Well, down here we have laws and law abiding citizens (not saying you dont up there...lol). I am all for the law abiding citizens to own and carry a gun....However, our laws also state that if you have a criminal background, you can never carry a gun, or even own a gun.

I had to do a research paper on gun control as a senior in High School. I found out this little tid-bit:

Between 1977 and 1992, 10 states adopted right-to-carry laws. Dr. Lott's study found that the implementation of these laws created:
-- no change in suicide rates,
-- a 1/2% rise in accidental firearm deaths,
-- a 5% decline in rapes,
-- a 7% decline in aggravated assaults,
-- and an 8% decline in murder


Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:
homicide rate - declined 36%
firearm homicide rate - declined 37%
handgun homicide rate - declined 41%



The facts show that guns save lives. Dr. John Lott of the University of Chicago made it clear that violent crime has fallen in those jurisdictions that have made it legal to carry concealed firearms. States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%.

Britain has already banned just about every type of weapon that a criminal might want to use. Handguns were made illegal in 1997, and nearly every other firearm (even BB guns) is now subject to a complex regulatory regime. The laws didn't do what was claimed. The government just reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the four years from 1998-99 to 2002-03. The serious violent crime rate soared by 64%, and overall violent crime by 118%. The violent crime rate in England and Wales now stands at twice the rate of that in the U.S.


Australia saw its violent crime rates soar after its 1996 Port Arthur gun -control measures banned most firearms. Violent crime rates averaged 32% higher in the six years after the law was passed (from 1997 to 2002) than they did the year before the law went into effect. Armed robbery rates increased 74%. Australia's violent crime rate is also now double America's.


Canada hasn't gone anywhere near as far as Australia and England, but even that country's limited restrictions have caused problems. Despite a gun registration system that has cost 500 times more than promised (the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. claims the overrun is 1,000 times greater), the overall crime rate is more than half again higher than in the U.S. and has risen as the American crime rate has fallen. Meanwhile, violent crime in the U.S. has fallen much faster than in Canada, and murders in Canada have gone up slightly, while falling in the U.S.


http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/I...onFailure.html
http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm

Putting guns in the hands of law abiding citizens reduces crime!

 

Been said before; know your state and local laws inside out. Refresh your CC class time every year just for subtle changes in the statutes and prevailing case law. Most places condone the use of reasonable force to stop a felony in progress against the person of another. Also been said before; the stage changes fast, and the hero at the 7-11 armed robbery becomes the dead-broke defendant in some idiotic prosecutor's climb of the political ladder. Up front fees for using a firearm and defending against some anti-gun prosecutor can drain a very healthy bank account real fast. Use deadly force to save the life of yourself, your family, or absolutely know what is going on with the woman getting knifed, and be able to tell the story in detail.

 

I guess a more helpful topic on this would be "what does using your firearm mean?"

Using can mean revealing it to de-escalate or thwart the crime in progress.
Using it may mean firing it.
Using it may mean countering a "real" threat.

A firearm could be pulled out to stop a crime and that is all the involvment the firearm has in the whole situation. Many times if an officer or civilian has had a valid legal reason to draw his/her firearm it was never fired to get the point across that "the safety and security of your life is now in my right index finger---your choice" and that was all that was needed. But the operator of the fiream drawn better be darned well prepared to fire it if needed. Which brings us back to the original topic of; if you draw a weapon you better be legally ready and liable to fire it too!

 

I am all for good law abiding citizens being able to carry firearms.After all its one of our rights to carry and bare arms.And now a days permits are a good idea!!!! And yes I would use my firearm if someone or myself was threatened unlawfully.

 

I have no real reason to get involved in this, but as an Australian, I have to say that isn't correct.
Australia, while far from perfect in regard to firearm related crime, has a lower rate of firearm related crimes than the US.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir_cap

% of firearm related crime is now lower than what it was before 96 for all types of crime.
http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/ABS%40.nsf/b06660592430724fca2568b5007b8619/76c8926bd8a12e1fca2568a9001393f2!OpenDocument

 

Wow, some very interesting facts I never actually knew! Also a good point is that a criminal will get and carry and use a gun whether it is legal or not, and a law abiding citezin will most likely use it accordingly.

 

Ummm... how do you know the guy simply wants your TV? How do you know he isn't a cocaine or meth freak, paranoid and thinking you are the one out to get him, so he's going to come take you out first? ( Remember .. I work in mental health...have for 15 years.) How do you know the person isn't totally psychotic? Did you know that when some psychotic or Bipolar individuals, are in their "sick" period, that they sometimes have enough strength to toss 6 cops off them..or at least take 6 cops to restrain them?

If someone is kicking my door in, my wife is on the phone to 911 telling them what's up and that I plan to blast whoever it is trying to beat down the door..if he is successful. I am also yelling through the door, telling that same person what will happen should he enter in this manner...loud enough so that said 911 dispatcher catches it on tape. If I'm home alone..I'll dial 911, lay the phone down and proceed as above. If I don't have my cell handy and have time, I'll use the regular phone.


My home is MY castle. I don't give a hoot what any city's laws state. If you come into my home, without the proper authorization and I think I am in danger... I'll find one way or another to try to take you out...or go down trying. And I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6. I have a very bad back and so does my wife. Physical fighting is only about a 2% option. If I can't kick high enough, I sure can shoot high enough.

Do, I WANT to kill someone? Not since Vietnam. (Well, I take that back... there's been a few people in this world I have felt needed to be taken out by someone, but I digress.) Heck no..I seriously doubt any HONEST citizen wants to kill anyone, but... every incident must be taken as it happens and you hope like the dickens you make the right choice at the instant..and I repeat ... INSTANT... you need to.

 

You have to be careful to not "artificially escalate" a situation by displaying your firearm too early in the confrontation. If you draw down on someone, that is a last resort and it means that you have the intent to stop the situation with deadly force. The outcome of the event depends solely on the individual on the other end of your weapon. You have already decided that you are going to use it. The attacker has a brief moment to either stop the action that is about to result in his death, or to follow whatever command you have given him-I.E."hands up!" or "on the ground" or "Leave!" By the way, "Drop the weapon" is never a good command to give someone that is an uninvited houseguest. If they already have a weapon in hand, their intent is pretty clear. And they are more likely to drop you than the weapon that they are holding.

 

We're just down the pike from you a few miles and this is our State Law, which cannot be modified by any sub-unit of government in the state. If everyone in other states do not have a similar protection for personal protection of their home and family, (sub-paragraph 2) then shame on their legislators and the voters who elected them. Some years ago we had a gang of renegades terrorizing a couple in an RV out in the outback. The bigmouth trying to break into the door took a fatal round from the inside right through the trailer door. The other goons took off and the RV'r called in on a cellphone for the police to come assist. The campers were exonerated without trial, District Attorney ruled self-defence which agreed with the opinion of the Sheriff. That was just one instance, there have been a few others, not many, but a few. All were justified under the State Laws.

76-2-405. Force in defense of habitation.

(1) A person is justified in using force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other's unlawful entry into or attack upon his habitation; however, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury only if:
(a) the entry is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner, surreptitiously, or by stealth, and he reasonably believes that the entry is attempted or made for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person, dwelling, or being in the habitation and he reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the assault or offer of personal violence; or
(b) he reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony in the habitation and that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony.
(2) The person using force or deadly force in defense of habitation is presumed for the purpose of both civil and criminal cases to have acted reasonably and had a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury if the entry or attempted entry is unlawful and is made or attempted by use of force, or in a violent and tumultuous manner, or surreptitiously or by stealth, or for the purpose of committing a felony.

Amended by Chapter 252, 1985 General Session

 

When I was in High School (72), a friend of the family was on the City Police. His career was ruined by a Drunk that sued the City. He answered a Domestic Call and found a guy threatening to kill his wife with a Deer Rifle. Jerry stepped in pushing the rifle aside, and busted the guys nose. They considered busting the guys nose as over use of force, and that he should have used his night stick instead to subdue the suspect. He lost his job.

Two years later, he was driving truck for IML in Wyoming. He as just outside of Casper in a snow storm when he pulled over to help someone that had slide off the road. As witnesses put it, he was getting back into his truck to use the CB to see if he could raise the Highway Patrol, when the guy pulled out a gun and shot him 3 times n the back of the head. Turns out, the guy had escaped from prison the night before.

The point is this. I am a strong supporter of Guns and the right to use them. I pack a gun nearly everywhere I go because of this. I also believe strongly in training and the safety of firearms. They should be under lock and key when not in use.

Would I pull the trigger if me or a family member was in danger, in a heart beat. Would I pull the trigger if it were like the boy in Walmart. No, I would defiantly wait until I understood better, or call the police. That is what they are there for. Unless a life is in danger and it is clear who is being assaulted and who is not, then call 911, and get your camera as evidence.

 

All I Can Say As A Carrier In Oklahoma Is You Never Know What Your Capable Of Till The Chance Presents Itself So You Could Not Say Or At Least I Couldnt Without Being In The Moment And Hoping I Made The Right Decision

 

Yes, I'd shoot..

 

One week after I started this thread my wife started unloading groceries into her car, parked near the doors of a store in a shopping center at about noon, with many other shoppers around. Two guys and a girl stopped their van beside her, one jumped out grabbed her purse and threw it to the driver. When they took off she was knocked down and nearly run over. Due to great witness information they were caught at a motel in less than a hour. They are now behind bars. These scum are repeat offenders with earlier armed robbery charges against them. The cowards prey on senior citizens because they can't fight back. Other than occasional headaches from hitting her head on the ground she is OK. Her bruises are fading. Being aware of her surroundings at the time would of been no use under the circumstances. The scum had just come out of a store after unsuccessfully trying to use other stolen credit cards. I am paranoid about her safety so unless I am with her she is always home well before dark. I would never of guessed this would happen where she was. I've always tried to get her to carry and she had the attitude that it was "more hassle than necessary". That has changed. This little ol' Grandma will have a surprise for the cowardly slobs that try to knock her down the next time. I have a loaded firearm within reach of the driver in each vehicle but very seldom personal carry because it's " more hassle than necessary". I may need to rethink my attitude also but the misfits are less likely to mess with someone who may make them hurt.
. It's a whole 'nother world out there than it was 50 years ago so you gals have to be cautious wherever you go and be prepared and have the facilities to protect yourselves. The cell phone is useless for protection. It's use centers on "after the fact", if you're still able..Is my wife's experience a one in a thousand? I don't think so because they have hit other women before. Guys, convince your gals to carry protection from these scumbags. I don't think that open carry is safe because the bad guy may shoot his threat before I even know we were in danger. I won't get a permit because the trend of the Government and the rest of the world including the UN is to disarm us citizens. I don't want to attract attention that I am a gun owner. I am a pig-headed believer in the Second Amendment and what it says not how some gestapo wants to interpret it. If concealed carry without paying a tax, fingerprinting like a criminal, etc. is OK for the citizens of the United States in Alaska and Vermont, why isn't it OK for the rest of the Country? The Constitution covers all. The host of the "Gun Talk" radio show on Sundays keeps repeating, "only you can protect yourself" ... I agree......

 

Have to agree, Jerrybo66, my little bride has two metal knees and a whole bunch of sharp bone fragments inside her spine. *Any* knockdown or trauma at all would seriously damage her and probably turn her into a paraphalegic. In my book that's "serious bodily harm", despite the 'gooders, the criminals and their scumbag lawyers trying to redefine "serious bodily harm" as that which causes or is likely to cause death!

And by the way, have them burn a *lot* of ammo at the range or wherever you have to practice. Make them reload, clear a jam, and get confident with whatever they pack.
Very probably. Or you'll get challenged by the 'gooders.
There are probably 20-million who think the same way. The NRA could sure use those additional numbers when they challenge the antigun gestapo types, like recently in N.O. and in the temporary government villiages after the hurricanes. Read the U.N. Charter; it does not say any citizen has the right to self-defence. It uses a lot of high sounding b.s. about the citizen deserving respect and protection by the government, but *never* one word of support for the individual's right to self defence against armed or clearly superior force from criminals attacking them. BTW, just one lousy "treaty" signed by the U.S. with anyone could strike *any* right from the Constitution, including the Second Ammendment.
The problem for the folks in Ak or Vt is that as soon as they cross their border they are in a whole 'nuther world. What we really need is a nation wide reciprocity law instead of a piecemeal one. Of course, Kaliphornia would find a way to bury it in 500 pages of explanation, and the demopuplican governator would sign it in a Hong Kong minute, just like he did the latest prohibitions.
End of rant.

 

Good post, IBeam, well thought and down to earth. Have to agree, but...

[/QUOTE]

I really *hate* second-guessing past events from long distance. That said, if the domestic call went down exactly as you said, and in the battle for control of the perp's rifle, Jerry believed that a good punch would make the perp turn loose of the rifle, and Jerry was holding onto it with his left hand, which made the night stick on the left side of his duty belt inaccessable to his right hand, and the only other weapon he had available to his right hand was his duty weapon, then it seems to me he made a good decision. What you have to understand is that in certain cities you have mayors and city attorneys who are wusses. Yes, even in good old Utah, some of your local politicos are self serving, CYA types who don't give a hoot in hell about the practicalities of the line officer, or, really, about the safety of the citizen victim. When our new Lt. came into the District the first thing we did was have a meeting where we reviewed our district policies. A big, thick 3-ring binder of district policies. When the donuts and coffee were depleted, and we had discussed every single policy, we had one (*one*) district policy left in the binder. The rest were deleted by the new Lt. He said the working officer had enough rules from the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, Federal, State and local case law, and standing department policy without having additional CYA Section policy.
Sounds like Jerry did not work for such a supervisor. If Jerry was a good officer with a good history he certainly deserved credit for a job completed.
Now, if Jerry had a past history of enjoying punching perps in the nose, and he was a really good puncher, and he had been told in the past to quit punching people in the nose, and he just couldn't resist the temptation when the situation presented itself, than that *might* be another story. Even so, it would not seem to be reason to terminate an otherwise good officer.
IMHO, of course.