"You have the right to express yourself, but you don't really need a computer"

There are many reasons to give pause on liberalizing conceal-and-carry laws, but Officer Lazark pretty much gives the most condescending one, which is, "I'm a police officer and it doesn't seem necessary for a non-police officer to have a gun." Of course it wouldn't seem necessary to a police officer whose purpose it is to protect the public and who has all the support of the state to exercise deadly force when he/she believes it necessary.

And could you clarify the claim "more people are injured and/or killed with their own handguns"? More people are hurt by their own handguns than those who don't own guns (which would be true, by definition)?

It's an often-misquoted bit of anti-gun pseudo-statistics. Committing suicide with a firearm counts as "being killed with your own gun," and that number gets lumped in with the relatively small number of cases where someone has their firearm stolen and it is used by another person to kill them. Compared with the also relatively small number of self-defense cases where a person with a firearm kills an attacker (in most cases of self-defense using a firearm, no shots are fired and nobody is killed) it is used to suggest that firearms used in self-defense are risky, when in fact they are the most effective form of self-defense available.

Shall-issue concealed carry is the law in two-thirds of the country. A bill currently in committee, AB 357, is the work of a Republican Assembly member from southern California and a lesbian from Natomas, the founder of a local branch of the "Pink Pistols" (a gay/lesbian shooting club.) It would require "shall-issue" permits: police can do a background check and certification requirements, but if a person is qualified and has a clean background, they cannot be denied a permit for concealed carry.

The person who asked the question mentioned court cases stating that police cannot be held liable for not preventing a crime. The police aren't any more obligated to defend you from an attacker than it is your dentist's job to brush your teeth for you. Sure, if you are murdered the police will try to bring the responsible party to justice, but that's pretty cold comfort for the victim.

"The police aren't any more obligated to defend you from an attacker than it is your dentist's job to brush your teeth for you."

Nice analogy. I've never thought about the police in those terms. I've watched too many cop shows on TV. TV cops always feel responsible.

Yeah...Right!... This is such BS! This is the mantra of the leftist fascist power structure. Most police in America are nothing but the enforcers of fascism. They want all of the power to be concentrated within their jack boot culture, not the sheeple.

No doubt that officer Michelle carries a concealed weapon off duty....her carrying a badge does not make her any less susceptible to her claim that "more people are injured and/or killed with their own handguns" the only thing that makes a difference between her and you is a good firearms course.

I suggest that all law abiding and reasonably intelligent citizens carry concealed weapons. It is a misdemeanor to carry a concealed weapon, and if you get caught, which is very unlikely, you will most likely not do any jail time if you have a clean record. On the other hand, if you don't have a firearm and your life, or those of a loved one are in immediate danger, you could be killed by a scumbag. As the old saying goes, I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

If you are going to carry a concealed firearm illegally, to use it effectively you must complete a good concealed carry course which includes the legal aspects of using deadly force. (Remember, we have the SAME right to use deadly force as any police officer) Shoot with that firearm on a regular basis, be very comfortable with the use of the firearm...until it becomes second nature.

In the last 20 years my weapon has saved at least two lives in deadly situations (not mine). I have also used my firearm to apprehend TWO wanted felons, one wanted for attempted murder and the other a rapist prowler trying to break into my home. Now I have graduated from the police academy and have spent years in the military, so I am an anomaly in the general public, but that is the point of making sure you are trained well and understand the laws.

In Texas, where it is legal, there has not been ONE reported case of a misused concealed weapon in twenty years. If Officer Michelle was interested in reducing crime (which she is not, she is in a union and that would mean fewer police jobs) she would support concealed carry, in Texas the general population has committed crimes at a rate roughly 400x higher than concealed carry gun owners.

You can put that statistic in your pipe and smoke it Officer Michelle.

I would have to agree that most of the issue lies with training and education. I understand what the officer is saying, but I don't agree. I think the best thing the officers could do is help educate and understand that we started off defending ourselves - the only person we have to worry about is the people who don't follow the same rules.

That being said, I think the Officers could help themselves and the county as well, offering classes and having inspections of folks who have made the purchases. I would be interested in seeing this come into play and think that we could help ourselves by helping ourselves.

Add items, like a lower tolerance for drinking and handguns - similar to Big Rig drivers. I think that there is a solution, but most of the time - the folks in Law enforcement need to error on the side of the overly cautious. I don't like it, but I am in favor of helping it change.

Regarding the first part of Stephen's letter, I think his concern that we need to start carrying concealed weapons to protect ourselves might be a slight exaggeration. The officer points out that they are not completely ignoring the calls, just giving them less priority because of the lack of officers available. She also made it clear that any situation where a citizen is in harm will be responded to as normal... eliminating the need for self protection by way of weapons. The calls that they are giving less attention to are those where there is not a sense of immediate danger.