Carry?

I disagree that the chances of a home invasion are rare based on my personal experience. When I lived on Greystone in the 1980s a girl in the unit next to mine was repeatedly raped and strangled [though not killed] by an intruder. When I lived on Riverside a year earlier there were three homicides in or near the victims' apartments within a two week period. Four years ago a friend of mine in Castle Hills [San Antonio] was staying with his elderly parents when three thugs with baseball bats entered their home, tied all three with duck tape, and proceeded to break my friend's arm with a bat. In a subsequent home invasion weeks later the same guys killed someone in Corpus.

I will never let any of those things happen to me, and I'm glad many other people feel the same.

The experiences of careless or immature people who are responsible for gun deaths from accident or crimes passionale should have no bearing on whether normal people should have the right to protect themselves. They should however all be honored with a Darwin Award for having done themselves in by the very means so carefully designed to protect them. Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

Most of your response is just plain ridiculous but your last paragraph tops it all. I have no idea who you think has said anything but you have the right to protect yourself. That does nothing to take away from the fact that innocent people are killed by having a gun in the house. And please stop with the Darwin Award crap. Tell that to the woman in Cedar Park who was killed by her live-in boyfriend just by being there at the wrong time.

The fact that you have to go back so far in history to cite break-in killings or rapes proves my point IMHO. I don't care about crime in San Antonio. Totally irrelevant in talking about crime in Austin. I never talked about murders outside the home so that is totally irrelevant. A gun in the home will not protect you on the streets. So you have cited exactly ONE random break-in in Austin where a violent crime was perpetrated against the home owner. And that occured how many years ago?? 25-30?

I am not on my soapbox to try to convince you of anything other than what you are protecting yourselves against occurs very rarely, and much more rarely in some areas than others. And as I've consistently said, if you or anyone else feels a need to protect themselves in their home, do whatever you feel is legally necessary. Seems I'm quite a bit more open-minded on this subject than you are.

Quote from theaustinescorts:

"It appears the risk of death from simple traffic accidents far exceeds any risk of death from encountering a citizen with a deadly weapon."

But you carry a handgun to protect yourself and still drive a car?? Seems to me not driving would do much more to protect your life than packing.

Slotgoop,

the only part of your statment that I personally disagree with is when you say that training for a CHL drills things into your head. In a 10 hour day, some of which is taken up by firing of the weapon, lunch, and breaks, I doubt there is much drilling.
Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

That depends on the intructor you have. The one I use went in depth regarding different case studies of actual use of firearm for defense and the legal fallout that followed for the person that pulled the trigger. The case studies were then tied back to the statute section that applies regarding use of force and when it is appropriate. The class I took was also longer than 10 hours, taking two full 8 hour days.

I am not on my soapbox to try to convince you of anything other than what you are protecting yourselves against occurs very rarely, and much more rarely in some areas than others. And as I've consistently said, if you or anyone else feels a need to protect themselves in their home, do whatever you feel is legally necessary. Seems I'm quite a bit more open-minded on this subject than you are. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

The fact that the risk exists at all is reason enough for a person to take measures to protect themselves and their loved ones. I would also argue the point of you calling yourself open minded. What makes someone who analyzes risk and takes steps to mitigate them using available options more close minded than someone who chooses to do nothing at all?

That depends on the intructor you have. The one I use went in depth regarding different case studies of actual use of firearm for defense and the legal fallout that followed for the person that pulled the trigger. The case studies were then tied back to the statute section that applies regarding use of force and when it is appropriate. The class I took was also longer than 10 hours, taking two full 8 hour days. Originally Posted by Slotgoop

That could very well be, but the only requirement to get your CHL is to take a 10-hour class. I commend you for going overboard. If everyone with a CHL did so, I would have just a little more trust in their ability to do the right thing at the right time.

Also, do you know that in the state of Texas a class is offered that will give you a Utah CHL that is valid in Texas. 8-hour class, no test, no firing of the handgun. In fact, you don't even have to own a handgun to get the CHL.

The fact that the risk exists at all is reason enough for a person to take measures to protect themselves and their loved ones. I would also argue the point of you calling yourself open minded. What makes someone who analyzes risk and takes steps to mitigate them using available options more close minded than someone who chooses to do nothing at all? Originally Posted by Slotgoop

I consider myself open-minded because I have no ill feelings toward those who disagree with my viewpoint. TAE makes it fairly clear, to me at least, that it is his way or the highway. If you do not carry a handgun or have a handgun in your home for protection, you are wrong in doing so.

In the same way, your first statement is doing the same thing -- "The fact that the risk exists at all is reason enough for a person to take measures to protect themselves and their loved ones." What bullshit!! Don't be telling others what they must do. That is what drives me crazy about gun rights advocates. Those of us who choose not to own a handgun are putting ourselves at risk. TOTAL BS. That is what makes this country great -- we don't have to listen to that crap and we are allowed to make up our own minds.

... in the state of Texas a class is offered that will give you a Utah CHL that is valid in Texas. 8-hour class, no test, no firing of the handgun. In fact, you don't even have to own a handgun to get the CHL. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Interesting hack.

I consider myself open-minded because I have no ill feelings toward those who disagree with my viewpoint. TAE makes it fairly clear, to me at least, that it is his way or the highway. If you do not carry a handgun or have a handgun in your home for protection, you are wrong in doing so. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Conflating home defense with carry would be an error, I think; I usually don't bother to carry a gun - EDC's a knife* - but there's an 870** at home.



*Cold Steel XL tanto plain edge Voyager; first-rate EDC for ~$65. I've liked other knives more but they cost 2-3 times as much. Old Cuda Maxx I gave to an ex-GF is worth over $400 these days, argh.

**College buddy of mine is uncomfortable with keeping guns in a houseful of kids, so he keeps a digital audio player in his nightstand with a recording of a shotgun pump.

SpeedracerXXX,
Personally, I appreciate the fact that you're not against others having weapons to protect themselves but you make the choice not to do so yourself. I also agree with you that no one should tell anyone else whether they should arm themselves or not. This is definitely a personal decision that people need to make for themselves.
Where I disagree with you is this; You keep mentioning random home break-ins and the low chance of them occurring. I had posted earlier on here the 2009 Austin Crime stats showing the number of rapes, robberies, aggravated assaults etc.
My question to you is this: Given that those other crimes add up to hundreds per year in Austin, do you feel a person has a right to defend themselves with deadly force against a sexual assault, aggravated robbery and aggravated assault?
Somehow this thread digressed to the right or wisdom of having a weapon in the home. What the thread initially addressed was carrying a weapon while going to see a provider. The reason to carry anywhere (not just to a provider) would be to protect oneself from the above listed crimes. I'm curious as to your thoughts on crimes committed away from the home which all statistics show do happen in Austin on a fairly regular basis.

Conflating home defense with carry would be an error, I think; I usually don't bother to carry a gun - EDC's a knife* - but there's an 870** at home.



*Cold Steel XL tanto plain edge Voyager; first-rate EDC for ~$65. I've liked other knives more but they cost 2-3 times as much. Old Cuda Maxx I gave to an ex-GF is worth over $400 these days, argh.

**College buddy of mine is uncomfortable with keeping guns in a houseful of kids, so he keeps a digital audio player in his nightstand with a recording of a shotgun pump. Originally Posted by DTorchia

78704,

I'm curious as to why you choose to carry a knife vs a gun? I carry a knife as well (in addition to my handgun) but it's used for utility purposes or in those cases where I'm entering a place where I'm prohibited from carrying a handgun.
I'm just curious why you choose to make that your primary defensive weapon?[/quote]

Right up until I moved to Texas I thought of myself as a good shot; I can poke holes in a pie plate all day from a quarter mile; playing cards, on a good day.

Turns out I'm good lying prone with a sandbagged Remington .30-06 and a Unertl variable scope; useless with a handgun; slow, clumsy, very likely to miss and/or screw up. All kinds of mess: cross-eye dominance, big adrenaline hits (bent the trigger linkage on a Para-Ord 1911 once)... not a good pistolero.

Knife, on the other hand... fenced varsity epee in high school, still got moves. And the lesson of the Tueller drill: Don't bring a gun to a knife fight.

No one here has claimed that people shouldn't have guns in their homes, but others elsewhere do, and that's why I've stated my beliefs.

If you've known anyone whose been a victim in there home, or lived in a neighborhood where violent crime has occurred, it definitely makes an impression on molding your views. You never forget it; nor should you.]

The fact that some people are harmed by their own guns [or those owned by others they know who assault them] is the most common argument made by those advocating gun prohibitions. My point is that it's not just to deprive everyone of their most basic right of self-defense in their own homes because people of lesser responsibility can't be around weapons without it harming themselves. Perhaps there are innocent victims of these forms of gun violence, but in my very personal view it is totally possible to live around loaded guns in the home [as I've done since I was borne] without any particular risk of danger if they are responsible. Sorry that someone in Cedar Park was shot by a lover with his gun, or hers, but that's not an accident. That sounds like just another case of an assault by a malevolent assailant that happened to involve a nearby gun rather than some other weapon.

btw I do not carry, although the closest I ever came to death was in an instance where I was snatched off a public street and in front of many witnesses in the U.S. On that occassion if I had produced a weapon I probably would have been shot because one of my assailants was an armed policeman who was corrupt. If I had not physically escaped from my captors I would have not lived to talk about it. The several other situations where I have been shot at, such as in Sierra Leone in the 1990s, were not so carefully planned events. In the past in America criminals often grew up on farms and were proficient with firearms, but the morons who sometimes produce a weapon today have usually never even practiced firing it, and have never cleaned it. In Sierra Leone every kid had an AK-47 but had no idea how to aim it.

SpeedracerXXX,
Personally, I appreciate the fact that you're not against others having weapons to protect themselves but you make the choice not to do so yourself. I also agree with you that no one should tell anyone else whether they should arm themselves or not. This is definitely a personal decision that people need to make for themselves.
Where I disagree with you is this; You keep mentioning random home break-ins and the low chance of them occurring. I had posted earlier on here the 2009 Austin Crime stats showing the number of rapes, robberies, aggravated assaults etc.
My question to you is this: Given that those other crimes add up to hundreds per year in Austin, do you feel a person has a right to defend themselves with deadly force against a sexual assault, aggravated robbery and aggravated assault?
Somehow this thread digressed to the right or wisdom of having a weapon in the home. What the thread initially addressed was carrying a weapon while going to see a provider. The reason to carry anywhere (not just to a provider) would be to protect oneself from the above listed crimes. I'm curious as to your thoughts on crimes committed away from the home which all statistics show do happen in Austin on a fairly regular basis. Originally Posted by DTorchia

DTorchia,

well, I would say that the thread started by a provider asking whether or not a gun should be taken into the provider's "home". But, to answer your question, yes, I believe that persons have the right to defend themselves with deadly force in the situations you mentioned. No ifs, ands, or buts.

But I have to say this. If you look at where the violent crimes in Austin occur, they are, for the most part, in very specific areas of the city.

http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/police/zi...x_zip_1209.pdf

I used to live in 78759 -- zero murders in 2009, 2 rapes, 18 robberies, and 17 aggravated assaults. Very safe area and I was very comfortable living there without a gun, same as I am right now in Cedar Park. However, there are other areas in Austin where if I lived I would more than likely have a gun in my possession. I go into central Austin several times a year, mostly 6th St. and the Warehouse District. But there are several areas of Austin I avoid like the plague, especially at night.

That is what makes this country great -- we don't have to listen to that crap and we are allowed to make up our own minds. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

No arguement from me there, I agree 100%.

In the film "Heaven's Gate" the ruthless stock detective Nate Champion's job is to gun down any sodbuster he finds with the carcass of a stolen cow.

However when he comes across a teenager about to kill a steer he's just stolen Nate just tells him to move on. The desperate teen, his hands shaking, timidly moves the barrel of his revolver toward Nate as if to shoot. Nate sternly warns him not to do that, but he does not draw down on the youth. Instead Nate tells him,
"I'm not gonna kill some kid that's still young enough to be pissing in his pants..."

That's only a movie, but it depicts a sense of honor that was once commonly held.

The Chronicle two weeks ago had a story about a deaf girl who was aquitted of charges of "resisting arrest" or "not obeying commands" or whatever it was.
An Austin policeman on patrol stopped when he saw the deaf girl arguing with another girl on a sidewalk. When the girl walked away from the policeman he chose in his pea-sized brain to make a contest of it, and wound up wrestling the girl to the ground and arresting her to show her who was boss. And afterall, that's what his training and the rules permit him to do in such situations.

Anyone who cares to may see the dashcam tape of this "officer" wrestling this girl to the ground and forcefully subduing her, then taking his collar into arrest for her arrogance in not obeying his commands to investigate, well, I guess he had nothing to investigate as there was no crime anywhere he was acting on...

Merry Christmas

In the film "Heaven's Gate" the ruthless stock detective Nate Champion's job is to gun down any sodbuster he finds with the carcass of a stolen cow.

However when he comes across a teenager about to kill a steer he's just stolen Nate just tells him to move on. The desperate teen, his hands shaking, timidly moves the barrel of his revolver toward Nate as if to shoot. Nate sternly warns him not to do that, but he does not draw down on the youth. Instead Nate tells him,
"I'm not gonna kill some kid that's still young enough to be pissing in his pants..."

That's only a movie, but it depicts a sense of honor that was once commonly held.

The Chronicle two weeks ago had a story about a deaf girl who was aquitted of charges of "resisting arrest" or "not obeying commands" or whatever it was.
An Austin policeman on patrol stopped when he saw the deaf girl arguing with another girl on a sidewalk. When the girl walked away from the policeman he chose in his pea-sized brain to make a contest of it, and wound up wrestling the girl to the ground and arresting her to show her who was boss. And afterall, that's what his training and the rules permit him to do in such situations.

Anyone who cares to may see the dashcam tape of this "officer" wrestling this girl to the ground and forcefully subduing her, then taking his collar into arrest for her arrogance in not obeying his commands to investigate, well, I guess he had nothing to investigate as there was no crime anywhere he was acting on...

Merry Christmas Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

I truly have no idea what the above rant has to do with carrying of a concealed weapon, the topic of this thread. Maybe you should consider starting a new thread on police brutality, corruption, ineptness and all the other faults you seem to find with them. You can list that thread right underneath your other recent one, "Alien Agenda". MERRY CHRISTMAS EVERYONE! I WISH YOU ALL THE VERY BEST OF HOLIDAYS!