Jump to content
Ken, I am not arguing for a change in gun laws.
What I am saying is that a higher level of training for anyone that chooses to arm themselves in public places is required. Similar to a class 3 weapons permit.
Simply putting more weapons into public spaces will increase the number of public shootings. Those people that think they require that kind of power should be required to show a higher level of competence with their weapon. We demand that from those that drive larger commercial vehicles, why should it be any different with firearms?
A gun is one potential tool that might be used by an officer or an armed citizen during an active shooter scenario in a movie theater. But considering that conditions will be dark and often loud, once the shooting starts, so does the panic of the moviegoers. That dark, loud, chaotic scene is the tactical reality behind the shot some armed citizen or officer may be wishing to take.
It is not realistic to think that:
1. The bad guy can always be easily identified.
2. You will hit your intended target.
3. Your average concealed carry permit holder will know how to react when the shooting starts.
Much more there for your reading pleasure. What say you?
"You will be held accountable for every round you fire, and your intention to save lives will be irrelevant if an innocent third party gets killed."
Interesting timing from General Honore
"As a country we're in a state of denial because we've confused the right to bear arms with the right to carry arms all the time anywhere or anyplace you want," Honore told Gannett Louisiana on Monday. "We have to have a different kind of conversation in America and be prepared to speak about the politically unspeakable."
"The best place for weapons when you're not in the field is to be locked up in the garrison," Honore' said. "Our biggest problem before Desert Storm was (soldiers) accidentally firing their weapons, and they're trained."
"I've been around guns all my life, but when I was growing up they were locked in the cabinet unless you needed them for hunting."
As a citizen of Routt County, the City of Steamboat already gets plenty of my tax dollars in the form of their sales tax. Why would/should we pay more for city services that we have no voice in and no control over? If they want more money from the County then we want a vote on how they spend it. Like Nancy told us, "Just Say NO!"
Which is why there should be mandatory regular training for all holders of a CCW permit. That responsibility it not something to be taken lightly and it should not be granted to persons of questionable mental stability. The CCW permit should require more than a rubber stamp for those that apply.
PS. Good advice Mark. I hope someone/anyone is listening.
Colorado has a castle law. The statute states that “any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.”
Again, distinctly different than creating and then escalating a roadside encounter such as Mark described. Castle Law would be much more appropriate to Brian's story about his father. It does not apply to the "story" that Mark Hartless told. In his words, he was the first person to display a weapon. That is aggression not self-defense.
Castle Doctrine applies to Mr Ewing because he was visiting his sister and therefore actually on private property when the dispute occurred.
Why would you expect to indiscriminately be able to draw your weapon in public spaces without reproach? Colorado law calls that a crime regardless of your beliefs. Once another individual actually threatens you with a weapon, the rules change.
Again, per Mark's own words "He never actually saw a weapon" meaning his reaction to produce a weapon was yet another escalation in an already bad situation that he had already chosen to escalate. Yes, I know he regrets his actions but regret is not codified in the law now is it.
Uh, did you actually read the story Ken. Mr. Ewing did not produce a firearm or display any response whatsoever until his life was threatened. This stands as an example of "Castle Doctrine". Distinctly different than what was described above. In your referenced story, it was Thomas McCary that first produced a weapon and then fired.
At that moment, Patrick Ewing defended himself and his family not before and not until. In this case he did not "think" or "believe" he was defending himself as shots had already been fired in his direction.
This is distinctly different than what Mark H describes above.
It might surprise you to know that I am a gun owner and supporter of the 2nd amendment. IMO, there is a BIG difference between the Castle Doctrine and the story that Mark describes.
Castle Doctrine = At home or in private vehicle with intruders trying to break in.
Mark H. - Started the encounter, escalated the encounter and brandished his weapon in public to force the behavior he required. At no time did he ever state that he actually "saw" a shotgun, he just "assumed". Sure, he probably assumed correctly given his description but the pesky fact that Mark initiated the encounter in the first place is a glaring discrepancy IMO. "Regret" in the rear view mirror does not change his level of responsibility.
This self described behavior does not represent the level headed individual that should be packing heat in public spaces. The personal decision to engage in CCW should also come with mandatory training and increased responsibility to recognize an escalating situation combined with the ability to walk away. I know you all think that you are protecting yourselves but our society does not need the cowboy mentality represented by his story in our streets. I would go further to propose that those individuals with that "shoot em up" mentality are exactly the ones that should not be armed when in public.
Case in point for Chattanooga: The Military has asked all those would be defenders of the Constitution to stand down. How exactly might the public react if the local muslim cleric mobilized his congregation to "protect" our servicemen or march thru the streets defending their "open carry" rights.
Imagine one of these theater shootings with 8-10 CCW holders all deciding that they were going to be the one to take down this guy. Do not kid yourself about being a hero. In that darkened theater with muzzle flashes and confusion there would be bullets flying everywhere. When the shooting was done, I predict that regret and grief would be the the primary emotions for all.
Come on Mark, based on the Colorado code sections 8-9-106 Disorderly conduct and 18-3-206. Menacing, your conduct is defined as a felony per your own words. Got any response or should the county just send Sheriff Wiggins over to your house for a serious discussion about your rights and responsibilities?
Based on your on words, it would appear that you are not the law abiding gun owner that you claim or was that just another "Grocery Store" parable? You sure did shut up quick when those pesky "facts" got in the way.
8-9-106. Disorderly conduct
(1) A person commits disorderly conduct if he or she intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly:
(f) Not being a peace officer, displays a deadly weapon, displays any article used or fashioned in a manner to cause a person to reasonably believe that the article is a deadly weapon, or represents verbally or otherwise that he or she is armed with a deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm.
(3) An offense under(1)(f) of this section is a class 2 misdemeanor.
(1) A person commits the crime of menacing if, by any threat or physical action, he or she knowingly places or attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury. Menacing is a class 3 misdemeanor, but, it is a class 5 felony if committed:
(a) By the use of a deadly weapon or any article used or fashioned in a manner to cause a person to reasonably believe that the article is a deadly weapon; or
(b) By the person representing verbally or otherwise that he or she is armed with a deadly weapon.
"Brandishment as a crime requires bringing the weapon to a ready state with intent to threaten or intimidate."
Looks to me like Mark Hartless just admitted to a crime...
Last login: Saturday, July 25, 2015
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2015 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.