The Need for CCW. Is it necessary?
- Thread starter Incursion
- Start date
- Status
I think that the very fact that you have to ask if it's necessary means that you aren't ready. Apparently, you think that a gun is necessary only when the other guy has a gun on you, by which time it would be too late. Consider some of these points--a knife stick up, a bat stick up, your brother goes into the store for a quick buy and he is getting held up, you accidentlly cut off some nut at a stop light and he gets out with a crowbar charging at you--my point--there are actually too many scenarios where you might need a gun and if you don't realize that, then I do believe that you shouldn't get one because you seem the hesitant type, meaning chances are, even if you had a gun, you probably wouldn't be effective with it.
yea I realized the subject of my post was kind of off, but I already hit the submit button. I realize there are other weapons that someone could kill me.
rstevea, I'm new to firearms now, but that is what training is for. I will definitely not get a CCW unless I feel I'm adequately trained. I want to be as responsible as possible, and I realize situational awareness is very important. I guess the subject should have been: The limitations of CCW... when to draw.
rstevea, I'm new to firearms now, but that is what training is for. I will definitely not get a CCW unless I feel I'm adequately trained. I want to be as responsible as possible, and I realize situational awareness is very important. I guess the subject should have been: The limitations of CCW... when to draw.
Incursion, I notice that you have the tremendous advantage of living in Austin, Tx as I do. Living in Texas grants us certain 'privledges' that are not available to residents of other states which I will get into in a moment.
1. You ask what can be done if you are confronted by an armed person. Your mind is your best weapon. I have seen the attacks on me coming and have at least had my hand on the gun twice and actually had my pistol drawn BEFORE the bad guy did on one occaision. The idea is to BE AWARE of your surroundings at all times. Thankfully the senario of a shooter just walking up gun pointed from a total blind side is a rare occurance. Most of the gun crime you here about is not muggings. It occurs between people who know each other, as you probably saw on the HCI website. The people who know each other include gang members and rival drug dealers. These are the majority of the 11,000 people who are killed in non-justifiable homicides each year where a firearm is used. Most robberies are knives or strong arm type where a firearm tips the odds TREMENDOUSLY in your favor.
2. It is my experience that when an individual 'has the drop on you' they become relaxed thinking they have the upper hand in the situation. This slows their reflexes CONSIDERABLY. When reaching for your wallet, draw and shoot directly at their nose while deflecting with the weak hand and they will not even get a shot off. I demonstrated this technique to an individual just last week who did not think that it could be done. Bill Jordan of the Border Patrol and Lt. Dan Combs of the Oklahoma Highway Patrol were MUCH faster than I am and you should have seen what they could do. This may not always be an option if you carry in an ankle, pocket, or shoulder holster.
3. The Texas advantage. Texas law allows you to use lethal force to prevent a theft in the night time. Give the person your money and shoot him in the back when he turns around. The state gives no limit to the value. People have been killed over a hubcap, a lawnmower, a bicycle, even over $2. I the last case a man armed with a knife asked for a fellows money. The victim had only $2 which the robber stuck in his pocket. The robber was disappointed and asked for the mans valuables including his watch. The victim surrendered his watch and drew a gun. The robber decided that he has lost this one so dropped the mans watch and dropped his knife. He then turned to run at which time the victim shot him in the back and killed him. The police were called, the victims $2 were held in evidence for the grand jury who returned a no true bill on the shooter. What is legal and what is right are two different things. Texas allows each individual to place a value on a human life. Morally what the shooter did may not have been right, but that is not anyones decision but his.
The debunking of the Lott findings is interesting because it is true that the results of his study are an 'educated guess'. Without using the procedures of standard statistical studies, no causal effect could ever be shown. It is all circumstantial evidence. To do a proper study guns would have to be completely banned for a period of about 20 years, then regulations would have to be loosened to what they were about 1950 and allowed to be uniform nationwide. By doing a study on those two time frames you could make valid correlations. The study would need to include breakdowns by economic level, race, age, and social activity that would indicate a high risk lifestyle. Kellerman did some of this in a study in Seattle, but badly botched the results. He even used the WRONG statistical model. He then lumped people in high risk catagories with low risk people. Fortunately he did provide the raw data with his study which showed that guns had a protective effect on low risk people. He ran into trouble when he combined the catagories because the high risk people had such a high incidence of firearms misuse that is skewed the study, but what would be expect from a study that was funded by an anti-gun group. At least the Lott study was funded by a non-positional foundation.
1. You ask what can be done if you are confronted by an armed person. Your mind is your best weapon. I have seen the attacks on me coming and have at least had my hand on the gun twice and actually had my pistol drawn BEFORE the bad guy did on one occaision. The idea is to BE AWARE of your surroundings at all times. Thankfully the senario of a shooter just walking up gun pointed from a total blind side is a rare occurance. Most of the gun crime you here about is not muggings. It occurs between people who know each other, as you probably saw on the HCI website. The people who know each other include gang members and rival drug dealers. These are the majority of the 11,000 people who are killed in non-justifiable homicides each year where a firearm is used. Most robberies are knives or strong arm type where a firearm tips the odds TREMENDOUSLY in your favor.
2. It is my experience that when an individual 'has the drop on you' they become relaxed thinking they have the upper hand in the situation. This slows their reflexes CONSIDERABLY. When reaching for your wallet, draw and shoot directly at their nose while deflecting with the weak hand and they will not even get a shot off. I demonstrated this technique to an individual just last week who did not think that it could be done. Bill Jordan of the Border Patrol and Lt. Dan Combs of the Oklahoma Highway Patrol were MUCH faster than I am and you should have seen what they could do. This may not always be an option if you carry in an ankle, pocket, or shoulder holster.
3. The Texas advantage. Texas law allows you to use lethal force to prevent a theft in the night time. Give the person your money and shoot him in the back when he turns around. The state gives no limit to the value. People have been killed over a hubcap, a lawnmower, a bicycle, even over $2. I the last case a man armed with a knife asked for a fellows money. The victim had only $2 which the robber stuck in his pocket. The robber was disappointed and asked for the mans valuables including his watch. The victim surrendered his watch and drew a gun. The robber decided that he has lost this one so dropped the mans watch and dropped his knife. He then turned to run at which time the victim shot him in the back and killed him. The police were called, the victims $2 were held in evidence for the grand jury who returned a no true bill on the shooter. What is legal and what is right are two different things. Texas allows each individual to place a value on a human life. Morally what the shooter did may not have been right, but that is not anyones decision but his.
The debunking of the Lott findings is interesting because it is true that the results of his study are an 'educated guess'. Without using the procedures of standard statistical studies, no causal effect could ever be shown. It is all circumstantial evidence. To do a proper study guns would have to be completely banned for a period of about 20 years, then regulations would have to be loosened to what they were about 1950 and allowed to be uniform nationwide. By doing a study on those two time frames you could make valid correlations. The study would need to include breakdowns by economic level, race, age, and social activity that would indicate a high risk lifestyle. Kellerman did some of this in a study in Seattle, but badly botched the results. He even used the WRONG statistical model. He then lumped people in high risk catagories with low risk people. Fortunately he did provide the raw data with his study which showed that guns had a protective effect on low risk people. He ran into trouble when he combined the catagories because the high risk people had such a high incidence of firearms misuse that is skewed the study, but what would be expect from a study that was funded by an anti-gun group. At least the Lott study was funded by a non-positional foundation.
RWK, Incursion lives in Texas where ALL shootings go to a grand jury, it is not the place for the DA to make the decision. In that respect we can consider ourselves lucky since we live in Austin. The most liberal, left wing, tree hugging city in Texas. One reason for the use of dealy force is against the threat of a force that could result in death or severe bodily injury. A CHL holder in Dallas shot and killed a person who was punching him in the face as he was strapped in his car. It was justified because he could not walk away (car was stuck in traffic) and punches to the head can lead to a detached retina, severe bodily injury, the grand jury no billed the shooter. It is also legal to use lethal force to prevent a theft in the night time and criminal mischief in the night time, omoung other things like arson. Yes, in Texas if someone is stealing your hubcaps or car or is vandalizing property, like keying your car or spray painting your fence, you may shoot them to make them stop. Texas is the ONLY state in the U.S. who allows the use of deadly force to prevent crimes involving property. And to quote the DA from Harris County (Houston), 'if you don't like the law then don't live here'. That was in response to a national network news reporter who didn't think much of our laws.
Hi, guys,
This one is never easy. The two sides are not "reasonable" because they approach the issue from two different philosophic viewpoints.
I once went into detail on this, but won't go through that again. You either believe in a caring, and smothering, community, or you believe in individual freedom. Most of us do not go to extremes, or become violent, but violence is not limited to the latter group.
The Holocaust, Stalin's purges, Mao's Great Leap, were the actions of caring communities which believed they needed to rid themselves of threats to their cultures.
The individualistic killer shoots a few people; the community oriented killers slaughter millions.
Jim
This one is never easy. The two sides are not "reasonable" because they approach the issue from two different philosophic viewpoints.
I once went into detail on this, but won't go through that again. You either believe in a caring, and smothering, community, or you believe in individual freedom. Most of us do not go to extremes, or become violent, but violence is not limited to the latter group.
The Holocaust, Stalin's purges, Mao's Great Leap, were the actions of caring communities which believed they needed to rid themselves of threats to their cultures.
The individualistic killer shoots a few people; the community oriented killers slaughter millions.
Jim
Incursion, a good primer on self defense (of all types including firearms) is "The truth About Self Defense" by Massad Ayoob. ISBN 0-553-19519-0. My edition was a Bantam Book c.1988. Ayoob is a pretty rational guy, and in this book he has a lot of good philosophical discussions on self defense, as well as some specific techniques.
Incursion, this is a thread here on TFL which you may find of interest since it is in regards to this subject.
http://www.thefiringline.com:8080/forums/showthread.php?threadid=35017
http://www.thefiringline.com:8080/forums/showthread.php?threadid=35017
MusclesMcGee
Moderator
Incursion, just curious, but other than the experience with your brother and his fiancee, what generated the interest in firearms ? Do you live in a bad area ? Are you physically inferior and an easy target ?
I don't carry and I'll give you my reasons why.
Even though I live in one of the roughest areas of L.A. (think the bank robbery a few years back), it is not necessary and nearly impossible for me to have a CCP. One, I am not an easy target. I know my neighborhood, I know where to stay away from, what groups of people to avoid, I am physically imposing, I am intermediate level Muay Thai, I "dress down", ect.. ect.. ect. What I worry about is "Brett", the tourist dipsh*t coming out of some Planet Hollywood sports bar feeling out of place, drunk, and looking for a fight. If Brett, who is unarmed attacks me, what am I to do ? I can't fight him with a gun on me, thats too risky. I HAVE too pull my gun. And lets say Brett thinks I'm bluffing him, and not detered by my firearm, attacks. Do I shoot him ? is getting punched the same as being in grave danger ? No. Hell no. I could really give a rat's ass whether Brett lives or dies, but I don't want to go to jail for the rest of my life because some drunk @sshole couldn't control himself. And yes I would go to jail and lose all my money.
So, if you have reason to believe you are an easy target and are at risk of being a potential victim to a mugging/rape/robbery ect., get a CCP, get a gun, train with it, and learn the laws.
If you're getting a gun because you are worried about getting you're ass kicked and want to feel tough (I don't think this is the case) think again. I know my explanation is all over the place, but I am trying to emphasize the responsiblity of owning a gun and why it is not simply a case of "have or have not". You have the power of death in your hands, just how critical is it that you need it ? Can you use restraint when you encounter the "Bretts" in life ?
When I bought my first gun I mulled over many of the same things you did. My reasons were : I enjoy shooting (about as Zen as it gets), I wanted protection from two legged and four legged creatures when I go camping/fishing, and in L.A. , it is the only real means of home defense (Rampart anyone ?).
Good Luck with your decision.
I don't carry and I'll give you my reasons why.
Even though I live in one of the roughest areas of L.A. (think the bank robbery a few years back), it is not necessary and nearly impossible for me to have a CCP. One, I am not an easy target. I know my neighborhood, I know where to stay away from, what groups of people to avoid, I am physically imposing, I am intermediate level Muay Thai, I "dress down", ect.. ect.. ect. What I worry about is "Brett", the tourist dipsh*t coming out of some Planet Hollywood sports bar feeling out of place, drunk, and looking for a fight. If Brett, who is unarmed attacks me, what am I to do ? I can't fight him with a gun on me, thats too risky. I HAVE too pull my gun. And lets say Brett thinks I'm bluffing him, and not detered by my firearm, attacks. Do I shoot him ? is getting punched the same as being in grave danger ? No. Hell no. I could really give a rat's ass whether Brett lives or dies, but I don't want to go to jail for the rest of my life because some drunk @sshole couldn't control himself. And yes I would go to jail and lose all my money.
So, if you have reason to believe you are an easy target and are at risk of being a potential victim to a mugging/rape/robbery ect., get a CCP, get a gun, train with it, and learn the laws.
If you're getting a gun because you are worried about getting you're ass kicked and want to feel tough (I don't think this is the case) think again. I know my explanation is all over the place, but I am trying to emphasize the responsiblity of owning a gun and why it is not simply a case of "have or have not". You have the power of death in your hands, just how critical is it that you need it ? Can you use restraint when you encounter the "Bretts" in life ?
When I bought my first gun I mulled over many of the same things you did. My reasons were : I enjoy shooting (about as Zen as it gets), I wanted protection from two legged and four legged creatures when I go camping/fishing, and in L.A. , it is the only real means of home defense (Rampart anyone ?).
Good Luck with your decision.
cruiserman
New member
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Incursion:
here is where I read the rebuttal: http://www.handguncontrol.org/lott.htm
I know you guys hate this site. Their facts seem just as good as all the pro gun facts I've read. I suspect I will need to do more detailed research to come to a better conclusion than just reading online material. [/quote]
Here's a quote from the 2nd paragraphs in HCI's 'rebuttal':
"It is important to note before detailing the major points of criticisms of Lott’s book and study that he is unabashedly libertarian and may not be an unbiased source for research on gun-related issues. He has long been a proponent of the “Chicago School” theories of law and economics on subjects ranging from crime to the environment. In the past, he has argued that the benefit of a crime to a criminal can outweigh the harm that a crime inflicts on a society and, according to him, “the worst thing people can expect from dioxin is a bad rash.” Two days after the Jonesboro schoolyard shootings, Lott called for arming teachers as the solution to preventing such tragedies . Most recently, Lott has argued that the hiring of more women and minorities in law enforcement has actually increased crime rates. "
That's their basic technique, which is impugn the author's integrity or background. You could say the same thing about HCI's work. 'Before rebutting HCI's work, beware that HCI is known as a bunch of gun-grabbing pansies that can't be trusted. On with the rebuttal . . .'
here is where I read the rebuttal: http://www.handguncontrol.org/lott.htm
I know you guys hate this site. Their facts seem just as good as all the pro gun facts I've read. I suspect I will need to do more detailed research to come to a better conclusion than just reading online material. [/quote]
Here's a quote from the 2nd paragraphs in HCI's 'rebuttal':
"It is important to note before detailing the major points of criticisms of Lott’s book and study that he is unabashedly libertarian and may not be an unbiased source for research on gun-related issues. He has long been a proponent of the “Chicago School” theories of law and economics on subjects ranging from crime to the environment. In the past, he has argued that the benefit of a crime to a criminal can outweigh the harm that a crime inflicts on a society and, according to him, “the worst thing people can expect from dioxin is a bad rash.” Two days after the Jonesboro schoolyard shootings, Lott called for arming teachers as the solution to preventing such tragedies . Most recently, Lott has argued that the hiring of more women and minorities in law enforcement has actually increased crime rates. "
That's their basic technique, which is impugn the author's integrity or background. You could say the same thing about HCI's work. 'Before rebutting HCI's work, beware that HCI is known as a bunch of gun-grabbing pansies that can't be trusted. On with the rebuttal . . .'
cruiserman
New member
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Incursion:
RWK, wouldn't the BG still have to point his gun at you first before you could uncover the gun that was in your hand and fire? You would have to be pretty damn fast to aim and fire before the BG could pull the trigger. The BG has an advantage because he already has his gun drawn when he says, "Give me your money!" I don't think I would want to take that chance, but on the other hand you don't know if the BG will kill you anyways. CCW seems like it can get you into a lot of trouble with the law.[/quote]
A big part of CCW training is mindset, which includes Cooper's colors of awareness. Since becoming a gun owner and getting a CCW permit (besides the Constitution), my awareness of my surroundings has really changed. You will become aware of everyone that is around you, and your entire perspective changes. Take the ccw course, and then decide if you want to carry a gun or not.
RWK, wouldn't the BG still have to point his gun at you first before you could uncover the gun that was in your hand and fire? You would have to be pretty damn fast to aim and fire before the BG could pull the trigger. The BG has an advantage because he already has his gun drawn when he says, "Give me your money!" I don't think I would want to take that chance, but on the other hand you don't know if the BG will kill you anyways. CCW seems like it can get you into a lot of trouble with the law.[/quote]
A big part of CCW training is mindset, which includes Cooper's colors of awareness. Since becoming a gun owner and getting a CCW permit (besides the Constitution
), my awareness of my surroundings has really changed. You will become aware of everyone that is around you, and your entire perspective changes. Take the ccw course, and then decide if you want to carry a gun or not.Greetings:
You have all good points re having CCW and having not one.
It is a personal choice to have or not to have one CCW.
As far as I know, if someone own a gun and carrying one, he is accountaable to all his actions. No matter what his decision, to use a lethal force against someone, is his own judgement. We all know that if we've shot somebody even a BG, Cop, Mil or whoever he is, we are for sure in legal problem. So, it depends on us how we can deal all situations and what are our preference.
Not any single person can advise us exactly when to use lethal force or use our CCW, it is purely from our own judgement.
Thank you,
You have all good points re having CCW and having not one.
It is a personal choice to have or not to have one CCW.
As far as I know, if someone own a gun and carrying one, he is accountaable to all his actions. No matter what his decision, to use a lethal force against someone, is his own judgement. We all know that if we've shot somebody even a BG, Cop, Mil or whoever he is, we are for sure in legal problem. So, it depends on us how we can deal all situations and what are our preference.
Not any single person can advise us exactly when to use lethal force or use our CCW, it is purely from our own judgement.
Thank you,
muscles, I've always had an interest in firearms since I was about 12. None of my immediate family members own firearms. I have suddenly become very interested in firearms again because a) I got a chance to shoot a USP .40 and a Glock 23C and b) I'm getting fairly close to being able to purchase a handgun (I turn 21 on January 6, 2002) and c) all this talk about banning handguns is worrying me and I'm trying to get as much information as possible so that I can make good decisions about firearms and try to be active in educating people around me. I also want to have the option of saving my life or someone else's in case the situation ever arises.
I believe that it is the responsibility of every responsible adult in the U.S. to carry a weapon. In fact, I argue that this would just about eliminate violent crime all together. While a CCW will not necessarily get you out of any trouble you may find yourself in, it is the ace in the hole when you need it. It also tends to make a person more responsible in other areas of the law. One of the myths of early America is that the wild west was an on-going shoot out at the OK Corral. The truth is, that there was a higher rate of gun violence in the large cities of the east coast. Just like today. So contrary to HCI, the blood has not and will not run rampant in the streets. On average, CCW holders commit a smaller percentage of crimes than the police. They are one of the most law biding groups there are. When to use and not to use a weapon is a personal choice, but I prefer to have a say in how I leave this earth.
Arnistador
New member
Incursion,
The National Crime Victimization Survey published by the US Department of Justice shows that victims resisting violent attack using a firearm had the lowest injury and highest survival rate of any other strategy including not resisting at all. This includes resisting with any other types of weapon, martial art, Mace, etc.,
That is not to say that there aren't some circumstances where having a gun can be detrimental to your situation. However, with the proper training in the defensive use of a pistol along with the proper conditioning of mindset, a firearm is the ultimate defensive tool for the law abiding citizen.
Tim
http://www.streetpro.com
Street Smart Professional Equipment
NRA Certified Firearms Instructor
The National Crime Victimization Survey published by the US Department of Justice shows that victims resisting violent attack using a firearm had the lowest injury and highest survival rate of any other strategy including not resisting at all. This includes resisting with any other types of weapon, martial art, Mace, etc.,
That is not to say that there aren't some circumstances where having a gun can be detrimental to your situation. However, with the proper training in the defensive use of a pistol along with the proper conditioning of mindset, a firearm is the ultimate defensive tool for the law abiding citizen.
Tim
http://www.streetpro.com
Street Smart Professional Equipment
NRA Certified Firearms Instructor
From the above link: Taken from HCI website;
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>It is important to note before detailing the major points of criticisms of Lott’s book and study that he is unabashedly libertarian and may not be an unbiased source for research on gun-related issues. He has long been a proponent of the “Chicago School” theories of law and economics on subjects ranging from crime to the environment. In the past, he has argued that the benefit of a crime to a criminal can outweigh the harm that a crime inflicts on a society and, according to him, “the worst thing people can expect from dioxin is a bad rash.” Two days after the Jonesboro schoolyard shootings, Lott called for arming teachers as the solution to preventing such tragedies . Most recently, Lott has argued that the hiring of more women and minorities in law enforcement has actually increased crime rates. [/quote]
Notice how they attack Lott on matters having nothing to do with guns? Maybe I'm too simplistic, but when I see this a red flag goes up. If you drain the emotional slant, HCI's rebuttal is just so much thin air.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>It is important to note before detailing the major points of criticisms of Lott’s book and study that he is unabashedly libertarian and may not be an unbiased source for research on gun-related issues. He has long been a proponent of the “Chicago School” theories of law and economics on subjects ranging from crime to the environment. In the past, he has argued that the benefit of a crime to a criminal can outweigh the harm that a crime inflicts on a society and, according to him, “the worst thing people can expect from dioxin is a bad rash.” Two days after the Jonesboro schoolyard shootings, Lott called for arming teachers as the solution to preventing such tragedies . Most recently, Lott has argued that the hiring of more women and minorities in law enforcement has actually increased crime rates. [/quote]
Notice how they attack Lott on matters having nothing to do with guns? Maybe I'm too simplistic, but when I see this a red flag goes up. If you drain the emotional slant, HCI's rebuttal is just so much thin air.
.)Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Incursion - since you are in Austin, I recommend that you go beyond the theoretical.
Check out www.krtraining.com.
Get some quality experience in self defense scenarios using firearms. Then you will be in a better position than listening to hypotheticals.
Otherwise - you are just spouting hot air.
Check out www.krtraining.com.
Get some quality experience in self defense scenarios using firearms. Then you will be in a better position than listening to hypotheticals.
Otherwise - you are just spouting hot air.
- Status