.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
Miscellaneous thoughts and ramblings
Thursday, August 11, 2005
Jews 'n' guns
"If a criminal needs a firearm to commit a crime, he’ll try to find the most easily available and least expensive firearm. He’s not going to save up for a really cool gun," she said.
Packing a 45! I like her. She's just what the NRA needs.

And what the Jews need are guns.

There's a campaign slogan for you:
"A chicken in every pot, and a gun for every Jew!"
I forwarded your link to a Californian Jewish NRA member today. He was MOST PLEASED and PROUD about the contents of the article.
(Doctor Bean, this person I'm referring to is the other person I was visiting while in L.A.)
Torontopearl: Cool. Thanks.
What most of these articles leave out is a very important fact that weighs heavily on the heads of responsible gun owners: I'm referring to the fact that if (G-d forbid) a person who is licensed to carry a concealed weapon actually has to use it... there is a tremendous burden of proof on them to prove beyond all doubt that deadly force was justified under the very narrow statutes that allow such action. The police who arrive on the scene of such a 'legal' shooting will certainly confiscate the weapon and will also probably arrest the licensed gun owner on the spot. Then there will be a very lengthy procedure that makes the inquiries that cops go through after a justified use of their guns look like a picnic.

Even after all that has happened without charges being brought against the armed citizen, the wounded criminal (assuming he survives) or his heirs (assuming he doesn't) can still sue for civil damages based on accusations of prejudice and all sorts of other factors that could contribute to a judgement of violation of civil rights.

If, after months and even years of investigation and litigation an armed citizen is finally cleared, he/she will still have spent tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars on legal fees that will never be reimbursed.

Also, if all this took place in one of the many states where police are allowed to refuse or revoke gun licenses without cause... the likelihood is that the firearm will not be returned and the license will not be renewed because the citizen now has a reputation for being a 'hothead'.

Food for thought.
David: You sound very much like the guy who led our handgun training course. Also, all of your scenario is better than being dead.
David: Our instructor made it clear that after using a firearm in defense the only thing to tell police is:
1) I didn't do anything wrong.
2) I don't want to answer your questions.
3) I want to talk to my lawyer.

He also made it clear that having the assailant survive my attempts to defend myself would be bad for me, though obviously my attempts may only be directed at stopping the threat, not killing the assailant.

And to second b-n-c's comment, it's better to be tried by twelve than carried by six.
hey, I'm the guy carrying a gun... so you don't have to convince me. I'm glad to hear that instructors are giving realistic advice. But, if you have to shoot... shoot... don't talk.
Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger