Concealed Carry In Action And Kicking Butt!

[RakuraiTenjin]

Employee stabbed, man shot inside Wal Mart
Source: KRQE News 13

ALBUQUERQUE -- One person was shot and killed and another stabbed inside a Wal Mart store in southeast Albuquerque on Thursday evening.
It all happened around 5:30 p.m. at the store on San Mateo near Zuni. There was mayhem and confusion inside a southeast Albuquerque Wal Mart as employees and shoppers were sent fleeing by the sound of gunfire.

A co-worker says a Wal Mart employee working in the deli was attacked by her ex-husband with a knife.

While the SWAT team surrounded Wal Mart, a woman was brought out on a stretcher. She is now in stable condition at UNM hospital.

“She was telling me she was scared of him,” says Wal Mart employee Billie Jo Chavez. “But we never thought he'd come here and do this to her”.

Police won't confirm what happened next, but witnesses say a customer armed with a gun tried to stop the stabbing.

Witnesses say the customer jumped the counter and shot the attacker multiple times, killing him.

Police say one person is in custody, but aren't saying if that person is the shooter.

Police say they will release the names of everyone involved on Friday morning. At that time they also plan to address whether or not the shooting was justified.

PW user said the latest with this story is the customer that shot the attacker has a concealed carry permit. They did release the guy and aren't pressing any charges.

Thank god that guy was armed, he's a hero.

 

[bliink]

If I was commanding a SWAT unit outside, I'd want less gun wielding variables inside.

 

[gh0st]

if i was the swat commander i'd want one responsible citizen handling the situation without putting my officers in danger and i would rather have 1 turd dead than one, or perhaps more innocent civilians.

 

[MjM]

How is this politics?

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Concealed carry/gun control

 

[staticprimer]

Its great that the woman wasn't killed, but I wouldn't trust the average person with vigilate justice.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

That's not vigilantee justice, that's defending someone.

There's a difference between shooting someone who's stabbing another person, robbing your house, or attacking you and hunting down someone suspected of a crime.

 

[Kebean PFC]

All gun control threads get split with the majority of the American users going pro-gun ownership and the majority of Europe/other countries going pro-gun control.

Seeing as how Europe has lived with gun control, it is fine and works for them. However, gun-control laws would not be a wise thing to push in America.

The most common argument, is "Call the Police, they are professionals." Where i live, the police are about 45mins to 1 hour away. That wont work for me if my life is threatened. I dont think i could hide in my house for an hour.

Argument #2 "Use karate or a martial art to disarm your opponent."
This may work if you are Jackie Chan or Jet Li. I would rather have a gun. I know that if some moron tried to kick the gun away, he would be dead before the blow hit me. A bullet travels faster that your foot, no matter what. Also a firearm is damn scary if you are looking down the barrell. Knowing that if the person behind it so much as twiches that finger, a 9mm hole (or other caliber) will be blown through you. You wont just run up and try to kick it away.

Argument #3 "You will probably miss, then be shot anyway."
As with anything else, a firearm requires practice. If you plan on having a firearm in your house go down to the rage at least once every month and run a few boxes of ammo through it. It helps if your range has a tactical course, or a moving target range. Trying to shoot with adrenalin is hard (trust) so you want to be as prepared as possible. Also, maintain your firearm, IE clean and oil it.

Argument #4 "S/\ \/ 3 TH3 CH1L|)RE/\/!!!"
Ok, i have always been a proponent of teaching gun saftey and marksmanship as an elective class at the High School Junior/Senior level. It should also be taught by parents that own firearms. It is something that can help you if you want to go on to become a cop, or if you want to hunt. There is nothing bad that can happen to you just by teaching you how to use a firearm. Not teaching kids is why accidents happen. If you wanna keep and shoot your firearm, junior should know how it comes apart, how to safe it and how to remove the clip/ rounds in the chamber. He should also know the kind of damage it can do to living things and taught to NEVER point it at another person. (Note this only applies when children are young, and as they get older, a distinction needs to be made between good and bad people.)

Argument #5 "Conceled Carry allows people to be armed at any time! Its just not safe!"
That would be the point and it is very safe. First the person has to go through a lot of crap to get the liscense. Second, a person that goes through all the crap to get one is not your local trigger happy Yahoo. Chances are he was or still is a cop, soldier, etc. Most civilians that get it are also highly trained, they have to be to pass the CCW test. Also it is required that all conceled weapon be carried with the safety on, the hammer decocked, and the chamber empty. In order to shoot you have to A)take the saftey off B) Jack a round into the chamber C) Aim and fire. This is not as easy as it may sound. Most people can get a semi-aimed shot off in about 4 seconds. From a criminal standpoint, breaking into a store/bank would be even more risky if you knew that some customers may be armed. It may even dissuade them from commiting that crime at all.

This is my view on firearms, and it wont change. Please, if you have the luxury of having the cops at your beck and call dont post about how having a gun is unnessecary. While it may be for you, it is certainly not for me.

 

[staticprimer]

So say you are walking down the street, and you hear some shouting. You turn the corner and you see one man pointing a gun at another. Wanting to be the hero, you shoot the man holding the gun. Except, it turns out the man you just killed the intended victim of a mugging, who had somehow managed to wrestle the gun from the mugger. Congratulations, you have just murdered an innocent man and defended a criminal.

And as bliink said, the last thing police need are innocents with guns. People panic when they feel threatend, and a paniced person with a gun is definately not a good thing.

 

[MjM]

All i know is that in New Zealand few people own guns, and those that do are typically farmers or recreational hunters.

You have to be liscenced to own a gun, and recieve police checks. However, notably automatic weapons (smg's, assualt rifle's <- in that vein) are banned.

And this to me seems completely rational. I do not belive that weapons of this power should be in the hands of your average citizen.

And surely america isnt besieged with crime. It comes of looking like paranioa in away. I would be interested to see the stats of the likely hood of being violently assulted in the USA.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

So say you are walking down the street, and you hear some shouting. You turn the corner and you see one man pointing a gun at another. Wanting to be the hero, you shoot the man holding the gun. Except, it turns out the man you just killed the intended victim of a mugging, who had somehow managed to wrestle the gun from the mugger. Congratulations, you have just murdered an innocent man and defended a criminal.

And as bliink said, the last thing police need are innocents with guns. People panic when they feel threatend, and a paniced person with a gun is definately not a good thing.

Why would the guy be standing far from the mugger pointing a gun at him? That's never happened and won't.

The best thing IS innocents with guns. The last thing the police need are the GUILTY to have the guns.

All i know is that in New Zealand few people own guns, and those that do are typically farmers or recreational hunters.

You have to be liscenced to own a gun, and recieve police checks. However, notably automatic weapons (smg's, assualt rifle's <- in that vein) are banned.

And this to me seems completely rational. I do not belive that weapons of this power should be in the hands of your average citizen.

And surely america isnt that besieged with crime, it just comes of looking like paranioa to justify gun ownership due to the fact that you stand a very slim chance to your life being threatened a violent assult or somesuch weapon related crime.

Assault weapon is just based off looks. The nature of the designation is stupid and ineffective, as you can do the same damage with your average hunting rifle. This is assuming you use the same definition there as was used here in the 1994 ban (ended 2004 so we can buy them again)

Maybe it's fine by you, but I'm not waiting for the KPD or Sheriff's Department to get here from Kingman, Arizona. That's 20-25 minutes away.

 

[bliink]

The best thing IS innocents with guns. The last thing the police need are the GUILTY to have the guns.

Playing with semantics will not, an argument win.

 

[JellyWorld]

Anecdotes dont prove s***.

 

[MjM]

From what i can tell from the 2003 FBI stats, you have a less than 0.5% chance of experiencing a violent crime. And even less for the likes of rape.

And from 1994 - 2003, crimes have seen up to a 30% reduction, all stats have reduced in that period.

So America is not an unsafe place.

It would seem your more likely to be a victim of violent crime in NZ than you are in the United States, with a 1.1 in 100 chance. We do not live in fear of a boogie man attacking us. Any kind of vigilante law enforcement would typically be frowned upon.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

if i was the swat commander i'd want one responsible citizen handling the situation without putting my officers in danger and i would rather have 1 turd dead than one, or perhaps more innocent civilians.

Are all armed citizens responsible?

 

[Tr0n]

Playing with semantics will not, an argument win.

Yoda today you are...or something...

 

[MjM]

Hehe, i just discovered that NZ doesnt have registration of weapons, only liscensing of gun owners that have to be renewed every ten years. And NZ does allow military style semi automatic's ...

It seems our police are investigating gun ownership reforms:

Reducing the Number of High-Risk Licensees

This was the main thrust behind the 1983 Act, and remains a sound objective. The report recommends that the current process be improved by:
disqualifying unsuitable persons from holding licenses for defined periods of time; [Part 6.1.4]
improving the vetting of licence applicants; [Part 6.1.4] and
giving health professionals power to report their concerns about individuals with poor mental health who may have access to firearms -- without fear of penalty. [Part 6.1.5]

Increasing Personal Responsibility for Firearms

Most shooters in New Zealand currently exhibit a responsible attitude to their firearms arid their sport. This can be further encouraged by:
a firearm-specific licensing system and the registration of all firearms; [Part 6.2.1]
practical training of shooters; [Part 6.2.2]
publicity and educational programmes to emphasise the responsibilities attached to firearms; and
setting responsible patterns of use by children. [Part 6.3.1]

The most controversial of these measures is likely to be the registration of individual firearms and firearm-specific licensing. The latter is the system used in Western Australia which generally permits shooters to use only those firearms listed on their individual licenses.

Reducing the Availability of Firearms for Misuse

The Review does not support broad programmes to reduce the numbers of firearms and shooters, but does support targeted measures to limit high-risk firearms. These include:
banning MSSAs, with compensation for their owners; [Part 6.1.1]
preventing major increases in the numbers of handguns; [Part 6.1.1]
permanently deactivating restricted weapons; [Part 6.1.1]
regular amnesties; [Part 6.1.2] and
higher minimum standards of security in homes and dealers' premises. [Part 6.1.3]

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Are all armed citizens responsible?

Most, particularly concealed carry authorized citizens, who must go through the licensing/permit process.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

What if the husband had a concealed handgun?
Or if the rescuer guy, without any police training, hit the woman he was trying to defend?

Oh shit then, I think.

There's too many threads here with single events being used as full justification of national/international policies.

 

[Kebean PFC]

What if the husband had a concealed handgun?
Or if the rescuer guy, without any police training, hit the woman he was trying to defend?

Oh shit then, I think.

For every story you make up against it, i can make up one for it.

There's too many threads here with single events being used as full justification of national/international policies.

I agree.

Also, those of you that donot live in the US have no freeking clue at all about what the impact of strict gun control laws would be. You would probably end up cuasing a civil war.

 

[gh0st]

Are all armed citizens responsible?

I dont know, it could probably be surmised given the licensing process involved. But no, not all armed citizens are responsible.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

What if the husband had a concealed handgun?
Or if the rescuer guy, without any police training, hit the woman he was trying to defend?

Oh shit then, I think.

There's too many threads here with single events being used as full justification of national/international policies.

You can't get a CCP without training.

 

[Da-Muffin-Man]

Old, posted at glocktalk a while ago, but good for the gun comunity none the less. Maybe people will start thinking of guns as protecting tools rather than killing tools. I too hope to have a CC permit some day, then save someone

 

[Solaris]

If I was an American Id get a gun. Id keep it in a safe if I had kids though.

Im anti guns though, but I might as well even the odds :dozey:

 

[Da-Muffin-Man]

Heh right now im not old enough to legaly own a gun , but my dad has a 12 gauge a .410 and a .22

 

[diluted]

Good for him. I used to be anti-gun, but I'm starting to see the light. Police are too busy throwing pot-smokers in jail and ticketing speeders to be protecting the public.

 

[jondy]

Concealed carry/gun control

It's easy to argue over an isolated incident, but at the end of the day we should be arguing about the bigger statistical picture.

I don't know enough about gun control to have an informed opinion, but an article on one event isn't able to provide enough evidence to make anyone change their mind.

 

[Absinthe]

Exceptions do not make a rule.

For every incident where a civilian-owned weapon is used properly and effectively, there's one where it is misused. Fact is that crime is on the decrease in the United States. There's no national emergency that requires civilians to carry weapons.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Exceptions do not make a rule.

For every incident where a civilian-owned weapon is used properly and effectively, there's one where it is misused. Fact is that crime is on the decrease in the United States. There's no national emergency that requires civilians to carry weapons.

They already do, in that sense it shows the flaw in the arguement that crime would skyrocket or be insanely high due to it.

It's easy to argue over an isolated incident, but at the end of the day we should be arguing about the bigger statistical picture.

I don't know enough about gun control to have an informed opinion, but an article on one event isn't able to provide enough evidence to make anyone change their mind.

* Right-to-carry laws require law enforcement agencies to issue handgun permits to all qualified applicants. Qualifications include criteria such as age, a clean criminal record, and completing a firearm safety course.

* In 1986, nine states had right-to-carry laws.

* As of 1998, 31 states have right-to-carry laws, and about half the U.S. population lives in these states.

* In 1996, Dr. John R. Lott of the University of Chicago Law School published the results of a crime study conducted using FBI data for all 3,045 U.S. counties from 1977 to 1992.

* The study sought to answer the question, "What happens to crime when states adopt right-to-carry laws?"

* Between 1977 and 1992, 10 states adopted right-to-carry laws. Dr. Lott's study found that the implementation of these laws created:
-- no change in suicide rates,
-- a .5% rise in accidental firearm deaths,
-- a 5% decline in rapes,
-- a 7% decline in aggravated assaults,
-- and an 8% decline in murder
for the 10 states that adopted these laws between 1977 and 1992.

* Using 1995 numbers, this amounts to:

-- 1 more accidental gun death,
-- 316 less murders,
-- 939 less rapes,
-- and 14,702 less aggravated assaults

in these 10 states annually.





* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:

Florida
homicide rate -36%
firearm homicide rate -37%
handgun homicide rate -41%

United States
homicide rate -.4%
firearm homicide rate +15%
handgun homicide rate +24%

* 221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between October of 1987 and April of 1994. During that time, Florida recorded 18 crimes committed by licensees with firearms.

* As of 1998, nationwide, there has been 1 recorded incident in which a permit holder shot someone following a traffic accident. The permit holder was not charged, as the grand jury ruled the shooting was in self defense.

* As of 1998, no permit holder has ever shot a police officer. There have been several cases in which a permit holder has protected an officer's life.

Sources listed at the bottom of here

 

[MjM]

How did they establish a direct link, i mean corralation sure, but how many people actually carry guns on themselves, therefore actually get to use them in such situations.

Couldnt drops in crime be attributed to policing also, how did they determine is was purely down to increased rights to carry guns, there are gaps in the explanation.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

How did they establish a direct link, i mean corralation sure, but how many people actually carry guns on themselves, therefore actually get to use them in such situations.

Couldnt drops in crime be attributed to policing also, how did they determine is was purely down to increased rights to carry guns, there are gaps in the explanation.

It's not necessarily the use. The fact that the criminal must think "The person I'm going to mug might be armed and may kill me dead right now" deters a lot of crime. There's also the fact that it's not always "used" in the sense they mean to count it as used. A lot of times in situations where guns are used in self defense it's not ever fired.

There's a lot more info on that site pertaining to other situations, also specifically taking on the Brady Bill, Assault Weapons, and other issues.

 

[OCybrManO]

First, the quoted section of the study does nothing to determine causation. The uninformed people (and the ones that agree with the illogical conclusion) might not see a difference... but there were no controls of any sort. Any number of other factors could have caused the same outcome. What is the purpose of that kind of study? All looking at statistics like that can do is give you a hypothesis for an in-depth study.

Let's just say it would be like anti-gun activists citing some study to promote their cause where introducing gun control or banning weapons happened to coincide with police forces being increased tenfold... with the result being a drop in crimes and gun accidents. You can't single-out one change then quote before and after statistics as proof that it did anything. The only thing you get from looking at raw statistics like those is a net change in the statistics from the combined effect of an innumerable amount of factors.

Now, as I've said before... banning guns in the USA would only work in a perfect world (but if it were perfect there wouldn't have ever been a need for guns). The proliferation of weapons in the USA is such that criminals can now get weapons with very little effort. Banning guns at this point would only strip the innocent of their weapons... because criminals don't have permits or licensed weapons that would allow you to track their weapons down and confiscate them. The net result would be all of the criminals having guns and all of the innocent people being unarmed. If you could go back in time and prevent the production of firearms right from the start it would be worth it... but waiting for them to be sold in Wal-Mart to try to ban them would just cause chaos (stemming from various motivations)... especially if you didn't significantly increase the police force to compensate. I don't like that any more than the next anti-gun person... but it's the truth.

So, if you forget about banning guns altogether the next best thing is basically a slightly more controlled version of the systems already in effect.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

More control doesn't do anything to affect the black market sales, the only ones it hurts are law abiding gun owners. Giving the government too much power over weapons regulation is also a danger. It's already bad enough, Class III licensees are treated as if they're already criminals, the second something happens they go to them first.

You can bet if something happens, that class III licensee is going to be your best source of protection and arming. Most Class III folks have an array of weapons.

Tanks, APC's, and other means of utilizing Class III weaponry (most in working condition in the first place) are available here http://www.milweb.net/index2.html, and there are a number of people in the community who own various items and have the availability to bring in more in a time of need. I'd rather NOT have options like these revoked or government regulated any more than they already are.

 

[OCybrManO]

Well, I meant regulation in the sense that you're not just going around handing out weapons to random people... not banning certain types of weapons. Strict licensing of the users and individual gun registration linking the gun to its owner only helps. It's there to make sure irresponsible/crazy people don't get guns and that people are accountable for the weapons they buy. If you're the kind of person that gets pissed-off about a wait of a few days to get your hands on a gun... maybe you shouldn't have one. Yes, regulation doesn't stop illegal sales... but without them criminals wouldn't even need to resort to buying weapons through the black market. So, would you prefer for responsible people to be able to get guns legally... or for everyone to be able to get them legally (including insane, stupid, and/or nefarious people)?

 

[MjM]

Banning guns is rediculous. But i think some of the options cited in an earlier post would be sensible. For instance registering particular guns to a particular gun liscence, that way more responsibility is on the owner to ensure the firearm is safely stored etc ...

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Gun registration is okay, but is always iffy and touchy. Some states here have it, some don't.

Licensing gun owners however, is not okay. The government should not be in possession of any list/roll call of gun owners. Even for gun sales in which names are kept, police departments are required to destroy the records after a certain amount of time. With a list of gun owners, their means as a toold of self defense from the government is useless as they can simply be revoked at any time.

 

[MjM]

So let me get this straight, the whole fandango about guns is that they are promised in your constitution to defend against the government if need be(the impression gathered from Rakurai's post).

If so;
in what circumstances can you 'defend' yourself from the government?

Because i would generally say, if you don't mind drivers licences et cetera, then why should gun owners be bothered about a gun licence. It makes more sense than registering weapons imo, because after all its the people who pull the trigger. And if individuals know they are accountable for a specific firearm then they would act in a more responsible manner, i suspect.

And then banning military style weapons would seem a no brainer, because they are the weapons most capable of inflicting death and destruction on a large scale.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

There's too many threads here with single events being used as full justification of national/international policies.

Jesus Christ, is'int that the truth?

 

[No Limit]

This happened in my home town just across the street from where I was at the time. It was insane, glad that guy was there.

 

[Kebean PFC]

And then banning military style weapons would seem a no brainer, because they are the weapons most capable of inflicting death and destruction on a large scale.

That is wherre you are wrong... dead wrong (no pun). The law now is based on apperance. A Ruger 10/22 outfitted with a military style stock and bannana clip is now techinically an assualt rifle.

Also, I buy a Ruger Mini-14 in .223 caliber. It has the same barrell length, same rounds per clip, same caliber as the M16. The M16 has been modified so that the 3 round burst selector is gone, and it is locked in semi auto. The ONLY WAY you could get around this now is the have a friend who is a supply Sergeant in the Army and get him to get you the parts needed to "fix" it. The only difference is that the Mini 14 does not "look" like an assualt rifle. The point is i could do the same damage with that as i could with an M16. The laws need to be changed.

I dont think a person needs that kind of firepower. However, with the law the way it is, you can still have it, but not in a military styled package.

Below is a picture of a legal Mini 14 and an Illegal one. Keep in mind, they both started out as the same weapon, and they both have the same specs.