I hope I get shot!

[distortion9]

Well, not really but hear me out...especially if you know Law.

I live in Suffolk County N.Y. and it's next to impossible to get a full carry license. New York State issues pistol licenses that are "basically" CCW and then the county you live in is allowed to place their own set of restrictions on the license. I'm guessing that the most common license you see is the "sportsmans" license which is issued for target and hunting purposes. You are also allowed to defend yourself in your home with this license (JOY).

Scenerio...

Christmas time and I'm leaving the mall with my wife. I'm putting shopping bags in the car and a BG strolls up and pulls a gun. "Give me your money and car keys". Being a good guy and law abiding citizen, my gun is at home locked in a safe. I say, "Sure...take them. Just don't hurt us." BANG! He shoots anyway and takes off through the parking lot running down a kid in the process. So I guess I would just lay there bleeding for awhile waiting for the Police to come and protect me.

Say I were to survive this ordeal.

Wouldn't it be interesting to see..... a pro-gun victim, that wound up getting shot because he's not allowed to carry his legally owned and licensed firearm. A firearm that was sitting in a safe where it could not hurt someone while he's getting gunned down in a parking lot?


Wouldn't it be interesting to see the same victim on the evening news, that has hired a nasty lawyer and is now sueing the county for failing to protect his life and not allowing him to properly defend it with a legally owned firearm? Sueing them for violating and restricting the rights given to him as a U.S. citizen? While I'm at it, maybe I'll sue the ACLU for failing to fight for and protect my Civil Rights.


Wouldn't it be interesting to see the story gain NATIONAL attention? Fox news, Cnn, USA Today, the whole 9?

Wouldn't it be interesting to see the gun hating Libs in full tilt spin mode?


OBVIOUSLY the "failing to protect my life" suit would not hold water. I understand the the Police simply CAN NOT be there for every person on the planet. However, this would lead to the question of "who's job IS it to protect a life?" To me, the answer is the victim. This would lead to the fact that a license was obtained and a firearm was purchased because I felt the need to protect myself. This would then lead to the FACT that the County of Suffolk doesn't think it's necessary to have a gun to protect yourself. I would however have a bullet hole to prove them wrong.....SLAMDUNK!

I hope I get shot....maybe THEN I'll be able to protect myself.

 

[Vex]

First off, wanting to get shot is not a thing sane people say.

Second, if you were shot, it would be painted by the antis for their cause. We see it all the time.

Wouldn't it be interesting to see..... a pro-gun victim, that wound up getting shot because he's not allowed to carry his legally owned and licensed firearm. A firearm that was sitting in a safe where it could not hurt someone while he's getting gunned down in a parking lot?

No. It wouldn't be interesting to see the left tell the story that not even a gun owner that is licensed to carry can stop criminals. They would then remind people of all the accidental shootings of family members that they flaunt, and then say that you were putting yourself and others in jeopardy by wanting to carry around a weapon when it won't even save you from being shot.

Wouldn't it be interesting to see the story gain NATIONAL attention? Fox news, Cnn, USA Today, the whole 9?

Whatever happens nationally, remember it has to hit the liberal media (CNN, for example.... BBC is another good one). They are masters of editing stories to fit their agenda. You were be a national posterchild for the antis: If you carry a gun, you'll look like this [insert image of you in the hospital].

Christmas time...

Say I were to survive this ordeal.

Say you didn't. Then what? Now you're dead around Christmas.

Wouldn't it be interesting to see the gun hating Libs in full tilt spin mode?

They would say, "Give this guy a license to have a gun, and he thinks he's superman." They would try to show that since you thought you were superman, you thought you could fight this guy and his bullets would bounce off of you. Then they would use this to advocate cooperation with criminals.... give them whatever they want, don't fight, and you'll live.

You would do more harm than good for the RKBA cause.

 

[leadcounsel]

Cities are indemnified against lawsuits for their bad policies.

It would be 15 minutes of fame, or infamy, and then you'd be washed away by the liberal media and forgotten the next day.

There are estimated 15,000 - 30,000 firearm homicides annually in the United States. There are an estimated 2,000,000 crimes prevented annually in the US by law abiding gun owners. Which gets more media coverage?

 

[cavman]

Didn't something like this happen 5-10 years ago in Waco, Texas? I thought that I remember reading that a woman was in a restaurant (McD's?) when some nut job came in and shot up the place. There were casualties.

I think that the good folks of Waco were prohibited from carrying and that the woman had her gun in the truck/car because she was prohibited by Law from having it with her (CCW restriction?)

Did she then decide to run for town council or something like that and get involved in permiting people to legally carry if they so chose?

Foggy recollection at best, but I think that the fictitional scenario has already happened and those that were Pro did get what they should have had all along.

Too little factual info here. Hope someone might remember this more accurately and set it straight.

have a great day,
cavman

 

[FPrice]

cavman,

I think this is what you were referring to:

http://www.geocities.com/jermil.geo/lubys.html

 

[boofus]

The woman's name is Suzanna Hupp and she is a member of the Texas state congress now. She was the main reason concealed carry was legalized in TX. Gun control was a direct enabler for the madman to murder several helpless people at Luby's, including her parents.


http://www.gunownersalliance.com/hupp-10.htm

 

[Preacherman]

Be careful what you wish for . . . I've been shot more than once, and believe me, it ain't all it's cracked up to be!

 

[cavman]

Yes, that has to be it.

I guess then, that in some cases, tragedies can invoke movement. I wouldn't want to wish what happened to Susan Gratia on anyone, however.

But it is still happening on a daily basis in ones and twos, just not twenty threes, and some States are still trying to move in the other direction, away from Susan Gratia's goals, of allowing people to protect themselves if they so want.

 

[Mongo the Mutterer]

Research the DeShaney Decision and Warren v DC to see what will happen.

The police are under no requirement to protect any individual in society.

 

[distortion9]

For those that don't understand.

Let me state for the record that my post was a fictional example. I am perfectly sane and DO NOT ACTUALLY WANT TO BE SHOT. I thought it would be made clear by the first three words in the post...."Well, not really".

"I hope I get shot" is a ridiculous statement to make.....THAT is exactly why I made it....to make a point. The point was to show the extreme circumstances one would have to go through to gain what is rightfully theirs and is being denied to them.

I would however LOVE to see victims of violent crimes in NY demanding to have their right to keep and bear arms restored without restrictions.

 

[xcheck]

"Wouldn't it be interesting to see the same victim on the evening news, that has hired a nasty lawyer and is now sueing the county for failing to protect his life"

I would like to reiterate what Mongo said. this is a stupendously poor idea. It is well established in case law that the Police have no duty to intervene or protect. To sue the police for not protecting you is little more than a quick route to a smaller bank account and public humiliaiton. The case would not survive the first motion to dismiss.

 

[distortion9]

OBVIOUSLY the "failing to protect my life" suit would not hold water. I understand the the Police simply CAN NOT be there for every person on the planet.

 

[xcheck]

So, why file it in the first place? Are you trying to get your attorney disbared over a rule 11 violation? If not then why would anyone in their right minds knowingly file a suit without legal basis? Is this not what is upsetting so many people about Mayor Bloomberg's suit against the fifteen gun dealers? The fact that the suit on its face appears to have no legal merit and was filed simply for harrisment purposes?

So you would suggest that we should sink to Bloomberg's level of dishonesty and risk the futures of a few attorneys just to get a jab in on the anti's?

There are better ways than this scheme.

 

[distortion9]

There are better ways than this scheme

This is not a scheme or plan....you do understand that right? No wheels are in motion to hatch my great scheme. No Attorney is in jeopardy of being disbarred.

 

[Art Eatman]

Federal District Courts and State (Supreme?) Courts have held that the police are not obligated to protect individuals from crimes, if said crimes are outside immediate view/hearing of the officer(s).

The majority of all voters are unaware of these court decisions. That's part of why the gun-contol folks have been so successful in foisting their nonsense on us all.

Art

 

[BrennanKG]

boofus,

Thanks for the link.

I was only marginally away of Ms. Hupp's story and I appreciate getting to read about it.




B.

 

[distortion9]

It appears as though I was talking about H.R. 47. Looks like I have a couple of letters to write.

"H.R. 47 reaffirms the basic truth that citizens have a right to use a gun in defense of self, family, and home.

It enforces that right with serious "teeth." Should a person be deprived of their right to self-defense with a firearm, that person can bring an action in court against the United States, any State, or any person. Anti-gun prosecutors would be personally liable for their wrongdoings -- and the wronged party can demand compensation and reimbursement of legal fees."

 

[Handgun Midas]

There are estimated 15,000 - 30,000 firearm homicides annually in the United States. There are an estimated 2,000,000 crimes prevented annually in the US by law abiding gun owners.

Where is this data coming from? Any links or leads so that I may track the study down and read it myself?

It seems like a great point to insert in my discussions about firearms, but I'm not comfortable citing it until I know where the figure came from.

 

[Byron Quick]

John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime."

A couple of years ago, a Charlotte, NC (If my memory serves me correctly) co-ed shot and killed a man who was trying to rape her.

Do you remember the national news coverage of this? You don't? That's because there was no national news coverage of the event.

And if you get shot, survive, and sue...there will be no national news coverage of the event. Unless, of course, the antis find some skeleton in your closet that can be used to besmirch the reputation of supporters of RKBA by association. And they'll be searching your closets with a fine toothed comb.

Daydreams such as this are common. Most everyone has them. You'll get more traction by joining any NY groups working to get NY law changed in the matter, though. And becoming active in that group. It's not as satisfying emotionally as daydreaming about being THE one who single handedly slew the dragon in New York. On the other hand, I can think of not one single case where a lawsuit brought by one RKBA supporter over one personal event had substantive effect on adverse law or policy. I can name several RKBA activist organizations which have had substantive effect on obtaining shall issue CCW laws for their state.

 

[mp510]

Art Eatman wrote:

Federal District Courts and State (Supreme?)

The US Supreme Court has ruled on this several times. MOst recently was on June 27, 2005 in Castle Rock v Gonzales (ruled 7-2). The initial Supreme Court precedent was set with South v Maryland in 1856. Probably the best quote to describe this comes from a lower court ruling from 1982, Bowers v DeVito, "there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen."

 

[Double Naught Spy]

distortion9, you have a victim mentality already. In your scenario, if it represents you appropriately as a law abiding citizen with a gun at home, having had a gun would not have helped you because you had zilcho situational awareness, aren't going to be able to outdraw from concealment against a drawn gun, and you apparently haven't bothered learning any other self defense tactics or given too much time to thinking through how well you will deal with said situations given your lack of capabilities. All you have learned, based on the scenario, is to capitulate.

I take it from the scenario that your wife is completely helpless.

Pro-gun victims get shot all the time. It would not be anything new.

Pro-gun sheeple are still sheeple. Guns are not the only answer.

In a parking lot with a guy with a gun pointed at you, why the heck would you remain standing there in his proximity where you remain in danger? If you are not going to fight back, then why aren't you opening distance between you and the bad guy? Why isn't your wife running in another direction, splitting his potential targets? He only has one gun and one set of feet, who will he chase down and kill for the keys? Probably nobody, but you are the only one he thinks has keys.

In the scenario, you forgot to mention how your capitulation also helped cost your wife's life because the guy didn't want witnesses and since she was doing nothing, standing right there, he shot her too.

I liked the part about where he runs over some kid in the parking lot. It reminds me of a fat Sally Struthers asking for money to pay for food to "Save the children."

Of course, there is the victim mentality answer for everything, lawsuit. Even non-victims often hold this mentality because they just want to be a victim so that they can sue somebody and hopefully win the legal jackpot lottery.

 

[distortion9]

distortion9, you have a victim mentality already. In your scenario, if it represents you appropriately as a law abiding citizen with a gun at home, having had a gun would not have helped you because you had zilcho situational awareness, aren't going to be able to outdraw from concealment against a drawn gun, and you apparently haven't bothered learning any other self defense tactics or given too much time to thinking through how well you will deal with said situations given your lack of capabilities. All you have learned, based on the scenario, is to capitulate.

I take it from the scenario that your wife is completely helpless.

Pro-gun victims get shot all the time. It would not be anything new.

Pro-gun sheeple are still sheeple. Guns are not the only answer.

In a parking lot with a guy with a gun pointed at you, why the heck would you remain standing there in his proximity where you remain in danger? If you are not going to fight back, then why aren't you opening distance between you and the bad guy? Why isn't your wife running in another direction, splitting his potential targets? He only has one gun and one set of feet, who will he chase down and kill for the keys? Probably nobody, but you are the only one he thinks has keys.

In the scenario, you forgot to mention how your capitulation also helped cost your wife's life because the guy didn't want witnesses and since she was doing nothing, standing right there, he shot her too.

I liked the part about where he runs over some kid in the parking lot. It reminds me of a fat Sally Struthers asking for money to pay for food to "Save the children."

Of course, there is the victim mentality answer for everything, lawsuit. Even non-victims often hold this mentality because they just want to be a victim so that they can sue somebody and hopefully win the legal jackpot lottery

I respectfully disagree with you. You guys seem to be taking my post too literally and the point is being missed entirely. I'll take the blame for that, perhaps I chose a poor analogy and didn't explain myself properly. This post has nothing to do with tactics, training or situational awareness.


The 3 main points I was trying to make...

1. A gun owning good guy that becomes a victim of a violent crime because his States draconian gun laws prevent him from properly protecting himself.

2. Good guy lives and raises Holy Hell about 2A and and won't shut up. Lawsuits, press conferences, letters, protest....WHATEVER IT TAKES TO BE HEARD. The purpose of a lawsuit would not be about money, it would be about making news. It WOULD make news....believe that.

I also think you guys are wrong about this not making news. Maybe the media wouldn't jump on the story but, that's where it takes a person with serious conviction to MAKE them report on it. Of course it's great to get involved and join pro gun groups. The sad truth is that you're just another person with an opinion...UNLESS you are a victim. Once you're a victim, you suddenly become an EXPERT on the subject....I don't know why.

Prior to that day in Waco, Suzanna Hupp was just another gun nut with an opinion. AFTER that day, she was a victim and people were willing to listen to her.

3. Sometimes it takes a tragedy to bring about change....good or bad.

Colin Ferguson and Carolyn McCarthy....anyone? Say what you will about Carolyn McCarthy but, you have to give her credit for her conviction. This woman REFUSED not to be heard. In case you don't know the story, Colin Ferguson killed 6 people and injured 19 others on a L.I.R.R. train in Nassau County back in 1993. One of those killed was Carolyn McCarthy's husband, her son was one of the injured.

Overnight, Carolyn McCarthy became an expert on gun control and was subsequently elected to the United States Congress on a platform of gun control.

Picture for a moment that Mr. and Mrs. McCarthy were pro 2A and active members of the NRA. Picture Mr. McCarthy complaing to his wife that he didn't feel safe going into NYC everyday without his gun.

This is the type of person I'm talking about. A person that is suddenly put in a position to bring about change. A person that demanded their voice be heard.

It "might" be harder for a pro-gun person to have their voice heard but, it's not impossible.

If you saw the guy from my initial post, the guy that was shot in the mall parking lot. If you saw him on the news trying to do everything he could to fight for his rights and bring about change. Would you be against him? Would you say that he had it coming to him because he wasn't aware of his surroundings? That he should of been proficient in hand to hand combat?

If so, I must be in the wrong place.

 

[Art Eatman]

For Handgun Midas

You can work your way through the website of the Center for disease Control (CDC) and find that the annual homicide rate in the US is roughly 50,000. Of those, some 13,000 involve firearms. 37,000 involve knives, clubs, fists, feet and the usual "other".

There are some 30,000 suicides per year, IIRC, and around half of them involve firearms. The anti-gun crowd generally includes suicides via firearms with homicides via firearms to enlarge the total firearms number.

Prof. Gary Kleck of FSU, a statistician (and an ACLU member), did the largest-ever telephone survey, some years back, asking whether the respondent had ever used a firearm to end or prevent a crime. His survey was a statistical scatter by ZIP code. Analysis led to the conclusion that, annually, at least 800,000 and possibly as many as 2.5 million crimies had been avoided/ended by some use of a firearm. This included the bottom end of, "Stop! I have a gun!" (even if a lie) to display and then on up to an actual shooting.

At that time the annual number of crimes of whatever sort involving firearms was some 600,000 per year, according to Dept. of Justice records.

Art

 

[progunner1957]

I've been shot more than once, and believe me, it ain't all it's cracked up to be!

LOL!! Good one, Preacherman!!

 

[Art Eatman]

"If you saw him on the news trying to do everything he could to fight for his rights and bring about change."

distortion9, what we're generally saying is that the guy WON'T be on the news enough to notice. We don't believe the newsies will grant that he has any validity, any just cause. If he is interviewed, it will be edited and slanted to make him look like a kook. We doubt he will be allowed to build any audience of support.

We're generally saying that if he files suit, the news coverage will have strong overtones of, "Just some gun-nut, whining."

Art