View from the cop

By Atl Pearl Girl

March 7, 2006 10:21 AM | Link to this

Being a single mom, I would definately use a gun with no qualms whatsoever if it meant defending my children, my own life, and my home. I live in a wonderful little historic district inside the perimeter. My home was recently robbed twice, someone coming in through the doggie door. Although they took things that can be replaced, if I could have maimed them, taken their life, I would have done it in a heartbeat. Criminal activity needs to be dealt with SEVERELY. I will definately get a gun permit and will not think twice about using it.

By polly

March 7, 2006 10:32 AM | Link to this

From the previous blog about this subject, it seemed that everyone kind of wanted to form a militia against the bad guys. But you make a good point in that you don’t know how you will react in a situation. And bullets do miss and if you hit an innocent bystander and kill them, you’re in a heap of trouble. I also have noticed that people aren’t afraid until they own a gun and then they are afraid and suspicious of everybody and everything.

By Ruger13

March 7, 2006 10:36 AM | Link to this

Sound advice. Especially the part about awareness of surroundings, training with and maintenance of your weapon, and knowing if you can pull the trigger or not. Once you pull that trigger there is no recalling of that bullet. Know what’s down range (in the background). And a a famous police sargent used to say, “Hey, and let’s be carefull out there.”

By Joe

March 7, 2006 11:03 AM | Link to this

The big problem is most people have no idea which kind of person they are until a situation that can turn ugly presents itself. And I would rather teach people to avoid being a target than arm a bunch of untrained jumpy people.

By Jim

March 7, 2006 11:03 AM | Link to this

Before the knee jerk reactions from all the gun hating people come in, those who seem to think only crooks, robbers and murderers should carry guns, this lifetime NRA member wants his two cents worth. Research the basis of this law, why it was put forth. This law is to protect us from criminal charges in the event we are FORCED to use deadly force to protect ourselves away from our homes in the same manner the current laws protect us and allow for us to protect ourselves and our loved ones inside our homes in the event ONLY that your life is in danger. Liberals will create a false hysteria of how we will soon be jumping from our trucks on GA400 shooting anyone who cuts in front of us in traffic or does not allow us to merge. They want you to play into the hysteria, its their plan. I followed this law closely and I know who did and did not support this bill. The irony is that most of the state elected politicians who opposed this bill the most comes from the most crime ridden areas of the city and state. They want to rename roads and buildings and airports, thats their agenda. Crime? You think they care about crime? Hell no, they hear and see it so much…they turn a deaf ear to it. I care about crime, I care about my family and their safety. I carry a gun, so does my wife and so will my adult children when they are ready to. You will not erode our guns laws, just try to, you’ve never seen such a fight. Mr. Bad Guy will think twice now that the playing field outside the home is level. Let him try to jack my Ford 350, what a surprise I have in site for that area we call ‘right between the eyes’.

By Polly

March 7, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this

Jim: And what will you do when your bullets miss and hit an innocent bystander. Not everyone is a skilled marskman

By Ralph

March 7, 2006 11:44 AM | Link to this

As a fellow cop, having served for 14 years as a patrol officer in downtown, I must say that this is the worse legislation I have seen. Too many people will have knee jerk reactions and starting shooting the second they feel threatened. Given the fact that most citizens are untrained, I envision alot more gun violence if this law passes.

All the gun nuts and wackos in the NRA must be happy that they could shoot first and ask questions later. Not all of us cops support the far right conservative Republican agenda. Proud to have served on the streets for 14 years, and also to be a Liberal Democrat. This legislation will do no more to protect citizens from crime.

By Joe

March 7, 2006 12:03 PM | Link to this

Ralph, I also am a police officer of several years. I want to give you a little piece of advice. Ready?

Read the legislation before you buy the line being fed to you by the media and opponents of this bill. I challenge you to find in it where it says anything about “shoot first, ask questions later” or “if you feel threatened during an argument you can shoot the person.”

You will not find any such language. The few lines added to the law merely state that if confronted with a situation in which you can LEGALLY use deadly force, you do not have to retreat first.

In other words, if someone pulls a knife, gun, baseball bat, or other potentially deadly weapon on you, you don’t have to run away before you can defend yourself. What problem do you have with this?

It DOES NOT allow for deadly force to be used in non-deadly situations. It does not protect people who use unlawful force either.

The media and this bill’s opponents are protraying this bill in a way that is clearly untrue. Read it for yourself before you jump to conclusions.

By Jim

March 7, 2006 12:16 PM | Link to this

Ralph, I wondered how long it would take for your type to come out from under the rocks, not long I see. If you are a cop, which I seriously doubt, how many victims have you seen chalk outlined that could have gotten away had they self-protected? Why do cops carry a gun in the first place Mr. Liberal, why do you? Tell me Ralph, why do you carry a gun? Don’t give me crap about how skilled you are; I am a trained gun master, I have forgotten more about guns than you’ll ever know. And Polly, carrying a gun comes with a monolithic responsibility, it can be a matter of life or death and anyone who even THINKS about carrying a legal gun should be trained and retrained and continue their training and hope to God you never have to use that training. Polly, worry about the crooks, they are the ones who do not care who they shoot, law abiding citizens do. DO NOT play into the hysteria of the fanatics who hate guns in any and all situations. Ask a crook, the last thing he/she wants to face is a person who is not going to be a willing victim. And Mr. Liberal Ralph, I shoot almost each and every Saturday and Sunday with cops who think the opposite of you.

By Gerald

March 7, 2006 12:20 PM | Link to this

To the mother whose home was broken into if you decide to purchase a gun I hope you put it in an extremely secure place because your children are more likely to be harmed or killed by the presence of a gun in the house than by an intruder. Just yesterday there was a story about about a young boy being shot by his own brother over a cell phone. If there were no guns in the house he would be alive today. And as for the gentleman with the right between the eyes comment you seem like the absolutely the wrong type of person to have a weapon. People carrying weapons need to be extremely alert, calm and aware of their surroundings. It seems in your case that if someone walked up to you in your car and tapped on your window to offer you a flier,ask you for directions, etc you would probably wet your pants and start shooting.

By Glock

March 7, 2006 12:25 PM | Link to this

“This legislation will do no more to protect citizens from crime.” COME ON!!!!!!!!!

I suppose you would like us all to get in the fetal position, suck our thumbs and pretend that the world is a safe place and that crooks, robber and murders are figments of our imagination!

When a bad guy sticks a knife to my back and demands money, I will no longer have to run away screaming or spit-spit balls at him!

Violence is not the act of protecting your life, liberty and/or property; instead, violence is the act of stealing life, liberty and/or property from others. If I defend my self, it is not violence, I call it justice. We finally have some legislation that equips the LAW ABIDING CITIZEN rather than the criminal!

By Joe

March 7, 2006 12:36 PM | Link to this

Steve, how often do you hang out at ATM’s at midnight to watch the people who don’t look around before they get money out? Anyway, it’s about time. If someone has the stupidity to break into my house, they better know the consequences. I also think taking classes and being educated on the use of guns is a very good idea for anyone who wants to own one. It’s common scense people. And what took so long for legislation to allow us to protect ourselves in our own homes without having to run away first?

By Patrick

March 7, 2006 12:46 PM | Link to this

It’s good to know that I can now shoot someone because they are walking through a dark parking lot with a baseball bat. My money says that we won’t go a full month before a little leaguer is gunned down in “Self Defense” proudly clutching his new bat in front of The Sports Authority.

Even the so called “experienced” police officer that writes this column admits to pulling guns on people for “looking around” in a parking lot. Is the the quality judgement that we base firearms laws on? I really hope that I don’t develop a nervous twitch while asking this guy for directions.

All this law does is give the yahoos an excuse to shoot someone and get away with it. When we can teach police instructors not to shoot their students, maybe we can consider trusting the average person with their six-shooter.

All that said, I have a license to carry a gun and occasionally I choose to do so. Now that I can shoot someone even though I have every other option available to me, maybe I’ll carry it a little more often.

See ya’all at the saloon…

By Tired Teacher

March 7, 2006 12:48 PM | Link to this

I have to agree with everything said by Steve. Especially the parts about being aware of your surroundings. Its’s ironic for me that out of 18 years of carrying a pistol, the only time I have ever even had to think about where my gun was occured on a trout stream in North Georgia. Situation seemed harmless enough at first. I walked up the wrong side of the stream to where the trail dead-ended. Turned around and there was a guy in the stepping out of the bushes. Odd but I said hello and told him I was heading over to the other side to fish up the river. To make a long story short after about an hour of watching this guy stalk me hiding behind trees and rock outcropping, when he got behind a big pine and with in 30 feet I put my gear down and got out my gun and called him out. When he stepped out from behind the tree and saw my gun, that was one of the fastest runs down a trail I have ever seen. It was after he was gone and I sat down, thought about what had just happened and what had almost happened that I turned to Jello. Weak knees, shaking, the whole nine yards. I’ve killed a lot of animals over the years hunting and carrying a pistol I had wondered what would happen if something did occur where I had to make a decision to defend myself. Now I know. I might loose my groceries afterwards, but God help the individual if I have the opportunity to defend myself. I would have zero hesitation if that was my only option.

By Joe

March 7, 2006 1:07 PM | Link to this

Yes Patrick. Continue to feed the sensationalism.

As I’ve said before, this law does not change the threshold of force or deadly force AT ALL. It merely states that you do not have to retreat. It also protects you from frivolous lawsuits if you LEGALLY use deadly force.

Now, are you ready for the really novel thing about this legislation? Georgians have never had a duty to retreat. The law was silent on this issue. You’ve never had to retreat but a jury could, in theory, find you liable for damages if you didn’t retreat.

Now, instead, this law specifically says you don’t have a duty to retreat and that if you act LEGALLY in using force, the criminal you use force on can’t successfully sue you.

You can’t legally shoot the baseball player now and you won’t be able to after this legislation becomes law. You can’t shoot someone legally because they cut you off in traffic. You can’t shoot someone because you get in an argument.

You WILL get immunity from prosecution and civil penalties if you LEGALLY and JUSTIFIABLY shoot an armed robber, rapist, murderer, etc.

This proposed law does not ease standards by which use of force is judged. I would appreciate it if people would just stop and read it instead of propogating lies about it.

By Scott

March 7, 2006 1:08 PM | Link to this

Actually had a man come up to my car in a parking lot and tell me to get out of my car. Since he didnt have any weapons but appeared to just be crazed, I told him no.

He reached into the window and grabbed me around the neck, squeezed hard and told me to get out. As he let go I reached into my glove box and grabbed my sig .45 auto. I pointed it at him, and he decided to leave quickly.

You really never know if you are capable of defending your life until you are in that situation.

I have maintained a pistol permit in Georgia, for over 20 years and only had to reach for my gun twice.

By TJ 2000

March 7, 2006 1:19 PM | Link to this

Steve, It is so good to hear from a officer who beleives I have the right and obligation to defend mr or my family. I practice a lot and I carry EVERYWERE I go and not just when I think there might be trouble. I was threatened with a crowbar at a gas station in a good part of town once, lets just say I didn’t have to use my 45 auto because the bad guy must have thought that bringing a crowbar to a gunfight was not to his advantage. He made a quick leave. In my mind it is not a question of “am I willing to die for my wallet, but is the bad guy willing to die for it”. I love your articles,

By BA

March 7, 2006 1:24 PM | Link to this

First let me say I enjoy your column very much. Good insight, some good tips, and plenty of humor at the bad guys expenses of course.

Second, please stop using Machines after ATM, that is what the M stands for.

Third, as an ex-Marine and with friends in law enforcement, I know all too well about crime and punishment. You are correct, if you are J E LL O, you shouldn’t own a guy. It is a shame to be injured or killed by your own weapon.

By if only

March 7, 2006 1:32 PM | Link to this

this law wasn’t about arming everyone, it was about being able to defend yourself with the appropriate use of deadly force. let’s face it, how often do you read about police preventing crime? they are usually picking up the pieces of the crime and praying they find the perp. to the people like jim, you didn’t need this law before to protect yourself, you would have already pulled the trigger. just don’t make it a worse crime when you do. to the people who are opposed to this law and gun ownership, well read the bill of rights. i really doubt there will be any vigilante style justice, because this law was amended. it really boils down to protecting the victim of crime. if you exercise on the side of caution you will be fine. like everthing in life there will be a few rule breakers. nothing is ever going to be perfect and really what would the fun in that be. yes i own a gun, no it is not locked away(defeats the purpose of being readily handy when needed for defense) and yes i pulled it out when someone tried to break into my home and no it was not fired. remember the days when we use to go to the school yard to settle things…well those days are over and criminals are armed not only with weapons but no regard for consequece.

By Shawn D.

March 7, 2006 1:36 PM | Link to this

I fail to comphrehend why so many folks habitually assume it’s a foregone conclusion that law-abiding citizens who are armed will create a sea of blood through indiscriminate use of a firearm! Similar hysteria about concealed-carry laws did not come to pass when they were passed and/or expanded, and it isn’t going to happen with this either.

Polly — you say “… what will you do when your bullets miss and hit an innocent bystander (?)” True, bullets can miss and those bullets can hit innocent bystanders, but you apparently think every bullet has the name “Innocent Bystander” written on it. What you can be sure of is that every bullet out of a criminal’s gun has “Innocent Victim” written on it!

Patrick — you really need to re-read what Steve wrote. Your statment “It’s good to know that I can now shoot someone because they are walking through a dark parking lot with a baseball bat.” is an absurd exaggeration and you know it. Merely possessing a bat is not threatening — accosting someone with a bat in an aggressive manner is. As for your statment “Even the so called “experienced” police officer that writes this column admits to pulling guns on people for “looking around” in a parking lot,” you completely missed the point. Steve said “Once was in a parking lot downtown, about 9 p.m. A man walked up to me while we were leaving the circus at the Omni. He just walked up, looked around, and started asking why we left the circus so early?” The guy in question was looking around for witnesses to the crime he was about to commit! Patrick, the fact that you’re so clueless about how to be situationally aware means that you’d make an ideal victim. As for your statement “Now that I can shoot someone even though I have every other option available to me…” shows that you don’t have a clue that the only “option” you might have in many cases is to become a victim.

I, for one, will not cede my right to defend myself.

By Frank

March 7, 2006 1:50 PM | Link to this

Thanks Steve for an excellent article that does a good job of discussing all the pros and cons (no pun intended) regarding the use of deadly force.

By Mark

March 7, 2006 2:04 PM | Link to this

Thanks Steve for a good article that seems to put across both sides of the issue. I also want to say to Ralph: many citizens who carry concealed are probably a lot better trained than many cops. They go to training courses and practice regularly; compare that to the cops whose only practice with their firearms is once or twice a year when they have to qualify.

By polly

March 7, 2006 2:08 PM | Link to this

Thanks Steve. This subject needs to be put to rests so the cuckoos will go back to nesting.

By Jessica

March 7, 2006 2:49 PM | Link to this

For my 21st birthday I got a concealed carry permit and a lady smith revolver. I practice, I know what it is, what it can do and how to use it. I also know how to clean it. I am glad we now have this law. Not because I want to shoot anyone, or that I’m going to start being jumpy. I have found that those of us who already legally carry a weapon are less likely to use it than those who will buy one because of the law or those who carry illeagally. Also, I have found we seem to be more aware of the world around us, as that’s what made us want to purchase one.

To Gerald: I grew up with guns in my parents house. My cousins grew up with guns in thier parents house. Only once was anyone shot, and that was with a bb gun by someone who wasn’t aware that bb’s can penitrate skin too. (Not a member of the family)

Most accidental child shootings in houses that have guns are a direct result of the child not being taught about the guns. People who aren’t taught what a gun can do can do the most damage with them. Kids see people shot on tv one week, then in another movie the next. They don’t understand the actual damage is perminent. Not from their mere presence.

We were made to learn to dismantle, reassemble, and clean any gun before we could actually shoot it. Taught to always check to see if a gun is loaded and not take someone’s word that it is or isn’t. And to treat it as if it was anyway. Education is key in stopping accidental shootings, and parenting is key in making sure your kids know the truth about guns.

By Ray

March 7, 2006 3:07 PM | Link to this

By Richard: [i]Now that I can shoot someone even though I have every other option available to me, maybe I’ll carry it a little more often.[/i]

Wrong..wrong…wrong. The law has not changed regarding when it can be used…deadly force is still considered the last option

By Ray

March 7, 2006 3:09 PM | Link to this

By Gerald [i]Just yesterday there was a story about about a young boy being shot by his own brother over a cell phone. If there were no guns in the house he would be alive today. [/i]

No…he would be alive if his brother had not shot him. Would you feel better if he was stabbed or strangled????? If someone wants to kill another they can. A gun is a tool, nothing more.

By Jim

March 7, 2006 3:10 PM | Link to this

The agenda for some is to have ALL guns removed from the homes of private citizens, they just won’t admit it. They do not want anyone to have a gun, much like DC (murder capitol of the US) California (bank robbery capitol of the US). Can you imagine the look of glee on the faces of robbers, thugs and murderers if this ever happens to us all. I bet that if the politicians who really want to ban all guns came forth with their real agenda they’d be able to get the crooks to the voting booths for the first time ever to vote. Some people just don’t live in reality and some of us have had to learn the hard way. I was a boy of fifteen when I went to work with my dad one day in his small store in Texas and after we’d opened the store for about an hour a man walked in with a .22 caliber pistol and right in front of these sixteen year old eyes told my dad that he’d been in prison, had nothing to lose by going again so he’d better open the safe. I was so scared I thought I was going to pass out. My father calmly asked the man if I could leave, the man told him he’d shoot me first. My dad told him he had to get the money from the floor safe. He reached in the safe (there was never any money in there) and in one swift motion shot the guy in the throat with a .44 magnum, right in front of me. Don’t preach to me what guns can do, I know damn well what they can do. They can save lives as well as take them. My dad, who lived many years past that horrible day told me later he saw in the chamber of the .22 and saw only one round and it was two shots away but that the man would have still probably shot him after he robbed him. Trust me, that guy never knew what hit him.

By Jell-O Mom

March 7, 2006 3:34 PM | Link to this

There is a big difference between a regular citizen toting a deadly weapon and a trained professional law enforcement officer. I prefer to follow the advice on how to not be a victim.

By Malum Prohibitum

March 7, 2006 3:40 PM | Link to this

Officer Rose, while I am glad your encounter after the circus turned out favorably, you should be aware that for the rest of us who are not police officers, we cannot carry to public gatherings and therefore would be disarmed while leaving the circus or face arrest. OCGA 16-11-127. Georgians will not be safe until the General Assembly repeals its archane public gathering law. Were I faced with your situation, I would either have been robbed or worse, or perhaps face arrest for carrying to a public gathering. Surely the criminals know this, which is why you were picked in that particular location. People are not often robbed in the parking lots of gun shows. Repeal the victim disarmament zones!

By Bella

March 7, 2006 3:54 PM | Link to this

How come nobody talks about innocent bystanders being shot by well-intended citizens with a firearm? If you had a gun and used it against a criminal, but ended up shooting/killing some innocent person, would that be worth the right to “defend” yourself in public places?

By Howdy

March 7, 2006 4:06 PM | Link to this

I believe everybody has a right to their opinion. I believe this article was well written and Steve shows why his opinion is valid.

Most people dont understand until they or one they love is a victim and all they could do is watch it happen or hear it from the mouth of the victim. My sister was almost car jacked. Instead they smashed a window with a jack daniels bottle, took all her stuff. If it wasnt for a witness, who knows what else would have happened. That day on her idea of self preservation came with the insurance os Smith & Wesson!

LEO can’t be everywhere all the time. It is up to us to act responsibly and be aware of the surroundings. The Bill is there to make it clear that violence will not be tolerated by law abiding citizens. GA already has this type of law, however now there are a few more “details” favoring the person being attacked.

Once a criminal has decided they will choose a victim I believe their rights have been given up.

If you ask people that carry, most cases you will not even know who they are, hope to never have to present their weapon. Most people that carry actually go to the range and do the research and procedures needed to legally carry.

Next time you walk somewhere at night and feel uncomfortable remember that feeling…..I don’t have to.

By Brian407

March 7, 2006 4:16 PM | Link to this

Bella/Polly etc., The reason you never hear about innocent people being shot by average people defending themselves with firearms is that it is extremely rare. You would be much more likely to be shot intentionally by a criminal or unintentionally by a policeman. When the average citizen is placed into a deadly force situation it is typically in a “private setting.” Criminals want to get away with crimes, so when they attack you, it is going to more likely than not going to be just you and the attacker. If you are not prepared to defend yourself, you will die alone at the whim of another.

By Jason

March 7, 2006 4:21 PM | Link to this

The reason that you don’t hear about innocent bystanders being struck by stray bullets fired from a citizen’s weapon in a self-defense situation is because it happens with very little frequency. Do your research before regurgitating anti second amendment stats that are unsubstantiated.

By Proud Georgian

March 7, 2006 4:21 PM | Link to this

To Bella

Innocent bystanders are shot all the time by criminals using illegal weapons. Case in point the primatologist who was paralyzed by a stray bullet (drug deal gone bad) while she was walking across a parking lot in strip mall in Smyrna - maybe you heard about it since the story has been all over ajc.com.

Using your logic it is OK for criminals to carry weapons but not law abiding citizens who have legal permits and have been trained to use their weapons. Ludicrous!!!

By Joe

March 7, 2006 4:24 PM | Link to this

Bella… Let me put what you are saying to you another way.. and see if it makes sense to you.

Lets say that I am the victim of an armed robbery, aggravated assault, murder attempt, car jacking etc…

It is very likely that I will wind up dead, maimed, or otherwise seriously injured due to the itchy trigger fingers of crooks today. Are you proposing that it is acceptable for the bad guy to shoot at me or kill me because at least I, while unarmed and helpless, won’t run the risk of hitting an innocent bystander?

It is never acceptable for an innocent victim or bystander to get killed. This law won’t change that fact. However, just because it “may” happen doesn’t give you the right to take my right to self-defense and protection away. If I kill an innocent bystander in the process, I will have to accept the consequences of my actions.

However, I’d like to point out that you are more likely to get killed or injured by a car crash than you are from a gun. Do you propose taking cars away? After all, it is by far the greatest hazard of the two to human life.

You could be driving down the road someday and accidentally hit a pedestrian and kill them. Why don’t you go ahead and voluntarily give up your driver’s license? Oh, wait… I forgot. Guns are evil and cars are not. People driving cars are responsible for the deaths of many more people than those evil guns.

By Gerald

March 7, 2006 4:32 PM | Link to this

To Ray, Stabbing someone or strangling someone takes a lot longer than the split second it takes to pull the trigger. In that time the brother would have had a chance to cool off and think twice about it but with a gun a split second is all it takes and he has to live with the fact he killed his brother for the rest of his life.

Also in terms of training kids on guns most parents don’t have the time or inclination to do so and they just try to hide it from the children, but as a parent I know children observe everything you do and their natural curiosity always leads them to discover things you don’t want them to.

By MarkP

March 7, 2006 4:51 PM | Link to this

I’m confused. Since when was it ever actually illegal to defend yourself when genuinely threatened, in any situation where having a gun was legally possessed to begin with? I can’t help but think this bill is just a friendly reminder from the folks at the NRA, hoping to bump up the statistics in which guns are used in self defense. Go to any gun discussion forum and you’ll quickly witness bizarre complaints about how self-defense shootings are already grossly under-publicized by a liberal, gun-hating, crime-loving media.

By Glock Meister

March 7, 2006 5:13 PM | Link to this

This Police officer is right on target!!!

By Missandie

March 7, 2006 9:52 PM | Link to this

I have some friends the are registered firearm owners and they scare me. Lt. Steve mentioned those who turn to JELLO when placed in a life or death situation. But there a few, who I fear, will turn rabid and thoroughly mis-judge a situation. It makes me think, how in the heck did they qualify for a permit? These are people who not mentally stable in a crisis mode. We have a child at home and I don’t feel comfortable with a gun around, never have. But I do not begrudge another from taking advantage of the law. I guess I have been lucky. I have not been the victim of a crime and I hope my streak continues. If you have a firearm, practice regularly and have a level head, I have no beef with you. On the other hand, if you are hot-headed and prone to rash decisions, especially when stressed, you are the one I fear with a gun.

By Lee

March 7, 2006 10:32 PM | Link to this

Joe, in his post (about 8 from the top) probably gave the best answer on why this legislation is needed. Yes, we Georgians have had the statutory right to self defense, up to and including the use of deadly force, for quite some time. These self defense laws provide you with immunity against criminal prosecution in the event you have to use deadly force to defend yourself. However, how many times have you read in the newspaper about someone who shot a would be (robber, rapist, etc.) getting sued in civil court? Read some of the more hysterical posts above - these same people will constitute a “jury of your peers.” This law will provide you with a legal defense.

Steve has always given sage advise about not becoming a victim in the first place. You know, take a few precautions, be aware of your surroundings, be aware of people around you, etc. etc. Also remember that the criminal will almost always have the advantage of surprise because they choose the time, place, and victim. It is quicker to act than to react. Steve gave an example where his police training and instincts alerted him to the potential danger in the parking lot. Most of us would be a victim in that circumstance.

By Scott

March 8, 2006 12:00 AM | Link to this

This is a good piece for people interested in our rights to defend ourselves with a weapon. The problem is that this officer is allowed to carry where even licensed law abiding citizens are not. At least one of his attacks were in a public area that is off limits to the average citizen with respect to carrying a weapon. This new law and current laws would not help the average citizen in these areas. I hope to see in my life time the ability for an eligible and properly licensed citizen to be able to carry in most any area where his or her life could be threatened. As of now I understand I can be charged with carrying a weapon in my vehicle (which is legal Georgia with or without a license) if I am parked in a area that is deemed close to a public area. I applaude an officer who is respectful our rights and abilities to carry and defend ourselves properly. I bring up this point in hopes that Georgians will unite to push for concealed carry in many places that are currently off-limits for a citizen. I hope that our right to bear arms will expand back to its full original capacity.

By Gun Owner

March 8, 2006 12:23 AM | Link to this

Any gun owning parent that doesnt have the time to teach their children about gun safety is a danger to their kids whether or not there is a gun in the house.

And for what its worth, the majority of gun owning parents make firearms safety a high priority.

By Gary

March 8, 2006 1:11 AM | Link to this

Far down this thread, Brian touched on an important point that bears expansion. The national data is in and final. Law abiding citizens with concealed carry permits almost never shoot the wrong person, or shoot someone who hasn’t asked for it with criminal behavior and intent, or shoot an innocent bystander. There are hundreds of thousands of consciencious citizens legally carrying firearms across the U.S. every day. The stats show that they are an amazingly capable and conscientious group, safer to be around than almost any other demographic group. Plus, their willingness to accept the grave responsibility of carrying a firearm for self defense makes everyone in society safer. Having graduated over 1,000 students from CCW classes, I commend Steve’s cautionary comments - everyone can afford to learn and think more about the laws and tactics of using lethal force. But, the verdict is in. Anyone willing to accept the responsibility of being armed is safer, as are all of those around them.

By Az

March 8, 2006 3:07 AM | Link to this

Come on folks…since when has the rabid anti-gun liberal ever been swayed by something as simple as facts? Especially when they have emotional outbursts to fall back upon? :-P

This article was right on target. Excellent job.

And, Malum Prohibitum is right… While it was great the Steve was able to carry his weapon to the circus, us poor second class citizens are forbidden from doing this by that antiquated “Public Gathering” law. Time to repeal that nonsense…

By Johnny

March 8, 2006 6:43 AM | Link to this

I have carried a PPK for years, and I have a permit. BUT in in last ten or more, I have had to unholster only twice.

1 My daughter was being brought home from college on a dark and rainy spring Friday. A group of white men backed out of a bar and almost hit my compact car. Immediately they gave chase, for a reason I do not know. Fearing what might be a dangerous situation, I began acclerating, as they did. Finally, after a few miles, I pulled into an open gas station just inside my home county. Three Caucasian dudes got out of the car, cursing and threatening me. My daughter was in hysterics. They approached. I held my PPK high in the air and said I would defend my daughter and me if they started violence. They got back in the car and waited for me to leave. We entered and stayed inside the station and fifteen minutes later a deputy arrived for a break, so they quickly left. I did not report the incident for fear of the “brandishing a weapon” problem. 2. I was coming home years later, late from teaching a night class at Clayton State. At around ten I pulled into a Griffin fast food place. Two men of color followed me out and asked me for some “burger money.” I re-entered while they stayed outside and told the manager I was a little concerned. He said not to worry, that happened all the time, and I was welcome to leave. On their second approach, about ten feet, the larger man mumbled he needed money NOW! I reached for the PPK and showed them the weapon and said I was not going to be robbed or mugged without their getting shot!I suggested they leave or let me leave. They backed off, I left, and their brick that hit the back of the truck was a small price for getting out of a tense situation. Again, I did not report this knowing the “brandishing of a weapon” might be a question of more legal concern than a potential mugging.

I would be interested to know how these events might be intrepreted if reported today.

By Sir Jesse

March 8, 2006 8:29 AM | Link to this

Gunz kill kidz when adults don’t secure them…that’s my greatest worry.

also, the Circus parking lot scenerio seems as though it was inappropriate to point a weapon at an unarmed man…by the way was it a person of color?

:>(

By polly

March 8, 2006 8:50 AM | Link to this

The reason I have a concern about bystanders is that I have seen 2 gwinnett officers come in our subdivision on 2 different occassions. Both times were animals, a wild dog and injured deer. Both times the officers unloaded their clip, missed and bullets go somewhere. Hit a house, could have been a kid. You can talk about how great you are, but unless you do this daily, you will probably miss.

By Mark

March 8, 2006 9:09 AM | Link to this

OK, let’s be real. IIf you are that ready to kill someone Polly, you may not be ready for a firearm. As for the guy with the knife to his back scenario, if there ois a knife to your back your best choice is to give up the money. Your odds are bad. There must be good judgement in being armed. Don’t get stupid because you have a gun. It may or may not be an egde. I use the example of a home invasion. Unless you are wearing your sidearm when the door gets kicked open, you may as well not have it. I have a little 32. Can’t hit anything outside 20 feet with it because of the very short barrel, but if someone is not that close then they are not a deadly threat. Inside of that, I’ll get you assuming it is a good decision to go that route.

By Howdy

March 8, 2006 9:11 AM | Link to this

After numerous additional posts I have noticed a few things.

One- people are stating that homes with kids are places they dont “have time to educate” or children will find the things you dont want them to.

This is true in some ways, BUT I find it disturbing that the public is taking less time with their families. Maybe some people have circumstances that require them to work more hours and that makes all the sense in the world. But for those who have time and are just taking the “I dont have time to educate” approach, then those people do not need to have a gun in the house.

Kids do find everything! I would bet every licensed carry citizen, is educated and takes the steps to ensure the possibility of a child finding their weapon doesnt happen. The stories reported in the news always seem to be the person who bought the gun for home safety, has NO TRAINING, NEVER FIRED the gun, and NEVER did any research themselves on gun safety.

The article by the officer points out the decisions we all need to make before ownership, and the decision to defend your life.

We do need to remove the public gathering grey areas and define them. However this bill protects the citizens doing the right thing and even saving one of our lives if we are not able or have the tools to defend ourselves.

By Mike

March 8, 2006 9:19 AM | Link to this

Excellent article Steve, and one that needs to be front and center in people’s minds. Both anti-gun folk who need to learn how the bad guys really think, and those who own a gun, but need to be proficient in using it and knowing the signs of an escalating situation. It’s all about unbiased education in both cases.

By Chris

March 8, 2006 9:45 AM | Link to this

I wish my friend’s son had been as sharp. Thanks to a downtown evening robbery and beating, his life has changed and he’s fortunate to be alive.

It’s not a rose garden out there. It pays to be able to tell a predator from a homeless guy, sometimes I am not sure I can.

By Jack

March 8, 2006 9:53 AM | Link to this

Hi, Steve:

This is probably the best-written article I have read on the “No duty to retreat” bill, sometimes erroneously referred to as the “Shoot first and ask questions later” bill. When the politics of the issues are set aside and the pros and cons dealt with objectively, it makes sense to give the armed, honest public some immunity from prosecution and civil suits if they need to use deadly force.

Especially important was the advice given to the Jello-hearts, as “brandishing” can have two results, either the positive one, a bad situation defused as the cuprit makes his hurried exit, or the negative, where the victim gets shot with his/her own gun. And for Gawd’s sake, y’all, don’t carry an unloaded gun or a lookalike, that will get you shot even quicker!

Now, if we could get rid of that useless “public gathering” stuff which makes the parking lot at the evening event a sure thing for the criminal element, we’d all be better off. The only people that this part of the law seems to apply to are the card-carrying, licensed, screened, non-criminal people that have gone the route to carry, legally, who are also the people that you would WANT at a public gathering, or in that parking lot with you as you tried to find your car in the dark.

Having said that, let me propose a question to you, Steve:

Is anything taught during the POST training course regarding dealing with people that are hearing-impaired? In today’s aura of heightened awareness and perhaps a bit of paranoia, one of the things I fear the most is being beat on or shot by a police officer because I didn’t hear his command.

By James

March 8, 2006 10:05 AM | Link to this

To Gerald - as a martial artist (and NRA Life member), it takes VERY little to kill someone. One blow to the throat with about five pounds of pressure behind it will do. I’ve known how to do it since I was 11, was GREAT incentive to seldom get drunk. It’s 24 years later, and I’ve had several encounters where my being armed is what prevented a violent crime from occurring. Without firing a shot, in most cases without having to do any more than make it obvious that I was armed and alert. My wife had two occasions within two weeks, when she was pregnant with our daughter, one of which was a guy who tried to follow her up the stairs to our apartment. Friend’s mother, when friend was deployed to Desert Storm, used my shotgun to convince an intruder that it was time to leave, he refused to do so until she showed him the shotgun. Another friend, since deceased, survived a street robbery in Virginia Highlands because, as a combat veteran, he knew to charge into the ambush, throwing the thug’s aim off and scaring him away. Friend took a bullet to the leg. The other guy robbed by the same thug earlier that night is dead, shot in the head after handing over his wallet. I can’t recall any times I regretted being armed (other than the extra weight and inconvenience), but I’ve had several occasions where I really regretted NOT being armed - including facing two thugs in downtown Atlanta who tried to rob me in broad daylight.

By James

March 8, 2006 10:21 AM | Link to this

I notice concerns about kids and firearms. There are any number of solutions to this. Many/most handguns come with locking cases, usually with locks. I have two small combination safes made specifically to hold handguns, one on each side of our bed. There are also devices to replace the magazine of a pistol that lock into place, and many newer guns have built-in locks or there are aftermarket locks that can be added (saw one this weekend for a Glock).

As for law enforcement versus armed civilians, many law enforcement officers have an exaggerated sense of their own marksmanship abilities. Or worse, they know they are held to a different standard than civilians, so they aren’t that concerned about misses. I’ve had a Dekalb cop tell me he doesn’t need to practice because he has a fifteen round magazine. A study done a number of years back found that the police were about five times as likely to shoot the wrong person as an armed civilian (mainly because they generally arrive after the fact)…

By Morgan

March 8, 2006 10:35 AM | Link to this

Good advice Steve.

I regret that the Legislature offered us nothing in return for the relaxed level of deadly force justification by citizens. There is no safety/training/competency requirement, no licensing of militia members and no registration of weapons. It makes the law enforcement department restraints and protocol look like useless adornment.

Let the bullets fly …

By Bill Mangum

March 8, 2006 11:11 AM | Link to this

Very well written, Steve.
At one time, everyone had been in the military it seemed, but that is not the case anymore, and not everyone hunts. So, anyone owning a gun has the obligation to learn gun safety. Also, there are three things that need to be done, practice, practice, practice. People need to know, too, that if the weapon is not within arm’s reach, it is probably worthless, and to try to get it can result in bad things. I don’t really know if we needed a new law, tho. Years ago, I sat on a jury where the defendant pled self defense, and the Judge defined self defense. About all I need to know is whether or not I am in fear of my life, and if I am, I might be tried by 12, but I won’t be carried by 6. Bill Mangum

By Dirk

March 8, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this

“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” - Robert A. Heinlein.

All these fears about Georgia becoming a shooting gallery are groundless. Why would you pull out your gun in a situation where you’re not in fear of your life, if there’s a good chance the other guy is also armed? Read and re-read Steve’s original post.

Agreed on the repeal of the “public gathering” restrictions for CCW. As many have mentioned, law-abiding citizens would not - could not - have been armed in Steve’s first story.

By gttim

March 8, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this

Wow, the NRA wingnuts came out screaming on this one. And no, liberals do not want to take all you guns away. Nice of you to keep repeating the lie made up by… the NRA. This liberal would like to see assault weapons banned, just because they tend to end up in the hands of criminals, and can be used to hurt lots of people. My NRA living wingnut neighbor used to love talking about his massive gun collection, including assault weapons. Then he was robbed and lost most of them. I do not think they ended up in the hands of a law abiding citizen.

That was a great article, Steve. Very balanced, expressing some real concerns. The best way to avoid any trouble is to keep an eye out, and stay out of situations that look fishy.

Also the words need to be repeated, know what is behind your target. Too many people die as collateral damage.

20 years ago I was working my way through college as a Domino’s Pizze driver. I was having trouble finding an address. I saw a couple getting out of their car at a house, and pulled up to ask them for help. Next thing I knew the inbred had a sawed off shotgun stuck in my window threatening me. He wanted to know what I was doing on his road. I explained the big lighted Domino’s sign on the top of my car, the polyester uniform I was wearing, and pointed at the hotbox holding the pizza. I was lucky the moron did not shoot me- some people should never have guns.

I have also had a bullet whiz past me head as somebody shot at somebody else. It is amazing how fast one can duck at times. Both of these incidents were when who the NRA considers “law abiding citizens” had guns when they probably should not have. Everybody was lucky nobody got hurt in those situations.

I just love it when private citizens brag they know more about gun usage and safety than the police. I am sure the police love those folks as well.

By Yangki Rebel

March 8, 2006 12:50 PM | Link to this

Gttim: Seems like both incidents were illegal. A sawed-off shotgun is illegal by Federal statute. Likely you tried to ask a Bonnie and Clyde duo for directions after the last heist.

Where were you when the bullets are flying? Robbers like to work in dark places without witnesses. Unlikely that you were missed by a citizen protecting himself from robbery. Was it a drug dispute? Were you involved?

By Shawn D.

March 8, 2006 12:55 PM | Link to this

Morgan — I agree with you that mandatory safety training and competency testing for firearms users would be a good idea, but I strongly disagree with your statement that “… the Legislature offered us nothing in return for the relaxed level of deadly force justification by citizens.” What we got in return is a reasonable legal interpretation of the right to defend ourselves! As for “There is… no licensing of militia members and no registration of weapons,” exactly what militia are you talking about? Do you favor mandatory registration of firearms like so many totalitarian regimes have had?

gttim — I agree with you about your experiences when you say “(these people) had guns when they probably should not have”, but exactly how do you know that “Both of these incidents were when who the NRA considers “law abiding citizens”?” Was there an NRA rep there vouching for them? It’s obvious to me those folks were miscreant types who have no regard for the law or decent conduct, no matter what the law does or does not permit with respect to firearms. Before you dismiss me as an “NRA wingnut,” you should know that I have never been an NRA member and likely never will be.

None of the folks opposed to this have come up with more than exaggerated hypothetical examples, nor have their “real-world” examples the illegal and unjustifiable use of firearms by folks were possessing and using them legally.

By Morgan

March 8, 2006 1:27 PM | Link to this

Shawn D - I fail to comphrehend why so many folks habitually assume it’s a foregone conclusion that law-abiding citizens who are armed will create a sea of blood through indiscriminate use of a firearm! Similar hysteria about concealed-carry laws did not come to pass when they were passed and/or expanded, and it isn’t going to happen with this either.

You seem to be ignoring the 30,000 firearms deaths each year ( how much blood creates a “sea” ? ) and the uncounted injuries. It’s too simple to say that law abiding citizens are not responsible for the toll since prior to the discharge they fit the profile as well as you and I.

The Patriot Act restricts so many liberties, I wonder why firearms are not deemed as significant as library records. (D.C. was terrorized by one rifle, not too long ago.)

By Shawn D.

March 8, 2006 4:29 PM | Link to this

Morgan,

I am not discounting the total effects of firearms on deaths and injuries. The context of this discussion is the “… bill that would expand the law that now allows Georgians to use deadly force in their homes and vehicles.” You apparently think that the bill will increase firearm deaths by orders of magnitude, but I do not. It didn’t happen with the expansion of concealed-carry laws and I don’t believe it will happen here.

You say “It’s too simple to say that law abiding citizens are not responsible for the toll since prior to the discharge they fit the profile as well as you and I.” I never said that law-abiding citizens are not responsible for firearms deaths and injuries. Do you not understand that causing death or injury with a firearm can be well within the law? Your statement seems to imply that you think using a firearm instantly makes you a criminal — it does not! Using a firearm illegally makes you a criminal!

As for your comment “The Patriot Act restricts so many liberties, I wonder why firearms are not deemed as significant as library records.” you should know that bearing firearms is a right, not a liberty. That having been said, I am with you on the library record part — it goes too far, as does much of the Patriot Act, in my opinion.

-Shawn

By Scott

March 8, 2006 5:36 PM | Link to this

For those who disagree with citizens having weapons please remember they are a right this country was found on. If one is removed all can and will be removed eventually. Anyway you try to analyze it weapons lower crime. D.C. is mentioned and they have a gun ban. This is follow with having one of the highest crime rates. Other countries that have disarmed citizens have much higher crime rate than the US. Common sense will show you that armed citizens will keep others straight. You would not create a problem where you know people have a weapon or could possibly have a weapon. Criminals do not cause problems in places where they could get caught or injured themselves. The exceptions are the people who do not care to begin with and would still do something crazy with armed trained officers in plain site.

By Joe

March 8, 2006 8:44 PM | Link to this

OK. We want to get in statistics on gun use now huh? Well, let’s do go there.

Out of the 30,000+ firearm deaths in 2003, 16,907 were from self-inflicted suicide. There is more than one easy way to commit suicide. So is it really fair to blame suicide on a gun?

Now we’re down to about 13,000 deaths with firearms. Out of those 13,000, how many do you think were accidents? 730 of them were accidents. This means given the current population of the United States, 295,734,134 as of Jul 2005, your changes of being accidentally shot and killed are 1 in 405,115 or about .002%.

Yes, I can see where you would be concerned about being accidentally killed by a firearm. After all, your chances of being killed in a car trip of a 1,000 miles or more are about 1 in 42,000. I mean the chance of being killed with a gun are only about ten times less. Cars are also responsible for over 50,000 fatalities per year.

By Dang The Hung

March 8, 2006 11:53 PM | Link to this

30,000 firearm related deaths a year??? Sorry it’s more like 11,000. And even still that is less significant than the 400,000 people that die each year from smoking tobacco related illnesses.

Why don’t we go ahead and ban cigarettes. After all you don’t have a constitutional right to smoke or poison others with your disgusting habit.

And get a grip here. This law DOES NOT make the use of deadly force more lax. Its amazing the hysterical comments coming from those who have probably not read the law or the bill being proposed. Furthermore, I have known more law-abiding citizens that can handle and fire their weapons with much more precision and accuracy than most cops I have known.

Lastly, Malum Prohibitum hit it on the head. A carry license is pretty much useless in this state. With the ban on carrying at public gatherings (athletic and sporting events, public buildings, political functions, churches and church functions, resturants that serve alcohol, and any other place that has an event the public can gather for) public transportation vehicles and terminals, schools and school functions, the Airport, state parks, wildlife management areas, and stone mountain park. It is open season on law-abiding citizens at these places where criminals carry. I mean after all they are called criminals for a reason - they have total disregard for the law.

But liberals don’t want you to believe that there are such things as bad guys and they certianly don’t like the fact of someone having total control and protection of their life. I mean after all, that is what the government is for, right?

Too bad ignorance isn’t painful, or else all the liberals in the world would be writhing and screaming in pain.

By Gunstar1

March 9, 2006 12:02 AM | Link to this

Morgan: Please provide the information on how many of the 30,000 people were from citizens legally protecting themselves. FAR more people die in cars, so I wonder why the Patriot Act does not prevent you from driving.

The DC sniper stole the rifle, killed people, and had a working firearm in DC which is also against the law.

Please tell me how many more laws would it take to have made them not shoot people? Please let us know this magic law(s) that will keep someone from killing another, since as you mentioned all the laws we have now did not stop them.

Polly: If I emptied my firearm and did not hit anything, I would not carry that firearm until I had more training on it and could hit what I aimed for, PERIOD. That is what training is for, to learn to hit what you aim for and to keep that information fresh. Training is not shooting a target a few times every 6 months for qualification.

Last, if you know guns you will also know that one of the 4 rules of firearms is always know what is beyond your target.

The people I know that carry I would bet money could out shoot (be more accurate than) 85% of law enforcment. The reason is we practice more.

By C

March 9, 2006 1:32 AM | Link to this

I totally agree with OFC Rose on this issue. I believe the worst thing any government can deny its citizenry is its right to defend themselves — to deny a most basic instinct—that is, self preservation.

I’m tired of law abiding citizens being told to hide their heads while crooks get an unfair, deadly advantage.

By Az

March 9, 2006 4:32 AM | Link to this

Morgan - please provide any factual stats for those “30,000 firearm deaths per year” please.

And once you do…check them to see how many of them are “gang on gang”, “drug deals gone bad”, “committed during course of robbery”, and other such crimes. Then, see how many were actually caused by a law abiding citizen who was legally armed.

If you think you can actually handle hard FACTS, and not emotional rhetoric, then try visiting this site:

http://www.gunfacts.info/

By Dirk

March 9, 2006 8:08 AM | Link to this

So as not to be seen as an “NRA Wingnut”, let me tell you a bit about myself and my views. I have never been a member of the NRA, and will probably not become one. I won’t say whether or not I own a gun, because it’s all too easy for someone to find out who I am, where I live, and all that kind of stuff. I will say I am proficient in the use of a gun. I started young - about 7 - using a BB gun, and have fired thousands and thousands of rounds from various types of guns. I know the rules of gun use.

I’m a strong 2nd amendment supporter. However, I believe it should be mandatory to receive training in order to obtain a carry permit. At the bare minimum, a good, practical training class, taught by a qualified instructor, of no less than 8 hours, followed by hours on the range. And to retain that permit, one should have to continue practicing, and should have to submit certification once a year that the practice has occurred.

Is that an unreasonable restriction on gun ownership? I think not. I’m sure there are some “wingnuts” that will disagree. I feel that, if you want to have a deadly weapon, you should have the training and practice before you’re allowed the use of it. It applies to cars, it should apply to guns - never mind that driving is a privilege and a liberty, and gun ownership is a right. Restricting a right doesn’t eliminate that right. It ensures personal responsibility in enjoying that right, in this case.

By Morgan

March 9, 2006 9:06 AM | Link to this

Shawn D - The obscure 26/27 word Second Amendment becomes simple if it’s only one word.

Joe, Dang, Gunstar1, Az - I can hear clearly if the background “noise” of 100,000 annual incidents of gun violence are ignored.

It all becomes simple from that perspective.

By Dang The Hung

March 9, 2006 10:35 AM | Link to this

Morgan- Ahh so now it’s 100,000 a year. wow, quite an imagination you have. I don’t see how you can hear clearly at all when your blinded by your own baseless rhetoric.

By Morgan

March 9, 2006 1:19 PM | Link to this

I know the NRA doesn’t want firearms statistics to be compiled (so, I won’t list my source).

2003 data:

30,136 firearms fatalities 65,834 firearms injuries

(Your unwillingness to acknowledge the cost to society simply makes my point.)

By PDM

March 9, 2006 4:24 PM | Link to this

I am a 50 year old grandmother. Last year there was a 16 year old young man stalking three women in my neighborhood myself included. He started out as a peeping tom. He then broke into my home while I was not at there. He stole several things including my gun. He attemped to break in a second time and I caught him in the act. The third time he tried to break in it was around midnight when knew I was home. He cut the power to my house then attempted to break in through my bedroom window. The terror I felt was unimaginable. You better beleive I purchased another gun the next day. Thanks to the Clayton County Police Dept. he is now in a juvenile facility and I pactice shooting at a local range. Should he ever come back I sincerely believe I will not hesitate to shoot. This bill will afford me protection under the law and from possible lawsuits from family who had no idea were there 16 year old son was at, or much less what he was doing.

By Rebecca

March 9, 2006 8:03 PM | Link to this

I normally read this blog without posting, but the number of police officers sounding off here makes me feel that I need to respond. I live in a nice suburban area and I have been watching the crime rise steadily over the last two years. I have called the police so often that they have actually stopped coming. Until recently when they made nearly 20 arrests less than 100 yards from my house. Teenagers smoking and dealing marijuana. I have an infant and fifteen firearms. Don’t think for a second that I will trust the police over those guns to protect my daughter. I know where the guns are, how to use them and what I have to lose. I can’t trust the police to show up when there is a car full of people parked at the end of my driveway or someone coming out of the woods behind my house or when I have a flashlight shone in my bedroom window at 2:00 am, but I am expected to wait for them to protect me? I think not.

By George

March 9, 2006 8:13 PM | Link to this

Morgan, if you do not cite the source of your statistics no one is going to consider them.

For honest citizens it’s a great law that just passed. If you are a thug who wants to prey on people your trade just got riskier, and there is no chance of winning a civil suit jackpot afterwards for the thug or his family.

If you read the content of the law, Morgan, you would not be here debating gun control. It isn’t about gun control, it’s about personal responsibility.

By Joe

March 10, 2006 9:34 AM | Link to this

Morgan, I freely acknowledge that bad people with guns kill people. I also acknowledge that a very SMALL percentage of the population are unintentionally killed by guns. Do you realize this number is .0002% per year? Do you not comprehend how SMALL this number is?

I also freely admit that people with cars kill more people than guns every year. As far as serious injuries and accidents with cars, they blow any gun injuries out of the water. However, I don’t see you calling for an end to cars. Why not? Perhaps you have one and don’t want to get rid of it? I promise your car poses more of a risk to children than guns do. As a matter of fact, what I do see is you ignoring these statistics as I have brought them up before to counter your gun statistics.

I also would like to point out this: If you took out all of the gang members, drug dealers, and other criminals killed by other criminals, you would drastically lower the gun homicide rate. When it comes to those people, I blame their lifestyle for their deaths and have little sympathy for them.

Also, I would like to point out, a criminal by definition is one that does not obey the law. It is already illegal for convicted felons to carry a gun. It is a felony for you to use a gun in any type of crime. If a law is all it takes to stop crime, you better tell the criminals.

Why can we not rely on the laws we have in place to handle gun crime? Why do we have to punish law abiding citizens who are guaranteed a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms? How would you like it if someone told you that if you spoke your opinion you would go to jail? This is exactly what you are doing to gun owners. You are trying to deny them their basic fundamental rights.

By Bryan

March 10, 2006 9:51 AM | Link to this

For all of you blood will run in the streets folks, look at the national crime numbers. Concealed Carry Permitters nationally have a lower rate of crime than do police officers. Look at the crime statistics since the liberalization of Concealed Carry Laws, go actually look and read the Constitution. Do a little research, then remember something very important. It is already illegal for criminals to have guns/knives that they can assault you with. They don’t care about the law, and the police can’t protect you. I just hope that most of you learn this w/o losing a loved one or your own life. Then get yourself trained, and protect yourself. Most of us don’t go looking for trouble, but I sure plan on being ready if trouble finds me!

By James

March 10, 2006 10:22 AM | Link to this

Dirk - I firmly believe in firearms training, I believe it should be mandatory in school. I DISAGREE with mandating a training course before being able to exercise one’s right to own and carry firearms because such training requirements have a long history of abuse. Including such gems as only scheduling the classes a few times a year, at inconvenient locations, and then having the classes fill up with political cronies before the average citizen even learns they are scheduled. The Georgia Constitution, and the US Constitution, are both pretty clear on our rights, the problem has been that various levels of courts have been misquoting one Supreme Court decision from the 1930’s, in which the government flat out lied in their deposition, and there was no representation for the other party, a practice that has since been deemed unConstitutional. And even then, the decision did NOT say what later courts have tried to claim it said (in fact, those later courts have generally been completely incorrect on the base details of the case, including who was the appellant). The ‘public gatherings’ clause in Georgia laws has no basis in the state Constitution, or under the US Constitution, but Georgia courts haven’t exactly been known for following either, and have even been known to make their own laws as they go - after all, who could imagine that a private backyard barbecue could be considered a ‘public gathering’ under the carry laws? The Georgia courts do…

By Joe

March 10, 2006 11:10 AM | Link to this

I, for one, won’t dispute Morgan’s numbers on gun violence. Let us go full force at the 100,000 gun incidents per year number.

As there are currently an estimated 295,734,137 people in the United States, 100,000 gun incidents hardly constitutes an epidemic or even a blip on the radar screen. Taking no other factors into effect, such as gang or criminal involvement, it means each citizen has a 00.03% chance of being involved with a gun incident. For all intents and purposes that is a zero percent chance of you being involved in a gun incident.

Can you sit with a straight face and honestly tell me that with those percentages that gun incidents truly have any measurable effect on society as a whole? Can you call those percentages an epidemic?

I’m sure if you’re a gang banger, drug dealer, or other criminal your chances are much greater. However, as I have posted above, I have no sympathy for those people. It is called karma.

To even have half of a percent or 0.5% chance of being involved with gun violence, there would have to be 1,478,670 gun incidents per year. This is almost fifteen times the current rate of gun incidents per year.

Keep in mind that I have just used your own numbers and not disputed them at all. I have merely put them in perspective for you. However, I’m sure you’ll come up with another number to throw out. However, it better be in the 1.4 million range before we can even start to get even half way to a whole number percentage.

By Morgan

March 10, 2006 7:27 PM | Link to this

Steve - Sorry to have drifted off topic.

Joe - Thanks for accepting the figure, anybody could find that source who’s interested in them (Az, you don’t care). Interesting threshold you cite. You must be comfortable with the relative calm in Baghdad. (Again the background noise makes U.S. seem quiet but our per capita firearms fatalities far exceed other industrialized nations. The violent nature of U.S. society is a contributing factor, but you need a “gun” to shoot someone. Do your own research.)

Do you really want to consider firearms a consumer product (like an automobile)? I expect you will back off from that avenue when registration, safety standards (I advocate) and the like are introduced.

Preferred Philadelphia’s SEPTA to get around but get my MARTA card every month. Had to buy a set of wheels when I got here to get to public transit. I advocate $5 a gallon gasoline (far below the $20 it’s costing us to produce the energy).

By Peter

March 11, 2006 4:01 PM | Link to this

Polly said people aren’t afraid until they own a gun. Base on what Polly? I’ve never been afraid and I’ve not owned guns and currently own several. All the folks that I know that own guns aren’t afraid. Being prepared is different then being afraid. The Boy Scout motto is not “Be Afraid” it’s “Be Prepared” One thing you need to realize is that there will ALWAYS be predators and predators prey upon the weak. My martial arts teacher used to say that we train in marital arts so we never have to use it. I carry a gun for the same reason. And no Polly, I am not a cuckoo. Why is it cuckoo to want to protect your family or yourself? You do realize that most of the time the police arrive after the crime is already committed? Do you also realize that according to the Supreme Court the police are under no obligation to protect you? We are not Cuckoos Polly we are law abiding citizens looking to protect ourselves and our family from those that prey upon us.

By trainfan

March 12, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this

Just remember one thing folks, if this legislation does become law, and you do have to use deadly force, you will still have to prove that you felt that your life was in danger and you had no other alternative. You may have to prove this in a court of law in front of 12 of your fellow citizens, any one of which may think that no one other than the police should own a gun. If there are enough of these folks on a jury, the next words you hear after the words “guilty on all counts” will be from the judge, “Life in prison”. It is the District Attorneys jobs to bring criminals to trials and it is up to that same DA to decide wheather he/she thinks you are a criminal for defending yourself. Now, let me clarify, I believe that everyone should have the right to own a firearm and everyone should have the right to defend theirselves, but I am just saying, don’t be surprised if, God forbid, you do have to defend yourself, you have to prove yourself.

By Dirk

March 13, 2006 8:40 AM | Link to this

James,

I grant you that there is avenue for abuse if it were to become mandatory to take and complete gun training courses prior to being granted a CCW permit. I suspect, however, that if such a requirement were to be enacted into law, that there would be enough provisions in said law to pretty much guarantee easy availability of courses. The sticking point would be defining who would be allowed to teach such courses. Make that definition broad enough, and there will be a substantial number of new businesses springing up to teach the required courses.

Of course, I’ve been accused of being overly optimistic.

By Chris

March 13, 2006 12:45 PM | Link to this

So now when cars try to run me off the road on my bicycle I can legally shoot them? Aw, yeah!

I’ve always reserved the .380 for when cars stop and somebody gets out, but now, trans-camaros and pick-ups watch out!

By Michael

March 14, 2006 12:49 PM | Link to this

trainfan - very good point. I lived in Memphis, TN for about 6 years and there were a lot of self defense shootings. Most seemed to be clearcut eg. carjacking, armed robbery, etc. and still the police and DA would try to put the victims in jail. You heard much more outrage at the victim defending him / her self than you did at the scumbag perpetrating the crime. It got so bad that on a local radio program they had an attorney as a guest several times to talk to people and answer questions. One thing I remember him saying over and over in order to emphasize as strongly as he could is this; If you have to defend yourself there are two things you say, and ONLY two things. 1) I feared for my life 2) I want an attorney He said to say nothing more and nothing less.

By Morgan

March 14, 2006 10:19 PM | Link to this

Anyone consider that this simply raises the probability of having the perpetrator sneak up behind the victim (such as to gain the element of surprise) and prevent any meeting of force with force … or the improbable likelihood of simply shooting first?

Is human nature any different in the international arena?

Countries have unsuccessfully played that arms race. (Not to say that a preemptive attack isn’t out of the question.)

By steve

March 15, 2006 8:22 PM | Link to this

very good article , the thoughts enter my mind on a daily basis , I do always carry a pistol but not always concealed , I feel that the mere site of a weapon deters a good bit of possible attemps , after all if I was planning on robbing someone and I saw they had a gun I think i’d look elsewhere

By Morgan

March 16, 2006 2:46 PM | Link to this

Woman killed trying to recover stolen car - So, who do you shoot? The “good” guys, the “bad” guys or both groups? This encounter really needed more gun fire but to step into the situation you’d really want superior weapons. It’s too bad that fully automatic assault weapons are not legal yet.

(I can see why law enforcement might feel this new legislation might not be appropriate without some training and other guidelines. Can you?)

By Tom

March 16, 2006 7:05 PM | Link to this

After reading Steve’s column and all the comments posted above, there are a couple of points I’d like to make. First, there are two types of LEGAL gun owners: the responsible, and the moron. The responsible will invest the time and effort necessary to learn not only HOW to use their weapon, but WHEN to use their weapon, and more importantly, when NOT to use their weapon. NEVER carry a weapon that you haven’t fired. All guns behave differently, so take it to the range BEFORE you begin carrying it, no matter how experienced you are with firearms.

Personally I carry every day. I don’t live in GA, but the state I do live in has issued me a CCW permit. I am a former police officer and police department armorer, so I feel somewhat qualified to address this issue.

If you feel the need to carry a handgun, always carry the same gun in the same place everyday. Trust me when I tell you that, in a crisis situation you will NOT have time to try and remember where it is.

Next, make DAMN sure that you can use the weapon if need be. If you’re not sure whether you have what it takes to do something that could cause the death of another person, DO NOT CARRY A FIREARM. And remember, it is NOT the same as shooting at a silhouette target on a pistol range.

And finally, if the worst case scenario happens, be prepared for some serious mental and emotional consequences. The taking of a human life is something that will weigh on you for the rest of your life. I know. it is my sincere hope that you never find yourself in that position.

Be safe. Be alert. Be prepared. Stay alive.

By Michael

March 22, 2006 12:45 PM | Link to this

If some drug crazed or any below the food chain idiot thinks I would think twice about pulling the hair trigger, think again. I’m for any self defense. Atlanta is one of the worst crime ridden cities in America and well known for robberies and carjacking. I believe in NRA, I’m armed at home and in my car. Should a time arise to defend my life with very deadly force, I might allow the offender to limp the rest of their natural life. Instead of asking some brainless idiot to make my day I’ll have no problem not asking!

By Jeremy

March 24, 2006 1:00 AM | Link to this

Very good piece, I always love reading the arguments when these subjects come up. The discussed legislation dose not make it legal to go hunting down criminals, or make it easier to legally shoot someone. All it does is clear up a vague area in existing law. It will not make Georgia into the new “Wild West”. There will not be bodies in the steets, rivers of blood or any other of the tired rhetoric. If you shoot someone you will still face a judge and jury. I believe Mr. Rose nailed it on the head with his final statement.