Armed citizens

[jc-servant]

In Texas, the requirements for getting a license to carry are supposedly more stringent than to become a police officer.

Actually, getting a concealed handgun license (CHL) is not more restrictive in TX than becoming a licensed police officer. I think that is an urban myth that has been promoted by some gun rights folks and which IMO diminishes the hard work of individuals who become officers. (I was an attorney for TX DPS which issues the CHL before I changed to a federal agency.)

The CHL requires an application, a relatively inexpensive fee, a 10-15 hour course that includes a test where you shoot for proficiency, eligibility to buy a handgun and not much else. There are fee reductions available for the “indigent,” and senior citizens. Most of our cities don’t even require gun registration, so no one knows if you have one or 50 at your home unless you bought them in Texas and the state registration occurred at the time of purchase.

Becoming an officer requires an academy that lasts significantly longer (many months) and at a much higher cost to the individual who seeks to get certified before getting hired on by a department. Many officers take the required classes at a junior college on their own for a year or two and then apply to agencies. The larger cities and the state run their own academies that certify their officers, but the small towns want to hire someone who has completed school. Both situations require a background check.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I would however emplore you to relate your words above to my post #126

Fair play to you. But again, I emplore you to read the words of our living God, who himself said:

“You have heard that it was said to your ancestors, ‘You shall not kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, ‘Raqa,’ will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ will be liable to fiery Gehenna.
Therefore, if you bring your gift to the altar, and there recall that your brother has anything against you, leave your gift there at the altar, go first and be reconciled with your brother, and then come and offer your gift.
Settle with your opponent quickly while on the way to court with him. Otherwise your opponent will hand you over to the judge, and the judge will hand you over to the guard, and you will be thrown into prison.
Amen, I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid the last penny”. It seems very straighforward message to me, and setting yourself up to visit violence upon violence does not reconcile with Jesus’s words. I’m not saying that an unfortunate situation may occur, but preparing ourselves to deal out death is not the Christian way-- at least not IMO-- and it does not reconcile with the message I have tried to live my whole life.

Both of these points deal with taking vengeance against someone AFTER the INITIAL danger is over. That is NOT what we are talking about. Nobody is condonning someone to take the law into their own hands and go shoot someone where there is no IMMEDIATE danger.

 

[FightingFat]

Tuesday the targets were 15 yards, 8" target, Ruger Security Six. I also own a S&W snub nose 38, but I have trouble siting it. But it is my carry gun. Next week I am moving the target out about 10yds and try husband’s Ruger Vaquero with 7 1/2 inch barrel (replica) SAA. We take different guns each week and I enjoy seeing how much better I can get. It’s a sport after all. But I guess our anti-gun posters would not understand that.

No, I can understand Mary. I’ve been to the shooting range and at home in Ireland I’ve enjoyed many an evening walking through fields or round the shore with a twelve bore looking to get me some dinner!

 

[FightingFat]

Both of these points deal with taking vengeance against someone AFTER the INITIAL danger is over. That is NOT what we are talking about. Nobody is condonning someone to take the law into their own hands and go shoot someone where there is no IMMEDIATE danger.

So when are you condoning someone to go shoot someone?

 

[jc-servant]

Someone my age and who at times may appear vulnerable, I have a carry permit and to keep proficient I go to the range once a week to practice. Tuesday I hit 98 out of 100 inside the black with 48 right in the middle. I would hate to have to use it to protect myself but I would if necessary. I can’t wait to see if someone will protect me.

Good for you! I’m happy to see that you practice regularly and maintain your proficiency. Honestly you shoot more often than I did when I was a patrol officer. I could maintain my proficiency quite easily once I switched to a 9mm, but regular practice is important. Two of the scariest things about a gun owner for me are when they don’t practice and don’t clean their gun but expect it to work when they need it. I know someone who had a misfire on the range and when his gun was checked there was a ball of lint in front of the firing pin that stopped the ignition of the primer in the round. Big oops!

 

[Sir_Knight]

Tuesday the targets were 15 yards, 8" target, Ruger Security Six. I also own a S&W snub nose 38, but I have trouble siting it. But it is my carry gun. Next week I am moving the target out about 10yds and try husband’s Ruger Vaquero with 7 1/2 inch barrel (replica) SAA. We take different guns each week and I enjoy seeing how much better I can get. It’s a sport after all. But I guess our anti-gun posters would not understand that.

Snubbies are indeed hard to shoot accurately, I have laser sights on my 642 and it makes the gun much more accurately. I prefer autoloaders – a SIG 229 during the colder months and the 239 during the warmer months … both in .40S&W and both with laser sights.

What caliber is the Vaquero? I recently got a Tracker in .45 Colt and I like it better than my 686.

 

[jc-servant]

Tuesday the targets were 15 yards, 8" target, Ruger Security Six. I also own a S&W snub nose 38, but I have trouble siting it. But it is my carry gun. Next week I am moving the target out about 10yds and try husband’s Ruger Vaquero with 7 1/2 inch barrel (replica) SAA. We take different guns each week and I enjoy seeing how much better I can get. It’s a sport after all. But I guess our anti-gun posters would not understand that.

The shorter the barrel, the harder it is to line up using the sights. A snub nose is for really close in shooting when you don’t really need to line it up. If you ever get the chance to learn from a police firearms instructor they can teach you to hit your target with that snub .38 (or anything else) at 10 yards or less (where most gunfights occur) even without any light (such as in a dark bedroom with an intruder). Once you practice in a good firing stance such as a modified Weaver where your arms come up into the same position a several hundred times, you won’t even need the sights to make your shot straight. In our academy they said about 600 repetitions of an activity will cause “muscle memory” where you can do it years later (like riding a bicycle).

We had to do at least one of our quarterly re-qualification courses at night at my agency. The tests from 10 yards and closer were usually in just the moonlight with no flashlights or anything. We also shot from farther out using either flashlights or emergency lights from a car parked at the back of the outdoor range. (Not fun, picture strobing disco lights while you try to shoot.)

 

[Sir_Knight]

So when are you condoning someone to go shoot someone?

When their own life or that of another innocent individual is in immediate danger of death or serious bodily injury.

 

[mary_bobo]

Snubbies are indeed hard to shoot accurately, I have laser sights on my 642 and it makes the gun much more accurately. I prefer autoloaders – a SIG 229 during the colder months and the 239 during the warmer months … both in .40S&W and both with laser sights.

What caliber is the Vaquero? I recently got a Tracker in .45 Colt and I like it better than my 686.

Many years ago they were called 45 long Colt. And I must admit that I cheat with my S&W with laser sight. It doesn’t help much on the ranch but I figure it would do fine in the environment I might have to use it.

 

[mary_bobo]

The shorter the barrel, the harder it is to line up using the sights. A snub nose is for really close in shooting when you don’t really need to line it up. If you ever get the chance to learn from a police firearms instructor they can teach you to hit your target with that snub .38 (or anything else) at 10 yards or less (where most gunfights occur) even without any light (such as in a dark bedroom with an intruder). Once you practice in a good firing stance such as a modified Weaver where your arms come up into the same position a several hundred times, you won’t even need the sights to make your shot straight. In our academy they said about 600 repetitions of an activity will cause “muscle memory” where you can do it years later (like riding a bicycle).

We had to do at least one of our quarterly re-qualification courses at night at my agency. The tests from 10 yards and closer were usually in just the moonlight with no flashlights or anything. We also shot from farther out using either flashlights or emergency lights from a car parked at the back of the outdoor range. (Not fun, picture strobing disco lights while you try to shoot.)

We do have a police firearms instructor as a member of the gun and rifle club. He will be working with me on the first Tuesday of next month. He is the one I got my carry permit under. My practice sessions have been confined to a bench rest area which I do not like. I prefer the range where standing is the protocol. One can only go to this range with a range safety officer. DH is now such and he will go with me. This should be lots more fun. I do better that way.

 

[mgrobertson79]

What folks don’t seem to understand here is that in a self defense situation anger does not come into the picture. One acts primarily out of fear of injury to themselves or family not out of anger towards the aggressor. This is the importance of the intent clause in the catechism. In fear for your life you may not and likely will not intend to kill, but to stop the aggressor you will do what you can.

A baseball bat, a knife, a frying pan can all be used in this role, but none without getting so close to the aggressor that they can still harm you. We do not have to put ourselves in that situation if we can help it. The Catechism is clear about self defense and the unintended killing of the aggressor. Owning a firearm in America is not only a moral thing to do, but a God given right according to our Constitution. It is nothing this discussion will change and the arguing here is useless because we value more than just the Queen.

The commandment ‘Thou shalt not kill’ does not prohibit all killing, but murder, abortion and all unjust killing. To kill a mosquito would not be immoral due to the disease that it spreads. To kill a mass murderer is not immoral due to the justice his crimes demand. To kill an unborn child however is immoral due to the innocence of the child. To kill an individual who is attempting to kill you or someone else is not immoral if you have no other option.

When I say no other option, this includes the criminal having a gun or knife pointed at you. The only reason for a person to pull a gun is if they are ready to use it. Also in the no other option would include the witnessing of a violent crime such as a rape or beating in progress. This would only be legitimate if once they were alerted to your presence they came after you or they continued the crime endangering the life of the victim.

Dialing 911(in the US) or calling the authorities does not stop a crime. It only alerts the authorities to the need to investigate a crime. Most crimes are committed prior to their discovery and many perpetrators get away. Would you rather a rapist or murderer go on a crime spree because no one is able or willing to protect themselves? This is what you are suggesting. If a woman were to shot an attacker who was attempting to rape her, she would potentially save the lives and dignity of many other women. What about children. What would you do if you caught a stranger attacking your child, whether sexually or not? This for most people would not be difficult. It would be morally licit to kill or (depending on the tool or tools at hand) otherwise incapacitate the criminal to prevent or stop the attack.

 

[Sir_Knight]

+1.
​

 

[mgrobertson79]

Do you carry that concealed? I have the 229 DAK SAS and I can only effectively conceal it during the winter months. The rest of the time I carry the 239 DAK SAS – also in .40S&W

No, I live in North Carolina where we have legal open carry. I carry either in a Galco Combat Master CM-250 Holster or a Fobus paddle.

 

[searching06]

I applaud your noble sentiments, dear sir and brother in Christ, which are evident to me. I would however emplore you to relate your words above to my post #126

Fair play to you. But again, I emplore you to read the words of our living God, who himself said:

“You have heard that it was said to your ancestors, ‘You shall not kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, ‘Raqa,’ will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ will be liable to fiery Gehenna.
Therefore, if you bring your gift to the altar, and there recall that your brother has anything against you, leave your gift there at the altar, go first and be reconciled with your brother, and then come and offer your gift.
Settle with your opponent quickly while on the way to court with him. Otherwise your opponent will hand you over to the judge, and the judge will hand you over to the guard, and you will be thrown into prison.
Amen, I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid the last penny”. It seems very straighforward message to me, and setting yourself up to visit violence upon violence does not reconcile with Jesus’s words. I’m not saying that an unfortunate situation may occur, but preparing ourselves to deal out death is not the Christian way-- at least not IMO-- and it does not reconcile with the message I have tried to live my whole life.

Then you know more than me the sacrifice that those who are commissioned with our defense bear. For my part, I cannot and will not say that I would never rise up in anger to defend my home and my family. What I can say is that that day has yet to come, and for now my work is in spreading the peace and joy of Christ and his love and blessings to all I encounter.

And I sincerely say your work is most honorable.

Maybe I am looking at or interpreting this wrongly, but I don’t think I am preparing to deal out death, but I am willing to defend myself and family.

Not sure how this relates to your post #126? Defending yourself or others and a baby born due to rape or incest?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

I was a soldier and you are taught to shoot to kill; if you carry a concealed weapon legally, you are taught to shoot to kill; if you are a policeman, you shoot to kill if needed. I have no problem with that.

It is the same with martial arts. There are two streams. One stream originates in the need to control the opponent so that he/she can be tortured for information and then killed. One stream originates in the need to kill on the first blow.

There is a point in training where – paradoxically – the student needs to be prepared to kill. Zanchen. When that point is achieved, the need for lethal force – paradoxically – disappears. Knowing clearly what to do, disengages response from ego. The student can easily choose not to be there.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Not to take this thread off-topic but my daughter’s instructor can’t be more than 110-120 pounds and I’m around 265 but I definitely wouldn’t want to tangle with her

Well, there are ways for a small woman to apply forces to a large man. But if both are trained in martial arts, I would recommend that the woman buy a gun.

You may not want to tangle with you daughter’s instructor because you do not know what’s going on.

Generally speaking a criminal will not want to take on anyone who is trained in martial arts or who is carrying a gun, because it is too much hassle. The criminal wants to get in, grab the loot, and get out without being injured, apprehended, identified, or killed.

However, a mobster or a psychopath enjoys the challenge and the more obstruction you offer them, the more they come at ya.

In both cases it is better to carry a gun.

Let us remember that hand-to-hand was developed not for the glory of going weaponless, but because weapons were banned. Why do you think weapons were banned? Because they were more effective.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

mgrobertson79:

When I say no other option, this includes the criminal having a gun or knife pointed at you. The only reason for a person to pull a gun is if they are ready to use it.

Which means that they are ready to use lethal force whether by intention or by accident.

mgrobertson79:

Dialing 911(in the US) or calling the authorities does not stop a crime. It only alerts the authorities to the need to investigate a crime.

After a crime has been committed.

mgrobertson79:

It would be morally licit to kill or (depending on the tool or tools at hand) otherwise incapacitate the criminal to prevent or stop the attack.

And paradoxically once the decision to use lethal force is made, rarely is it necessary.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

How can it be Catholic to train to beat and brutalize other people?

When those folks cannot carry weapons. But that does not apply in the countries were are talking about. Folks can carry weapons in our countries.

 

[Black_Jaque]

Britain banned handguns 15 years ago after the shootings at Dunblane primary school, we haven’t become a dictatorship, nor are we at the mercy of gun-toting gangs.

So fewer people would die in England if we had more guns?

For every action there is a reaction. We know this from science. Translated into politics this is known as the law of unintended consequences. Because there will always be some unintended consequences, a prudent politician takes time to consider what those might be and weighs the risks vs. benefits.

I’m not familiar with the statistics in Great Britain, but in the U.S. there are 20,000 firearm deaths per year, not including suicides.

Theoretically the benefit of gun-control would be the elimination of those 20,000 deaths/year.

But the risk of gun-control is that the citizens would be powerless against the standing army or police, should that army start marching against the citizens. It is important to note that the first shots that opened the American War for Independence occurred when the British regular army marched to confiscate arms and ammunition. Yes the intent of the British march to Lexington and Concord was to confiscate weapons they knew were stockpiled there. Why? Because there is an element in the Just War Doctrine that states that an armed conflict is only legitimate when there is a reasonable hope for success. It is no big surprise that every tyrant in history first moves to eliminate all hope for success.

So let’s weigh the benefit of gun control against the risks that gun control poses. The benefit would be that gun control saves 20,000 lives per year. The risk is that gun control leaves us vulnerable to the whims of a dictator.

So what is the cost in lives that a dictator can cause?

Stalin slaughtered 20,000,000 of his own people. We know this for fact.

So how many years worth of gun control does it take to outweigh the risk of one Stalin?

1,000 years! That’s right, 20 million divided by 20,000 is 1,000.

So when someone says that Britain banned handgun 15 years ago and they haven’t become a dictatorship yet - they’ve got 985 more years to go before they can make an honest assessment of the virtue of such a ban.

I suspect that the answer is YES fewer people would die in England if they had guns.

 

[Black_Jaque]

Chi sau is a game you play in an art called Wing Chun that teaches you reaction and timing so it’s not really the means of defense in itself, but in any situation such as the one you present, my first intention as a Christian will be to defuse the situation and talk down the attacker, to try and avoid any conflict, not provoke unecessary violence. I would try to be Christ to that person and show them that there is another way. A way of love and compassion.

Do you even know what pecksniffian means?

As if a gun-toting Christian couldn’t have as their first intention to defuse the situation and talk down the attacker?

Do you not read the numerous posts referring to people who have experienced situations being entirely defused simply by showing the possession of a firearm?