Gay Patriot Header Image

Armed Civilian Saves Woman

Posted by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) at 11:43 am - March 14, 2013.
Filed under: Gun Control,Second Amendment

Charlie Blackmore didn’t fire a shot; but yes, he did need to have a gun in hand:

The police (whom Blackmore called) took several minutes to arrive. The woman could easily have been beaten to death, if Blackmore hadn’t intervened with his gun. Wisconsin’s concealed-carry law is new within the last couple of years. Hat tip: HotAir.

Share

11 Comments

  1. A perfect example of the necessity to be able to defend oneself and others until when-and-if the police are able to arrive.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — March 14, 2013 @ 1:48 pm - March 14, 2013

  2. Do you have an opinion on carrying a firearm in the “streets” as opposed to the rest of the nation? It seems one is frowned upon and one is celebrated in some circles. Why is that? Does the permit make that much of a difference?

    Comment by Joseph — March 14, 2013 @ 2:33 pm - March 14, 2013

  3. Not sure what you’re asking, so I’ll offer some general thoughts.

    I’m fine with private establishments banning guns, because that’s part of their property rights (as private establishments). As an example, I believe that Las Vegas allows open carry on the streets, but then you have to stay out of the casinos because the casinos ban guns. Fine: if you don’t like it, then don’t go to Vegas casinos.

    I think that, as a universal minimum of self-defense rights, all States should allow unregistered gun ownership for home defense, and registered/permit type of concealed carry for defending oneself or others in public. I may also be in favor of some gun rights beyond that (I just haven’t thought through every detail).

    Gun ownership is not for everybody. It is a big responsibility. Even the Second Amendment implies that gun ownership/use should be “well-regulated”. The permit process is a licensing process, in essence, that includes background check, check for proper training, etc.

    But there is a point that we mustn’t cross, where “good regulation” becomes effectively the denial of personal defense rights. Which is wrong, because personal defense rights are natural rights. Any permitting process must be one that most of the sane, non-criminal population can pass with a reasonable amount of effort.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 14, 2013 @ 2:55 pm - March 14, 2013

  4. I can one better the story. I read in El Diario De Hoy (San Salvador) that a passenger killed two of three gangbangers who boarded a bus early this morning near the National University. It is their custom to collect the weekly rent from the motorist and, at times, rob the passengers in the process. This morning was one of those times. They were armed with knives. As they approached him, he took out his gun and shot two of the three dead and the third took off running away. The police here are pretty useless. They really give evidence that to protect and serve is a myth. The passenger was not taken into custody.

    Comment by Roberto — March 14, 2013 @ 3:58 pm - March 14, 2013

  5. Sad that the police are not effective, and that the crooks had to die. They were trying to maintain themselves – but in a very wrong way.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 14, 2013 @ 4:10 pm - March 14, 2013

  6. @2: Joseph – carry permits indicate that the gun-toting individual has complied with applicable law and has been screened and received some basic training in laws regarding the use of deadly force had to demonstrate some minimal competency handling a firearm.

    Additionally, most CCW instructors provide a little extra in the way of common sense (the instructor I had imparted little nuggets, e.g. that the best way to not ever need to use the weapon was to avoid high-risk situations (don’t look for trouble) and to maintain situational awareness – common sense but still worth reiterating).

    As ILC mentioned, private establishments have the right to decide whether or not firearms should be allowed but I’ve always found it odd that, say, a liquor store would post a “no weapons” sign to indicate to those that rob liquor stores that no one on the premises is armed.

    Comment by SoCalRobert — March 14, 2013 @ 5:30 pm - March 14, 2013

  7. I don’t see why the mere act of carrying a gun on the street should cause me alarm.

    Comment by V the K — March 14, 2013 @ 8:38 pm - March 14, 2013

  8. couldnt agree more

    Comment by Camp Rock 2 The Final Jam — March 15, 2013 @ 2:52 am - March 15, 2013

  9. SoCalRobert,

    You received good advice. However, living in El Salvador, everywhere is high risk, even after the truce between the gangs, As a resident I am not permitted to carry or own a firearm. This also applies to tourists. Several groups have been assaulted and a German tourist was killed. I guess that is why the country is on the State Department´s list that warns tourists to avoid.

    Southern California must have been cleaned up. When I was a member of the LARCCC 45th A.D. in the 90´s; the chaiman lived in Glassell Park. I remember two blocks east from his house, the street is a dead end and as strangers were turning their car around to leave they were fired upon and I believe a young child passenger of about six years of age was killed.

    Comment by Roberto — March 15, 2013 @ 2:48 pm - March 15, 2013

  10. @9: Roberto – the restrictions on firearms in many Latin American countries (and some US cities and states) just goes to show that gun laws serve only to disarm the law-abiding.

    It seems to me that being able to effectively defend family, friends, and yourself is a basic human right.

    Comment by SoCalRobert — March 15, 2013 @ 7:41 pm - March 15, 2013

  11. SoCalRobert,

    Ditto!

    Comment by Roberto — March 15, 2013 @ 8:08 pm - March 15, 2013

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.