Same thing.

giving a response as to why he thinks he is so unsafe in public, other than some irrational fear of the bogeyman.

You carrying a defibrillator? -- cause you are much more likely to need that than a gun. And, yes, I know it's not as "exciting" as a gun.

including a mask. You bet. I have also had occasion to assist.

You would have to be lucky enough to have a defibrillator trained medical person nearby. But I can operate a gun by myself.

It can be used for good or evil.

Your best hope if you are attempting that is for the other person to herniate themself laughing while you ask them to remove their shirt, so you can affix two sticky electrode pads and if they could make their heart fibrillate so the computer will deliver a shock.

they lay still that way

pull up their shirt and get the leads placed just so and the monitor assesses the person, then decides their heart is fine and will not administer a shock. Yet somehow you can over ride that info and zap them?

Please...I must see a demo on video...immediately

Thanks for the justification.

Preferably one who is trained in using a defibrillator.

I mean if you're gonna be fully prepared.

Ya know?

...have AED's installed throughout. They cost thousands of dollars but only require minimal training to be deployed. I purchased an AED and installed it in my parent's house. My dad also bought my .40 semi-automatic pistol from me for personal defense as well. People who are prepared for any situation are generally better off (not to mention smarter) than those who don't plan ahead and hope to beat the odds.

Pretty much everything in fact.

You have a much greater probability of being struck by lightning than of being illegally killed by a CCWer. Your fear of CCWers is highly irrational.

of guns -- and disregard for society -- has directly or indirectly harmed a lot of innocent people.

Criminals often get guns that were purchased legally. If they had not been produced to fill the mass hysteria, a lot less guns would be in criminal's hands. Lots of legal purchasers abuse their spouses with guns, or intimidate others. Lots of stupid kids follow their gun loving father's role model. Police shoot quicker because so many are armed. I suspect criminals do too.

I could go on, but what's the use. So have a nice 4th, hopefully without your guns.

Hoyt, you sure have a lot of patience with these gun-religionists.

Methinks their skulls are impenetrable by anything other than fear, however. Certainly logic takes a holiday there.

You are about eight times more likely to be struck by lightning than you are to be illegally killed by a CCWer. Your fear of us is baseless, unless you plan on doing some armed robbery in a shall-issue state. Then you would be at a strong risk of being legally shot by a CCWer.

If folks had not raised hell, Zimmerman would have been counted as a "good shoot" by folks who keep stats. Gun culture would have been applauding him, as well. Heck, some still are.

care to provide stats backing up your claim? Or are you just going by your "feelings"?

Your arguments aren't original- they were promulgated previously by a couple of fellows named Anslinger and Wertham...

With them either.

Moral panic mongering, cultural warfare, unsubstatiated allegations- nothing new under the sun, is there?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_J._Anslinger

"Two Negros took a girl fourteen years old and kept her for two days under the influence of hemp. Upon recovery she was found to be suffering from syphilis."

Your contibutions to the gun control debate are indisputable...

by how violent crime rates are skyrocketing ... oh wait.

...irrationally bigoted statements. Both of which stem from an unhealthy and poorly controlled sense of fear which is common with the anti-gun religionists. Combined with technical incompetence and willing ignorance and basically you have a VPC/MAIG/LCAV/Brady Campaign parrot.

the odds of any CCW holder doing anything wrong with his gun are drastically smaller than the fears associated with legalized concealed carry.

or stolen and used against someone else. If you live in a rural area, or very isolated, or a place with a truly horrific crime rate, then maybe. But frankly, the comments I've seen since President Obama got in office, from the gun enthusiasts/paranoids are frightening and illogical.

You have these men posting that they now keep a loaded gun on their coffee table when they're awake, and next to their head at night. They own several and keep them "locked and loaded" which they love to say a lot. Now the people posting this live in places that have below average crime rates. The odds that anything will happen to them that requires defense is nil, but the odds that a grandkid, or angry son, or suicidal family member, or thief, gets the gun is much bigger.

If I lived in the middle of nowhere I'd have a gun, as most ranchers do, but the idea that it's some sort of security is completely upside down.

and I don't feel unsafe in public. Other than that, I don't have to justify myself.

just what we need, more cowboys who are going to start shooting in crowds.

Because of course, you can point to one of the many incidents in which an armed victim shot back and instead hit an innocent bystander.

I can think of ONE instance this year. ONE.

to serious injure or kill you and has the capacity to do so, it really doesn't matter if it is the first time or the tenth time.

The object is to avoid ending up in a hospital for an extended time or six feet under.

Of course it is always a good idea to use non lethal forms of self defense if possible. However a firearm may prove to be the most effective method in some cases. I know of several incidents in which friends or co-workers stopped an attack by an armed individual by simply showing that they were also armed.

you need a gun unless you are just oblivious to what is going on around you.

And there are people that showed their weapon and were shot in the head by a perp that already had his pulled.

in avoiding an attack. The best means of not getting hurt in a fight is to avoid being in one.

However there are times when through no fault of your own you may find yourself a target of an armed predator or predators who wish to severely injure or kill you. If you are at a significant physical disadvantage such as being a small female or an elderly or handicapped individual you might well find a predator or predators are likely to target you as the weakest of the herd.

While rare in our current society with its decreasing violent crime rate, such incidents do occur. If you are a responsible honest citizen with the necessary training, I see no problem if you chose to be prepared. With adequate training and practice, a firearm may is the most effective weapon to employ in such a situation.

However that is an individual choice. If you chose to be unarmed as you journey through life I have absolutely no problem with your decision. You will statistically survive. Statistics work well if you are in the majority but suck when you find yourself among the few.

As I have pointed out I know of three examples of a co-worker or friend who was able to stop a violent attack by merely revealing that he was armed. Two of the attackers were armed with knives and one with a tire iron. Obviously if the attacker had a firearm, a shoot out might have occurred and the results would have been unpredictable. However since many people who carry on a regular basis practice shooting, the odds would favor the person with the carry permit. At the worst the victim of the attack might have been injured or killed but his odds of survival would have been higher if armed.

Gotta love it.

Now I know what the substitute for logic amongst gun-religionists is.

It is extremely unlikely. It is astronomically unlikely. And if it does, a CC gun is not a guarantee of survival.

Every reasonable person here already knows this. That doesn't make it unreasonable to take the precaution. It doesn't mean handgun carriers are irrationally fearful. That's where you lose us. Why would you try to persuade a person not to take a safety precaution because he's unlikely to need it?

If others have suffered attacks then we have to opportunity to learn from what happened to them. We don't have to wait for the same thing to happen to us to learn the same lesson.

Depending on luck is foolish. Being prepared for a bad event, even when that event is very unlikely, is the smart decision.

There are well over one million reported violent crimes per year, and many more that aren't reported. That is a lot of victims. I choose to learn from them and to be prepared if violence comes my way and I can't avoid it.

carried only by criminals and right wing bigots. That has pretty much been my experience, gun carriers are right wingers afraid of the poor.

I know a few liberals carry, but they are misguided.

but other opinions say your wrong and our opinions are just as valid as yours, and my opinion of my decision is the only one that counts.

Just sayin'...

There are many good reasons that one might choose not to own or carry a firearm.
Those with depression or anger management issues might well steer clear of guns.
So might those who are simply clumsy, like that poor air conditioning technician who shot his d¡¢k off.
http://www.freep.com/article/20120615/NEWS03/120615029/Man-shoots-himself-in-the-penis-in-Birmingham

...rather than just following the lead of others. Failing to plan is the same as planning to fail.

look at half the responses to the topic on these boards you'd think they were living in Somalia. Of all the countries you can name, living in the U.S. certainly comes down on the side of 'places where you can live all your life without ever having to carry a gun'. And, as a colleague of mine (prior to becoming a lawyer he was a Corrections Officer and Deputy Sheriff) once told me, "if most of them pulled a gun the perp would wind up stiking it up their a--".

We readily admit that a person is likely to be able to go their entire life without the need to defend themselves against violent crime. However, you too must admit that "likely" is NOT a guarantee of a crime free life. We simply choose to be prepared if we happen to be so unlucky as to lose that particular lottery.

Further, street criminals are not super-ninjas. Anti-gun people love to claim that a gun is useless for self-defense as a criminal will then take it away and use it on the victim. Yet one rarely finds this happening in real life. My wife has twice used her gun to scare away a street thug that was about to attack. (I have posted the details numerous times.) In both cases the perp ran away. I pulled my .45 on a burglar and he didn't do any super-ninja stuff. He just dropped what he was stealing and left in a hurry.

point it is too late for you to play cowboy?

The only way you could get the draw on them is if you pulled your gun first, which leads to the question of how you were able to identify them as a criminal before they did anything? I know how the right wingers do it.

There are websites and videos that teach such observational skills. With good training it isn't too hard to know what to watch for, where to watch for it. what actions indicate that you have been targeted, etc.

As a former armed robber you must surely have had times when you had to abort the robbery because the intended victim spotted you and avoided you.

You don't have to get the drop on them, just get ready so that you don't have to fumble for your gun. Most street criminals will see the intended victim making ready and will abort the attack.

Sorry man, I still don't see how you identify a "street criminal" before they pull a weapon and say something like "stick em up."

Last edited Mon Jul 2, 2012, 07:00 PM - Edit history (1)

He can't just materialize behind you, unless you aren't watching. He is not going to want to rob you in the middle of a crowd, that is too risky for him. He will want to isolate you, likely in the parking lot, for example. Watch for someone trying to isolate you, or for a group doing a "fan out" on you. There are lots of good police training videos on the subject. None of the ones that I have show anybody in hoodies. However, even you can't deny that armed robbers do seem to like to wear something to hide their faces and hoodies do that quite well.

BTW - Why would a young man wear a hoodie with the hood up when the temperature is 90 degrees?

> BTW - Why would a young man wear a hoodie with the hood up when the temperature is 90 degrees?

BTW - Why would somebody need a gun when it is more dangerous to have one than not?

And I have seen teenage males wearing hoodies with the hood up in 90 degree weather. Yes, I viewed it with suspicion.

> Because having one is not more dangerous than not.

Glad to hear that! All those killings with guns must be happening due to holograms or from an alternate universe.

12yo?

I'm 3 years old.

That the best you got?

but thanks for confirming my suspicions.
It's better than anything I've seen you post here in my short time.

You have not demonstrated that it is more dangerous to be armed than to not be. Do you think my own gun will jump up and shoot me?

I have no idea what you're talking about. Your "logic" train left the tracks a long time ago.

The question was if the gun, on its own, would shoot. Also, it isn't "accidental discharge" but "negligent discharge". Google that.

Friends or family and strolling the streets of French Quarter (I used to live in NOLA) were several times in that type of situation back in 1990s.

One time a male friend, his parents and myself were leaving Arnaud's. It wasn't terribly late, maybe 9pm or so. My friend was very aware of surroundings (I'm bad at observing surroundings) and observed we were being followed by 2 guys, clearly up to no good. This was before cell phones too. Friend had been trained in karate and put on his war face and guard gait so the guys who closing in went hunting for easier prey.

Another time I'd been out dining with a friend at a place lower in the Quarter. We hadn't been particularly lucky in finding a good parking spot. It was late, a bit after 10. And dark. As we were halfway down the street, my friend and I both sensed somebody was following us. There were two guys coming down *close*. My friend, a NOLA physician, imperceptibly to me, had pulled his pistol out, turned and pushed me behind him about the same second. He sort of grinned and sort of aimed at the two big guys in a casual way. They laughed and said, 'No problem, man. Have a good night.' They did an about face and walked the other way.

If my pal hadn't been aware and armed we could have easily been shot, and maybe even dead. That was during a time when tourists in particular were being robbed. I don't know why robbers in general started shooting the prey, but they did.

So, Mr. Hoyt, you are supposedly an ex-armed robber? And you are telling people not to carry weapons?

Would you shoot someone because of his "body language"?

If people could read "body language" reliably, our political landscape would be very different indeed!
Most people think they read "body language" a lot better than they really do.

To make matters worse, there are some people whose "body language" is essentially random. Certain disabilities can cause this.

Body language is only one of the indicators. Nowhere did I claim it was the only indicator. Suspicious body language would raise my level of alertness to that person until I had a better read on the situation. There would have to a clear and deadly attack before I would shoot, but I could already have my hand in my pocket, on the gun, prepared if it appeared that a situation was developing.

There are many training videos to are shown to police on the subject of how to spot a situation that is about to go down. By knowing what to look for you can deny the criminal the element of surprise. Most of the time you can use that information to avoid or escape the situation. Escape is always better than fighting.

If some guy has random body language that is likely to fail to cause an alert as the body language I will be looking for will be fairly specific. Go to youtube and enter "Pre-assault indicators" or "Pre-incident indicators".

As I related in a post above, in any instance I'd been in, one senses imminent danger. Somebody who is 'stalking prey' acts differently than somebody just walking towards you or behind you.

Lone muggers generally prefer choosing women or elderly targets. In the streets when they wanted 'more' they'd work in pairs and choose a couple to stick up. And they always had guns. My MD buddy (who lived uptown) is a well-practised marksman. He knew he had to get the draw.

nor made any threat to you or violated the law in any way.

Doesn't that make you the criminal?

probabilities. I'm 70 years old - have lived both in big cities (NY, Miami) smaller cities and rural areas. I personally haven't nor have I ever know anyone who wasn't a cop who has had need to pull a gun. I believe we're all getting a little paranoid.

No shots fired, but the attacks had begun. Each was able to repel the attack. Most were burglaries, one was an attempted car jacking. His weapon was a brick to smash her car window, until she pointed her .357 at him. He dropped the brick and ran for his accomplices car which was already starting to peel rubber getting away. All of my acquaintances were ordinary citizens.

So you are claiming that in your entire life nobody that you know has been a victim of a violent crime. If find that impossible to believe. I have known many who have been a crime victim at least once in their lives.

I have been a victim of violent crime before I began to carry. It was a strong-arm robbery. I was 18 at the time.

Heck, they are the promoters of public fear...The " You need to buy a gun now, shoot first ask questions later plan" comes from the NRA and GOP compliance with the legislation bonanza.

It's now trending and cool to carry a gun....like when cell phones and texting became "cool" for teens and then the general population.

That's my feel on the subject.

Peak age for getting one's initial CHL in Texas is age 52.

That's true. Most people do. And some people do find themselves in need of one. I don't know which group I'm a part of. I'd like to be in group A, but I don't know. My grampa never expected to be in group B, but he was, and when the time came about 15 years ago, he had the gun he needed. It saved his life, and possibly two others. I'm very thankful that he took that silly precaution.

I've never heard of a handgun carrier looking back on his life, having never needed to pull his weapon, and saying "I wish I hadn't carried that thing." The cost/benefit analysis for carrying a handgun seems quite favorable, according to my experience.

EDIT: Typo

question is how many handgun carriers are there looking back on life and saying "I wish to God I never had that thing"?

Do you contend that a significant number of them have those regrets? Statistics on crime committed by CCW holders suggest that the answer is no.

A far greater number are in the "Thank God I had that thing," category.

you give me a link?

Legal concealed carry saves more innocent lives than it takes.

In Texas the detailed statistics are compiled annually by the Department of Public Safety and published on the internet. It is likely that the Texas experience with Concealed Handgun Licenses would be about the same in other states. The last year for which statistics are published is 2009 for convictions. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/index.htm

In 2009 there were 402,914 people who had CHLs. Out of those people there was exactly one (1) murder conviction and no manslaughter convictions. Out of the general population there were 600+ convictions for murder in its various forms and manslaughter.
So very, very few CHL holders go bad, but some do.

The DPS also publishes an annual Crime in Texas Report. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/crimereports/09/citCh3.pdf
From that report, page 15:

Statistics on murder circumstances, victims, and
victim/offender relationships on the next page
include justifiable homicides. Justifiable homicide
is the killing of a felon by a peace officer in the
line of duty or the killing (during the commission
of a felony) of a felon by a private citizen. In
2009, there were 106 justifiable homicides, of
which, 52 were felons killed by private citizens,
and 54 were felons killed by police.

In Texas all homicides, even those that are clearly self-defense, have to go before a grand jury which will rule if the killing was justified or not. So those 52 justified private citizen homicides were ones in which the defender genuinely and legitimately feared for his life. Since most shootings are merely woundings there would be a much larger number of justified woundings in which the defender genuinely feared for his life, but that number is not kept. Obviously there are dozens of cases each year in which a CHL holder uses their gun to save themselves.

Dozens of innocent lives saved versus one innocent killed shows the concealed carry is working in Texas. As already stated, there is no reason to believe that other CCW states have a different experience.

Legal concealed carry saves innocent lives.

So, according to VPC numbers, 462 people have been killed by CCW holders in cases that were NOT ruled self-defense, from 2007 through today. I haven't gone through all the data to determine how many individual CCW holders were involved in these murders, so let's assume there were no multiple-victim incidents.

That's a maximum of 462 killers out of 11 million permit holders, or 0.0042%.

Here's my previous post:

"Do you contend that a significant number of them have those regrets? Statistics on crime committed by CCW holders suggest that the answer is no."

Go to the page that lists everyone killed, scroll down to Michigan. Each year they have an entry for how many CCWers committed suicide. Three years of entries totals exactly 100.

Those CCWer's still count as dead by the hand of a CCWer, and the figure already illustrates my point quite clearly.

Still, if we discount those 100 who died without harming anyone else(and I think we still respect that decision around here), that puts the maximum number of CCWer's who harmed OTHERS around 0.0033%, or about 1/300 (one three-hundredth) of a percent.