Posted on 09/22/2006 10:30:55 AM PDT by kiriath_jearim
Fighting back
Woman defends herself from attack with gun
A 38-year-old woman staying at the Homewood Suites in Wichita Falls turned the tables Tuesday night on a potential attacker in the parking lot.
The woman's father said she pulled her .380 automatic pistol on the man, who came up behind her as she was getting sinus medicine from her van about 9 p.m.
He gave the following information about the incident:
The man asked her, "Do you have anything good in that van?"
The woman knew she was in trouble. She told him yes and moved to the front passenger-side door.
She pulled out her pistol and heard a knife click open.
When she looked back, she saw the man was holding a knife pointed downward in his hand.
She quickly turned, pointed the gun right at him and asked, "Are you really sure you want to do whatever you're going to do?"
He took off running, the father said.
The woman immediately went back inside the hotel, alerted the staff, and they called police.
Her father said she was calm at the time, going into "auto-pilot" and remembering everything she had learned in the classes she took to get her gun permit, he said.
"Of course, three hours later she was a basket case," he said. "She felt violated and real anxious."
This wasn't the first time the woman had faced a trying situation.
Her father said her fiance was involved in a shootout in Houston, which made her realize she needed to take precautions herself.
"When that happens to somebody close to you, you learn," he said.
So not even a year ago, the West Texas woman decided to get licensed to carry a gun, something her brother had been trying to convince her of because her job requires travel, her father said.
Sgt. Joe Snyder, public information officer with the Wichita Falls Police Department, said it's important that anyone carrying a gun be aware of not only his or her own surroundings, but also those of the attacker.
"You're responsible for where a bullet goes," he said. "You don't want to hit innocent bystanders."
But even more than that, Snyder said a weapon should not be used as a scare tactic.
"If you are going to pull a weapon, you should be prepared to use it."
In general, it's best to travel in pairs went it's dark outside, Snyder said.
"Park in well-lighted, well-traveled areas so you aren't put in a one-on-one scenario," he said.
The woman who was accosted is one of more than 150,000 people in Texas licensed to carry firearms. In Texas, carrying a loaded handgun in a vehicle is legal when the owner is traveling a substantial distance.
Ping!!!
She needs to ditch the .380 and get something more serious.
I heard they are trying to make it possible for everyone in Idaho to pack heat? Anyone know anything about that?
"I heard they are trying to make it possible for everyone in Idaho to pack heat? Anyone know anything about that?"
***
Don't know about that...but there's a current story re: small town in Idaho mulling ordinance requiring everyone in town to own a gun: http://www.fox12news.com/Global/story.asp?S=5437033
"I heard they are trying to make it possible for everyone in Idaho to pack heat? Anyone know anything about that?"
***
Don't know about that...but there's a current story re: small town in Idaho mulling ordinance requiring everyone in town to own a gun: http://www.fox12news.com/Global/story.asp?S=5437033
West Texas Women, I love 'em.
He'll be back trying the same thing on somebody else. She
should have wasted him.
The law regarding what constitues "travelling" was recently clarified, if I remember right, you may now carry a gun in your vehicle at any time, regardless of length of journey, but it has to stay in the vehicle. If you want to carry on your person you need a CHL.
She only made one mistake - she forgot to pull the trigger.
I'm an Idahoan going to college at Tulane (in New Orleans) and I wish I could've brought some of the gun laws with me.
"Yeah, here's some free lead if you'd like it." Bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang. (mine would be .45 cal lead from a 1911 clone).
Got to love those guys who bring a knife to a gun fight.
Instead of asking she should've pull the trigger.
13 380 hollow point rounds from a Beretta Cheeta 84F would at
least make him late for dinner...
That plus "No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms" I would think be in direct contradiction of NFA and GCA. I wonder if how that would work in a court case against the NFA & GCA?
Perhaps, but it's a risky cartridge to use in a hostile encounter. 9mm is better, .40 is even better still, and a .45 would really be the hot ticket.
"The interesting thing about staring down a gun barrel is how small the hole is where the bullet comes out, yet what a big difference it would make in your social schedule."
P.J. O'Rourke from "A Ramble Through Lebanon" (Holidays in Hell)
In a close encounter a 38 will do the job.
You mean a .38 Spl? I have nothing against revolvers, but some do, so I only listed calibers that are found on autos.
"She quickly turned, pointed the gun right at him and asked, "Are you really sure you want to do whatever you're going to do?""
R O T F L M A O
Thanks, Thunder, you finally got one not on the list! ;-)
kiriath_jearim, I'm not sure what you have against me, but I'm getting a little peeved that you persist in ignoring my numerous freep-mails and pings asking you to ping me to these threads so everyone can enjoy them. I don't know what your issues are, but if you've got something against me, out with it.
There has not been an effective challenge to NFA in the Supreme court. The person who challenged it was a career criminal and had a sawed off shotgun, which has little military value.
If she had really been on auto-pilot, the hoodlum with the knife would not have run away, rather he'd have been carried away.
Do you feel lucky, Punk? Well, do ya?
Would you like to be shot with a .380 Speer Gold Dot?
Why not a .454 Casull or a Ruger .480?
Then why was it developed about 90 years ago, and cops use it as a backup?
OK, I'll be the one...
"Don't bring a knife to a gun fight!"
I would much rather have one of my .45s with me if I got into a dangerous situation, but in those times when I can only carry a smaller gun the .380 is 1000% better than nothing, and a flat gun conceals better than any round gun.
I would rather be shot with a .380 than a .45, if given a choice.
Recoil and overpenetration might be issues. Plus, ammo is kind of pricey.
The large hole in the muzzle is good for the "oh, $#1+" factor, though.
Little isn't none. But your characterization of the Miller case is not correct. The Supreme Court ruled that *absent any evidence* that such a gun had military usefulness, they could not say that keeping and bearing it was protected by the second amendment. They didn't rule that it wasn't, just that they couldn't, and sent the case back to the trial court. Problem was, the original defendant was dead by then, and his accomplice plead to a lessor charge, getting probation from the original judge.
Following the logic of this case, the last one touching directly on the meaning of the Second Amendment, it would seem that if such evidence had been presented in those "further proceedings" ordered by the SC, or in some later case, say involving a Ma Deuce, or a Thompson submachine gun, the court would say that since such a weapon did have military usefulness, it's keeping and bearing would be protected from infringement by the Second Amendment, thus tossing the entire NFA, the GCA of '68, and some aspects the Firearms Owners Protection Act, as well as the now defunct AW ban and of course the Brady Act, right into the crapper. Where, as abominations before the Constitution, they so richly belong.
Even the First Circuit Court, in Cases understood that to be the meaning of the Supreme Court's ruling, but then went on to say that they couldn't have meant *that*, saying:
At any rate the rule of the Miller case, if intended to be comprehensive and complete would seem to be already outdated, in spite of the fact that it was formulated only three and a half years ago, because of the well known fact that in the so called "Commando Units" some sort of military use seems to have been found for almost any modern lethal weapon. In view of this, if the rule of the Miller case is general and complete, the result would follow that, under present day conditions, the federal government would be empowered only to regulate the possession or use of weapons such as a flintlock musket or a matchlock harquebus. But to hold that the Second Amendment limits the federal government to regulations concerning only weapons which can be classed as antiques or curiosities, -almost any other might bear some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia unit of the present day,-is in effect to hold that the limitation of the Second Amendment is absolute. Another objection to the rule of the Miller case as a full and general statement is that according to it Congress would be prevented by the Second Amendment from regulating the possession or use by private persons not present or prospective members of any military unit, of distinctly military arms, such as machine guns, trench mortars, anti-tank or anti-aircraft guns, even though under the circumstances surrounding such possession or use it would be inconceivable that a private person could have any legitimate reason for having such a weapon. It seems to us unlikely that the framers of the Amendment intended any such result.
Don't bring a knife to a gun fight, and Don't Mess With Texas ladies!
State laws can be more restrictive than federal law but not less restrictive. In other words, states cannot pass a law that authorizes the violation of a federal law.
I am not a lawyer and I am not even sure if there are exceptions to this but that is they way it was explained to me.
The GCA and the NFA still apply in Idaho.
Snub nosed .44 Magnum? I have not seen this. I have a Taurus model in .357 that looks very similiar. I hope they sell this with a helmet and mouthpeice. If it kicks much harder than my .357 you'll need it. Also, wear gloves as the power burns on your steady hand don't come off for a day or two.
Still, looks like a great gun.
It's new. The other calibers are .454 Casull and .480 Ruger. Not for the faint of heart, but that's why it's called "The Alaskan".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.