That slope of controlling WHAT guns a person should have is how the progressives have convinced people for decades that guns are bad and serve no purpose.
The 2nd amendment meant that no matter how corrupt or how controlling the Federal government or the state and local governments get, WE THE PEOPLE have the right to keep and bear arms. ALL arms. Not just long guns. And not just for self protection or for defense of the country. As a matter of history and law, the argument that handguns are bad shows you have bought into the progressive lies.
If there are people who choose not to own guns of any kind, fine.
But those who don't want to be at the ready to use their own weapon of choice for anything the original founders may or may not have spelled out should not be controlled by the weakened thoughts of the sheeple.
Check this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...s_Constitution
"In no particular order, early American settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes:[29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36]
- deterring undemocratic government;
- repelling invasion;
- suppressing insurrection;
- facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
- participating in law enforcement;
- enabling the people to organize a militia system,
It should not be yours, or anyone else's ability to impose on ME or others like me who feel strongly that my right to own guns of any kind are just as important as your right to follow the lead of progressives who want us all to believe blindly that someone else knows better than each individual.
I should not have to explain to you or anyone else, especially not to the State of Texas or the Congress of these United States why I want to own and use handguns.
As long as I am not using them to violate one of your rights of life or of ownership of property or anything related to those basic rights.
The moment any gun is used to rob, steal, take a life or injure a person unjustly, punish them and punish them severely.
Severe punishment for using any weapon, whether a car, a sword, a steak knife or a hangun or rifle must be done.
There is no difference in the murder charges if a person uses an AK-47, 12 gauge shotgun, or a .22 target pistol to kill another person.
So what gives you or anyone else the right to tell me what kind of arms I can and cannot own?
----------------------
Let's examine one item closely.
3. If guns were regulated and handguns were severely restricted, only criminals would have handguns.I added some spaces because I want to highlight your claim.
This is a fact.
But it's also a fact that fewer non-criminals would be shot and killed.
If you own a handgun, your odds of getting shot increase. If you have a CHL, your odds of getting shot increase. There are other non-lethal alternatives for self defense in close quarters that are just as effective. Originally Posted by Lust4xxxLife
You claim that something which is simply a hypothesis is actually a fact.
I'll bite and ask what alternate timeline did you examine to prove this would be a fact?
If you want to try and look to other countries where handguns are severely restricted, one need only look south of the US border to Mexico to see how well these strict gun laws are keeping non-criminals alive. I've read the claims and stats about the UK and Australia but most of those stats overlook the incredible rise in other violent crime.
A good percentage of those violent crimes are rapes and assaults against women. unlike the US Freedom of the press doesn't really work over there and the police aren't releasing just how many women are being raped or assaulted. in the past, those women might have been able to shoot and kill the assailant but no longer.
Ask around your civilian female friends about whether they'd be safer if they were forced by this country to give up handguns that might protect them from violent crime.
As a relevant statistic, look at car jacking. Prior to the CHL, carjacking was a very violent and frequent crime. Once states began letting people carry handguns, almost immediately car jacking went away with very rare incidents any more.
If more women were educated and trained that they do in fact have a right to keep and bear arms, especially a handgun, I'd expect the rate of rapes and assaults in this country would drop.
- slowmover
- 08-25-2010, 07:42 PM
Shit, I thought this thread had died.
- Lust4xxxLife
- 08-25-2010, 07:47 PM
- argus256
- 08-26-2010, 04:12 AM
LL, I have a CHL as well, but you know as well as I do that it's illegal to have a gun at school (even college campus'). You can't keep it in your car, you can't carry it on a school campus. So your school reference is totally moot. I work in a hospital in a shitty part of town and I would love to carry there too. But guess what, it's illegal to carry in a hospital too. Just because civilians can carry, doesn't mean they can carry anywhere they want.You can keep it in your car, as a car is an extension of your home. You can have it on your person in a school parking lot as this is not considered the premises of a school. Read your handbook more thoroughly, there is a difference between the two.
As for the McKinney police...I'm glad that nobody else got hurt and I agree that they did a good job. It's a damn shame the world is the way it is. Originally Posted by CoHorn
- argus256
- 08-26-2010, 04:19 AM
I know I'd feel a lot better if nobody had any hand guns, including the police. They anybody with a gun (other than a shot gun or a hunting rifle -- and those should be carefully monitored) would be a criminal. Period. Originally Posted by TexTushHogThis is quite possibly the single most unbelieveable statement I have ever heard.
You should move to the UK then.
Disarming the police makes them no better than security mall ninjas (mall security guards). Having armed citizens deters crime, it's a proven fact. The crazy liberal Brady Campaign proved this (to their detrement) with their own statistical fact finding mission about us "CHL"ers and the number of killings per capita vs. non-armed citizens and compared it to crime rates.
You do realize criminals don't care about gun laws, right? So what are you gonna do if someone comes at you with a gun? MAYBE get a cell phone out and wait for however long police take to show up? Let's say there was a 2 minute response time... that's enough time for someone with a knife OR gun OR baseball bat OR box knife to slice you up, put a few holes in you and get away.
Part of the foundation of this country is the right for the average citizen to bear arms, among other things obviously.
- onehitwonder
- 08-26-2010, 04:39 AM
Believe it or not my son-in-law worked with the guy at a well know wire company in Mc Kinney. (Won't mention company name) Said he always talked about suicide. My boy said no one ever really took him seriously, thought he was just goofing around. Said he seemed like a nice enough guy. Apparently he had left the job when this all happened. They had a meeting to confirm rumors. A very sad situation indeed. Just goes to show you never know who you're sharing the lunch room with............
- Guest032213-02
- 08-26-2010, 06:47 AM
I also think the problem with CHL's is the need for them. If the availability for guns wasn't so prevalent-either black market or gun shops or wal mart-we would have less need for CHL's. Argus mentioned the UK. One of the 1st world nations that has as many police problems that the US has except for one glaring one. Firearm crimes are laughably low compared to the US. I know we all need to arm ourselves with automatic weapons to kill deer, and we need a gun locker in case someone might break into our house, but if we weren't selling them in the US, and black marketeers couldn't get them, we would have no need for CHL's.