# Age and firearms



## mycrofft (Jul 29, 2009)

I'm curious some more.
Please answer honestly. This will be anonymous.


----------



## medic417 (Jul 29, 2009)

Very old (I've been 29 for many many years) and all for properly educated Paramedics having the option to carry concealed firearms.


----------



## mycrofft (Jul 29, 2009)

*medic you jumped the gun...so to speak.*

..............................................


----------



## HNcorpsman (Jul 29, 2009)

need to give more options... you forgot people like me

under 30, with military service, do not want to carry.


----------



## mycrofft (Jul 29, 2009)

*GoshI wish I could edit that poll*

I'm typing from work.........


----------



## mycrofft (Jul 29, 2009)

*If I missed your option, speak up*

I'll hire someone to do the math.
See if I post from WORK again!!:sad:


----------



## Hockey (Jul 29, 2009)

HNcorpsman said:


> need to give more options... you forgot people like me
> 
> under 30, with military service, do not want to carry.



Why not?



I have my CPL and carry regularly


----------



## mycrofft (Jul 29, 2009)

*So tell us about these crimes you all thwarted.*

I actually had a family member saved by a snoopy little old lady next door with a shotgun, but it was such a fluke...


----------



## usafmedic45 (Jul 29, 2009)

mycrofft said:


> I actually had a family member saved by a snoopy little old lady next door with a shotgun, but it was such a fluke...


Burglar breaking into my parent's garage one night after I got off duty.  Nothing says "Don't even think about running" like a .40 caliber pistol backed up by a Doberman and a Rottweiler.


----------



## mycrofft (Jul 29, 2009)

*Did you know you can't shoot a burglar?*

No threat to self or others unless he or she brandishes or attacks, and then it has to be a "credible menace".
Odd how you can launch a 200 lb dog or let it go on it's own, but not produce a handgun which allegedly you can control.


----------



## mycrofft (Jul 29, 2009)

*If you voted, drop a comment so we can get an overall tally.*

(By "we" I mean me:blush.


----------



## marineman (Jul 29, 2009)

Do you mean on duty or off duty? I'm all for CC but I feel no need to carry on duty. 

By not having a cc law the only ones that are stopped are the honest ones and they typically aren't the ones committing crimes.


----------



## Fir Na Au Saol (Jul 29, 2009)

While I am a strong advocate of the right to carry and use armed self defense, I have mixed emotions about EMS going armed.

In answer to the poll:

I'm over 30, have not been in the military and have a concealed handgun license. 

I have had to draw my pistol once in 25 years of regular carrying. 

I have never carried while on duty in EMS, but I know people who do. I have done armed security work, and never had to draw my pistol. I've OCed a couple of people and whacked a couple of idiots with a baton, but never needed a firearm.


----------



## usafmedic45 (Jul 29, 2009)

mycrofft said:


> No threat to self or others unless he or she brandishes or attacks, and then it has to be a "credible menace".
> Odd how you can launch a 200 lb dog or let it go on it's own, but not produce a handgun which allegedly you can control.


I didn't have to shoot him, even though he did grab a machete my father kept in the garage for clearing brush around our property when I came through the door.  He realized really quickly he wasn't going to win this and dropped the machete before I could get a shot off.   

Also, whether you can shoot someone and what constitutes a "reasonable threat" varies from state to state and even county to county at times.  One county south of us had a homeowner shoot a burglar in the BACK of the head with a deer rifle as he was fleeing down the driveway after assaulting the homeowner (knocked him down after bullrushing him causing him to lose his glasses) and the county prosecutor declined to file charges.  The prosecutor actually made a comment to the press about how we should just be glad  a repeat felon was not around to prey upon our society and how lucky we were that an innocent man did not get seriously hurt.  I happen to remember this particular case because I was one of the first EMTs on the scene for it.


----------



## Fir Na Au Saol (Jul 29, 2009)

mycrofft said:


> No threat to self or others unless he or she brandishes or attacks, and then it has to be a "credible menace".
> Odd how you can launch a 200 lb dog or let it go on it's own, but not produce a handgun which allegedly you can control.


In New Mexico, being in your house makes a burglar a "credible menace" and makes deadly force legal. Case in point; A man under the influnce of PCP kicked in my brother's front door. My brother shot him and it was ruled a justifiable shooting even though the guy was not armed. (FWIW; The perp lived.)

The law in NM allows the use of deadly force if someone has a "reasonable belief" that they, or another person, is in danger of death or "great bodily harm". Case in point; A man went into a local Wal-Mart and attacked his ex-wife with a knife. A witness who had a concealed handgun license shot and killed the attacker. It was a slam dunk justifiable homicide even though the shooter was not the direct victim of the attack.

There is also no "duty to retreat" in NM. You can stand your ground and defend yourself if attacked.


----------



## TransportJockey (Jul 29, 2009)

Fir Na Au Saol said:


> In New Mexico, being in your house makes a burglar a "credible menace" and makes deadly force legal. Case in point; A man under the influnce of PCP kicked in my brother's front door. My brother shot him and it was ruled a justifiable shooting even though the guy was not armed. (FWIW; The perp lived.)
> 
> The law in NM allows the use of deadly force if someone has a "reasonable belief" that they, or another person, is in danger of death or "great bodily harm". Case in point; A man went into a local Wal-Mart and attacked his ex-wife with a knife. A witness who had a concealed handgun license shot and killed the attacker. It was a slam dunk justifiable homicide even though the shooter was not the direct victim of the attack.
> 
> There is also no "duty to retreat" in NM. You can stand your ground and defend yourself if attacked.



One of the reasons I love this state.

But back to the topic, I carry regularly concealed and openly anyways. Only time I don't carry is at work at the hospital and on internship


----------



## fma08 (Jul 29, 2009)

Under 30, no military, own a firearm, want the ability to carry if I felt it's necessary. (That's my vote, but it's not up there   )

As for carrying on the job... If I was a tactical medic, then yes, I'd like to be able to. Aside from that, it is my belief that if one is doing their job appropriately, then they don't need to carry.


----------



## JPINFV (Jul 29, 2009)

I see no point in carrying on the job.

Outside of the job I am very pro conceal-carry. Just imagine if one teacher at Columbine or one person at Virginia Tech had a concealed handgun on them. The outcome would have been vastly different.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Jul 30, 2009)

JPINFV said:


> I see no point in carrying on the job.
> 
> Outside of the job I am very pro conceal-carry. Just imagine if one teacher at Columbine or one person at Virginia Tech had a concealed handgun on them. The outcome would have been vastly different.



Yeah, they would have been arrested for carrying a firearm in a school zone.  :wacko:


----------



## Sasha (Jul 30, 2009)

JPINFV said:


> I see no point in carrying on the job.
> 
> Outside of the job I am very pro conceal-carry. Just imagine if one teacher at Columbine or one person at Virginia Tech had a concealed handgun on them. The outcome would have been vastly different.



It could have been, or it could have just added more to the casualty list.


----------



## Mountain Res-Q (Jul 30, 2009)

Are we talking in general, or is this a rehash of the carrying on the EMS-job thread?

Carry in general?  As long as a proper CCW permit is issued to respectable/upstanding citizens... sure... one of these days I will be doing so.

Carry on the job?  Not a fan of the idea in general and wouldn't do so if given the option.  If packing heat is strongly suggested on a pure-EMS job, then I don't think I want that gig.  On the other hand, in SAR we are allowed to carry as long as we have the appropriate permit from the Sheriff.  In fact, several of our people carry on some calls (mostly the mounted team with pistols and rifles), but anyone could carry assuming they fullfilled the legal requirements... but I don't...

On ambo, we were told that it was completely aganst company (even with CCW permit) and it was a firable offense.


----------



## JPINFV (Jul 30, 2009)

ffemt8978 said:


> Yeah, they would have been arrested for carrying a firearm in a school zone.  :wacko:



Which is probably a good reason why no one was armed.


----------



## JPINFV (Jul 30, 2009)

Sasha said:


> It could have been, or it could have just added more to the casualty list.



They could be on that list either way. When Cho (VTech) was first confronted with any resistance, he killed himself. Personally, if I had the choice of either hiding or confronting an active shooter, I'd rather die confronting and trying to prevent death than by running away. The only thing necessary for the triumph  of evil is for good men to do nothing.


----------



## Fir Na Au Saol (Jul 30, 2009)

Sasha said:


> It could have been, or it could have just added more to the casualty list.


Well the "gun free zones" sure as heck did NO good whatsoever. Not at Columbine, Virginia Tech, or any other "victim disarmament zone" where all these mass shooting seem to happen. Nobody is shooting up gun shows or police stations that's for sure. And then there is the Appalachian School of Law where armed STUDENTS stopped a killer.

And most likely, if Klebold and Harris or Cho had known that CCW was legal and allowed in those schools, they would have never tried their attacks in the first place.


----------



## Mountain Res-Q (Jul 30, 2009)

I guess the real question would be:

If you are willing and agreeable to carry a gun (either in general or on the job), would you be willing to use it on another human, knowing that it could possible be fatal?  That would be a hard one for most of us (those not from Texas ) that got in medicine/emergency services to help others, not hurt them.  And if you say yes to that, then at what point or for what reasons would you consider using it?  To defend self?  Family?  Others?  To prevent a crime?  What level of crime?  Remember, if you want to carry one, then you must be willing to deploy it.  If you are willing to deploy it, you must be willing to use it.  For some of us (Texans, ex-LEO, ex-military, etc...) that might not be an issue... for others, the desision to carry and use isn't so easy.  How hard is it for military folks and LEOs to deal with the afteraffects of such and action, despite the fact that they got into that field knowing it was a possibility?  how much harder would it be for EMSers with no such background who got into a lifesaving field?

BTW... 26... non military... would like to carry one day for personal protection (especially on SAR calls in the middle of knowhere - mtn lions and such), but don't now and would never on Ambo...


----------



## Sasha (Jul 30, 2009)

Fir Na Au Saol said:


> Well the "gun free zones" sure as heck did NO good whatsoever. Not at Columbine, Virginia Tech, or any other "victim disarmament zone" where all these mass shooting seem to happen. Nobody is shooting up gun shows or police stations that's for sure. And then there is the Appalachian School of Law where armed STUDENTS stopped a killer.
> 
> And most likely, if Klebold and Harris or Cho had known that CCW was legal and allowed in those schools, they would have never tried their attacks in the first place.



So are you advocating that we arm students or teachers??? Yeah, let a student get in a disagreement with a teacher and shoot them or vice versa! People can't be trusted to handle arguments responsibly outside of school and without guns, but you want to arm them??


----------



## Fir Na Au Saol (Jul 30, 2009)

Sasha said:


> So are you advocating that we arm students or teachers??? Yeah, let a student get in a disagreement with a teacher and shoot them or vice versa! People can't be trusted to handle arguments responsibly outside of school and without guns, but you want to arm them??


This same argument has been trotted out every time a new concealed carry law has been proposed and it's been WRONG every single time. And of course BANNING guns on campuses has worked SO well. NOT!  Likewise banning guns in hospitals has totally eliminated violence there too. http://www.emtlife.com/showthread.php?t=13128

If people can't be trusted with guns then they can't be trusted with cars or any other motor vehicle. 

The "mayhem in the streets" argument was used when Florida proposed their CCW law. And it was totally wrong. Violent crime went DOWN and it has in EVERY State that has since passed a CCW law. While crime has remained high in those places where CCW is not allowed. Washington DC effectively banned private gun ownership and earned the highest violent crime rate in the US and much of the world.

If somebody is going to resort to violence in a minor argument, they'll use any weapon available. It is the PERSON and their behavior NOT the instrument.

And yes, I would arm teachers and those students legally old enough to own handguns and qualify for Concealed Carry licenses.


----------



## usafmedic45 (Jul 30, 2009)

JPINFV said:


> They could be on that list either way. When Cho (VTech) was first confronted with any resistance, he killed himself. Personally, if I had the choice of either hiding or confronting an active shooter, I'd rather die confronting and trying to prevent death than by running away. The only thing necessary for the triumph  of evil is for good men to do nothing.


Exactly what I was thinking.  It's better to live on your feet than die on your knees as the saying goes.  Almost none of the school shooters have gotten into a firefight with an equally (or closely matched) armed opponent....in fact, I can only find corroboration of firefights involving Charles Whitman in 1966, Keith Ledeger in 1994, a kid in Alaska in 1997, the two Columbine shooters, the Red Lake, MN shooter, and the gunman from the Case Western shooting .  That is a small minority of the 40 or so school and university shooters in US history.  The rest either surrendered immediately, hunkered down somewhere, tried to run away or committed suicide.


----------



## JPINFV (Jul 30, 2009)

Sasha said:


> So are you advocating that we arm students or teachers??? Yeah, let a student get in a disagreement with a teacher and shoot them or vice versa! People can't be trusted to handle arguments responsibly outside of school and without guns, but you want to arm them??




The people who would be willing and able to arm themselves would be the more stable of people. Ideally CCW permits wouldn't be handed out like candy ("will issue" states), but not limited to people with a strict need (police, armed transport, etc. Most "shall issue" areas). Besides, nothing is stopping spmeone from illegally carrying anyways. 

Now, this said, I fully endorse schools from limiting the ability of on campus residents, especially first and second years, from having guns in the dorms due to the presence of EtOH and the amount of binge drinking that occurs.


----------



## Shishkabob (Jul 30, 2009)

Sasha said:


> So are you advocating that we arm students or teachers??? Yeah, let a student get in a disagreement with a teacher and shoot them or vice versa! People can't be trusted to handle arguments responsibly outside of school and without guns, but you want to arm them??



Texas is a huge CCW AND open carry state.


I've yet to have a customer pull a gun on me from telling them they can't return an item.


----------



## JPINFV (Jul 30, 2009)

Mountain Res-Q said:


> I guess the real question would be:
> 
> If you are willing and agreeable to carry a gun (either in general or on the job), would you be willing to use it on another human, knowing that it could possible be fatal?  That would be a hard one for most of us (those not from Texas ) that got in medicine/emergency services to help others, not hurt them.  And if you say yes to that, then at what point or for what reasons would you consider using it?  To defend self?  Family?  Others?  To prevent a crime?  What level of crime?  Remember, if you want to carry one, then you must be willing to deploy it.  If you are willing to deploy it, you must be willing to use it.  For some of us (Texans, ex-LEO, ex-military, etc...) that might not be an issue... for others, the desision to carry and use isn't so easy.  How hard is it for military folks and LEOs to deal with the afteraffects of such and action, despite the fact that they got into that field knowing it was a possibility?  how much harder would it be for EMSers with no such background who got into a lifesaving field?



That's a very important point. If you're going to carry you have to be willing to deploy it. A concealed weapon does no good if it's not drawn when needed. Similarly, if you aren't willing to kill the person you're drawing on (and if you're drawing, your aiming to kill. There is no such thing as shooting to wound. You draw, you aim to kill. You shoot. You shoot to kill. Period.), then all you are doing is giving the criminal a free gun with ammo.


----------



## Dominion (Jul 30, 2009)

I voted to not carry but I didn't get the point if the 'carry' in question was referring to on the job or personal.  

Personal:

I already carry.  I have a Springfield XD Compact 45 and for the home we have a Remington 870.

On the Job:
I'm just on the other side of the fence for not carrying.  I would be interested in seeing the efficacy of lightweight/durable body armor in areas where the rate of attack on EMS personnel is high.  I don't think it's so much of an issue where I live but I can see it being an issue in other areas of the country.


----------



## JPINFV (Jul 30, 2009)

usafmedic45 said:


> Exactly what I was thinking.  It's better to live on your feet than die on your knees as the saying goes.  Almost none of the school shooters have gotten into a firefight with an equally (or closely matched) armed opponent....in fact, I can only find corroboration of firefights involving Charles Whitman in 1966, Keith Ledeger in 1994, a kid in Alaska in 1997, the two Columbine shooters, the Red Lake, MN shooter, and the gunman from the Case Western shooting .  That is a small minority of the 40 or so school and university shooters in US history.  The rest either surrendered immediately, hunkered down somewhere, tried to run away or committed suicide.



The Charles Whitman/UT Austin incident is interesting to learn about in large part because several members of the community ended up responding to the incident and provided counter fire. The counter fire caused Whitman to lay low in the tower and use the drains to fire down on limiting his ability to aim and saving lives. In the end, the team that advanced on the tower included members from several different police organizations and a civilian (which, if memory serves me correctly, arrived at the base of the tower in two separate independent groups that linked up). 


A similar incidence that advocates, at the least, private ownership of fire arms was the North Hollywood shootout. Cliff Notes: Bank robbers with illegal fully automatic weapons and heavy body armor outmatched police. Police ended up borrowing several high powered rifles from a local gun shop. Thankfully, the only two deaths were the robbers.


----------



## usafmedic45 (Jul 30, 2009)

> If you are willing and agreeable to carry a gun (either in general or on the job), would you be willing to use it on another human, knowing that it could possible be fatal?



I was actually a little mad that the burglar dropped the machete so fast that I didn't have time to put a couple of rounds center mass while he was still armed. Seemed like all the time I spent target shooting was for naught and the sleazebag was only going to get a handful of years for his crime.  To me, as soon as someone becomes an imminent threat to me or anyone else, I lose most, if not all, my concern for  their wellbeing.  It's just a matter of how you go about assigning value to human life.  If you believe that there is an inherent value regardless of a person's action (such as Sasha does), then you might have a more difficult time pulling the trigger than someone who is a strict pragmatist (such as myself). 

I would actually give the mountain lion in the SAR scenario mentioned the benefit of a warning shot that I would* not* give a human.  I would also probably lose more sleep over killing a mountain lion that I would some low rent gangsta or some crazed Chinese grad student.  At least the mountain lion was of some value to it's environment.  



> So are you advocating that we arm students or teachers??? Yeah, let a student get in a disagreement with a teacher and shoot them or vice versa! People can't be trusted to handle arguments responsibly outside of school and without guns, but you want to arm them??



Sasha, your bias is showing again.  Either bring up some evidence that people who have concealed carry permits are as or more likely than the general population to use their weapon inappropriately or stop trying to argue using some seriously poor debate form.    

Here's a question for everyone since we are all medical professionals:  If you have to shoot someone and you don't inflict an immediately lethal wound (GSW to the head for instance), would you feel obligated to try to help that person (assuming they were the most critically injured or even the ONLY injured person)?


----------



## TransportJockey (Jul 30, 2009)

Linuss said:


> Texas is a huge CCW AND open carry state.
> 
> 
> I've yet to have a customer pull a gun on me from telling them they can't return an item.



Tx is not an open carry state. Last I checked it's been illegal there for years


----------



## usafmedic45 (Jul 30, 2009)

jtpaintball70 said:


> Tx is not an open carry state. Last I checked it's been illegal there for years


It's only legal in Texas to open carry weapons during hunting and related transit, on your own property or for legitimate self-defense (imminent threat?).   What's is surprising is that Indiana has a legal licensed open carry law but Texas apparently does not.


----------



## JPINFV (Jul 30, 2009)

usafmedic45 said:


> Here's a question for everyone since we are all medical professionals:  If you have to shoot someone and you don't inflict an immediately lethal wound (GSW to the head for instance), would you feel obligated to try to help that person (assuming they were the most critically injured or even the ONLY injured person)?


Once they are secure (and they won't be secure until at least someone else is on scene to provide cover or are out cold), then yes. The point of the threat/use of deadly force is to meet the treat/use of deadly force against innocent people. Once that threat is over, then there is no more reason for the deadly force and medical care should be rendered. Otherwise, it would be like saying that inmates deserve no care for any injuries sustained.


----------



## TransportJockey (Jul 30, 2009)

usafmedic45 said:


> It's only legal in Texas to open carry weapons during hunting and related transit, on your own property or for legitimate self-defense (imminent threat?).   What's is surprising is that Indiana has a legal licensed open carry law but Texas apparently does not.



My mistake. I know that compared to NM the OC laws are very stringent. I'm decently big into it, considering it's my preferred method of carry


----------



## usafmedic45 (Jul 30, 2009)

jtpaintball70 said:


> My mistake. I know that compared to NM the OC laws are very stringent. I'm decently big into it, considering it's my preferred method of carry


I was actually surprised to learn that information as well.  I figured Texas would have an approach similar to New Mexico's.....


----------



## Shishkabob (Jul 30, 2009)

jtpaintball70 said:


> Tx is not an open carry state. Last I checked it's been illegal there for years



By open carry, I mean you can, to an extent, walk around with a pistol somewhat showing (but not on a direct view hip holster) and not even catch the eye of the police many times.  See it all the time.  Legal or not, it's tolerated, like mary-j in Jamaica.  It's not the "out of sight, out of mind" type of thinking.

Unless, of course, you irk the cops.


----------



## Fireguy (Jul 30, 2009)

I'm for concealed carry 24/7 along with the proper training.  Read this article, it may change some minds.  http://watertowndailytimes.com/article/20090201/NEWS03/302019939/-1/NEWS


----------



## medic417 (Jul 30, 2009)

Fireguy said:


> I'm for concealed carry 24/7 along with the proper training.  Read this article, it may change some minds.  http://watertowndailytimes.com/article/20090201/NEWS03/302019939/-1/NEWS



Nothing will change the minds of most on either side.


----------



## Seaglass (Jul 30, 2009)

Under 30, no military service. Don't know whether I'd say I 'want' to carry. I just see it as something that's occasionally a good idea.

I live in a very pro-gun area--as in, when my family moved, the police told us we were morons for not owning a shotgun. We ignored them. A few years later, our house was broken into by a gang which had killed several people during previous breakins. When the police arrived nearly an hour later, they told us again that we needed guns. So, that settled our minds on the subject. 

Leaving criminals aside, we also have a lot of rabid animals. By the time Animal Control or Fish and Game gets out here, it'll be too late to even find it. Guns are a good idea there, too. 

One of the places I work (not EMS) allows employees to carry with specific written permission from management. As I'm not allowed to carry in that jurisdiction anyways, I haven't really looked into it. It doesn't affect the work environment, since most people never notice.  

Despite all that, I have absolutely no intention of carrying on EMS duty unless I become a combat medic. But the 'no military service' thing is likely to change in the future, and I'd do it without a problem if the job asked for it.



			
				usafmedic45 said:
			
		

> Here's a question for everyone since we are all medical professionals: If you have to shoot someone and you don't inflict an immediately lethal wound (GSW to the head for instance), would you feel obligated to try to help that person (assuming they were the most critically injured or even the ONLY injured person)?



Only if I were completely confident that they couldn't pose a threat, and didn't have any accomplices lurking around. And only after I called the cops. 

I'd prefer to keep them alive. Fewer legal snarls, and might be useful to law enforcement if they aren't acting alone. That being said, there's no such thing as just shooting to wound, as far as I'm concerned. Shooting is always shooting to kill.


----------



## Hockey (Jul 30, 2009)

Seaglass said:


> Under 30, no military service. Don't know whether I'd say I 'want' to carry. I just see it as something that's occasionally a good idea.






Because only occasionally you will need it...



Let me post something that Glen Beck said recently...



[YOUTUBE]WvIABdkV3Dw[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Fireguy (Jul 30, 2009)

Seaglass said:


> That being said, there's no such thing as just shooting to wound, as far as I'm concerned. Shooting is always shooting to kill.


See look, your already thinking like a member of the military.  Controlled pair, center mass and a safety round to the head.^_^


----------



## Hockey (Jul 30, 2009)

Wrong

You don't shoot to kill


You don't shoot to wound


If you say either one, the lawyers will eat you up


You shoot to STOP THE THREAT


----------



## Fireguy (Jul 30, 2009)

WOW, we can't slip anything by you.  Its called shooting to Eliminate the threat and if you want to get technical it varies by state when you can shoot. Depending on what kind of threat is presented and where you are at the time.


----------



## Seaglass (Jul 30, 2009)

Hockey said:
			
		

> Because only occasionally you will need it...



Because only occasionally am I not passing through a neighboring state with extremely severe penalties for non-residents who carry... 



Hockey said:


> You shoot to STOP THE THREAT



I know all about stopping the threat, and the circumstances under which I can legally do so in my state of residence. 

When I talk about shooting to kill, I'm speaking in psychological terms, not legal. Shooting to wound is a very popular idea among people my age around here. Most of them don't get that just shooting the robber in the knee probably won't work out so well... which is why being prepared for use of deadly force being deadly is a good move.


----------



## HotelCo (Jul 30, 2009)

I noticed there isn't an under 30, with military service, and do not want to carry.... Just an observation.


----------



## JPINFV (Jul 30, 2009)

Hockey said:


> You shoot to STOP THE THREAT


There's only one way to stop a threat when using deadly force. You use deadly force to stop a threat by killing them. You use less lethal force when trying to stop a force without trying to kill them. Both 'stop the threat,' but there's only one option when using a firearm.


----------



## HotelCo (Jul 30, 2009)

JPINFV said:


> The only thing necessary for the triumph  of evil is for good men to do nothing.



Edmund Burke, nice.



Mountain Res-Q said:


> I guess the real question would be:
> 
> If you are willing and agreeable to carry a gun (either in general or on the job), would you be willing to use it on another human, knowing that it could possible be fatal?



Rule #1: I go home to my family and loved ones.
Rule #2: Nothing interferes with Rule #1.

Yes, if they were willing to take my life, I don't have a problem taking theirs. 



Sasha said:


> So are you advocating that we arm students or teachers??? Yeah, let a student get in a disagreement with a teacher and shoot them or vice versa! People can't be trusted to handle arguments responsibly outside of school and without guns, but you want to arm them??



Can't an argument happen anywhere? If you're willing to apply that logic to students and teachers, you should be willing to apply all over.



JPINFV said:


> Now, this said, I fully endorse schools from limiting the ability of on campus residents, especially first and second years, from having guns in the dorms due to the presence of EtOH and the amount of binge drinking that occurs.



Agreed. Especially on the idea of the Freshmen and Sophomores.



usafmedic45 said:


> Here's a question for everyone since we are all medical professionals:  If you have to shoot someone and you don't inflict an immediately lethal wound (GSW to the head for instance), would you feel obligated to try to help that person (assuming they were the most critically injured or even the ONLY injured person)?



I'd first call 911 and get the police on the way. Then, if I were positive they weren't a threat anymore, and there was someone that needed my help, that wasn't trying to kill me... then yes, I'd help them.


----------



## Hockey (Jul 30, 2009)

Seaglass said:


> Because only occasionally am I not passing through a neighboring state with extremely severe penalties for non-residents who carry...
> .



Which state?


----------



## fma08 (Jul 30, 2009)

usafmedic45 said:


> Here's a question for everyone since we are all medical professionals:  If you have to shoot someone and you don't inflict an immediately lethal wound (GSW to the head for instance), would you feel obligated to try to help that person (assuming they were the most critically injured or even the ONLY injured person)?



If they weren't a threat anymore, then my duty with a CCW would be over, and my duty as a medical professional would step in. If they weren't triaged as black, then yeah, probably would work on them a bit. Kinda like that treating a rapist thread. You have a duty to treat everyone, equally, regardless of their criminal history.


----------



## usafmedic45 (Jul 30, 2009)

> Controlled pair, center mass and a safety round to the head.



Ah, the Mozambique drill.....one of my favorite tactics to practice.


----------



## usafmedic45 (Jul 30, 2009)

> You have a duty to treat everyone, equally, regardless of their criminal history.



Not technically if you're off duty you don't, at least in most states.  I only know of a couple that obligate EMS professionals to respond when off duty to render assistance.  One might feel a moral duty to act, but so far as I am aware there is no legal duty to act in most areas.


----------



## Mountain Res-Q (Jul 30, 2009)

HotelCo said:


> Rule #1: I go home to my family and loved ones.
> Rule #2: Nothing interferes with Rule #1.
> 
> Yes, if they were willing to take my life, I don't have a problem taking theirs.



Easy to say... harder to do...  When the time comes, can those in EMS really pull the trigger (violating all their "help other/do no harm" personal convictions that helped them find their way into EMS) and then deal with the emotional and personal afteraffects?

I would like to say that I would as well, but I know myself well enough to know that it isn't neccessarily that simple.  I have set myself on a path of helping others (at the risk of hurting myself sometimes) and while I could (in theory) shoot to defend a helpless soul in need... to defend self?  I, oddly enough, would find it harder.  I could internally justify killing someone to defend someone... but the thoughts of "did I have to do this in order to really protect myself?" would be harder to deal with if I shot to defend self...

I know a guy...  He got his start 25 years ago as a Paramedic and was a Supervisor for one of the national companies in a division that had 200 employees.  He also went on to become a Reserve Deputy for my county SO.  After years of playng Medic Supervisor, he left it (still maintains his license) and went full-time Deputy, including SWAT.  As a Deputy, he is now the SO SAR Coordinator and County Coroner.  He carries a BLS jump bag on his back seat, right next to his assault rifle.  I find the combination odd and can't understadn the connections that allow him to work at saving lives, enforcing the law, investigating deaths, and carrying assault rifles in his truck.  Great guy... but odd combo to have an armed Paramedic/Coroner respond with you on calls to save lives with a .45 on his hip.


----------



## fma08 (Jul 30, 2009)

usafmedic45 said:


> Not technically if you're off duty you don't, at least in most states.  I only know of a couple that obligate EMS professionals to respond when off duty to render assistance.  One might feel a moral duty to act, but so far as I am aware there is no legal duty to act in most areas.



Right, but are you telling me that if there were injuries of such a sort and you were there (off duty), you wouldn't jump in to start helping until the back up arrives to take over? I know I would. I'm not trying to sound high and mighty here, but I just don't see how one who has the training could just stand there or leave without helping. 

I know there's a lot of "what are the odds" in this entire thread, but still.


----------



## enjoynz (Jul 30, 2009)

No one but the Police should be allowed to carry hand guns, period!
Know matter what country you live in!-_-
The West was won a long time ago. Time to move on!
My nephew was over visited NZ from the States last weekend.
He has been living there for the past 12 years.
He was telling us how easy it is to walk into a shop and buy whatever weapon you please. That is very sad.
I know a lot of you are into guns...but to me guns are made for one reason only. That reason was not the reason, I became an Ambo.

Enjoynz


----------



## JPINFV (Jul 30, 2009)

enjoynz said:


> I know a lot of you are into guns...but to me guns are made for one reason only.



Wrong on so many levels. Firearms are built for sport, protection, hunting, collecting (have you seen the designs on some firearms?) and several other reasons. To boil guns down to just killing would be like boiling knives down to just killing.


----------



## usafmedic45 (Jul 30, 2009)

fma08 said:


> Right, but are you telling me that if there were injuries of such a sort and you were there (off duty), you wouldn't jump in to start helping until the back up arrives to take over? I know I would. I'm not trying to sound high and mighty here, but I just don't see how one who has the training could just stand there or leave without helping.
> 
> I know there's a lot of "what are the odds" in this entire thread, but still.


If I just tried with all means available to me to kill someone who was trying to hurt me or someone else (or steal property in some states), you think I really care if they bleed out on the floor? Once you've made the decision to kill that person, it really isn't something you should go back on.  Besides, if I'm not legally obligated to help them and feel no moral obligation to risk infectious disease exposure while trying to aid someone who was committing a crime what impetus do I have to do so? 



> violating all their "help other/do no harm" personal convictions that helped them find their way into EMS



You're confusing the standards of the Hippocratic Oath and personal conviction and are forgetting that justification isn't just a legal term.  A lot of us have zero empathy and zero sympathy for criminals so if push comes to shove there is little moral conflict on that end and even less professional conflict in terms of what we are expected to do.  To me shooting someone under reasonable circumstances while off duty is not any different than if I were to shoot one of the aggressive feral dogs that inhabit the area where my parents live.  I do not have any legal or moral reason to help the dog- although I would be much more likely to perform first aid on a wounded animal than a wounded burglar while off duty.  I've actually run dogs, a turkey and other wildlife struck by vehicles into the vet to assure they are taken care of because I am concerned about their wellbeing.  I am not so concerned about the health or comfort of someone who just tried to assault me.


----------



## enjoynz (Jul 30, 2009)

JPINFV said:


> Wrong on so many levels. Firearms are built for sport, protection, hunting, collecting (have you seen the designs on some firearms?) and several other reasons. To boil guns down to just killing would be like boiling knives down to just killing.



The thread is on Hand guns..........bit hard to shoot a deer with a hand gun JP, unless you are close.
If no one was allowed to carry handguns. You wouldn't need one to protect yourself from one, would you? 
That what the police are surpose to do...protect us!


----------



## Shishkabob (Jul 30, 2009)

fma, are you saying we should have some sort of remorse for criminals who intend to do harm to us?


----------



## Shishkabob (Jul 30, 2009)

enjoynz said:


> The thread is on Hand guns..........bit hard to shoot a deer with a hand gun JP, unless you are close.
> If no one was allowed to carry handguns. You wouldn't need one to protect yourself from one, would you?
> That what the police are surpose to do...protect us!



You don't take a knife to a gun fight, and you don't take a knife to a knife fight. 


Fighting for your life isn't supposed to be fair.  You don't want the other person to have a fair shot at winning.  If they have a knife, you don't want them within a few feet of you, which is why guns exist... range.   That's why cops have a multitude of different tools on their belt... baton, pepper spray, TASER, pistol.


Never fight fairly.  Always use every single underhanded trick you can.  Use every single tool that will gibe you an edge over the other person trying to hurt you.


----------



## usafmedic45 (Jul 30, 2009)

> bit hard to shoot a deer with a hand gun JP, unless you are close.



Actually in several (most?) states- Indiana being one of them- you are allowed to hunt deer with handguns.  Remember the useful range on some of the larger handguns is a couple hundred yards and the lethal range is over a mile for things like a .357 magnum or .44 magnum.  The useful range is well within the range that most deer kills take place with (<100 yards according to one of my colleagues with the Department of Natural Resources....apparently the DNR did a study on this), even when people are using rifles or shotguns. 



> If no one was allowed to carry handguns. You wouldn't need one to protect yourself from one, would you?



Except that the only people carrying guns would be the criminals....good luck collecting all of them from everyone unless you turned the country into a totalitarian fascist state. 



> That what the police are surpose to do...protect us!



So I'm supposed to tell the burglar to wait and not to hurt me until the cops get there?  That'll work, especially out in the rural area my parents live in where it can take the deputies 20+ minutes to arrive.   Also, the cops in a lot of big cities ARE as crooked as the criminals (DC, Detroit....especially Detroit)....you really want to rely on them?  You can't apply the mentality of a country with more sheep than people to a country with more gangbangers than sheep.


----------



## fma08 (Jul 30, 2009)

usafmedic45 said:


> If I just tried with all means available to me to kill someone who was trying to hurt me or someone else (or steal property in some states), you think I really care if they bleed out on the floor? Once you've made the decision to kill that person, it really isn't something you should go back on.  Besides, if I'm not legally obligated to help them and feel no moral obligation to risk infectious disease exposure while trying to aid someone who was committing a crime what impetus do I have to do so?



I don't know what incentive you would have, other than being a medical professional, and obviously if there was a risk for exposure, then you wouldn't be there. Also, my post was more so in general, not just to the assailant, my bad for not making that more clear. 



Linuss said:


> fma, are you saying we should have some sort of remorse for criminals who intend to do harm to us?



Absolutely not. However, if the attacker was no longer a threat, (unconscious or incapacitated) he/she would be on my list of people to treat, along with the others that suffered injuries. I'd want him/her to stand trial for what they did. Letting them bleed out on the floor is giving them the easy way out IMO.

Thankfully I'm not that bad of a shot B)

(not saying any of you are, I have no idea of your shooting skills)


----------



## fma08 (Jul 30, 2009)

Linuss said:


> You don't take a knife to a gun fight, and you don't take a knife to a knife fight.
> 
> *
> Fighting for your life isn't supposed to be fair*.  You don't want the other person to have a fair shot at winning.  If they have a knife, you don't want them within a few feet of you, which is why guns exist... range.   That's why cops have a multitude of different tools on their belt... baton, pepper spray, TASER, pistol.
> ...



Rule #1: If you enter a fair fight, your tactics suck.


----------



## usafmedic45 (Jul 30, 2009)

> Letting them bleed out on the floor is giving them the easy way out IMO.



I don't think for a lot of these lowlifes, going to an American prison for a couple of years is all that much of a punishment.  Bleeding out can't be all that pleasant of an experience and I figure that if they die, they aren't going to be costing the taxpayers any money that way.


----------



## fma08 (Jul 30, 2009)

usafmedic45 said:


> I don't think for a lot of these lowlifes, going to an American prison for a couple of years is all that much of a punishment. *Bleeding out can't be all that pleasant of an experience* and I figure that if they die, they aren't going to be costing the taxpayers any money that way.



Depends.

And I agree, something's seriously wrong when we are giving inmates on death row, a 20 year ride before execution and a last meal, etc. etc. Some of these liberties ought to be taken away and save us some money IMO. They are in jail to serve a punishment, not to live in an apartment.


----------



## HotelCo (Jul 30, 2009)

enjoynz said:


> If no one was allowed to carry handguns. You wouldn't need one to protect yourself from one, would you?


I'm sure the criminals will stop commiting crimes with firearms because it's illegal. [/QUOTE]

In the USA the police have no duty to protect an individual.
Take a look at this: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html
(Also take a look at DeShaney v. Winnebago County and Warren v. DC)



enjoynz said:


> No one but the Police should be allowed to carry hand guns, period!


*Trying really hard not to invoke Godwin's law.*


----------



## enjoynz (Jul 30, 2009)

Linuss said:


> You don't take a knife to a gun fight, and you don't take a knife to a knife fight.
> 
> 
> Fighting for your life isn't supposed to be fair.  You don't want the other person to have a fair shot at winning.  If they have a knife, you don't want them within a few feet of you, which is why guns exist... range.   That's why cops have a multitude of different tools on their belt... baton, pepper spray, TASER, pistol.
> ...



Linuss...the point I'm trying to make is why fight at all. If like NZ, it was illegal to carry any form of weapon. Even a screwdriver on your person, to go out for the evening, for instance. Then you wouldn't have to have something to protect yourself. 
I'm only one person and of course you have all had a lifetime of thinking about protection, as you know it in America.
What I think is not going to change the way any of you think.
I think it's sad that you have to go through the day,with a thought that you have to protect yourself, in that way!

You all will never agree with anything I say, as it's in your mind set.
But if all weapons were pulled from every person in the country, other then for use of Sport (includes hunting)or collections only. I wonder how that would react on the amount of GSW you'd be attending?

Enjoynz


----------



## Mountain Res-Q (Jul 30, 2009)

enjoynz said:


> The thread is on Hand guns..........bit hard to shoot a deer with a hand gun JP, unless you are close.
> If no one was allowed to carry handguns. You wouldn't need one to protect yourself from one, would you?
> That what the police are surpose to do...protect us!



I respectfully disagree.  Maybe that is how it is in NZ, but that is not my reality.  The primary purpose of handguns is defense, true.  But just because hand guns are outlawed doesn't mean that the need to defend yourself goes away.  If someone enters my house at night with a knife, with the intent to rob me (or worse - who really knows their motives), what do I do to defend myself?  Pull out my own knife?  I have no way of knowing what he has or what he wants.  All I know is that he is in my home for illegal reasons and my family is at risk.  Shoot to kill!!!  

Yes, guns are WAY to easy to get a hold of in the US.  But is guns were outlawed, then only outlaws would have guns.  Look at other illegal items in the US, such as Drugs.  You can outlaw them, but they are still everywhere.  You outlaw guns, then good citizens will obey and be unarmed.  Criminals will have the millions of unregistered and illegal guns in the US.  You say that this is the police's issue?  They are supposed to protect us?  They are outgunned and outnumbered.  In my area, if you call 911 the Deputies (who are undernumbered and have a huge area to cover) could take up to 45 minutes to respond; code 3.  My house...  ~15 minute response.  Sorry, but if someone is in my house and threatening the safety of me or my faily, then I can't wait and hope that we all survive it with a passive approach without someone being severly wounded, raped, or killed.

In the end, all emergency services (from LE to EMS to Fire) are there to help the public, not be our only resource for staying safe and alive.  It is like if an electric blanket in my home cathces on fire.  Do I grab the extiguisher nearby and put out the fire while someone calls the FD?  Or do evacuate the house and wait for the FD (with their 10-15 minute response time) to show up while my house becomes engulfed in flames?  I am not saying that you carry a gun so that you can listen in to your scanner and help LE protect and serve... but it is your right (and resposibility) to protect yourself.  If that means that you desire to legally and safely carry a gun... then so be it.  If you can not moraly or ethicly do so... okay, I pass no judgements either way, as long as your desision doesn't affect me adversly.

I would have no objection to outlawing guns, as long as crime (and criminals with guns) did not exist... but I live in reality.  For the record, I have no guns, but would consider them due to the area in which I live and my SAR work.  I do carry a pocket buck knife on me everywhere I go for a variety of reasons (first reason is that I am a mountian redneck and last on the list is defense), and would use it if needed for self defense.  I also carry pepper spray on SAR train/calls involving my dog, as I have been rushed by strays before.  I also carry pepper spray at work at the snow park becasuse of the absense of LE in that area and the sketchy customers... but have never used it yet.  :glare:


----------



## usafmedic45 (Jul 30, 2009)

fma08 said:


> Depends.
> 
> And I agree, something's seriously wrong when we are giving inmates on death row, a 20 year ride before execution and a last meal, etc. etc. Some of these liberties ought to be taken away and save us some money IMO. They are in jail to serve a punishment, not to live in an apartment.


I agree 100%.  It should be more like S-21 and less like Club Med. 

I don't think bleeding out would be the most painful way to go (burning alive wins that one....another reason we should burn people at the stake as a method of execution...that and the Catholic Church would demonstrate great hypocrisy if they object to it) but it can't be fun laying on the floor having your life ebb away and knowing that someone is standing there, able to help but refusing to.  I think that is a pretty good punishment for crimes worthy of getting shot over and a comparatively really cheap one at that.


----------



## JPINFV (Jul 30, 2009)

enjoynz said:


> The thread is on Hand guns..........bit hard to shoot a deer with a hand gun JP, unless you are close.
> If no one was allowed to carry handguns. You wouldn't need one to protect yourself from one, would you?
> That what the police are surpose to do...protect us!



...because criminals already don't have a long history of ignoring gun laws? Also, in the US, there is plenty of case law saying that the police have a general duty to protect the public and not any specific duty or liability to protect any single person. There are several cases of people knowing a violent person is coming after them (ex-spouses, etc with restraining orders), calling the police for protection, and the police telling them to call back when the person arrives. The police have absolutely zero duty to protect you.


----------



## usafmedic45 (Jul 30, 2009)

> *Trying really hard not to invoke Godwin's law.*



Same here...I was actually going to post the exact quote to that echoes EnjoyNZ's sentiment.  :lol:


----------



## usafmedic45 (Jul 30, 2009)

> Linuss...the point I'm trying to make is why fight at all.



Because it's human nature?  Please tell me you're not actually going to buy what you just said.



> If like NZ, it was illegal to carry any form of weapon. Even a screwdriver on your person, to go out for the evening, for instance. Then you wouldn't have to have something to protect yourself.



....except against fists, feet and whatever is within easy reach when the assault commences.


----------



## Shishkabob (Jul 30, 2009)

enjoynz said:


> Linuss...the point I'm trying to make is why fight at all.


  Because only I have any sort of say as to what kind of danger I put myself in.  If anyone else threatens my life, you bet your booty I'll fight it. 





> You all will never agree with anything I say, as it's in your mind set.
> But if all weapons were pulled from every person in the country, other then for use of Sport (includes hunting)or collections only. I wonder how that would react on the amount of GSW you'd be attending?



Just because something is illegal doesn't mean people won't use it, or do it. RPGs are illegal.  Bet I could find one on the black market with the right connections.  When assault rifles were illegal, they were still used in crimes.


All any weapon ban ever does is keep the law abiding citizens from having access to it.


----------



## spisco85 (Jul 30, 2009)

enjoynz said:


> No one but the Police should be allowed to carry hand guns, period!
> Know matter what country you live in!
> 
> Enjoynz



Wow. How many police does New Zealand have? Enough to guard every alley in every city, or the lone desolate roads between towns were criminals have been known to act as police officers and pull over their victims? 

Police respond and provide a presence. Case in point. My street had just about every car that was in the drive way entered and searched through by some punks just the other night. Where were the police?

The police can only do so much. Connecticut has had a large increase in home invasions over the last couple years that the state has made it a felony. Now do you think the criminal is going to say "Oh well its a felony now, I won't do it"?

I admire states like Florida that have the Castle law. Connecticut is in the process of getting one finished and on the books.


----------



## Fir Na Au Saol (Jul 30, 2009)

*Semantics; What you say versus what you actually do...*



JPINFV said:


> There's only one way to stop a threat when using deadly force. You use deadly force to stop a threat by killing them. You use less lethal force when trying to stop a force without trying to kill them. Both 'stop the threat,' but there's only one option when using a firearm.


Shooting someone with a firearm is deadly force regardless of where you're aiming or what you hit. But what you TELL the police, DA, Jury is that you "were in fear for your life and *acted to stop the threat.*" You never actually SAY you were shooting to kill even if you were aiming right between the orc's eyes and had no intention other than killing it. 

As far as "only one option" that's not necessarily the case. If you draw and the bad guy surrenders or runs, you have just successfully defended yourself with a gun. Killing is not the only option, but you'd better be ready to deal with killing when you make the decision to go armed.

Any handgun that the average person can reasonably carry concealed is NOT going to be a +20 wand of death. You have to aim for the most vital parts of the CNS and CVS and keep pulling the trigger until the threat drops. Doing that often means inflicting lethal wounds, but not always. 

Likewise only the Lone Ranger's special effects crew is accurate enough to shoot the bad guy's gun out of his hand or shoot him in the leg or some other rapidly moving, relatively small part of his anatomy.

If you think you can carry and gun for protection and "shoot to wound" you should not carry a gun. Get a TASER of pepper spray.


----------



## Seaglass (Jul 30, 2009)

enjoynz said:


> Linuss...the point I'm trying to make is why fight at all. If like NZ, it was illegal to carry any form of weapon. Even a screwdriver on your person, to go out for the evening, for instance. Then you wouldn't have to have something to protect yourself.



Why fight at all? Because maybe I don't want to be beaten, raped, or murdered. 

People aren't made equal in terms of physical size and strength. I'm a pretty average girl, so your average guy doesn't need a weapon to overpower me. Let alone an average rabid coyote... all the unarmed martial arts training in the world won't help me there.


----------



## Mountain Res-Q (Jul 30, 2009)

I would like to point out that this thread was on carry a gun, not owning.  The right to own is country/state dependant and will not change no matter how much you argue it.  The right to carry (either in general or on the job) is the question.

In my area (I don't know how it works elsewere), you must have a CCW permit that is issued by the county Sheriff.  The Sheriff must determine wheater or not there is a valid reason for you to carry.  Therefore, in a county of 60,000, only 800 or so have a permit (as of last year).  These are mostly off-duty deputies, police, CHP, and corrections officers.  I know of many people in the county who own guns either for protection or for work (cattle ranches and such); but they keep these weapons in their homes and on their property.  If they are transported elsewhere, it is done in compliance with teh law (unload and lock away in a place that is not accessible to the driver - locked box in the truck or such).  It is not like these people are toting a side arm 24/7 where ever they go.  They have a reason to own and do so legally.  And those 800 that do carry should do so legally as it is deamed safe and neccissary by the Sheriff.  Anyone else who owns and/or carrys is doing so illegally... and those are the ones I fear.  These may be few in my rural area, but they do exist and criminals without guns with every bite the ability to inflict bodily harm also exist.

A good case of a reason to own:  A new neighbor moved in from the bay area and thought, "We are in the mountians now, my dog can roam free."  The dog was agressive.  Anothr neighbor has a chicken and mule farm (I know odd combo) and when the dog attacked his chikcens, he took his rifle and killed the pet.  Up to that point, the law dd nothing to protect the neighborhood (despite numerous complaints) and if I had a gun... I would have done likewise when that do rushed us on the deck one day when we were eating dinner.  If it had been a human coming to attack, why not use the same stance to defend self, family, and property?


----------



## HotelCo (Jul 30, 2009)

JPINFV said:


> The people who would be willing and able to arm themselves would be the more stable of people. Ideally CCW permits wouldn't be handed out like candy ("will issue" states), but not limited to people with a strict need (police, armed transport, etc. Most "shall issue" areas). Besides, nothing is stopping spmeone from illegally carrying anyways.



When you say "Shall issue" You meant "May issue" right? Or am I reading the post wrong...


----------



## JPINFV (Jul 30, 2009)

Fir Na Au Saol said:


> Shooting someone with a firearm is deadly force regardless of where you're aiming or what you hit. But what you TELL the police, DA, Jury is that you "were in fear for your life and *acted to stop the threat.*" You never actually SAY you were shooting to kill even if you were aiming right between the orc's eyes and had no intention other than killing it.
> 
> As far as "only one option" that's not necessarily the case. If you draw and the bad guy surrenders or runs, you have just successfully defended yourself with a gun. Killing is not the only option, *but you'd better be ready to deal with killing when you make the decision to go armed.*
> 
> ...




The point I'm trying to make is that if you ARE going to pull a gun, you need to be prepared to fire and fire to kill. The worst thing you can do is pull a gun and then surrender to the burglar when he challenges you. Yes, if he surrenders or runs then don't fire.


----------



## JPINFV (Jul 30, 2009)

HotelCo said:


> When you say "Shall issue" You meant "May issue" right? Or am I reading the post wrong...



Yea... sorry about that.


----------



## gicts (Jul 30, 2009)

I am 22 and (when off duty) carry occasionally. I feel it is an added sense of security, and if done legally and responsibly, I see no reason to deny any American the right.


----------



## Seaglass (Jul 30, 2009)

Mountain Res-Q said:


> I would like to point out that this thread was on carry a gun, not owning.  The right to own is country/state dependant and will not change no matter how much you argue it.  The right to carry (either in general or on the job) is the question.
> 
> In my area (I don't know how it works elsewere), you must have a CCW permit that is issued by the county Sheriff.  The Sheriff must determine wheater or not there is a valid reason for you to carry.



California? 

The right to carry also depends on jurisdiction, and doesn't seem to change very often except in places with extreme laws. Some areas that are 'may issue' on paper will let pretty much anyone with no criminal record and no mental illness carry. Some issue permits so rarely that they might as well close that office. 

In my area, you need to pass a basic firearms course and test, a criminal background check, and have no history of certain mental illnesses. We're officially 'may issue.' 

In the past year, I've become very leery of the sheriff getting to decide who gets a gun. A friend of mine (in California, a bit north of the Bay Area) with no criminal record and no mental illness history whatsoever was recently denied a permit. Having a violent ex-husband stalking you, sending death threats, and breaking into your house isn't good enough reason when the ex is an old buddy of the sheriff.


----------



## Hockey (Jul 30, 2009)

enjoynz said:


> No one but the Police should be allowed to carry hand guns, period!
> Know matter what country you live in!-_-
> The West was won a long time ago. Time to move on!
> My nephew was over visited NZ from the States last weekend.
> ...



Wow, I hope I read that wrong...



enjoynz said:


> The thread is on Hand guns..........bit hard to shoot a deer with a hand gun JP, unless you are close.
> If no one was allowed to carry handguns. You wouldn't need one to protect yourself from one, would you?
> That what the police are surpose to do...protect us!



Nevermind, didn't read it wrong

So criminals are going to be honest and not have handguns


Thats funny stuff



enjoynz said:


> Linuss...the point I'm trying to make is why fight at all. If like NZ, it was illegal to carry any form of weapon. Even a screwdriver on your person, to go out for the evening, for instance. Then you wouldn't have to have something to protect yourself.
> I'm only one person and of course you have all had a lifetime of thinking about protection, as you know it in America.
> What I think is not going to change the way any of you think.
> I think it's sad that you have to go through the day,with a thought that you have to protect yourself, in that way!
> ...



Sorry, I don't decide if someone is going to "fight"


Criminals will carry guns.  Always have and always will.  Same thing with knives etc.

If you truly believe that would solve the problems here in the United States where our 2nd amendment states we have the right to bear arms, then you sir, are living in a fairy land.



HotelCo said:


> When you say "Shall issue" You meant "May issue" right? Or am I reading the post wrong...



Michigan is a shall issue state



> On January 1, 2001 Governor John Engler signed into law Public Act 381. This new law liberalizes the
> current mechanisms an individual could use to obtain a concealed weapon (CCW) permit. The new law
> removes the requirement that an applicant for a CCW permit demonstrate a need for a concealed weapon
> and removes the discretion of the local county concealed weapon licensing board in making a decision on an
> ...



Or were you talking about something else? Been a long night


----------



## ffemt8978 (Jul 30, 2009)

Okay, this one has gone on long enough.


----------

