Since we’re dealing with strawmen here…how about the attacker approaches her with a knife, and says “don’t do anything stupid”? And then she pushes her purse forward, fumbling with it, saying “Please, take my money!”, while drawing her Springfield Compact .45 out of it, and then sending 10 .45-caliber slugs into his groin?
Or she wakes up in her house to hear someone walking through it, or the door or window opening, and when he enters the bedroom, standing there, she fires a few shots into him?
Or maybe, we can look at the “likely scenario”, which happens to be what actually happened to these three women. If you click on the handy-dandy link in the OP, you can see:
All three killed or abducted in their homes. You need to find another strawman, as concealed carry had nothing to do with it. Or try clicking on the links in the OP. Or reading the news. Or, since your real issue seems to be with concealed carry, perhaps you should find an appropriate thread to discuss those issues.
What does that have to do with the topic here? Who’s talking about LSU? Who’s talking about throwing firearms to drunks?
Okay, I wasn’t aware of all the details in the case. I was under the misconsception that one of the girls was a student snatched near campus. It kind of renders most of my post pointless, and I do deserve a bit of condemnation for not fully reviewing the facts before jumping in with my opinion. Sorry.
Still, I don’t think the governor telling everyone to run out and get guns is the best idea in the world.
There are many negatives associated with owning a handgun (accidents, etc) which have been well-established in god-knows-how-many previous threads, and in this case, they outweigh the single positive - stopping a serial killer.
Yes, the chance is small that an accident will happen, but the chance is even smaller that not only will the serial killer target you (3 people in 10 months in a city of 230,000), but that you will manage to have the prescense of mind, quick timing, ability to hit a moving target in the dark when you’re scared out of your mind, etc, etc, to actually shoot the guy.
The governor wants thousands of women to arm themselves, not based on crime in general, but because of one specific person who killed 3 people in 10 months. It’s a knee-jerk, ineffective response to tragedy. A Baton Rouge woman is much more likely to get killed in accident driving to work on Airline Hwy (or, god forbid, I-10) than to fall prey to this psycho.
Considering the corrupt history of Louisiana governors, I wouldn’t be surprised if the folks at Remington slipped a few bucks into 'ol Foster’s pocket to make that statement.
I think it’s more fair to say that since a lot of attention has been given to the fact that there’s a psycho out there, the governor has reminded women that they are free to arm themselves against this psycho and all others.
Why would he have to be bribed by a gun company in order to remind his citizens that gun ownership is, in the main, a perfectly legal means by which they may protect themselves?
I actually agree with you - suggesting they arm themselves on the basis of one stastistically unlikely threat IS simply a knee-jerk reaction to a specific series of events.
No one should buy a gun just because a specific serial killer might pick them out of half a million people.
Of course, I think everyone should learn how to responsibly and effectively use guns anyway - and if this spurs more people to do it - assuming they learn to do it responsibly, then all for the better.
It is not ineffective and knee-jerk. If it helps some women feel more comfortable in their homes and lets them sleep better at night, it seems to me that it helped in a pretty important way.
I lived on a farm when I was a kid, and a man a few miles down the road went berzerk and killed his family and the two police officers who came to investigate. Then he vanished into the woods. A few miles from us. We were all terrified that this guy would wind up on our farm, and given how many farms were in the general area that was maybe a 1-10 chance.
My grandfather broke out his shotgun, and parked it near him at the supper table. Just the presence of that thing calmed everyone down and made them feel a little better. We were taking charge of the situation, to some degree.
Do people need to be reminded that guns are legal? Especially in Louisiana?
Furthurmore, I didn’t say the governor HAD to be bribed to say it, in fact I bet he probably wasn’t - more than likely he’s just another gun nut, or who knows, maybe sucking up to the NRA for a cushy job once he gets voted out.
It was just an offhand comment. If you read the newspapers down here, you’d see the absolutely rampant amount of corruption among public officials (one former governer was sentenced a couple years ago to 10 [or was it 15] years in jail, but he’ll likely never serve a day). I’m not accusing or even suggesting that Foster was bribed. I just said I wouldn’t be surprised.
Foster said :
Many would also argue that guns can create a lot of grief. Foster doesn’t mention that. If he’s just being a responsible governor and reminding people they can use guns because they’re too stupid to remember that fact themselves, wouldn’t he also want to remind them that they might accidently kill a family member with one. Memory loss works both ways, ya know?
Also, addressing SPOOFE’s earlier comment, I doubt any person crazy enough to kill three people for no apparent reason would give a flying fig if 10% more women had guns than before. He’s already risking his life (electric chair) by committing these atrocities, so do you really think a little bit more risk is going to deter him?
Don’t forget the part where he admonishes people to learn how to use them. That’s the most important part.
True, but on the other hand, we don’t know the mental state of this person. He may be doing it simply because he’s convinced himself that he won’t be caught. In any case, it’s hardly a condemnation of owning a gun to say “You might not be able to use it!” Such an argument can also be applied to mace or pepper spray.
Its silly for anyone to suggest that packing heat will make you suddenly invincible. But it is just one more reassurance.
I was mentioning a specific situation, in which a woman’s house was being broken into by a killer, and the various obstacles that she, a regular person, with regular emotions would face in order to use a deadly weapon effectively under those circumstances.
The military doesn’t have M-16’s because they’re afraid of serial killers breaking into their houses in the middle of the night. Plus, they’re highly trained in the use of the weapons, as are police officers. Your average person is not. You’re equating apples and oranges.
Until one of the negatives happens.
You ask me to define gun nut? Well, to me it’s anyone who thinks that everyone should be armed. If you own 10 guns and love to go hunting and target shooting then, hey, good for you. I have no problem with that. But if you try to tell ME that I need to have a gun for MY own safety, I’ll tell you you’re a paranoid gun nut.
I’d never want to have a gun in my house. The only gun I’ve ever fired was a Glock .45 while target shooting in the woods. I did enjoy the experience, but the thought of actually owning a gun makes me queasy. I just don’t like the idea of having a killing machine in my house. If you do, good for you.
If someone should happen to break into my apartment and kill my unarmed self, I owe you a coke.
I don’t recall ever having heard of a serial killer stopped by an armed individual, or for that matter having been specifically identified by a serial killer task force or FBI profile. It’s usually chance and/or good routine police work that does the job. Not that this means it’s futile for individuals to have guns for self-protection.
“I just don’t like the idea of having a killing machine in my house.”
You would be surprised at the degree to which criminals in general, and organized serial killers in particular, will take risk of apprehension into consideration before choosing and going after a target. Serial killers are often aware of the risk involved in approaching any given target, and will cut and run if it looks like things are going wrong. Ted Bundy was a master at this: He cased his victims carefully, and often approached several in the same day.
Why would you think Remington slipped him a few bucks? Remington doesn’t currently make any handguns, and I don’t think too many women carry a purse big enough to carry a shotgun concealed…
All firearms purchases and transfers, including private party transactions and sales at gun shows, must be made through a licensed dealer under the Dealer Record of Sale (DROS) process. California imposes a 10-day waiting period before a firearm can be released to a buyer or transferee. A person must be at least 18 years of age to purchase a rifle or shotgun. To buy a handgun, a person must be at least 21 years of age and possess a Basic Firearms Safety Certificate (BFSC) or qualify for a BFSC exemption.
The BFSC is Californias version of a permit. It applies only to handguns.
Ok, I’m a female student at LSU (currently in Slidell with my parents for summer break). Everyone I know keeps warning me about going back. I really don’t understand why guns are necessary - especially for someone like me. The only gun I’ve ever touched is my bf’s father’s (he’s in the NOPD). I wouldn’t have a clue how to use them even if my life depended on it.
Secondly, there are so many other ways of protecting yourself. I never walk on campus or to my apartment alone. Everyone at school knows that! In fact, I used to work the late shift at one of the computer labs on campus, as we chicks were REQUIRED to have at least one male escort us to our car/dorm. It’s just about being smart.
Now, I understand these abductions have been from within apartments. That’s why I’m never in mine without my deadbolt on (my windows don’t open either). I’m not worried, and I know I don’t need a gun. I think too many people in this country have guns, and I’m not about to add to public hysteria!
Well what do you think would be better? Being a “regular” person, with “regular” emotions facing those circumstances unarmed or facing it armed?
**
Using a firearm isn’t rocket science and doesn’t require military or police training.
**
I happen to think that it is the most effective way to defend yourself against an attacker. Not counting common sense preventative measures of course.
**
I hope you’re not serious about it making you queasy. If so you may want to seek therapy in regards to your phobia.
**
You don’t have a bath tub?
Well I don’t really like the idea of wishing someone death for no good reason but I really love Coca-Cola. Tell you what, put it in Escrow or something and we’ll see what happens.
I guess I’m just a horribly passive person. I always used to joke that if they started making women fight in the military, I’d be more harm then good. I’d honestly rather have someone torture and kill me than to live my life knowing I had killed someone - even a “bad” person. I don’t agree with the death penalty, and I don’t think everyone needs a gun. This is one lady who’ll live her life without one - and if I become a victim, sobeit. I might just have more faith in the world than the rest of y’all.