They Sure Do
February 21st, 2008Utah students hide guns, head to class - CNN.com
Faster. Kill. Kill. o
Tags: concealed weapons, students with guns, utah gun laws
-
This entry was posted on Thursday, February 21st, 2008 at 12:12 pm and is filed under culture, utah. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed. Please read the Terms of Service before leaving a response.
February 21st, 2008 at 7:53 pm
I’ve often thought, what would happen if at a certain age everyone was issued one gun and one bullet. That’s it. You’d never know if someone had already used their bullet or still had a loaded gun. We could all walk around with cute designer holsters. Okay, I know. That’s crazy and sick. Just my sick little fantasy of how people would behave if they thought the playing field was even.
It occurred to me yesterday, that the ‘bump’ of students doing this has moved right up. It was about 5-6 years ago that the majority of these were high school kids, they seem to have graduated to college and grad school.
Re: post above, have some version of what’s known as a “Tarasoff Law” based on a famous California case, Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California from 1976. These laws are designed to protect specific victims, and only specific victims. So if I go to my shrink and say, I’m gonna kill “Spike” on Wednesday, February 20th at noon with a .38 calibur pistol, then my shrink will have to give “Spike” a call and warn him to get the hell outta town. On the other hand, if I say something more vague, like I’d like to blow up a bunch of Libertarians, but I fail to name anyone specific and I fail to give any details, then the shrink is likely bound by the confidentiality laws of his/her state.
There’s also federal law, in the form of 1996’s HIPAA which prevents the release of a patient’s medical records without the patient’s consent. Originally designed to prevent drug companies from obaining this info and using it for direct marketing, its tentacles have spread to the point that it’s pretty near impossible for anyone other than a patient to get at his own records.
What I do find interesting and have heard lately is calls for more thorough background checks and enforced waiting periods. At first, it seemed that this was a case that thorough background screening would have not deterred, but as it turns out, here was a guy medicated to control violent impulses. This is starting to sound horribly familiar. It would seem that having a history of psychiatric care for violent impulses might be a nice red flag if only it were an allowable red flag.
Of course the reality of “if more people carried firearms, then this guy would have thought twice,” Well, maybe, but I really don’t think so. This guy wasn’t worrying about dying, and neither have any of the other recent shooters. Some gun-slinging sophomore might have hit him before he got off a few more rounds, but I doubt it. Even the recent case of the woman who hit the gunman at the church involved an armed guard, not some gun-toting churchgoer. I wouldn’t welcome a situation where a bunch of students in a classroom were armed.
February 21st, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Blurb ,
I would respectfully counter that the Utopian world where everyone obeys gun laws doesn’t exist either.
I am not a gun nut, crazy or a wacko. Hell, I don’t even own a gun. I know people many people who I do. I also know people who think gun ownership isn’t a right but a duty, and those people creep me out.
But liberals scream about their civil liberties being eroded with NSA wiretaps. They are puzzled when people (idiots, I grant you) say, ” What difference do wiretaps make to me, I am not calling Bin Laden.”
To people who value the liberty of bearing Arms, taking that right away is the same thing.
As far as Rights granted by the Constitution , it is number 2 on the list!! And unlike Number one, It doesn’t have to share!
The vast majority of people who own guns are not any kind of crazy.
Blurb, you like others here, value the freedom of speech.
There have been multiple posts this week about Senator Buttars from Utah who made racists remarks. I am sure that his word have cause many people pain. I agree with you that he should resign and his words be condemned. But , would you really advocate that his mouth be taped shut? Or that he be thrown in Jail for his comments?
February 21st, 2008 at 9:46 pm
I lied. I can’t not write about this…. so…. here goes nothing.
Karl: Are you OK with people bearing hand grenades at home? How about nuclear weapons? I love the constitution. I do. I’m actually more of a constitutionalist in my old age than I realized. But (and I realize I’m going to probably get attacked for writing as much) it was written during a time. It’s dated. Is it safe to say that the terms that were used in such an amazing founding document could lead us into trouble one day?
I the men who wrote/signed that document had known at the time that “arms” might come to mean more than just something “fueled with gunpowder”, do you think they’d write it the same way? Because the term “arms” means something so unbelievably different from what it did back then.
I would guess that “arms” didn’t mean semi-automatic weaponry, or a gun that can take out a plethora of people with one finger. (I don’t know shit about guns, admittedly, but I do know they have changed drastically since the 1700’s.)
My point is, times change as does weaponry, people and culture. And we keep these rules around and these rules are great but they are dated, and they do tend to get us into fights and wars and trouble I’m not saying that we need to do away with them, far from it, but I do think we need to look at what was written and why and consider it in modern day. Because things have changed. A lot.
Someday “arms” may come to mean nuclear weaponry or something we don’t even know about yet.
Please note: I am not trying to start an all out Internet war. I just want to start a healthy discussion. In other words: please don’t call me names. I’m delicate.
February 21st, 2008 at 9:46 pm
P.S. I am going to regret this.
I feel it.
February 21st, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Wow. I should proofread before posting such crap!
Sorry, Jon, for blabbering on and on.
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:06 am
Another reason I’m glad I live in Canada.
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:56 am
Lots of emotion flying here. Knee-jerk reactions. Not too much informed opinion. Me neither — I don’t have all the answers, but here’s my take.
I’ve held a CW permit for eight years, I carry regularly, live downtown, vote liberal, and am from a family of academics — professors, all. Given what I’ve read here, perhaps most of you will agree with my first point:
1. No matter who you are, if you’re going to carry, you should know what you’re about. This goes for civvies and for law enforcement. What, you ask, cops are cops, right? News: Many sworn police officers (even on the FBI level), can barely re-qualify annually, and then only with much coaching. I know a couple of people who owe their jobs as firearms instructors to this fundamental ineptitude. I read a NY study that showed only 1 out of 13 rounds fired by a NY cops in actual firefights hit its intended target. (No disrespect intended to NY’s finest.) My point is this: Cop or civilian, if you haven’t been trained in stress-fire situations, you’re not likely to perform well in an actual firefight. (It’s humbling when the computer shows that your first round went into the ground and the second missed by five feet. Take it from me.)
I would advocate more stringent training as a requirement for a concealed permit, but this might be because I’m a geek who would enjoy the training.
2. In Utah, you must be at least 21 years of age to apply for a Concealed Firearms Permit (CFP). That rules out many of those on campus whose mind and character are, shall we say, less formed than their older counterparts. Again, no offense intended.
3. The (formerly) almighty dollar is the currency of wealth, and to criminals, the handgun is the currency of power. Not the former USSR, not the UK, not Jamaica (life sentence for carrying a single bullet with no gun in sight) — no state, totalitarian or otherwise, has made its citizens safe from gun violence by denying regular Joes the right to carry. I read BBC every day and every day it reports gun crime in the UK. The punks are going to find a way to pack heat, because they live for it and die by it. Especially in the U.S., tell ya what, we’re awash in firearms — the genie is out of the bottle. So I say we deal with it intelligently, BUT I make no claim to all the intelligence on the topic. This is my take only, and I have an open mind.
4. The true story of why I got my CFP: I’m at the massive outdoor party in downtown Salt Lake celebrating the award of the 2002 Winter Olympic Games. I’m with my buddy who had been a state prison guard for a year or so (he went on to be a SWAT cop and now a Federal Air Marshall). Every twenty minutes or so throughout the evening he points out someone new and says, “See that guy over there…5 to 7 for aggravated rape,” or “Felony assault.” You get the pic. He says, “Think any of those guys love me, their former guard? We’re here with Tara and the kids and I wish you had a permit to carry.” That made an impression on me: Real felons, real godsons, a real sworn peace officer wishing I could do something more than speed dial 911. I’d say the makeup of a crowd in other states isn’t much different. It’s probably better on most campuses, but then again…VTec and more recent incidents.
5. Most criminals are, for lack of a better word, cowards. How much moxy does it take to pull a gun on an unarmed person and demand their money? Or to shoot up unarmed students as at a university? Less than zero. To my mind, the presence of 80,235 fellow CFP holders in this state constitutes a psychological deterrent to criminals and an actual response capability in extremis. That someone could or does shoot back (whether the defender is Wyatt Earp or not) changes the equation ENTIRELY in an assailant’s mind, whether suicidal or not. (Ask anyone who’s been in a firefight.) That’s a GOOD thing for the good people among us. In nearly every case, the arrival of an armed opposition at a rampage shooting shuts down the carnage pronto.
6. The question is, Would lives have been spared had not the shooters been granted UNOPPOSED free rein in the interim? I’m not God, and this is a hypothetical question with a thousand variables, but left to answer it for myself, I say “Probably, yes.” Come into my classroom, Mr. Shooter, and you’ll be greeted by the business end of a .45. Now, even if I don’t shoot — because I’d prefer not to if it can be avoided — you’ll probably decide that the next classroom down the hall looks like a better, softer target. The sooner the shooter meets resistance and decides to blow out their own brains the better.
Anybody who imagines that we’re talking OK Corral business with squinty eye-to-eye duals, doesn’t see it the way I do, the way I read it, the way I hear it from first-hand sources. The way I hear it, an average armed citizen will deter or blunt the effectiveness of a shooter who, for all their deranged fantasies and YouTube posturing, generally lack the discipline to learn how to shoot and who has no stomach for anything but free slaughter of defenseless victims.
7. Semi-related factoid: I read an interesting piece, which I wish I could cite here, indicating that today’s gun violence, in terms of per-capita firearms murder rate, far exceeds anything known in the so-called Wild West. Sorry I don’t have the reference, but pretty good records have been kept in this city since Day 1 in 1847. My uncle has by G-G-Grandfather’s Spencer Repeating Rifle, the one carried overland through hostile territory. That’s kinda real to me. Label it “Gun culture” or something equally myopic, I don’t mind. Also real to me are the following incidents fresh in the public mind:
8. Trolley Square Mall shooting earlier this year in my city, where I shop regularly: Off-duty officer takes out a rampage shooter who had obtained guns illegally.
Pioneer Park, one block away from my condo (in the “good” part of town though not the whitiest of white hills nearby:-), last month an upstanding citizen (my buddy’s neighbor) knifed by a transient. Killed. Generally, guns trump knives, BUT a trained knife fighter, if he’s within 6 feet of you, is as lethal as a shooter. These incidents stand out because they’re close to home, and there are fresh ones in the paper daily. Sorry folks, this city’s crime rate is zilch compared to D.C., however death by random violence, gun or knife, is far from theoretical here.
9. So, given this landscape, my subjective take is this. I’d feel safer sitting in a stadium of CFP holders who have passed a FBI background check and had some minimal training than I would feel in a stadium of unarmed folks who depend on the diligence of relatively few officers — who may or may not know what they’re doing — to handle a nut-job shooter. In my city of 180,000 people, the SLPD swing shift consists of 12 officers. Do the math. Following a firearms incident in MY parking lot a few years ago, I know what the SLPD response time is (better, actually, than what the number of officers suggests), but allowing plenty of time for a nut-job to wreak a lot of havoc had they been so motivated.
10. Now, to bring this home to the local University of Utah campus — not unlike my metaphorical stadium of folks. We’ve been through a state-wide flap on this recently. My take: If the U can reasonably guarantee my safety while on campus, then I’ll leave my weapon in the glove box. But we know that the U can’t guarantee this — and won’t even try. Guess what? The weapon’s staying on my hip, discreetly. Faculty can object to concealed carry eloquently and vehemently — and have they ever — but they tend to discount that higher ed is this state’s largest single budget line item, one that’s paid by the same people who voted in the concealed carry laws.
The academics in my family are remarkable human beings of great accomplishment, and I have profound respect for them, but I quietly believe that they ignore certain practical realities of a) threat of armed violence prevalent in our community, and b) their fellow citizens’ legitimate, democratic, and constitutional response to that threat. When faculty request “No guns on campus,” they’re really asking me to be a soft target, as if the campus were raised above the city and its problems. Since it’s not, when the unspeakable happens, faculty and students pay in blood for misguided high-mindedness that is, in my view, one of supremely arrogant wishful thinking.
A Harvard prof once said to me across the dinner table, speaking of the Second Amendment, “No right is absolute.” He was absolutely correct — and rather axiomatic. For him, this was reasoning sufficient to wish away violent crime with a student-faculty pact of unilateral disarmament.
My response: You can’t ask your students over 21 years of age in this state to submit willingly to potential violence to stroke your ideals. You are welcome to hide under your desk with tweed in your ears, but if you have an ounce of respect for your students, you’ve got to say, “Hey, if someone comes in to shoot you, feel free to respond proportionately, and kindly draw fire away from my desk.”
I honor pacifist ideologies, and the ultimate price a pacifist must be prepared to pay to sustain the ideal. Similarly, I ask no one else to get a CFP. But I insist that I will defend my life and those of my loved ones — wherever I am, at the shopping mall or the U. Granted, I’d rather live in a “safe” city and not bother packing as I walk down the city sidewalk to the 7:10 show. But until I do live in that city, there’s nothing that can match the sense of self-reliant security that the CFP brings. Eagles have talons, turtles have shells, nearly every critter has some means of self-defense. As the currency of power among the world’s deadliest predators is the handgun, I’ll not be without. That I don’t have to be defenseless is something I really like about this state.
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:03 am
I find it interesting that so many people think that we are putting guns in the hands of more people, in actuality I have a few dimes that say the percentages has dropped of families and individual persons owning a hand gun/firearm.
My father was in college and had two to three hunting rifles in his room and there was no college shootings back then, not the fact that no one shot any body because my father a lone stopped them with fear.
It was just an irrational thing to do, go through a school shooting people. Since the people in the United States of America have stopped carrying guns with them the rate for gun related massacres, I am just guessing, has gone up inversely.
I also think it is the lack of God in society and this might be far fetched, but so is banning guns yet people still believe it. I think that even though some people it was conviction by peers and not conviction by God, people followed rules and moral rules as well.
I learned to never discuss politics and religion with family and friends, unless you were talking to a politician or religious man. Yet the two of them has turned this country upside down and inside out and given a kick in the ribs with constant bickering and fighting.
I learned to never spit or cuss in front of lady’s (now if your wife is turned on by cussing in the bed room, by all means boo boo go one with your nasty self) and children. Yet, I see men cuss like sailors in front of a lady like they are not there. Children know what cuss words (may not know the meaning) soon as they start speaking. I remember when my little cousins would have to sneak down in the basement and hide around the corner to listen to the men to learn cuss words. When they said it in the wrong place because they did not know the rules, they ate soap. After that the mother would say to never say that again, and a man would have to inform the boy of the rules behind cuss words.
I see people spit in public like they were in their own study and no one is there.
I liked this world a lot better when people were courteous to others. Not because you did not want to hurt someone, because that is just the way things are suppose to be. That is the way you were raised, because that is the proper way, the educated way.
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:18 am
it seems to me some people are so adamantly anti-gun that they cannot even permit themselves to differentiate between the kind of person who carries a concealed firearm with a permit and someone who is hellbent on murdering a bunch of people before they commit suicide. isn’t there at least a difference in intentions and/or purpose? and shouldn’t that be blazingly obvious?
yes, anyone who carries a gun is SCARY, and I don’t want to know how many police academy rejects around me in SLC are packing heat waiting for an excuse to pop some capes - but i would rather be around these scary guys with legal permit guns poking into their sides so that they can shoot and/or in the slightest deter the scarier guys in trenchcoats that want to live out their perverse video game fantasies before they die
to not acknowledge a difference between the two represents to me a somewhat delusional reductionism that is also quite scary
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:23 am
for the sake of not looking like i don’t know the lingo
pop caps pop capspop capspop capspop capspop caps
not capes
fo-shizzle
February 22nd, 2008 at 5:44 am
I’m kind of amused at the imagery of popping capes though. Just a pop from a gun filled with capes, and anyone can stalk around and be fabulous. Fabulously CAPED.
Obviously, finishing the first draft of my thesis has robbed me of all good common sense. And I need more caffeine.
February 22nd, 2008 at 7:09 am
Mihow,
I hope you don’t regret it. I, like you ( and all people capable of thought) treasure the free exchange of ideas.
As far as your comments regarding the Constitution being outdated. Did the writers of the Bill of Rights envision the threats that would be posed to this country 225 years after it was written? The deaths of thousands of citizens could be prevented if the government were allowed to monitor all electronic communication, so why the outrage?
The answer is because we are protected from unreasonable search and seizure by the forth amendment. The limits of that right ( as with the second amendment) have been tested by due process. Should we abolish or modify this right because times have changed? I certainly hope not.
As for the analogy of where the limit is. A handgrenade is not a means of self defense. Most of my friends are liberal and several have used this argument. I find that hyperbole to be just as ridiculous as bigots purporting that the next step after gay marriage is the union of man and goats.
What most impresses me about those on the left side of the political spectrum is the passion for which they defend their liberties. However, I have yet to understand why the don’t value ALL of those liberties.
I tried to keep the CAPS to a minimum and I apologize profusely for the vulgarity of my language I used yesterday. I was attempting to correlate the 1st and second amendment. I do not have the talent to convey my ideas as the rest of the commenters on this post.
February 22nd, 2008 at 7:32 am
You haven’t answered my question, Karl. You’ve merely asked me another one. But I get what you’re trying to say without answering the question or touching on just how much weaponry has changed since the constitution was written.
Just saying, that someday a group of people could be having this exact same discussion online as to why they should be able to have nuclear weaponry to protect their families.
Times change and the idea of every Dick and Sue carrying a concealed handgun in this day and age scares the crap out of me. You can make a LOT of terrible decisions in the heat of a moment, back in the day one person might die before someone realizes their mistake. Guns now a days can take out a great deal more people in a nano second before much of a thought comes to mind.
I’m not even sure if I’m making sense. I’m covered in baby puke after a very long, sleepless night.
February 22nd, 2008 at 7:41 am
P.S. I don’t have any answers, however. But I would much rather live in a world without guns. That’s just me.
I guess I just wish those homeboys were a bit more specific whenever they wrote that albeit awesome document out. ;]
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:21 am
I am so tired of the arguement that the Second Amendment’s right for “local militias to bear arms” to keep the peace, i.e., a police force, has been bastardized into every yahoo who wants to carry around a gun can. Pure craziness. It will be intersting to see what the Supreme Court will have to say on the subject.
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:29 am
mihow,
I suck. Sorry I didn’t answer your questions. As I said , lack of talent.
My answer to the question as to If I am ok with people having hand grenades or nukes. I am not. I could go into why I don’t think that those types of weapons are arms but I won’t. I will say that the limits of the rights are continuously evaluated and challenged within the Judicial process. The courts have determined that automatic weapons, and hand grenades exceed the liberty granted by the 2nd amendment.
Those Cool homeboys DID anticipate change and created a document that adapts to those changes.
We see the limits of our rights moving everyday. That is the brilliance of the Constitution and those that wrote it.
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:33 am
Southergirl,
The Supreme Court has spoke on the subject several times. That is why we still have the right.
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:12 am
mihow
if we could live in in a world without guns, that would probably be wonderful. Unfortunately, it is not currently possible. Gun laws and controls are only followed by law abiding citizens, they don’t stop criminals or those with criminal intent.
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:39 am
According to “On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society” by Lt. Dave Grossman, the reality of someone popping off one, two, five, ten other students in the space of time it takes to pull the trigger and think about what you’re doing is highly unlikely unless A) they fall into the narrow category of humans known as “psychologically disturbed and/or psychopathic” OR B) they’ve been trained in military combat-type situations in which they’ve learned how to turn off the switch that makes killing your own species pretty damn difficult. Consider that, historically, in battle zones where killing was encouraged and not pulling the trigger was shameful, the firing rate was ridiculously low, with soldiers from WWII on back through history posturing and firing their guns in the air rather than pointing them at oncoming men - before the firing rates were studied and Pavlov’s training techniques were incorporated into warfare to overcome men’s disinclination to fire, these men weren’t so different from the average college student - untrained and full of repulsion at the idea of splitting open another human being.
MY take is that the only benefit in concealed weapons is in the possibility of the psychological deterrent that a would-be shooter (whom I would assume falls into the aforementioned psychopathic category) faces, knowing that at least one student in the classroom may have a weapon. In reality, the likelihood of any student in that situation being able to fire back is extremely low, unless that student MAY have military training that compensates for his distaste in pulling the trigger.
But what the hey - if the possibility of concealed weapons being present actually keeps would-be shooters from popping a cap into fellow humans, I’m all for it. I just don’t think it does diddly-squat.
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:17 pm
So, does getting a concealed weapon permit train one in how to engage in this type of situation? As far as I understand it, it only teaches you gun safety. The thought of an armed gunman shooting away, and then a few armed citizens firing back is more frightening.
In the Trolley Square shootings cited by blurb, there was an off-duty officer who engaged, and fortunately for him, he knew what he was doing or he would likely have been gunned down by the police too. They had no idea how many shooters were there. Also fortunate for him was there wasn’t a concealed weapons permit holder on the scene, who wasn’t trained to identify who is a threat and who isn’t, to gun down this officer.
The point being, citizens are not trained in how to engage in this sort of situation where they don’t endanger themselves or others, or even how to control their emotions to make rational decisions. Plus there is no requirement to be a good shot to get your permit. To add a few other gunman to the equation in like situations is unlikely to help anybody.
February 22nd, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Too late to be read I’m sure but - here’s an interesting event when “everybody” has their own gun!
…from the Tampa Bay Times yesterday.
A road rage shootout with kids onboard
Louis Davis was taking his kids to their Orange County elementary school Wednesday morning when he wound up co-starring in an escalating round of road rage that wound up with him shooting at another driver, that driver firing back and both men eventually being hauled off to jail, the Orlando Sentinel reports. According to the police report: On the way to the kids’ school, Davis got stuck behind a slow-moving van. When he tried to pass, the van’s driver, Victor Vilchez accelerated. Davis got ahead of him anyway, so Vilchez decided to rearend him. Davis, who was driving his 6- and 11-year-old daughters, pulled a gun and started firing. Vilchez pulled a gun and returned fire. Davis, in what passes as good parenting in this story, then dropped his daughters off at a nearby home before chasing Vilchez at high speeds through the residential neighborhood and continuing to shoot until the van crashed into a passing vehicle. Davis, 40, and Vilchez, 44, both had valid permits to carry a concealed weapon.
February 22nd, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Although I am licensed to do so I personally don’t carry a handgun (though I would if I felt it necessary to do so). But I’m glad I live in a society that permits one to do so.
Besides, enacting stricter gun laws isn’t going to solve anything. A criminal/scumbag is going to carry a gun/knife/dangerous weapon no matter what laws are on the books.
February 22nd, 2008 at 6:45 pm
I’m still firmly in the “I don’t know what I think” category.
On one hand, Miranda (#20) said that allowing people to carry on campus was a bad idea because “living in fear of getting shot is no way to live.” I’m a public high school teacher, and I live with that fear every day anyway. I live in a state where you can’t carry in many public places.
Does anyone know of a school shooting where guns were allowed? If not, maybe it is a deterrent. I’ve never heard of a story where one of these guys goes to a police station or a military base, places where it’s obvious guns will be found.
For purposes of full disclosure, I do have my concealed handgun license. I only carry it when I go on out-of-town trips without my husband. But I’ve also taken self-defense classes; my first option wouldn’t be the gun. I just refuse to be a victim.
But many of the comments made here that are against it make sense, too. At the end of the day, I don’t think there is a good answer. It’s obvious that we need to do a better job of teaching kids tolerance, protecting the kids who are “outsiders,” and reducing the stigma of mental illness so more people will seek help.
February 22nd, 2008 at 8:18 pm
John F., excellent post!
brian Says: “So, does getting a concealed weapon permit train one in how to engage in this type of situation? As far as I understand it, it only teaches you gun safety. ”
brian, you understand INcorrectly. a concealed weapons permit requires training in gun safety, the laws regarding use of force, the logistics of carrying, the laws about where you can and can’t carry, etc.
In our class, the training made me LESS apt to use a gun in self defense than I would have previously. We were taught that if you shoot someone, even in clear self defense, be prepared to go to jail and spend thousands on an attorney and months of legal proceedings and fear about the outcome and finally, hope that the 12 jurors see things your way. A few case studies made for quite an eye opener. We were taught that, basically, the only time you should draw your gun in self defense is if you literally thing, “Oh my God, I’m going to die!”.
One result of this training is that because of the legal issues involved and the potential for jurors to not see things my way, I’ve decided that I would only use my weapons for my own self defense or the defense of my family, not necessarily for the defense of other who have made the decision that they do not want to carry. My first objective is to retreat if possible, but if not possible, I’d then try to eliminate the immediate threat to my family.
Some other things we were encouraged to do is to become more passive and aware. When a guy or gal cuts you off in traffic, let it go. When your at a game and a fan of the other team tries to start something, let it go. Avoid areas you think are not safe. Become very aware of your surroundings. Watch closely for unsavory characters. Cross the street if you have to avoid them. It’s not a paranoid thing, it’s just things to do to avoid ANY conflict. My wife even says I’m much calmer on the highway since I’ve gotten my permit.
I have a wife and 3 kids. Their safety and well being is of the utmost importance to me. The second to the last thing I would want to do is to have to use my gun in self defense. The last thing I would want to do is not to have it when I needed it to protect my family. Just like a fire extinguisher, you always hope you never need to use it, but it’s there just in case.
If you don’t want to carry, that’s fine. I have no problem with that. But my decision to carry has absolutely no impact to you, and I pose absolutely no threat to anyone because of it.
February 22nd, 2008 at 8:31 pm
I highly recommend reading this account from a first hand witness of the Westroads Mall shooting in Omaha
http://joemerchant24.blogspot.com/2007/12/firsthand-account-of-von-maur-shooting.html