TexasCHLforum.com

LedJedi wrote:

flintknapper wrote: Its an eye opener.

Three minutes would seem like eternity if you were "waiting" for someone to save you from a determined attack.

Even a 1 minute rendition of this would be convincing.

man, you need to video tape this and upload it on youtube. I think it would open quite a few eyes.

Any update to this?

Keeping with the Wal-Mart motif.....

This from an earlier-mentioned email to our friend/colleague:

"Robbery at Lubbock Wal-Mart Prompts Warning from Police"

http://www.kcbd.com/Global/story.asp?S= ... v=UwsXUvKb

Lubbock Police say always be aware of your surroundings, this after a robbery at a local Wal-Mart.
<snip>
Officers say the suspect approached a woman from behind, as she was getting into her vehicle. He held a switch blade knife to her throat and demanded her keys. The woman was unharmed but the suspect got away.


note1: it's a good thing he was an honorable thief, and let her live. hopefully, if one ever gets the jump on you or i, they'll be so honorable. i'd prefer to not let it ever come to that, though......

note2: as gustav heinemann once said, disarmament requires trust. i'm just not yet prepared to trust someone who is prepared to hold a switch blade to my throat. are you?

note3: as a simple observation, i would remind you that switch-blade knives are already illegal, per the texas penal code, § 46.05. as opposed to so-called "illegal knives" which are generally illegal to carry in public, but *not* illegal to own or carry on your private property (e.g. in your home), switchblade knives actually fall into the category of "prohibited weapons," which are illegal to possess, manufacture, transport, repair, or sell (regardless of the public/private property distinction).

longtooth wrote:I was hoping you would post this again.

I'm hoping he can get someone to video this next time.....



Would be a real eye-opener for a lot of folks.

Just finished replying to an email I received from the friend/colleague I'm trying to "convert" similar to LedJedi and his friend.....

She basically said:

Oh silly, I know that there are bad people in the world, I am just not going to provide the gun that I get killed with, is my theory.

I thought the "Oh silly" part was kind of telling. She's trying to pass logic/reason off with humor to "diffuse" the situation. Common in denial-type situations.

What's interesting here is that this all came out of a "Guns! What are they goo-od for? Absolutely nothing!" type "ban-them-all" comment she made.

BTW, the law firm that hosted the text for Warren v. DC that I used to link to from my "duty to protect" page has either gone under, or removed the page, but it can still be accessed via the Internet Archive here.

I don't want to copy/paste the full text here because I want to honor the 10-year old daughter rule I read about while signing up earlier.

flintknapper wrote:

shooter_tx wrote:<snip>

Welcome to the forum!

I see nothing wrong with dialing "911" or removing yourself from a bad situation (running/walking away). This of course, assumes that both time and circumstance allow for it.

I also don't see anything wrong with either option. It's just that she was using those two misconceptions ("911 as panacea," and "you can always run away") to try and justify banning firearms.

On the other hand, if your friend has the idea that every situation can be solved by simply calling (and waiting) for help to arrive......then she needs to witness a demonstration of how much damage can be done in the scope of 3 minutes (an excellent response time for LEO). Ask her (respectfully) to consider that.

That's exactly where she was coming from. As mentioned earlier, I have a slew of resources regarding "duty to protect" whenever I encounter anyone espousing that false belief.

Within three days time, she knew that "absent a special relationship, the police have no duty to protect individual citizens".

There's obviously DeShaney (1989), but that always gets misconstrued as being about the state's relationship to a minor. In my experience, it's always Warren v. District of Columbia (1981) that makes people's jaws drop and truly understand that *they* (and no one else) are ultimately responsible for their own safety.

All too often... the police/authorities end up only being able to write a report, the damage is done, the BG is gone.

Taking responsibility for her own protection might be something for her to look into.

Some people will never do it, but... as long as they do not restrict my right to do so.....

And that's where the impetus for our discussion came about. She made a statement about the wholesale outlawing of firearms, and I couldn't abide by it. We ended up having a really good discussion over the next three days, and it's something we usually repeat 2-3 times a week.

I can live with it. It is a very personal choice...and each person must decide for themselves.

Agreed, totally. I used the VT tragedy as a teaching moment, for the people who took it to me ("Hey, did you hear about what happened at VT?" "Yes, but would you like me to tell you why that happened?").

One particuarly "anti" co-worker and I came to the following agreement: While she could [still] never bring herself to touch a gun or take the life of another person, she can now see why I would want to carry a gun on campus, and won't attempt to deny anyone else the right to be prepared for self-defense. (we'll just have to wait and see how she votes, though )

By the way, thanks for the hearty Texas [CHL Forum] welcome!

Hey all, just found this site today. Very timely, because not 10 minutes earlier I had composed an email to a friend/colleague of ours (i.e. of my wife and I).

She's pretty much an anti, but supposedly open to new ideas, so we've got a fairly new tradition of "discussing" this sort of stuff during our lunchbreaks.

Her stance initially was "Dial 911, that's what it's there for" and "Just run, don't stay/stand to fight, because nothing you own is worth your life."

I pretty quickly and easily disabused her of the notion of "911 as panacea" (I already have a metric truckload of resources on "duty to protect"), but it's this last part I'm having a much tougher time on.

I said finding this forum/thread was "very timely" earlier, and that's partly because the "Retired USAF COL stabbed in Lubbock" story that AV8R posted was also part of my email to her.