Guest bleeds Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Shots fired at a local mall where you happen to be shopping. The gunman is literally merely feet away. As you watch, he begins to shoot everyone close to you, working his aim toward you until finally, you are in his sights. At this time, would you be willing to abandon your opposition to handgun ownership, and concealed carry laws, and the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms, if you thought someone, anyone might be there legally carrying, who has had the training and exhibited proficiency in the handling and discharge of a fiream, if it meant saving your life and the lives of others? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Five0pd310 Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 At that point I wouldn't care if it was a 13 year old girl who had never held a gun in her life. If you got it, shoot it. The more the merrier. Everyone pull 'em out and throw lead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parentofredheads Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 First off, if I was carrying a legal weapon, first sign of him trying to shoot others, and he wouldn't have a chance to aim at me, I promise you that! Now, the only problem I foresee with this, is a bunch of people running around in malls, etc. with guns. I don't think you have to take a pychological exam with gun ownership and a right to bear arms in malls, etc. Now, granted there may be more lives saved in the end versus the whackos that legally can carry guns and shoots someone by mistake, or goes off the deep end. I'm reminded of that movie where woman gets attacked, is that Jodie Foster, boyfriend gets killed, they steal her dog, she gets PO'd and buys a gun, and puts herself in situations to kill people. Somehow in our rights, we've got to be "civilized", not so much politically correct, but rather not turning into an old west town with a bunch of savages... although it does seem like the savages are running the streets these days. I do know one thing...whether it's a gun someone has in their hand, a boxcutter, etc. and wherever they may be, should me or mine, especially mine, be in harm's way, I will use whatever is handiest to take care of the problem, and by the time law enforcements get there, whoever or whatever will probably be a bloody pulp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fivehead Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 I've got a gun. My wife's got a gun. If anyone threatens either one of us with a gun, we will kill them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BluePirate Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 I think Fivehead summed it up nicely... again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bleeds Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Parent, you say you have a problem with a lot of people running around the mall with guns. Let me ask you this. If you're the person described in the thread topic, would you rather have a lot of law-abiding people who have proven their proficiency with the handling and discharging of firearms, who are within their rights to be carrying, standing next to you, or no one there to save your life? See, when people describe law abiding CCL holders as "a bunch of people running around in malls, etc. with guns", it paints those of us who hold CCL's and know the proper circumstances under which those firearms can be discharged in a bad light. See, I think it's better to have a mall full of trained, licensed carriers than none at all. BTW, I am in complete agreement with Fivehead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1stSuperScot Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Parent. I really don't care if you are packing without or without a permit, please feel free to cap the sucka for the benefit of all. I'll do the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owensas Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 See, when people describe law abiding CCL holders as "a bunch of people running around in malls, etc. with guns", it paints those of us who hold CCL's and know the proper circumstances under which those firearms can be discharged in a bad light. See, I think it's better to have a mall full of trained, licensed carriers than none at all. Bleeds what all did you have to go through to gain your CCL? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locutus Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 You bet! My only question would be do I take him out with the first shot or do I shoot the gun out of his hand, then use the other remaining bullets to "punish" him for his bad deeds. :devil: I truly believe if many more people would get trained and carry we would see the crime rate drop tremendously. Criminals are cowards and know that most people are not carrying and therefore easier targets for their cowardly deeds. Let the news report weekly that another wanna be criminal was gunned down trying to take grannies purse, it would stop. If the robber realistically has to worry about the store owner and every customer in there having a gun, it will have a detering effect. We have given way to many of our rights to the government and police, we should not depend on others to do what we are capable of doing. That attitude is why our country is in the shape it is, and why the government is always trying to take more and more from us. :bye: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parentofredheads Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Parent, you say you have a problem with a lot of people running around the mall with guns. Let me ask you this. If you're the person described in the thread topic, would you rather have a lot of law-abiding people who have proven their proficiency with the handling and discharging of firearms, who are within their rights to be carrying, standing next to you, or no one there to save your life? See, when people describe law abiding CCL holders as "a bunch of people running around in malls, etc. with guns", it paints those of us who hold CCL's and know the proper circumstances under which those firearms can be discharged in a bad light. See, I think it's better to have a mall full of trained, licensed carriers than none at all. BTW, I am in complete agreement with Fivehead. I don't have a problem with what you're saying, but if ANY of those CCL holders goes off the deep end, well then....not to mention how many cops have gone off the deep end... Now, if you're saying SANE, LOGICAL, etc., etc., then I'm in total agreement. But like I said, I don't think there's psychological testing with gun ownership. I'm not disagreeing with you, I just see a hole in the scenario. Much less some person who can't shoot straight, but has their CCL, and misses the perpetrator and hits me or mine... then we're in a full throw-down gunfight... Do I think if more citizens owned guns and used them, that it would deter criminals - most definitely. Do I think a lot of wanna be Dirty Harry's in a mall running around being judge, jury and executioner is wise - then no. Do I think I'd shoot to kill anyone or anything that tried to harm mine... DANGED RIGHT and not even blink an eye! And truthfully... they'd find more than one bullet/stab wound/baseball bat/iron skillet up the head, and other body parts disassembled! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BluePirate Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Do I think a lot of wanna be Dirty Harry's in a mall running around being judge, jury and executioner is wise - then no. You just painted law-abiding CCL holders with the most used yet tired liberal stereotype. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parentofredheads Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 You just painted law-abiding CCL holders with the most used yet tired liberal stereotype. Uh, no. "Wanna be Dirty Harry's" is not exactly what I'd call "law-abiding CCL holders". Now, who's spouting "tired liberal stereotype"? LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BluePirate Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Uh, no. "Wanna be Dirty Harry's" is not exactly what I'd call "law-abiding CCL holders". Now, who's spouting "tired liberal stereotype"? LOL! Then put that brush up. :thumbsup: The scenario question is whether you want a civilian to take out the gunman. Not that you get to be the only one with a gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parentofredheads Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Then put that brush up. :thumbsup: The scenario question is whether you want a civilian to take out the gunman. Not that you get to be the only one with a gun. Well, you're no fun! Now, as I type the below scenario... I'm not making light of this...I'm just "thinking" what maybe I would do in this type of scenario. "Shots fired at a local mall where you happen to be shopping." First off, me and mine would've done "hit the ditch" or ran or hid or...first instinct. "The gunman is literally merely feet away." Didn't know that, knew it was close, but didn't know how close. Still probably running at this point...screaming at young'uns. "As you watch, he begins to shoot everyone close to you," At this point, I'm not real sure who he's shooting at, because we're probably still running or, at that point, have found cover. "working his aim toward you until finally, you are in his sights" Again, still not sure where me and mine are at this point, but yes, if someone, whoever that someone is, sees that he's shooting anything and everything, then, yes, they have my permission to shoot him PREFERABLY in the head, and QUICKLY! Edited to add: "permission" isn't exactly the right word here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bleeds Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Bleeds what all did you have to go through to gain your CCL? Instruction on the Texas Penal Code, including statutes that dictate where I can carry, where I cannot, under what circumstances I can discharge my sidearm, etc and how to recognize all of the aforelisted. In addition, there is an extensive background check, and qualification. On top of that, I have to requalify and go through a refresher every five years in order to maintain my license. It is interesting to point out there are very strict guidelines in terms of restrictions in regards to having any psychological "problems" or being on anit-depressants, etc. There are other aspects of going through the process, fingerprinting, photo, etc. You get the idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Immortal13 Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 I don't have a problem with what you're saying, but if ANY of those CCL holders goes off the deep end, well then....not to mention how many cops have gone off the deep end... Now, if you're saying SANE, LOGICAL, etc., etc., then I'm in total agreement. But like I said, I don't think there's psychological testing with gun ownership. I'm not disagreeing with you, I just see a hole in the scenario. Much less some person who can't shoot straight, but has their CCL, and misses the perpetrator and hits me or mine... then we're in a full throw-down gunfight... Do I think if more citizens owned guns and used them, that it would deter criminals - most definitely. Do I think a lot of wanna be Dirty Harry's in a mall running around being judge, jury and executioner is wise - then no. Do I think I'd shoot to kill anyone or anything that tried to harm mine... DANGED RIGHT and not even blink an eye! And truthfully... they'd find more than one bullet/stab wound/baseball bat/iron skillet up the head, and other body parts disassembled! You really sound to me like you do not fully understand what is required for a law abiding citizen to obtain a CHL. If you have been diagnosed to have a serious mental condition that may cause impaired judgement, you are not eligible to obtain a CHL. There is also a shooting requirement that ensures that all CHL holders can "shoot straight". There is a little book entitled Texas Concealed Handgun Laws that a few of you on here should read. I'm sure that same information could be found on Google. Owensas, to answer the question you posed to Bleeds, a person must complete a handgun proficiency course which is roughly a 1 day procedure(approx $100 for most classes). It covers all the laws, restrictions, application procedures and a shooting proficiency test. After successfully completing the course, the person must then send in an application for license which must include a certified copy of birth certificate, completed application form, two recent passport ID photos, proof of state residency, two complete sets of fingerprints done by active law enforcement personel, a handgun proficiency certificate, a signed affidavit by applicant, and last but not least a nonrefundable payment of $140. It's really not that hard to do. At a good class, all of this can be done in less than a day. It takes a number of weeks for your application to be processed and background checks to be performed. After that, you have a license good for 4 years, which can be renewed for $70 after taking the shooting proficiency test again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parentofredheads Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Instruction on the Texas Penal Code, including statutes that dictate where I can carry, where I cannot, under what circumstances I can discharge my sidearm, etc and how to recognize all of the aforelisted. In addition, there is an extensive background check, and qualification. On top of that, I have to requalify and go through a refresher every five years in order to maintain my license. It is interesting to point out there are very strict guidelines in terms of restrictions in regards to having any psychological "problems" or being on anit-depressants, etc. There are other aspects of going through the process, fingerprinting, photo, etc. You get the idea. New evidence just gained here. Then let the blood flow, and hopefully it's the "right" blood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bleeds Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Parent, it would be my recommendation you do a little research before you take it upon yourself to alienate a large portion of the law abiding population. Those of us who carry take great offense at being described as Dirty Harry wannabes, as we hear it so often and it is so wrong. You have stereotyped CCL holders since you entered the thread, not taking heed when you were corrected, but plodding along knowing absolutely nothing of which you posted. For you to use such tired, inaccurate stereotypes as you have would be no better than for me to say people who raise horses are crazy to sink so much money into something so unpredicable and dangerous, that could die at a moment's notice or worse yet, kill its rider/handler. Now, I don't necessarily believe that, as I know a little about horses. But you, knowing nothing about CCL's or CCL holders took it upon yourself to blurt out unfounded, unsubstantiated comments. BTW, you don't get a CCL if you're a bad shot. A few closing thoughts. Dirty Harry scenario is a prime example of why there should be more people carrying in public places like a mall. So the guy who actually thinks he is Diry Harry can be stopped as quickly as possible, not by the judge, jury and executioner you described, but by law abiding citizens, not unlike the guy you ran into at the grocery store, or that lady with the bay mare at the horse show. BTW, how do you know the mall isn't populated with CCL holders right now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Immortal13 Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 By the way, the correct license abbreviation is CHL (concealed handgun license), not CCL. And parent, I agree with Bleeds. You're starting to sound like Lhorn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medman7 Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Well I am in the process of trying to get everyone that I know to go and get their CCL license. The guy that taught my class is certified to do the fingerprints himself and he also takes you picture for the license also. He even keeps plentt of packet from the state so that he can be a one stop shop to get everything done in one day! he is is Lufkin and teaches a great class. The range is right there at this house so like I said it is truely a one stop shop to get your CCL training and packet taken care of. The link below is for their phone number and locations. It is located in Lufkin for those who are interested. http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&rlz=...257712699372604 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parentofredheads Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Parent, it would be my recommendation you do a little research before you take it upon yourself to alienate a large portion of the law abiding population. Those of us who carry take great offense at being described as Dirty Harry wannabes, as we hear it so often and it is so wrong. You have stereotyped CCL holders since you entered the thread, not taking heed when you were corrected, but plodding along knowing absolutely nothing of which you posted. For you to use such tired, inaccurate stereotypes as you have would be no better than for me to say people who raise horses are crazy to sink so much money into something so unpredicable and dangerous, that could die at a moment's notice or worse yet, kill its rider/handler. Now, I don't necessarily believe that, as I know a little about horses. But you, knowing nothing about CCL's or CCL holders took it upon yourself to blurt out unfounded, unsubstantiated comments. BTW, you don't get a CCL if you're a bad shot. A few closing thoughts. Dirty Harry scenario is a prime example of why there should be more people carrying in public places like a mall. So the guy who actually thinks he is Diry Harry can be stopped as quickly as possible, not by the judge, jury and executioner you described, but by law abiding citizens, not unlike the guy you ran into at the grocery store, or that lady with the bay mare at the horse show. BTW, how do you know the mall isn't populated with CCL holders right now? First off, you're talking to the jury here... that's the way my mind works. Second, when the scenario was provided, it did not entail how CCL works or the qualifications of same. Third, I don't need to do research, based on a blanket scenario. When I make an opinion, it based on the evidence before me. Once again, a scenario was provided, but not enough info to make an INFORMED DECISION! Fourth, as with regards to horses, I couldn't agree with you more... LOL! HOWEVER, I could also say, "You have stereotyped horses and horse owners since you entered the thread, not taking heed when you were corrected, but plodding along knowing absolutely nothing of which you posted." Although I won't, because I won't make it personal, much less to say "YOU WERE CORRECTED." Fifth, a scenario was offerred, and an opinion was asked. You gave your's, I gave mine. And sixth, and most importantly, after receiving more evidence, I agree, a CCL holder should shoot and shoot to kill. Now....are we arguing about semantics or just arguing? :flowers: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bleeds Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 I am not, nor was I ever argueing, nor do I intend to. You spoke out of school about something of which you knew nothing. I merely corrected you. As far as the horse analogy, it was merely that. And I said "I could say...". I then went onto say I would not say that as I knew better. As for you opinion, you're correct, it was your opinion. But when corrected, you stood by it adamantly. It was my intention to instruct you on CCL and CCL holders, and why we take offense at being stereotyped, so in the future, when you spoke/posted on the subject, you could so from the standpoint of being informed. No harm. No foul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parentofredheads Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 I am not, nor was I ever argueing, nor do I intend to. You spoke out of school about something of which you knew nothing. I merely corrected you. As far as the horse analogy, it was merely that. And I said "I could say...". I then went onto say I would not say that as I knew better. As for you opinion, you're correct, it was your opinion. But when corrected, you stood by it adamantly. It was my intention to instruct you on CCL and CCL holders, and why we take offense at being stereotyped, so in the future, when you spoke/posted on the subject, you could so from the standpoint of being informed. No harm. No foul. Your opinion and my opinion of "adamantly" is far afield, apparently. Personally, I like the word "explanation", rather than "instructed" or "corrected." Wouldn't you agree? No harm, no foul... :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildcatsRule Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 blah blah. Shoot the :censored: nut already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BluePirate Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 By the way, the correct license abbreviation is CHL (concealed handgun license), not CCL. My bad, I might have started that. Sorry. :flowers: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now