• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

South Carolina sheriff tells women to carry concealed firearms

Honestly, for me at the moment, I am not going to carry a gun until I become more comfortable with handling one. Despite being in the military, I have only ever shot a real firearm once, and it was actually on private property with a boyfriend about 12 years ago. I haven't actually fired a government owned/issued weapon. We had laser rifles in basic when I went through because they were building a new firing range at the time.

I do agree with the sheriff, for the most part. I just think that the woman, and anyone really, needs to feel comfortable with the gun before she (whoever) carries it. But getting the CCP would be a good idea to get done just to get the time in to get used to it, whether they carry it everywhere or not.
 
roguenuke said:
Honestly, for me at the moment, I am not going to carry a gun until I become more comfortable with handling one. Despite being in the military, I have only ever shot a real firearm once, and it was actually on private property with a boyfriend about 12 years ago. I haven't actually fired a government owned/issued weapon. We had laser rifles in basic when I went through because they were building a new firing range at the time.

I do agree with the sheriff, for the most part. I just think that the woman, and anyone really, needs to feel comfortable with the gun before she (whoever) carries it. But getting the CCP would be a good idea to get done just to get the time in to get used to it, whether they carry it everywhere or not.
Click to expand...

It's most certainly a personal decision and should only be made if the person is comfortable enough. . . absolutely.
 
KevinKohler said:
If there is an innocent bystander within range of the typical small handgun to be hit by a missed shot....shame on them for not helping out, preventing the need for that gun in the first place.

I mean, i get your point, not all bullets find their targets. But we are talking about hand guns that fit in a purse. Something with an effective range of about 50 yards. First of all, most rapists are not going to target and act in an area where there would BE an innocent bystander, for fear of interference or "being made" in a line up. Think...large empty parking lots, inside of a house/apt, or deserted park of some kind.

There is, and always will be a CHANCE that someone not involved could take a bullet. By they are no MORE innocent than the women who was about to be violently raped.
Click to expand...

my bad
i did not realize that crime would always occur where there would be no innocent person within the distance a stray bullet could be fired
i defer to your assurance that can not happen
 
j-mac said:
good to see you standing for womens right to self protection here.

j-mac
Click to expand...


also standing up for the rights of the innocent bystanders not to get shot by a stray bullet
 
MaggieD said:
One can never repeat this often enough: Never.ever.ever let someone abduct you. If you do, you're dead. Make your stand and die trying. It's obviously not always possible to do a thing because one is unconscious, but if you're on your feet, die right there if you have to.
Click to expand...

Exactly. At least then you have a chance at survival.
 
justabubba said:
my bad
i did not realize that crime would always occur where there would be no innocent person within the distance a stray bullet could be fired
i defer to your assurance that can not happen
Click to expand...

I guess you would rather have women relinquish their Constitutional rights and become a victim. There's always at least one in the crowd. :whothere:
 
Aunt Spiker said:
South Carolina sheriff tells women to carry concealed firearms - latimes.com

Well wow - it is VERY nice to see someone finally advising what women SHOULD be doing to protect ourselves rather than telling us what we SHOULDN'T be doing or where we SHOULDN'T be going.

I also agree on the note of the failure of the judicial system to lock up the hacks, crooks and thugs.
Click to expand...

He is merely doing what any responsible sheriff should do. A firearms is a great equalizer and enables a physically weak person to stand up to a strong person.Unlike a stun gun if you miss you have several or more shots depending on the type of firearm. While the shots are going off someone will hear those gunshots and call 911,so in a why a firearm also serves as a whistle. The police are more like crime historians or archeologists.A crime happens they investigate the scene,they interview people, they take photographs of the scene, they look at evidence and gather evidence to be analyzed by other experts and anything else to help them solve the crime. I am not putting down the police its just a simple fact. The police are not psychic,police are not posted on every corner and they do not have Mistress Cleo's number. So they can not be there to protect everyone 24/7.
 
justabubba said:
what could be safer than not having a weapon to discharge a stray bullet
Click to expand...

no weapon makes things much safer for dem constituents known as criminals
 
KevinKohler said:
If there is an innocent bystander within range of the typical small handgun to be hit by a missed shot....shame on them for not helping out, preventing the need for that gun in the first place.

I mean, i get your point, not all bullets find their targets. But we are talking about hand guns that fit in a purse. Something with an effective range of about 50 yards. First of all, most rapists are not going to target and act in an area where there would BE an innocent bystander, for fear of interference or "being made" in a line up. Think...large empty parking lots, inside of a house/apt, or deserted park of some kind.

There is, and always will be a CHANCE that someone not involved could take a bullet. By they are no MORE innocent than the women who was about to be violently raped.
Click to expand...

If there are innocent people nearby you have less chance of being attacked. At any rate, if you have the gun and the training then you have the option to decide if you should use it or not use it. No gun, no option. Simple as that.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
South Carolina sheriff tells women to carry concealed firearms - latimes.com

Well wow - it is VERY nice to see someone finally advising what women SHOULD be doing to protect ourselves rather than telling us what we SHOULDN'T be doing or where we SHOULDN'T be going.

I also agree on the note of the failure of the judicial system to lock up the hacks, crooks and thugs.
Click to expand...


That's my bud, Chuck Wright. We don't screw around in SC, we shoot the bastards, quite regularly.


The other day, some folks who'd been having trouble with scrap-metal thieves caught two in their barn. They confronted them; one thief made a threatening gesture and was shot in the arm with a shotgun. Property owner who fired the shot was not arrested nor "taken downtown" nor otherwise inconvenienced.... our Atty General has ruled that police cannot arrest a homeowner who shoots an intruder without reasonable cause to beleive it was NOT self-defense.

We have extended Castle Law out to your yard, outbuildings and vehicle, and no duty to retreat in any public place. :)
 
Last edited:
About two weeks ago, in my neighborhood (which is not far from Spartanburg) we had a case where two young men, who'd been stealing stuff out of yards and barns for a year, decided to take it up a notch and hit a house. Mr. Homeowner happened to be there and shot one of them in the leg. The thieves were arrested; the homeowner was not arrested, charged, taken for questioning or otherwise bothered other than being asked to make an incident report.

The only criticism the community had for the homeowner was that he should aim a little higher next time. :)
 
Goshin said:
That's my bud, Chuck Wright. We don't screw around in SC, we shoot the bastards, quite regularly.


The other day, some folks who'd been having trouble with scrap-metal thieves caught two in their barn. They confronted them; one thief made a threatening gesture and was shot in the arm with a shotgun. Property owner who fired the shot was not arrested nor "taken downtown" nor otherwise inconvenienced.... our Atty General has ruled that police cannot arrest a homeowner who shoots an intruder without reasonable cause to beleive it was NOT self-defense.

We have extended Castle Law out to your yard, outbuildings and vehicle, and no duty to retreat in any public place. :)
Click to expand...
This begs the question. Who in the hell is stupid enough to threaten an armed southerner?
 
Back to topic. This is a good sheriff, he shows a real concern for his jurisdiction and that is getting rare these days it seems, I've seen enough stories of SOs that tell citizens that guns are too dangerous and that people should take the Sheriff's self defense class and carry pepper spray instead. Of course they don't tell you that the limited martial arts in the classes won't deter the most determined criminals or that the basic arm locks don't always hold up to someone with better than average upper body strength, they also don't tell you that you can still recieve some pretty harsh charges for using defense sprays or tasers if your story doesn't hold up, etc.
 
A couple of points that I think are important to mention.

One is that, in any abduction or rape scenario, any weapon you have can potentially be taken from you and used against you. It's true of mace or knives as well, and it's the reason why a lot of women's self-defense groups advocate physical forms of defense.

Another thing is that if you actually kill someone with your weapon, will the Texas justice system side with you or against you? It depends on the judge or jury you get.

I think the Sheriff made good points about self-defense but he failed to draw the line at murdering someone, so his quote is bound to be taken out of context by a lot of people.
 
Temporal said:
A couple of points that I think are important to mention.

One is that, in any abduction or rape scenario, any weapon you have can potentially be taken from you and used against you. It's true of mace or knives as well, and it's the reason why a lot of women's self-defense groups advocate physical forms of defense.

Another thing is that if you actually kill someone with your weapon, will the Texas justice system side with you or against you? It depends on the judge or jury you get.

I think the Sheriff made good points about self-defense but he failed to draw the line at murdering someone, so his quote is bound to be taken out of context by a lot of people.
Click to expand...
Here's where your logic misses. It's harder to get inside enough on someone with a gun if they are trained in it's use, the whole point of defending yourself with a gun is the distance advantage. The only way a criminal is going to try to grab the gun is if they think they see an opportunity such as someone who seems hesitant to use it or if they have a lapse in attention allowing them to close that gap. Which is why people train with their weapons. Next, most juries would tend to believe a woman if the setting was conducive to being attacked and especially if it was force used against a perp with a history. Finally, as I have already covered most basic self defense classes are good starts but are not compensation for natural advantages such as strength, height, weight, or killer instinct(i.e. the willingness to cause harm without a second thought)
 
LaMidRighter said:
Here's where your logic misses. It's harder to get inside enough on someone with a gun if they are trained in it's use, the whole point of defending yourself with a gun is the distance advantage. The only way a criminal is going to try to grab the gun is if they think they see an opportunity such as someone who seems hesitant to use it or if they have a lapse in attention allowing them to close that gap. Which is why people train with their weapons. Next, most juries would tend to believe a woman if the setting was conducive to being attacked and especially if it was force used against a perp with a history. Finally, as I have already covered most basic self defense classes are good starts but are not compensation for natural advantages such as strength, height, weight, or killer instinct(i.e. the willingness to cause harm without a second thought)
Click to expand...
One thing I forgot. Many laws prohibit the use of excessive force by anyone, police officers are granted slightly more leeway than a bouncer who is granted slightly more leeway than other civilians. The fact is that a person can face battery charges or other violence charges if they take physical self defense too far, an ordinary citizen would likely panic and possibly the attack on them would be prolonged because that particular perpetrator may have more desire to cause damage and less regard for the law than the victim, in a self defense situation, the fewer chances the attacker has to perpetuate attacks the better for the intended victim, in other words an attack may stop simply because a weapon is brandished, and if the situation still escalates the potential victim has a better chance the better the weapon is, again, the less chance an attacker has at success the better.
 
Temporal said:
A couple of points that I think are important to mention.

One is that, in any abduction or rape scenario, any weapon you have can potentially be taken from you and used against you. It's true of mace or knives as well, and it's the reason why a lot of women's self-defense groups advocate physical forms of defense.

Another thing is that if you actually kill someone with your weapon, will the Texas justice system side with you or against you? It depends on the judge or jury you get.

I think the Sheriff made good points about self-defense but he failed to draw the line at murdering someone, so his quote is bound to be taken out of context by a lot of people.
Click to expand...



This is South Carolina, not Texas, and killing in self-defense is not murder.

Just that I can recall offhand, I remember two incidents within the past year where homeowners shot and killed intruders and were not arrested or charged, and two more where store clerks shot and killed robbers and were not arrested or charged.

Not too long ago my friend's neighbor shot and killed a man in his yard. The man was stealing gas from his car, and made a threatening gesture with a screwdriver. The homeowner (who was elderly) was being protected by his adult son, who shot the man twice in teh chest with a .45 pistol. Perp was dead on scene. Police came and after a brief examination of the scene and witnesses declared it self-defense. The shooter was not arrested, nor taken in for questioning, and his handgun was returned to him before the police departed the scene.

That is SC.


Next point, about guns and etc being taken from you and used against you.... okay this isn't entirely beyond the bounds of reason but I hear this tired old saw used as an excuse against arming yourself so much that it drives me a little crazy.
1. It isn't that easy to take weapons away from someone. If it were so damn simple, NONE OF US would ever fear an armed criminal, we'd just take his gun or knife away from him!! :roll:
2. Most of the time the criminal doesn't need to take YOUR weapon to use against you.... he already brought his own weapon.
3. This concept is mostly rooted in 1950s/60's gender-bias where it was widely assumed that women would rarely if ever have the nerve to actually shoot someone, and the attacker would just take the gun from them since they're such fragile little things and lacking in the will to kill. :roll: While there may be some folks for whom this is true (and if you don't know you could use it, don't carry it!) I've had enough experience teaching women how to use guns and knives that I have no doubt most women will shoot you down without hestitation if you threaten them.
 
Last edited:
Aunt Spiker said:
South Carolina sheriff tells women to carry concealed firearms - latimes.com

Well wow - it is VERY nice to see someone finally advising what women SHOULD be doing to protect ourselves rather than telling us what we SHOULDN'T be doing or where we SHOULDN'T be going.

I also agree on the note of the failure of the judicial system to lock up the hacks, crooks and thugs.
Click to expand...
Think everyone woman and young girl should have a good knowledge of how to handle firearms along with thoroughly having the resolve to defend themselves.
 
Goshin said:
Next point, about guns and etc being taken from you and used against you.... okay this isn't entirely beyond the bounds of reason but I hear this tired old saw used as an excuse against arming yourself so much that it drives me a little crazy.
1. It isn't that easy to take weapons away from someone. If it were so damn simple, NONE OF US would ever fear an armed criminal, we'd just take his gun or knife away from him!! :roll:
2. Most of the time the criminal doesn't need to take YOUR weapon to use against you.... he already brought his own weapon.
3. This concept is mostly rooted in 1950s/60's gender-bias where it was widely assumed that women would rarely if ever have the nerve to actually shoot someone, and the attacker would just take the gun from them since they're such fragile little things and lacking in the will to kill. :roll: While there may be some folks for whom this is true (and if you don't know you could use it, don't carry it!) I've had enough experience teaching women how to use guns and knives that I have no doubt most women will shoot you down without hestitation if you threaten them.
Click to expand...


Let me expand on this a bit. I've been involved in martial arts for over thirty years; I also teach short-course self-defense, knife fighting and defensive handgunning. I spent hundreds of hours mastering techniques for disarming people of guns, knives and sticks while being unarmed... and I am pretty damn good at it.

I still consider disarming to be a last-resort method. It is typically a lot more dangerous than responding with your own weapon, except in a few very limited conditions.

I sometimes teach a class on "retention shooting". I will often start off by having various students pull a gun on me, then I take 'em away. People are often amazed by how effortless I make it look. Then I spend a few minutes teaching them ONE disarm technique and have them try it against a resisting training partner.... and they discover that without a lot of training time it is HARD TO DO.

Then I will teach them a close-combat shooting technique that renders 90% of that highly-trained disarming stuff USELESS. It takes about twenty minutes to show it and tweak their positions so they are doing it right, and then a couple hours drill and practice at drawning and shooting is a good idea. If possible, some live-action drill against a partner using fake guns is a good idea. Once they've mastered that method, 90% of my hard-acquired, 100s of hours over years of training, disarm techniques are all but useless.

1 to 4 hours of training in retention shooting > 100s of hours of disarm training. It is almost ridiculous but there it is. Nor am I the only instructor teaching this stuff to ordinary CCW citizens, lots of firearm instructors are adding similar stuff to their curriculum.

Most of the time, the bad guy will only take your weapon if you either dont know what you're doing, or lack the will to actually use it, or you just hand it to him.
 
KevinKohler said:
Wow....a story from my home town...

Well, I recall there was a project to arm women, with pink guns...I can't remember were or when this was...but yeah, the idea was, you'd have to be a pretty bat **** crazy rapist to rape ANYONE in a town where it is public knowledge that guns were handed out to EVERY SINGLE female.

I think the bigger issue to think about, though, is age. It's all fine and dandy for a 22 year college kid to be packing heat...but not so cool for the high school chick in the parking lot after a football game, you know?

I think that fear is the number one way to prevent a crime. You want to make rapists stop raping? You make the punishment for that crime so foul, so heinous, that quite literally, only an insane person would consider doing the deed. That's my opinion. You wanna act like an animal, I think society has both the right, and the obligation, to treat you like one.
Click to expand...

I understand your argument, but no one is talking about a "high school chick". You do understand that to get a Concealed permit, you have to be able to legally own the gun you will use? You must be 21 and a resident of the state in which you purchase in order to legally buy a handgun. 18 for rifles and shotguns. So no "high school chick" is going to meet the legal requirements. This is sad because some of those "high school chicks" could also benefit. For carrying a gun, Training, training and more training is always the best idea. Even 14 year olds can be trained on proper and improper use. I cannot say all states, but I believe most states require a hunters safety course for minors to be allowed to hunt.




Goshin said:
This is South Carolina, not Texas, and killing in self-defense is not murder.
Click to expand...

Apparently you don't know much about Texas law. I understand what you are saying though, but Texas was a bad example to use, California on the other hand. All that is necessary to meet the legal definition of self-defense is "reasonable fear of your life". Defense of others has also been accepted in Texas courts. The only place where someone acting in self-defense would ever be brought up on charges in Texas is maybe a few of our more liberal districts, and even then, appeals would most likely throw even those out if the local DA is dumb enough to pursue such cases. The only other time they might face charges is if they were illegally carrying the firearm, but they would face illegal carry charges, not murder if the case was self-defense.

Excessive force laws do exist in some states, however, Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana are not among them. I don't think any "southern" state has such statutes, some might though, you never know. But, generally, in these states, if someone is dumb enough to bring a knife to a gun fight, the Sheriff might criticize your shooting ability, but won't arrest you for defending yourself.

Conceal carry is also reciprocated between some states, if you have a permit in your home state, check with law enforcement in any state you may be traveling to or through to see if they reciprocate. Also make sure you learn their use of force laws.

As many have mentioned, training is always needed. If you are not going to get yourself properly trained and regularly practice, then do us all a favor and use the money you would use for the weapon and concealed permit to buy yourself some good life insurance. Always learn the laws, where ever you are (from reliable sources like lawyers and law enforcement, not someone posting on the Internet.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom