Page 1 of 20

How arming citizens with guns might cut crime

Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 10:28 pm
by meathead1
Back in 1987 when there was a rash of robberies and killings of tourists in Florida, the state authorized Carrying a Concealed Weapon (CCW) law, in hopes that it would discourage shootings in restaurants and public places.

To the dismay of those who advocate stricter gun laws, the CCW law resulted in random shootings plummeting. The possibility of someone carrying a gun in the local McDonald’s discouraged those who might have been tempted to shoot the place up.

Then, in the Texas town of Killeen, in 1991, one George Jo Hennard drove his pickup truck through the front window of Luby’s restaurant, and using a Glock 17 pistol and a Ruger P89, began shooting customers.

He killed 23 and wounded 20, before blowing his own brains out.

A campaign launched by Suzanna Hupp, who was in the restaurant and saw her two parents gunned down, persuaded then-governor George Bush to enact the Texan version of a concealed weapon law. Suzanna Hupp had left her gun in the car on that fateful day in Luby’s restaurant, and brooded that she might have been able to take the guy out and save her parents, had she been carrying.

Today, 39 states have laws that permit responsible people to carry a concealed weapon.

While controversial, evidence is overwhelming that this law inhibits others from using guns indiscriminately.

Florida has gone from a leading state in gun violence, to being in the middle of the pack. People still recall a case in central Florida’s Polk County in 2006, when Deputy Doug Spiers pulled over a speeding car, driven by one Angilo Freeland, who’d skipped bail on a variety of 1999 charges against him.

Deputy Spiers thought the guy’s driver’s licence was phony, and called for back up. As reported in the Orlando Sentinel, Deputy Matt Williams and his police dog were dispatched.

Freeland, apparently realizing he’d previously skipped bail, broke free and ran for the woods. The officers went after him — Williams and the dog in hot pursuit, Spiers in another direction, hoping to cut him off.

As Williams closed in, Freeland shot and killed the police dog. He then shot Williams, hitting him in the wrist, the left arm, the left thigh, the right leg, the right bicep, the spine.

As Williams lay wounded, Freeland shot him twice in the head, and took the officer’s gun and ammunition.

Hearing the shots, Spiers ran to the scene and himself was shot in the thigh. Spiers called for more backup.

Freeland hid in the woods all night, and at dawn every available canine team and a 10-member SWAT team was in the area. When the SWAT team approached, Freeland apparently raised his right hand holding the gun, and the cops opened fire — 110 bullets fired, 68 of them hitting Freeland.

Later, the Florida Civil Rights Association complained police had shown disregard for human life and had used excessive force.

“Why did you shoot this poor, undocumented immigrant 68 times?” Sheriff Grady Judd was asked.

“Because that was all the ammunition we had,” he replied.

Sheriff Judd was subsequently re-elected with 99% of the vote.

When the coroner reported the guy had died of natural causes, he was asked how this could be, with 68 bullet wounds? He replied: “When you’re shot 68 times, you’re naturally gonna die.”

They don’t fool around in Florida!

Re: How arming citizens with guns might cut crime

Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 11:38 pm
by meathead1
i just thought the quotes from the sheriff and coroner were amusing.

Re: How arming citizens with guns might cut crime

Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 11:57 pm
by ksigmark
Is there a refrence for the article?

Re: How arming citizens with guns might cut crime

Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:46 am
by tpspastin#9
Wow, bloody tragic all around but the not shit attitude and this is our job let us do it stance is really...unique?

Re: How arming citizens with guns might cut crime

Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 10:55 am
by Defendo
People should be allowed to own and carry anything they feel is necessary to protect themselves. I think it's ridiculous that law abiding citizens are put at a severe disadvantage to criminals when it comes to protection.

So many criminals rely on the slightly delayed police response which is more than enough time to get a few rounds off and disappear. However, if they were aware the slick looking dude sitting in the corner could blow two rounds through their chest and then casually finish his lunch...maybe they would reconsider their plan.

Re: How arming citizens with guns might cut crime

Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:19 am
by tpspastin#9
Defendo wrote:People should be allowed to own and carry anything they feel is necessary to protect themselves. I think it's ridiculous that law abiding citizens are put at a severe disadvantage to criminals when it comes to protection.

So many criminals rely on the slightly delayed police response which is more than enough time to get a few rounds off and disappear. However, if they were aware the slick looking dude sitting in the corner could blow two rounds through their chest and then casually finish his lunch...maybe they would reconsider their plan.


:ponder: is there another option here?

Re: How arming citizens with guns might cut crime

Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:11 pm
by bigbadjoe108
IBTL.

Maybe too soon... but I never get to otherwise.

Re: How arming citizens with guns might cut crime

Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:25 pm
by remote
You shouldn't be popping off irrational statements like "People should be allowed to own and carry anything they feel is necessary to protect themselves." You seem to be saying that if someone "feels" it's necessary to carry an MP5 then he should be "allowed" to carry it?
I've completed a CCW course in the US and I know that your kind of attitude gets trained out of students very quickly, or they fail.

Do you really think "the slick looking dude" is going to casually finish his lunch while Mr. Sh!t Rat convulses and bleeds-out all over the floor in front of him?
Don't get me wrong - I do believe that allowing trained, certified, practiced, responsible, accountable citizens to carry firearms for self defense can cut crime. But slick-looking-dudes shouldn't be "allowed" to carry anything more lethal than a knife and fork.
Learn more here: http://www.canadacarry.org

Defendo wrote:People should be allowed to own and carry anything they feel is necessary to protect themselves. I think it's ridiculous that law abiding citizens are put at a severe disadvantage to criminals when it comes to protection.

So many criminals rely on the slightly delayed police response which is more than enough time to get a few rounds off and disappear. However, if they were aware the slick looking dude sitting in the corner could blow two rounds through their chest and then casually finish his lunch...maybe they would reconsider their plan.

Re: How arming citizens with guns might cut crime

Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:27 pm
by tpspastin#9
Defendo wrote:People should be allowed to own and carry anything they feel is necessary to protect themselves. I think it's ridiculous that law abiding citizens are put at a severe disadvantage to criminals when it comes to protection.

So many criminals rely on the slightly delayed police response which is more than enough time to get a few rounds off and disappear. However, if they were aware the slick looking dude sitting in the corner could blow two rounds through their chest and then casually finish his lunch...maybe they would reconsider their plan.


Who is this slick looking dude? Is he how you picture yourself to be? :alright:

Re: How arming citizens with guns might cut crime

Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:13 pm
by Federal CO
With CCW permits aside (which I am all for). What about a headstart with LE personel? I know we have ALL talked about this at one point or another. Of course I am in favor of this, just wondering what other opinions are out there.

Re: How arming citizens with guns might cut crime

Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:08 pm
by TheWidowsSon
I haven't held a gun since my days in the military but I'd be first in line for a CCW permit.

I'm just against anyone else having one. :P

Re: How arming citizens with guns might cut crime

Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:23 pm
by Horatio
remote wrote:slick-looking-dudes shouldn't be "allowed" to carry anything more lethal than a knife and fork.


+1 Well said.

remote wrote: I do believe that allowing trained, certified, practiced, responsible, accountable citizens to carry firearms for self defense can cut crime.



I like where your coming from, but here's where I get a little hazy. How many trained, certified, practiced, responsible, accountable citizens are there? I mean sure there are a lot of people on this forum who I'd be comfortable having CCW's but most of them are ALREADY carrying LEO's, or on their way to becoming such. What I'm concerned about is the "average" person, who passes all his training and such and appears to be the model CCW holder, but then gets drunk one night and does something stupid? A lot of people's personalities change SIGNIFICANTLY when they've been drinking. Or what about people who find themselves in emotionally charged situations? Someone may be relatively sane and normal, but then they have a really bad day, and get cut off in traffic on the way home. In todays society this may result in not much more then shouting/swearing/bird flipping, maybe at WORST a fist fight at the side of the road. What would happen if this person just happened to have access to a firearm at the time? I'm not talking about the gangster sh!tbag who already has a "nine" in his glove box, I mean the middle aged business man who doesn't carry now - but would if he could legally.

Don't label me a hippie burn out just yet, I'm just playing the devils advocate on this matter. :boxer: