Purpose of Handguns (fast food, lawyer, Montana, concealed)

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by stycotl

i'd argue that even if you look at local papers in an area, you won't hear about most of the incidents where a gun has saved a law-abiding citizen.

there are many incidents where someone is confronted, or almost confronted with violence, and the merest suggestion that they were armed stopped the assault (all it takes sometimes is reaching into your jacket when the perps are approaching you; the gun doesn't even need to be shown in some cases). those are hardly ever reported to the police, and hardly ever make the paper.

Quite true...some thugs approached my grandpa after he got into his car once threatening him and telling him to get out, give them any money, etc. My grandpa pulled out his 1911 and aimed it at them (he had a very fast draw, and he was in his 80's) and they took off...never reported it to police. He didn't want the trouble associated with that.

I'm quite certain that a few times my openly carried gun has scared off some potential troublemakers.

[CharlottePirateFan]

Originally Posted by lentzr

RVLover, people live in much worse places than you, like DC and do not own handguns! You are paranoid! Anyway, if the remote possibility occurs that you are attacked, they'll even give you the chance to even pull out your gun?

Who's paranoid? The person that owns a handgun for sport/defense? Or the person claiming every gun should be outlawed since they will kill someone?

[Gunluvver2]

In my opinion one of the biggest miscarriages of Justice was the Bernie Goetz case that took place in a subway in New York City during the 1980's. A quick GOOGLE will bring up hundreds of pages about this incident.

Basically Bernie Goetz had been assaulted and mugged before while commuting to his job on the subway. He decided enough is enough and he carried a pistol ( a .38 revolver IIRC) with him on the subway. Remember he had been mugged before. On the day of the incident FOUR young Black men approached him armed with screwdrivers and tried to rob him. Goetz reacted by pulling his gun and shooting them. If I remember correctly he wounded three of them and one of the perpetrators was left paralyzed from the waist down. Goetz left the scene and did not tell law enforcement officials about it for several days.

When this happened NYC was in the middle of a crime wave with muggings and murders being everyday occurences. New York mayor Ed Koch and other area politicians were applauding this "Subway Vigilante". Almost immediately street crimes dropped dramatically. After several days Bernie Goetz came forward and fessed up to being the subway shooter. Of course the NAACP, ACLU and other similar whining groups that support true criminals started putting pressure on the Mayor and police calling the shooting "racial". Son Mayor Koch(sucker) jumped on the "crucify Goetz bandwagon".

Goetz was charged with various criminal charges up to attempted murder and the simplest charge of possesing a firearm without the proper permit (a misdemeanor). The jury refused to convict Goetz of the more serious charges but did convict him of the lesser charge of possessing a handgun. If I remember right he got a five hundred dollar fine and 30 days in jail.

Later the ACLU and other Criminal Rights groups backed the four thugs in lawsuits. Keep in mind these four had extensive criminal records before this incident (up to rape and murder).In fact one of the four was killed durinmg the commission of a crime years later and one or two of the others were convicted of serious offenses. In a Civil trial a jury awarded the parapalegic wheelchair confined thug $3o or $40 million in a judgment.

A common sentiment of the time was that NYC citizens should have bought Goetz MORE bullets and a free pass to the subway. I would agree with that.

I would like to see the D.C. vs. Heller decision used to overthrow Goetz's conviction and Civil judgement. At least a public apology from NYC officials involved in the case.

GL2

[stan4]

Originally Posted by lentzr

Secondly, maybe just maybe, avid hunters sportsmen could be made an exception if shown that they have a serious interest in the sport...just like police officers will be given that exception. However, I do not feel the need...not even for a false-sense of security...that the average joe should be allowed to own one.

LOL! There are so many thing you don't need that you can have. Cars, junk food, television (which, in my opinion, do a lot worse to people than handguns).

Ban it all, I say! Just allow simple coverings, basic shelter, and just the right amount of nutrition...

[jimboburnsy]

Originally Posted by Gunluvver2

In my opinion one of the biggest miscarriages of Justice was the Bernie Goetz case that took place in a subway in New York City during the 1980's. A quick GOOGLE will bring up hundreds of pages about this incident.

Basically Bernie Goetz had been assaulted and mugged before while commuting to his job on the subway. He decided enough is enough and he carried a pistol ( a .38 revolver IIRC) with him on the subway. Remember he had been mugged before. On the day of the incident FOUR young Black men approached him armed with screwdrivers and tried to rob him. Goetz reacted by pulling his gun and shooting them. If I remember correctly he wounded three of them and one of the perpetrators was left paralyzed from the waist down. Goetz left the scene and did not tell law enforcement officials about it for several days.

When this happened NYC was in the middle of a crime wave with muggings and murders being everyday occurences. New York mayor Ed Koch and other area politicians were applauding this "Subway Vigilante". Almost immediately street crimes dropped dramatically. After several days Bernie Goetz came forward and fessed up to being the subway shooter. Of course the NAACP, ACLU and other similar whining groups that support true criminals started putting pressure on the Mayor and police calling the shooting "racial". Son Mayor Koch(sucker) jumped on the "crucify Goetz bandwagon".

Goetz was charged with various criminal charges up to attempted murder and the simplest charge of possesing a firearm without the proper permit (a misdemeanor). The jury refused to convict Goetz of the more serious charges but did convict him of the lesser charge of possessing a handgun. If I remember right he got a five hundred dollar fine and 30 days in jail.

Later the ACLU and other Criminal Rights groups backed the four thugs in lawsuits. Keep in mind these four had extensive criminal records before this incident (up to rape and murder).In fact one of the four was killed durinmg the commission of a crime years later and one or two of the others were convicted of serious offenses. In a Civil trial a jury awarded the parapalegic wheelchair confined thug $3o or $40 million in a judgment.

A common sentiment of the time was that NYC citizens should have bought Goetz MORE bullets and a free pass to the subway. I would agree with that.

I would like to see the D.C. vs. Heller decision used to overthrow Goetz's conviction and Civil judgement. At least a public apology from NYC officials involved in the case.

GL2

Goetz made some pretty big mistakes through that ordeal, though*. The account that he gave to police effectively made him into a witness for the prosecution. I'm not sure that he should be a posterboy. He was definitely standing on the line between righteous self-defence and vigilantism.

*(including, but not limited to, fessing up)

[Cav Scout wife]

Originally Posted by lentzr

I would like to commend the municipal governments of DC, Chicago and San Francisco for outlawing handguns.


I find these types of firearms completely unnecessary. Hunters do not hunt with handguns.

One can always keep a rifle or shotgun as protection if you fear for your safety...eventhough it is much more likely that the gun will be taken from you and used against you! Don't think that a home invasion robber will give you time to load up your gun!

Let alone the fact that child will suffer from accidents from these firearms because of their parents irresponsiblity (this will always happen).

Additionally, I do not see the desire to even have fun with these types of weapons. BANG! The glass bottle breaks! WHO-HO! So much fun at the expense of our society!

Why should people have to suffer just so some yahoos can shut up empty beer bottles?

You mean DC, San Fran, and Chicago which have some of the highest murder rates post ban? Great defense there.

Yes, some of us hunter DO hunt with handguns. They are also easier to carry in dangerous hiking areas to protect ourselves.

Rifles are more dangerous in a robbery situation due to size. A handgun is easy to pull out and fire, with less chance of the barrel being grabbed.

No, children DO NOT suffer. I never had an accident at my home growing up, nor did anyone I grow up with. When you are raised with weapons RESPONSIBLY with firearms, you don't act like an idiot around them.

Just because you don't enjoy it, doesn't mean others don't. I loathe soccer, and I feel it's the worst sport out there, outside of NASCAR, but some really enjoy it. To each their own.

Why should some of us loose our Constitutional freedoms due to militant wackos that want to Nanny the rest of us?

[TKramar]

Originally Posted by stan4

LOL! There are so many thing you don't need that you can have. Cars, junk food, television (which, in my opinion, do a lot worse to people than handguns).

Ban it all, I say! Just allow simple coverings, basic shelter, and just the right amount of nutrition...

Sounds good.

[TKramar]

So why is "brandishment" a crime in most places? Look it up for the definition.

[swagger]

Originally Posted by TKramar

So why is "brandishment" a crime in most places? Look it up for the definition.

It's not a crime. In fact, it's not even a word.

I love you, man. The comic relief you provide is just awesome.

[Greatday]

Originally Posted by swagger

It's not a crime. In fact, it's not even a word.

I love you, man. The comic relief you provide is just awesome.

The word is "Brandish"

And it basically means to show a weapon in a very agressive and threatening manner.