Packing Heat

[jonnyb]

A poll on 'packing heat'. What do you think?

What got me thinking about this was an acquaintance of mine posed a question about me obtaining a concealed carry firearms / weapon permit a couple days ago. I gave a little thought about wanting to have a permit ~10 years ago but lost interest. I will occasionally carry concealed when going on a long hike, backpacking or when in possession of valuable articles to offer a fighting chance against an unwelcome predator and a little peace of mind.




Alright...for those outside of USA, write your individual circumstances.

[Autoptic]

Living with Mother (1) or on campus (2), it's never been an option, but I would sometimes. I certainly don't and won't have backup.

1)The woman feels safer when I'm there thus drags me along when doing some things that make her nervous but never with any regard to me being completely untrained, unarmed, and even without appropriate footwear at the time.

2) There's a bad neighborhood near here, and they know we're not armed, so even lone assailants keep popping up with little fear of immediate resistance.

[beano]

hey I don't get my option here... Where is the...

It's illegal to own a gun in my country but I still have one...

[Silverity]

I've never had the desire to, nor the need really. I don't really like the thought of other people carrying them either simply because I don't trust other people's abilities to restrain themselves. It kind of seems like the more dangerous something is, the more stupid people will gravitate towards it. Scary stuff.

[Prunesquallor]

I think I have a narrower definition of "legitimate" than most people on this forum...

[boldbidder]

I reside in one of the two 50 states in the union that forbid conceal carry. Personally, I don't have a problem with lawful citizens partaking in concealed carry. The firearms I won are for home defense and IPDA matches so even if I were in a state were CC was legal I still doubt that I would. If I were into backpacking, hiking, late night runs, etc... then I might change my mind.

It's a widely held misnomer that people who are licensed for CC are somehow more prone to foolish behavior, when the exact opposite is true. Similar to the myth that somehow the banning of semi-automatic rifles (mistakenly referred to as assault weapons) is somehow going to greatly reduce violent crime. The actual data on the matters paint an entirely different picture.

[AaronSheffield]

I am trained and licensed and do carry much of the time when I am in my home state or in a state that has a reciprocity agreement with my home state. Pretty much the only times I am not carrying are times when my clothing does not allow me to conceal. Even though open carry is 100% legal in my state, it still alarms people and I'd rather not cause a fuss.

There are three main reasons that I carry.

1) I know my own limitations. Physically, while I am healthy and young, I'm not particularly strong and I know that I would come out on the loosing end of a fist fight in the vast majority of cases. If a situation arises in which I need to defend myself (and I recognise that such situations are very, very unlikely), I want to at least have the option of using a firearm. I may well decide that pulling the firearm is too risky and that it's better to just hand over my cell phone or whatever the robber is asking for, but I still think that having the option and not using it is better than not having the option at all. I don't think that I will save the world and I don't have any desire to play at being an ersatz policeman; I just want to maximize the options at my disposal even if I hope that I never have to use them. Kind of like having airbags in my car or keeping a fire extinguisher in my kitchen. I've never needed to use either, but I'd rather have them around.

2) I believe that I am a good "ambassador" (for lack of a better term). People who know me tend to see me as calm, rational, and collected when under pressure. The more people who realise that most persons who carry firearms are like me and not like the people they see on the nightly news, the more people will begin to see that the issue is not the firearm itself but rather the crazy people who are buying and using firearms illegally.

3) Carrying all the time helps protect me legally if (heaven forbid) there is ever a situation in which I do need to protect myself with a firearm. If I were to carry only when I was going through "dangerous" areas, it would be possible for someone to claim that I had intended to provoke a confrontation or else I wouldn't have carried at that time. By carrying as much as possible and having an established history of being responsible, I protect myself against such claims in the unlikely (and highly undesirable) event that I ever have to use the firearm.

[Synchronicity]

I believe I recall a similar thread a few months ago. I've always considered the possibility of carrying a firearm for self-defense, but have so far not felt a need to. It's not something I take lightly. As responsible as I am, handguns are obviously dangerous and, improperly used, can make a threatening situation worse rather than better.

Depending on where I ultimately end up living, it is possible I will choose to own a firearm (big cities usually have a lot of crime). I won't have any nosy kids to worry about, so actually keeping one in my house is no problem, but before I even consider it I would make sure I was properly trained in its use and fully informed about my state's laws regarding firearms. This is all common sense stuff, if you ask me, but a lot of people don't pay attention to those sorts of things, which I find very troubling.

[eddy drama]

I've been meaning to get certified this year but haven't found the time. I live in a large city and it'd be very situational for when I would actually carry. It definitely couldn't be a everywhere I went kind of thing.

[elsdfr]

Yes, there was a big thread about guns once and it wasn't pretty... and I agree it just depends on where you live and how you grew up.

[RedIrish]

I live in Canada. Transporting a firearm is strictly regulated, and must be done in an approved (regulated) manner - this means in a locked case with magazines removed and trigger locks in place. The transport must be direct from the place where the firearm is stored to the place (gun range) where it will be used and back again. When stored in the home a firearm must be kept in a locked gun safe with the magazine removed and trigger locks in place.

Firearms are registered (although not all long guns are), and you must not only have an ownership permit for a handgun, but must have a transport permit to take it out of your home.

Did we happen to mention that our crime rate is a fraction of the US, and out murder rate is miniscule?

Of note is the fact that if a child, or someone else is accidentally killed with a firearm in this country the owner of the firearm will be charged with unsafe storage, and could leave themselves open to multiple other charges including negligent homicide.

[AaronSheffield]

When stored in the home a firearm must be kept in a locked gun safe with the magazine removed and trigger locks in place.

In other words, they must be rendered effectively useless for home defense in the event of an emergency.

Did we happen to mention that our crime rate is a fraction of the US, and out murder rate is miniscule?

Those observations were also true well before the regulations you mentioned came into play for Canada. There is absolutely no evidence at all to suggest that the firearms regulations play any part whatsoever in the differences in crime rates. What you are effectively trying to do is credit regulations as the cause of a situation that was true before the regulations existed, a sort of pro hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

[Autoptic]

I live in Canada. Transporting a firearm is strictly regulated, and must be done in an approved (regulated) manner - this means in a locked case with magazines removed and trigger locks in place. The transport must be direct from the place where the firearm is stored to the place (gun range) where it will be used and back again. When stored in the home a firearm must be kept in a locked gun safe with the magazine removed and trigger locks in place.
...
Did we happen to mention that our crime rate is a fraction of the US, and out murder rate is miniscule?

Ever considered that, like many countries, Canada's continual international welfare is dependent on the US military and that these situations might be related? Taking this in a more authoritarian direction is likely going to go bad, either way.

Again, not supporting the military industrial complex itself.

[admittedheretic]

I would like to think that some people can be trusted with personal firearms, but unfortunately a few bad apples really does spoil the bunch in my opinion. A household with children is safer in a home without firearms, but if an adult locks the weapons up then I understand it isn't as much as a threat.

I can't imagine such a scenario, but If I needed to carry one I would. Wouldn't be afraid to use it either. I'll admit to fantasying to having one and that alone is enough of a power trip. From my personal experiences with many hunters it is that those who carry a pistol on them are usually egotistical control freaks.

[Prunesquallor]

Ever considered that, like many countries, Canada's continual international welfare is dependent on the US military and that these situations might be related?

riiight....

I've never understood why Americans are so sure that they're protecting people. It's a mostly harmless fiction that makes them feel good about themselves, I guess, but, it's just amusing.

[Synchronicity]

riiight....

I've never understood why Americans are so sure that they're protecting people. It's a mostly harmless fiction that makes them feel good about themselves, I guess, but, it's just amusing.

I think it's more the idea that we can protect people. The fact that there's never any occasion to doesn't seem to get noticed very often.

[Autoptic]

I think it's more the idea that we can protect people. The fact that there's never any occasion to doesn't seem to get noticed very often.

If "we" couldn't, I assure you it'd be noticed, and there would be plenty.

Of course, the aforementioned MIC and associates are currently dug into the global market preventing its independent use as a fine grained, non aggressively coercive deterrent, and the market's not sufficiently extensively entrenched, allowing some potentially nasty pockets.

[Prunesquallor]

SO convenient that this cannot be proven...

[AaronSheffield]

I think it's more the idea that we can protect people. The fact that there's never any occasion to doesn't seem to get noticed very often.

This is very true. I think that a lot of people over-estimate the chances of ever truly needing to protect themselves. And I say that despite being strongly pro-carry. I definitely agree though that defensive ability, on the rare occasions when its absence is noticed, is very sorely missed indeed.

[True Rune]

I don't need it now, so I don't. Guns are merely a tool, and if such a tool is required, than why not?

[realJim]

There are too many nutcases that have a 'legitimate' reason to carry a gun. Armed cops are bad enough without hotheads walking around wishing for a reason to justify their piece.

[AaronSheffield]

There are too many nutcases that have a 'legitimate' reason to carry a gun. Armed cops are bad enough without hotheads walking around wishing for a reason to justify their piece.

Objectively though, this hasn't happened. Washington state has allowed concealed carry since the 1960's and there has been no increase in crime rates as a result. In fact, there has never been an increase in crime rates caused by a state allowing concealed carry. The objective data are in and there's simply no basis to assume that there is any detrimental effect from allowing concealed carry.

[realJim]

gun magazine facts or unbiased? I've always read that gun related violence goes up with the number of guns available. (at least in the US, as opposed to places where everyone is required to keep and maintain their gun)

[AaronSheffield]

gun magazine facts or unbiased? I've always read that gun related violence goes up with the number of guns available. (at least in the US, as opposed to places where everyone is required to keep and maintain their gun)

Look at the statistics for the crime rates over the years and compare them across states. Washington has not been out of line with other states. I actually don't subscribe to any "gun magazines", so I wouldn't know what exactly a "gun magazine fact" is.

In England, firearms use in crimes doubled after handguns were banned. (Weapons sell for just £50 as suspects and victims grow ever younger, The Times, August 24, 2007) "The Times" is certainly not a gun magazine by any stretch. The British Home Office statistics aren't exactly a biased source either.

The raw data just don't support the idea that more legal firearms cause an increase in crime. Nor do they support the idea that more legal firearms lead directly to more illegal firearms. The connections just aren't there.

[Prunesquallor]

A surge in crime right after a change is policy is not indicative of what would occur during such a policy being implemented consistently over time, however. If all of a sudden we were to lose most of our gun regulations, I expect there would be a surge in crime then too. Adjustment periods can be hairy.

[WoodsWoman]

CC - I'm working on it.

[AaronSheffield]

A surge in crime right after a change is policy is not indicative of what would occur during such a policy being implemented consistently over time, however. If all of a sudden we were to lose most of our gun regulations, I expect there would be a surge in crime then too. Adjustment periods can be hairy.

I quite agree, but it does clearly indicate that restricting legal firearms will not reduce crime. Also, that surge is referenced in an article from 2007. The handgun ban was implemented in 1997. After a decade, the adjustment period should have been over.

To be clear, I am not against all regulations. I support most of the current restrictions (no felons, no domestic violence, no restraining orders, etc) on who can legally own firearms, but I think it's clear that targeting the firearms themselves rather than qualifications of the owners is not a productive track.

[Prunesquallor]

I quite agree, but it does clearly indicate that restricting legal firearms will not reduce crime. Also, that surge is referenced in an article from 2007. The handgun ban was implemented in 1997. After a decade, the adjustment period should have been over.

To be clear, I am not against all regulations. I support most of the current restrictions (no felons, no domestic violence, no restraining orders, etc) on who can legally own firearms, but I think it's clear that targeting the firearms themselves rather than qualifications of the owners is not a productive track.

And yet the situation in Canada is rather different - no surge, since we've had restrictions for rather a while, only a regular influx of easy-to-obtain illegal firearms from south of the border. I think it depends as much on the society as anything - there are places where restrictions work, while the same laws would be much less effective elsewhere. One has to adjust them to the society, its mentality, the state of its police force, etc.

I think to consider it only in terms of crime is a bit narrow, though. Suicide and accident rates matter too. An extremely common usage of firearms in the states is a white guy shooting himself, only sometimes intentionally.

But then, I find idiots more scary than criminals.

[MartinH]

In England, firearms use in crimes doubled after handguns were banned.

Ye-es.... that's the problem with relative statistics, things like UK gun crime and passive smoking can seem significant. I had a brief hunt for actual stats - the US had 10,100 homicides with guns in 2004, in 2005-6 in the UK, after the *surge* in violence there were 49.

So it kind of doubled from half of fuck all to fuck all, in comparison with gun owning countries. It's roughly similar to the number of people who die in police custody each year, interestingly.

Guns really aren't part of everyday life here, other than in inner city or criminal gangs, tabloids and increasing numbers of police. They tend not to be the "friendly cop with a sidearm" type, but stormtroopers with armour and submachine guns. To be found in all major transport hubs...

That said I have no problem with other countries gun policies either - as a few people have said, it's cultural norms.

[Exodus]

Deer rifles and shot guns with shells for game? I have no problem with these weapons. Handguns, however, are designed to kill people and I don't see a reason for these weapons to be easily obtained. We have more regulation for someone driving a car than owning a handgun in the United States.

I'm an avid hunter and I like guns in general as tools, I go to the range sometimes and shoot my Kimber .45. With that said, we really need to limit access to these weapons more. I want responsible citizens to be able to obtain guns, but I want it to be really hard for criminals to do so.

Honestly, I don't trust most of the populations decision make skills and/or emotional control to have them armed with a "point-and-click" method of disposing humans at any time of the day.

[Warrior]

I don't carry a gun, although I have no problem with people that do. I've had to defend myself against a gun wielder twice (once by myself and once in a group).

[LaoTzu]

I've never felt the desire to acquire a firearms license.
A shooting range might be fun, but not worth the bother.
I don't hunt either.

Guns have one real purpose. To kill something. That's something I'm just not prepared to do.

[hubcap]

There are evil people in the world.

The nightly news report shows pretty much every day what happens when an evil person comes into contact with someone who isn't carrying.

I may come into contact with an evil person so I carry.

[Prunesquallor]

There are evil people in the world.

The nightly news report shows pretty much every day what happens when an evil person comes into contact with someone who isn't carrying.

I may come into contact with an evil person so I carry.

You must watch Fox News. ;)


God, American news channels are hilarious. All the "be afraid! be very afraid!" Occasionally I watch them and laugh hysterically, then feel cynical for the rest of the day. But they are funny. The commercials are a scream too.

Much as I dislike guns for other reasons, I find the whole culture of fear surrounding them probably the most off-putting thing. It's just so...pathetic.

[hubcap]

You must watch Fox News. ;)


God, American news channels are hilarious. All the "be afraid! be very afraid!" Occasionally I watch them and laugh hysterically, then feel cynical for the rest of the day. But they are funny. The commercials are a scream too.

Much as I dislike guns for other reasons, I find the whole culture of fear surrounding them probably the most off-putting thing. It's just so...pathetic.
Friend, you make a lot of assumptions. I know 3 people personally who have been attacked. One was shot while being carjacked, one used a gun without firing it to protect himself from a gang attack, and one actually was forced to use a gun to defend himself against attack.

I'm not afraid. You're the one who brought fear into the discussion.

Why do you dislike guns?

[ElstonGunn]

Ever considered that, like many countries, Canada's continual international welfare is dependent on the US military and that these situations might be related? Taking this in a more authoritarian direction is likely going to go bad, either way.

Wait, are we talking about private citizens who own guns, or the size of national militaries? They're two different subjects. Unless you're implying that someone is going to invade Canada, and then a bunch of Americans will gather up their shotguns and revolvers and go save the Canadians, don't confuse the issues.


I'm not afraid. You're the one who brought fear into the discussion.

Okay...

There are evil people in the world.

The nightly news report shows pretty much every day what happens when an evil person comes into contact with someone who isn't carrying.

I may come into contact with an evil person so I carry.

I know 3 people personally who have been attacked.

Short-term memory loss is a serious issue isn't it? Or are you just fancy yourself to be such a badass that evil people and being shot or attacked are nothing to be afraid of?

[yoginimama]

If a situation arises in which I need to defend myself (and I recognise that such situations are very, very unlikely), I want to at least have the option of using a firearm.

No you don't. Because what happens if you draw at close quarters in a chaotic situation? Do you think just brandishing the gun is going to be enough? No, you have to be prepared to fire or the thing could be taken away from you and used against you. But if you fire...you've escalated the situation. Severely.

Carrying all the time helps protect me legally if (heaven forbid) there is ever a situation in which I do need to protect myself with a firearm.

I wouldn't count on it. I once read an article advising women not to fall for the fantasy that owning a firearm could protect them. It told the tale of a woman with a homicidal stalker who was well known to the police. The stalker was *in* her house, attempting to break down her bedroom door, screaming that he was going to kill her. The woman was braced to fire while holding the phone to her ear with her shoulder, talking to the police dispatcher. The dispatcher begged her not to fire at her assailant, swearing up and down that the police were on their way. "Let us handle it! If you fire, we have to arrest you, we have to investigate, it has to go through a process to be ruled a justifiable homicide. You don't want to put yourself in that situation. Just wait, just wait."

Remember, now, that we are talking about a case where an individual with a known history of making homicidal threats against this woman had *broken into her home* and was trying to break down her bedroom door, screaming at her. It is difficult to conceive of a less ambiguous situation. Yet even under those circumstances, if she had fired, there would have had to be an investigation and a ruling.

Now imagine yourself getting into a random altercation on the street and deciding you have to shoot someone.

It will be infinitely, infinitely harder to prove that your life was truly in such immediate danger that you had to fire a gun to save yourself. Infinitely.

Why do you dislike guns?

They give people a false sense of security.

[reb]

i'm going to show my 'socially responsible' side:

i carry almost 24/7. the reason i carry is not just for my own protection in the event of a bad situation i can't talk or run my way out of, but for the 'unseen deterrent' effect it has on criminals. here, no one knows who is carrying; i am careful to conceal my firearm, and try to wear clothes and a holster where it does not 'print'.

i have had two situations involving possible need for a firearm (posted before-if you want details, i will give them, but you got to let me know-as i may not see this thread again for awhile-i only check unread posts):

1. a guy talking trash appeared to be about to grab an older lady (80s) by the throat in a restaurant. i was standing behind him in line, and had my hand on my firearm...big guy. way bigger'n me. little old woman...not very healthy, either. he'da killed her in a heartbeat by crushing her hyoid bone. luckily, he wandered out mumbling to himself. i started carrying a larger caliber handgun after that.

2. a guy and his wife literally tried to run me down in a grocery store parking lot with a jeep cherokee. they got pissed off because i was standing in a double yellow line no parking area smoking a cigarette (nasty things! ought to be illegal!). i had every good reason to kill the driver, but did not. i simply moved out of the way when i realized 'they intend to run me over!'.

in neither case did i draw my weapon-it was not necessary.

i have had one situation that appeared as if it was going to turn into a fist fight. i handed my concealed weapon to a friend (who i knew was not going to do something stupid with it). the fight never came off; i walked off from it.

i have pretty good impulse control. it is absolutely not true, Exodus, that getting a concealed carry license is easier than getting a driving license; with NICS, buying a handgun is not as easy as getting a drivers' license, either. you could lie on the form, i suppose, but people lie at the driving bureau, too; you can say 'the government is incompetent' but they run both programs. i have hunted with a handgun numerous times, and will again. firearms are a tool; no one is taking my tools, not my axe, my rake, my chisels or my firearms.

i have no criminal record, had a security clearance with deep investigation, and had all the bureaucratic bs i could stand to get my license (lost your prints, only have one photo, back to the back of the que). the reason i took the carry license test was previously some guy in a pickup tried to run over me on my bicycle; and shot me the finger when he missed me-i used to ride for exercise until i realized it was taking my life in my hands; now i have a carry license, i walk for exercise (and carry).

the people i know personally who have concealed licenses-they are not whackos; they are less of a threat to me than government employees and politicians-the canadian government included. i know of one person who will not go get his license, because he says he does not have the self control to keep from shooting someone when he's angry. i think that's pretty self honest.

don't paint the whole wall with one brush. that's sloppy art.

Prune, you just don't like 'people having fun', that's all. :) i enjoy my firearms-the engineering, the thinking in the design, the workmanship, the finish, reloading, shooting targets, and protecting my chickens and sheep. i think you'd like to outlaw having fun.

[Autoptic]

Wait, are we talking about private citizens who own guns, or the size of national militaries? They're two different subjects. Unless you're implying that someone is going to invade Canada, and then a bunch of Americans will gather up their shotguns and revolvers and go save the Canadians, don't confuse the issues.

I was referring to how culture affects the resulting military. American culture produces the American military. Canadian culture produces the Canadian military. If we matched their culture in such matters, they might need to alter theirs (and their military) to make up for the difference.

[PunkinA]

Friend, you make a lot of assumptions. I know 3 people personally who have been attacked. One was shot while being carjacked, one used a gun without firing it to protect himself from a gang attack, and one actually was forced to use a gun to defend himself against attack.


Are all those incidents in KCMO? I looked up crime rates in Kansas City and its not a pretty picture. If I had to live there, I agree with you, I would carry too.

But then I'd ask myself, "Why am I living in KC?"

[yoginimama]

i have had two situations involving possible need for a firearm...

1. a guy talking trash appeared to be about to grab an older lady (80s) by the throat in a restaurant. i was standing behind him in line...

Even if the man had actually done it, how would you drawing a gun on him have helped? What would you have done next? Shot him? What if you had hit the old woman instead, or he had dragged her in front of him like a shield? What if you had missed them both and hit a bystander? (Don't laugh--there's a reason safety rules are strictly enforced at the shooting range.) If you had shot the man, how would you have justified this? Do you imagine you could have proven so easily that he really intended to use deadly force on that woman?

Besides all these practical problems, there's a conceptual/theoretical one. For you to have drawn a gun in that situation would have *escalated* it, not de-escalated it. That is never, never a good idea.

2. a guy and his wife literally tried to run me down in a grocery store parking lot with a jeep cherokee. they got pissed off because i was standing in a double yellow line no parking area smoking a cigarette (nasty things! ought to be illegal!). i had every good reason to kill the driver, but did not. i simply moved out of the way when i realized 'they intend to run me over!'.

And had you acted upon the "good reasons" you believed you had, and shot the driver, I am fairly sure that the District Attorney's first question in his hostile examination of you at your trial would have been, "Why didn't you just move out of the way, sir?"

in neither case did i draw my weapon-it was not necessary.

No kidding.

Are all those incidents in KCMO? I looked up crime rates in Kansas City and its not a pretty picture. If I had to live there, I agree with you, I would carry too.

Again--how would that help? Wiring your house with every type of camera and alarm system known to man, carrying a personal alarm, buying a trained rottweiler or seven (and taking three of them with you whenever you left the house), studying Systema and/or Krav Maga, these measures would be sensible. Not buying a gun.

[firebee]

I once read an article advising women not to fall for the fantasy that owning a firearm could protect them.

I am mistrustful from the beginning. I have heard altogether too many sentences which begin "I once read an article advising women..." and end with something utterly ridiculous.

"Let us handle it! If you fire, we have to arrest you, we have to investigate, it has to go through a process to be ruled a justifiable homicide. You don't want to put yourself in that situation. Just wait, just wait."

If she had needed to fire on the homicidal stalker who was in her home and had not done so, the consequences (to the woman, not the 911 operator) would have been a little bit more profound.


Remember, now, that we are talking about a case where an individual with a known history of making homicidal threats against this woman had *broken into her home* and was trying to break down her bedroom door, screaming at her. It is difficult to conceive of a less ambiguous situation. Yet even under those circumstances, if she had fired, there would have had to be an investigation and a ruling.

Which would have ended in her favor in pretty much all US jurisdictions -- certainly mine, where there is a "Make My Day" law. Of course there has to be an investigation. As a general rule, when one turns up with a perforated corpse, the police do not generally go "Oh, OK, I'm sure that whatever process produced this corpse was entirely legal" without investigating what happened first. That kinda goes without saying.

The legal (and psychological, which you did not mention) consequences of ending someone's life in self-defense have been studied in much greater detail than that covered in magazine articles which give shitty self-defense advice to women, and many people have concluded based on such study that these consequences are more manageable than their own death.

Your mileage, of course, may vary. But I would educate myself a little more in lethal force issues before giving advice to other people, if I were you.

[Elfrun]

I never carry a firearm, never will and do not feel anyone else should be allowed to do so either <-- my stance (excluding police/defence force personnel etc). I agree with the person who said where you were raised and the culture around firearm ownership has a major impact on views.

Here in Australia getting a firearm licence isn't an easy thing and carrying a weapon is very much illegal, but more important than that, it's pretty easy to avoid people who would be involved with illegal firearms, you just gotta avoid bikie gangs. Most criminals won't hold up a petrol station with a firearm, they'd use a knife of some kind, when the criminals that you may interact with aren't armed to the teeth it makes it easier to have the stance I do.

Objectively though, this hasn't happened. Washington state has allowed concealed carry since the 1960's and there has been no increase in crime rates as a result. In fact, there has never been an increase in crime rates caused by a state allowing concealed carry. The objective data are in and there's simply no basis to assume that there is any detrimental effect from allowing concealed carry.

The statistics that need to be looked at are not legal vs illegal when it comes to firearm ownership but rather the amount of guns available. There are too many weapons in circulation in the US that how legal or illegal they are make no difference, making them illegal now would also have minimal impact as the people who follow the law and relinquish their weapons are generally the ones who wouldn't use them for illegal purposes to begin with. What can't be disputed is the amount of violent crimes that involve firearms are more prevalent in cultures that have many firearms available.

Much as I dislike guns for other reasons, I find the whole culture of fear surrounding them probably the most off-putting thing.

That's what I don't like as well, the idea that if the other person has a firearm then I better have a bigger firearm leads to everyone needing more powerful weapons. More weapons = more crime involving powerful firearms = more need for the average citizen to possess a firearm to protect themselves = more likelihood a criminal will require a firearm if they are going to commit a crime. Its circular logic and while I don't dismiss it as untrue, I do say it leads to more and more problems. The answer is only found in taking firearm off the streets, and that is a major job once they've been accepted as a way of life for so long in countries like America. Talk to an American about the possibility of taking away their guns and resistance and shouts about amendments rights are bound to be the result.

[yoginimama]

I am mistrustful from the beginning. I have heard altogether too many sentences which begin "I once read an article advising women..." and end with something utterly ridiculous.

Very true. Point taken. I did read such an article, but it was a long time ago, and I know that's weak.



If she had needed to fire on the homicidal stalker who was in her home and had not done so, the consequences (to the woman, not the 911 operator) would have been a little bit more profound.

Yeah, I do remember thinking "Screw it, baby, feuer frei!"



Which would have ended in her favor in pretty much all US jurisdictions -- certainly mine, where there is a "Make My Day" law. Of course there has to be an investigation. As a general rule, when one turns up with a perforated corpse, the police do not generally go "Oh, OK, I'm sure that whatever process produced this corpse was entirely legal" without investigating what happened first. That kinda goes without saying.

The legal (and psychological, which you did not mention) consequences of ending someone's life in self-defense have been studied in much greater detail than that covered in magazine articles which give shitty self-defense advice to women, and many people have concluded based on such study that these consequences are more manageable than their own death.

Your mileage, of course, may vary. But I would educate myself a little more in lethal force issues before giving advice to other people, if I were you.

Again--point taken. I should have researched the subject more thoroughly before spouting off.

However, it seemed to me like there was an opposite extreme, where the post's author seemed to feel that he could engage in a firefight on the street and be fairly confident of coming out of it fully justified in the eyes of the law as long as it seemed clear *to him* that he was defending himself.

That seemed to me like a dangerous assumption.

...Also, I should say that I hadn't meant to be giving advice. My intention was only to express my opinion, beliefs and reasoning. If it might have seemed like I was telling people what to do or what not to do, then I expressed myself poorly. That was not my intention.

At the same time, I definitely wanted to question what appeared to be people's assumptions. I've been surprised by what seems to be a belief on this thread that using a firearm in self-defense is a relatively straightforward proposition. Again, I think that's a questionable assumption.

I personally do not feel as though my safety would be enhanced by carrying a gun. I feel it would bring me more trouble than it was worth. I would worry about it being taken away from me and used against me, I would worry about escalating a situation instead of de-escalating it, I would worry about being unable to justify my actions in court if I fired (for example, I think Bernard Goetz was lucky to have been acquitted; I think it could easily have turned out differently), I would worry about being unable to fire anyhow and thus having wasted my time. It's totally not the right solution for me, and I wanted to share that perspective, share my thinking process, share how I would assess the situations people are talking about.

[firebee]

I did read such an article, but it was a long time ago, and I know that's weak.

I think it's quite reasonable to assume that such an article did exist and that you did in fact read it. I just think that the article was, like many such articles, utter crap -- a fluff piece, written by a non-expert, aimed at a casual reader whose motive for reading is to be psychologically reassured rather than informed.

There seems to be something of a female ghetto for self-defense related information, where the information given assumes that the target is unwilling to study and/or incapable of executing a serious attempt at physically defending themselves. Which is a reasonable initial assumption, but they then continue on to give their target audience rather low-quality advice even relative to their position. As for example the article you mentioned: The proper advice to a woman who is considering keeping a firearm at home is that she should seek out training in its selection, operation, and legal use before making that decision -- not that she should avoid the notion entirely because of the misleading advice a 911 operator might have given to some lady once.

Yeah, I do remember thinking "Screw it, baby, feuer frei!"

A point to consider here -- particularly, I suppose, if you are ever in the position of having to take advice from 911 operators -- is that they are in somewhat of an awkward position regarding advising you in any other way than "don't shoot him". It's a question of legal liability, and also they're not in any position to assess the imminent nature of the threat given as they're not there.

Most likely their advice is quite thoroughly constrained by policy.


However, it seemed to me like there was an opposite extreme, where the post's author seemed to feel that he could engage in a firefight on the street and be fairly confident of coming out of it fully justified in the eyes of the law as long as it seemed clear *to him* that he was defending himself.

There is a question of provability, and also it is imperative that one know the particulars of how law works in your jurisdiction. As a general rule, the standard for the use of lethal force in self-defense is that a reasonable person must think themselves (or, in some places, another) in immediate danger of death or serious injury. So, broadly, a person who is reasonable and feels clearly threatened has indeed likely met the legal standard. There are then a series of do's and don'ts (that one should consider in advance) that can strengthen your position.

It must be said, though, that if you are debating over fine points of law in the moment it is not yet time to break out the killingness and that the entire point of the use of deadly force in self defense is that if you do it correctly you would otherwise not be alive to be indicted.

[boldbidder]

Interesting that this thread has turned into a bit of a CC bashing fast. FOID carrying licensed CC folks aren't the ones out there committing crimes, I really do not see the issue whatsoever.

Some have mentioned the lack of training involved with obtaining a CC license and I'd agree with that. I mentioned before in a the 2nd Amend thread that I wouldn't mind seeing a more formal schooling/training program. However, this would accomplish little in terms of removing weapons from the hands of criminals. Cracking down on the major distribution channels and the individual FFL folks will make the biggest difference as it relates to keeping weapons out of the hands of the unsavory.

All of this vitriol aimed at those who have stated they are concealed carriers is largely misdirected.

[Samoan Corleone]

There's no time I can look back on where I think "damn, it couldve really used an M60 then", but the time might come soon.

[RedIrish]

Regardless of one's views on the US's military might saving the world from itself, the poll question was about your views on carrying a concealed weapon.

I have never felt so physically or emotionally insecure that carrying a weapon was ever considered an option. I have never been in a situation where a weapon would have provided a solution. I have never known anyone who has been in a situation where a weapon was necessary.

Although my father, who was in both the British and Canadian military, and served at various times in conjunction with American military forces, maintained a marksman rating throughout his entire career, he never once owned a personal firearm and did not believe in firearms as a means of personal defense. He would have thought this entire debate silly.

Guns don't solve problems, they just escalate existing ones, and create problems where none existed before.

[Bobert]

I used to carry when I was younger (early 20's). Now it seems to me that the odds of needing a gun versus being caught in a situation that requires its use seem slim. (Now watch I need backup :P )
I live in a pretty tame area. If I were living in a high crime area, I would definetly reconsider carrying.

[yoginimama]

Although my father, who was in both the British and Canadian military, and served at various times in conjunction with American military forces, maintained a marksman rating throughout his entire career, he never once owned a personal firearm and did not believe in firearms as a means of personal defense. He would have thought this entire debate silly.

I would be interested in hearing his reasoning on this, if he ever explained it and if you feel like sharing. Did he think a firearm would be overkill? Ineffective? An overly-simplistic response given the near-infinite variables one might face?

Guns don't solve problems, they just escalate existing ones, and create problems where none existed before.

I totally agree with this.

[hubcap]

Short-term memory loss is a serious issue isn't it? Or are you just fancy yourself to be such a badass that evil people and being shot or attacked are nothing to be afraid of?
I believe you misinterpret what I previously stated.

I'm also not afraid that I'll have a flat tire, but I do have a spare tire and a jack in my automobile as I realize that it is possible that I will have a flat tire.

Possession of a gun doesn't prepare one for a violent confrontation any more than possession of a piano makes one a pianist. Anyone who isn't properly trained in the use of firearms should not acquire one simply because it will make them feel safer.

The laws concerning the use of "deadly force" vary from state to state. In my state of residence in order to justify the use of deadly force an individual must fear for their life or the life of someone else in order to use deadly force. The "reasonable man standard" applies. My state also has a law called the "castle doctrine" which basically means that if you are in your home (castle) you are justified in using deadly force against an intruder and have no obligation to retreat.

The notion that anyone who carrys a gun is some sort of cowboy or vigilante or "badass" is quite wrong.

[Autoptic]

Guns don't solve problems, they just escalate existing ones, and create problems where none existed before.

Try solving the problem of superior force even if it isn't armed with firearms with your sense of efficacy.

[yoginimama]

Try solving the problem of superior force with your sense of efficacy even if they aren't armed with firearms.

Welcome to the woman's world. Women live the problem of superior force every day. Getting in a freaking elevator with two random other guys, suddenly you're technically in an enclosed setting surrounded by superior force. Heck, *one* other guy. That's daily life.

How does a gun solve that?

If you brandish it as deterrence, your bigger, more muscular, and possibly more numerous opponents might try to grab it from you. If they succeed, you're even more hosed than you were before. If you jump right to shooting, you'd better be pretty confident that the situation you're in will come across as sufficiently threatening to a jury despite everything the prosecution will do to make it look as though you were over-reacting if not actually the aggressor.

Maybe I'm missing something. Please point out to me whatever flaws you see in my reasoning here. But I just don't see how guns equalize or de-escalate potentially threatening situations.

[firebee]

I have never felt so physically or emotionally insecure that carrying a weapon was ever considered an option.

It's currently infeasible for me to carry a gun, and when it is not infeasible I have never felt sufficiently civic-minded to do so. I'm also not real inclined to project unflattering motivations on people based soley on the choice they make in this area.

[NamShub]

I don't carry a firearm, but would like to. (We can't here, it's considered a felony to be able to protect oneself).

I carry a knife, and at times different sticks.

[firebee]

If you brandish it as deterrence, your bigger, more muscular, and possibly more numerous opponents might try to grab it from you. If they succeed, you're even more hosed than you were before.

Which is why you never, never, never draw a gun (or any other weapon) in the absence of an immediate need to use it. Brandishing is a crime and gives the other party a legal justification to use lethal force against you.

And "He'll just take it away and use it against you" is a classic example of bad women's ghetto advice meant to serve the notion that women are intrinsically helpless against any man, even if the woman is armed and the man is not.

[Autoptic]

Welcome to the woman's world. Women live the problem of superior force every day. Getting in a freaking elevator with two random other guys, suddenly you're technically in an enclosed setting surrounded by superior force. Heck, *one* other guy. That's daily life.

How does a gun solve that?

Nothing works in all cases. Quickness and surprise might still save you.

If you brandish it as deterrence, your bigger, more muscular, and possibly more numerous opponents might try to grab it from you.

This is when you start shooting. If it's pointing at him, this is very unlikely to go well for him. You might want to try a laser sight too if feasible. The cops will vouch for that significantly increasing its effectiveness as a deterrent.

If they succeed, you're even more hosed than you were before.

That's considerably unlikely except in close quarters with multiple opponents. Running for shooters is more likely than charging them.

If you jump right to shooting, you'd better be pretty confident that the situation you're in will come across as sufficiently threatening to a jury despite everything the prosecution will do to make it look as though you were over-reacting if not actually the aggressor.


There's risk either way. Present life and limb tend to take priority over future legal issues.

[reb]

here's a story that succinctly explains why cops now have retention holsters:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

this guy was a great author, for those of you interested in the experiences of a sheriff/border patrolman. his views on firearms are well respected.

[boldbidder]

Welcome to the woman's world. Women live the problem of superior force every day. Getting in a freaking elevator with two random other guys, suddenly you're technically in an enclosed setting surrounded by superior force. Heck, *one* other guy. That's daily life.

How does a gun solve that?

If you brandish it as deterrence, your bigger, more muscular, and possibly more numerous opponents might try to grab it from you. If they succeed, you're even more hosed than you were before. If you jump right to shooting, you'd better be pretty confident that the situation you're in will come across as sufficiently threatening to a jury despite everything the prosecution will do to make it look as though you were over-reacting if not actually the aggressor.

Maybe I'm missing something. Please point out to me whatever flaws you see in my reasoning here. But I just don't see how guns equalize or de-escalate potentially threatening situations.

Spare me, learn how to defend yourself. The whole welcome to a woman's world is a complete and utter joke. Having superior strength does really make that much difference in a physical altercation. My mom turned 60 this year, is 5'1 and 120lbs with a parka and timberlands and I wouldn't want to mix it up with her. Take a few Krav Maga classes and learn how to end a fight before it starts; groin, solar plexus, throat, etc... all represent supple targets that even a modest blow to any opponent will render them writhing on the ground in pain.

Also, you've brought up the gun grab scenario like 27 times in this thread, once again learn what to do. There's lots of different techniques for mitigating a gun grab, use your strong side arm to wedge your firearm into its holster and counter with a V-shaped open handed strike to your assailants windpipe; problem solved.

[hubcap]

Welcome to the woman's world. Women live the problem of superior force every day. Getting in a freaking elevator with two random other guys, suddenly you're technically in an enclosed setting surrounded by superior force. Heck, *one* other guy. That's daily life.
Your point illustrates quite well the need for "conflict avoidance" which is one of the primary focuses of any personal protection training. Do not put yourself into a situation that you think may put you at risk. That doesn't mean "Don't get on an elevator with two men." but it might mean "Don't get on an elevator with THOSE two men". Conflict avoidance is achieved by situational awareness. The elevator scenario is probably not the best example but if it were an elevator in a run-down building down in the "projects" it might be appropriate.

If you brandish it as deterrence, your bigger, more muscular, and possibly more numerous opponents might try to grab it from you. If they succeed, you're even more hosed than you were before. If you jump right to shooting, you'd better be pretty confident that the situation you're in will come across as sufficiently threatening to a jury despite everything the prosecution will do to make it look as though you were over-reacting if not actually the aggressor.
Brandishing a gun is a crime in my state. If you don't feel like your life is in danger you shouldn't pull out a gun.

Maybe I'm missing something. Please point out to me whatever flaws you see in my reasoning here. But I just don't see how guns equalize or de-escalate potentially threatening situations.
A gun in the hands of someone properly trained is the ONLY equalizer for a woman or any other person who is unable to properly defend themselves against a superior aggressor. Guns are by definition an escalation of force unless the aggressor is holding a gun. Guns in the context of this discussion are to be used in self-defense not as a "de-escalator".

[firebee]

Something else to point out here: I don't like a lot of firearms-related catch phrases because they have a certain scent of bravado, but they also have a way of revealing certain truths. One such phrase is this: "Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six."

Let's say that I have a gun -- a moderately unlikely event, mind -- and I find myself in a situation that despite my best efforts ends in a need for violence (which is highly improbable). Say I'm certain in my own mind that I am in lethal danger and the only way for me to avoid death or serious injury is to do something potentially deadly to another person.

If I do this thing, there is a certain risk that I will be successfully prosecuted. There are things that I can do to reduce that risk, but it cannot be completely eliminated. I might end up in a poor political environment, or there might not be enough physical evidence to substantiate my story. I might mistakenly say or do something that damages my defense, despite my best intentions not to. I cannot dismiss the possibility that I might go to prison.

However. I am not only a reasonable person, I am a reasonable person who has had some degree of interest in self-defense-related issues for a substantial portion of my life. I have a familiarity with the way weapons work, and how unarmed combat works, and the cognitive challenge of trying to summon emergency help in broad daylight and safety, much less when someone is making a concerted attempt to kill me. In short: If I think I am in mortal danger, I am likely to be right.

The decision, then, becomes a choice between a relatively small chance of prison and a relatively large chance of death. Prison, admittedly, sucks -- but I would still prefer to live. Hence the slogan.

[Prunesquallor]

And "He'll just take it away and use it against you" is a classic example of bad women's ghetto advice meant to serve the notion that women are intrinsically helpless against any man, even if the woman is armed and the man is not.

True that.

I do agree with Yogi's point that simply having inferior force is not a huge deal most of the time, however, and one has to simply cope with that. Although I am vicious and inventive, I'm physically weaker than most people I encounter. And yet somehow, that's never a problem. And it doesn't hurt my ego at all, or make me afraid or defensive. The situations where force needs to be used are few and far between - and rarely involve strangers. When it's "friends" then there are often ways to avoid getting them to want to kill you in the first place.





Prunesquallor added to this post, 1 minutes and 42 seconds later...

A gun in the hands of someone properly trained is the ONLY equalizer for a woman or any other person who is unable to properly defend themselves against a superior aggressor. Guns are by definition an escalation of force unless the aggressor is holding a gun. Guns in the context of this discussion are to be used in self-defense not as a "de-escalator".

"a woman or any other person who is unable to properly defend themselves" = gag

The automatic lumping of women in the category of "people unable to defend themselves" => you really don't get out much, do you?

[yoginimama]

Having superior strength does really make that much difference in a physical altercation. My mom turned 60 this year, is 5'1 and 120lbs with a parka and timberlands and I wouldn't want to mix it up with her. Take a few Krav Maga classes and learn how to end a fight before it starts; groin, solar plexus, throat, etc... all represent supple targets that even a modest blow to any opponent will render them writhing on the ground in pain.

Wow, that's actually exactly what I was trying to say. I was responding to a post which demanded to know how I (or anyone else) would "resolve a superior force scenario" (paraphrasing) any other way than by packing. I was trying to say, listen, superior force scenarios are hardly uncommon. Your point about your mom is perfect in that regard. And I did earlier bring up studying Krav Maga or other "practical," down-and-dirty urban fighting systems as (imho) a more sensible and flexible alternative to carrying.

Also, you've brought up the gun grab scenario like 27 times in this thread, once again learn what to do. There's lots of different techniques for mitigating a gun grab, use your strong side arm to wedge your firearm into its holster and counter with a V-shaped open handed strike to your assailants windpipe; problem solved.

Okay, but see, then you're fighting...over a gun. If you have to learn techniques to lay the smackdown on someone in order to make sure you can hold on to your gun in all scenarios, then why not just skip the gun and go straight to the ass-kicking?

[boldbidder]

Okay, but see, then you're fighting...over a gun. If you have to learn techniques to lay the smackdown on someone in order to make sure you can hold on to your gun in all scenarios, then why not just skip the gun and go straight to the ass-kicking?

Come on, yogi, you're an INTJ, it's called contingency planning. None us want to be in a situation that we don't know a way out of a head of time. Regardless of how unlikely the scenario is. I've got three different emergency evac plans in the case of a fire at my home. I have a plan in the event that the big city next to me happens to get nuked. I even have a plan for when we get hit by the zombie apocalypse. The likelihood of any of those things happening is minuscule, but I'm good with being a lil paranoid and prepared rather than unsuspecting and frakked if/when the ish hits the fan.

[hubcap]

The automatic lumping of women in the category of "people unable to defend themselves" => you really don't get out much, do you?

My comment was not intended to label women as "incapable" in any way. If you took it as such, you have my apologies.

[combustor]

Well as you all can see I'm new but have been following this thread with some interest. A gun is a tool, and to rationalize that "no one should carry a gun because I don't 'feel' a need and I think they might snap and have a wild-west shootout" is as invalid as "nobody should drive a car because someone might get drunk and kill someone".
Do you wear a seatbelt when you drive? Why? (Pretend legality is moot) You've may have never NEEDED your seatbelt, or even felt the need, so why wear it?
Looking at the statistics for the US, your lifetime chances of becoming a victim of a violent crime are nearly the same as being involved in an auto accident in which you sustain severe injury.
Now if guns were unavailable, would violelent criminals give up their lifestyle to get a job at Wendy's? Is a gun the only tool that can be used to easily force submission or kill another?
Then argument that "X country has virtually eliminated private gun ownership and has lower crime than Y country, so banning guns must lower crime" may seem reasonable superficially, but causality is more complex. Canada was used as an example. Why is property crime higher in Canada? And why was violent crime in the US fallen twice as fast as a % than Canada's, even as concealed carry in the US has increased exponentially since the 90's? I don't know the answer, and causality is a funny beast.

[RedIrish]

Combustor - can you provide links to that data?

I find it odd that the data I have uncovered shows Canadian property crime rates as low and declining.

[aku chi]

I hate guns. I plan never to use a gun on a living target. Even if I did, I would never, under any circumstance, bring a gun with me as I go about my (non-military) business.

However, I fully support the right for other people to carry weapons with them as they please.

I would be considerably happier if guns had never been invented (all else being equal, which it couldn't). I think that guns are a sloppy, plebian (the fond term is equalizing), tool for inflicting pain and/or death. I would prefer a world with weapons that are easier to control, more precise, and enhance the comparative advantage of a skilled user.

But I realize that my wishes are partly selfish. I am not a huge man but I have above average strength and athleticism and uncommon martial arts experience and skills. I would be much better off in defense situations if guns didn't exist.

Guns, however, do exist. I am completely uninterested in getting involved in a mutual gunfight (high-stakes gambling isn't my style). I don't see how a concealed gun would be of any practical use if your assailant also has a gun. Having a concealed gun could, however, be a reasonable deterent against aggressors who don't have a gun. If I am involved in a defense situation in which the assailant does not have a gun, I am reasonably confident that I could put up a successful gunless defense (exceptions include multiple knife-wielding attackers, a single skilled knife-wielder when I am weaponless (not in my home), and a katana-wielding kendo master among others). On the whole, owning a gun wouldn't be too useful in my case. I wouldn't, however, want to deny anybody else the opportunity to use a concealed gun in such a fashion.

[reb]

'the ayoob files' is a regular feature in american handgunner. reading these stories will answer a lot of questions and misconceptions of what happens in gunfights. ayoob has been a cop since i was very young. he writes for backwoods home magazine a good bit as well. his analysis of armed citizen and police gunfights is incisive. i would recommend anyone desiring to carry concealed as an armed citizen read as much of ayoob's writing as they can find. the decision to fight for one's life is a personal one; i have no desire to say anyone has to fight for their life; give up the money, lay down and beg. whatever is a person's choice. i know my choice, having been threatened a few times. i do not condemn others, although i don't completely understand why someone would allow themselves to be knelt in the back of a convenience store and shot in the face...i can't get my mind to wrap around 'giving up' like that. however, being 'older', i completely support older people having firearms. the cliche i have posted before is absolutely true in its meaning 'god made all men; samuel colt made them equal.' if you can pull a trigger, you have equal strength to an adversary. my favorite story is of the three robbers who tried to rob the 80+ year old woman (out of 'american rifleman', i think). she had a .44 magnum revolver, and knew how to use it. i think she wounded one, and the others fled.

a good firearm does not care you age, sex, or anything else about you. it does 'what you tell it'. you simply have to be cool headed enough to 'tell it the right thing'. having been in several 'emergency situations', and having been there with some people who wrung their hands and whined, i don't want those kinds of people 'in the boat with me'. i know what i'll do; the 'i don't want to kill this person' people...i don't want around me in a bad situation. my principle that brought me to where i am is 'i have as much right to live in peace as the next person. i also have a duty to the society i am part of to participate; thusly, i both choose to participate in providing my own defense if necessary, and being an 'undisclosed deterrent' to those who might do harm to the weak or unprepared.' i accept the obligation. however, those who wish to take away all personally owned firearms, i wish pictures would be posted. i don't want to intrude on their 'gunless world' if they are attacked.

one of my other favorite stories is of a convenience store clerk, confronted with an armed robber....there was a pepsi display. the clerk started grabbing cans off the display and actually ran the robber from the store. it's not the size of the dog in the fight many times, it's the desire of the dog to fight.

[hubcap]

An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it. - Col. Jeff Cooper.

I believe that quote gets right to the point of the matter. However, I agree completely with reb in that everyone has a right to choose the proper response for themselves.

[Corbu]

Noticed that a lot of information in the form of opinion has been bandied about on this. Not sure everyone will take the time to go here To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and download the PDF Gun Facts 5.1 but it does contain quite interesting facts on the subject of firearms. I have not vetted every item in the file but have looked up some of the studies on my own. What is presented is credible enough to confirm where the data has come from. Being as I am one of those who go through life everyday armed it is pro 2A, I am sure that counter arguments can and will be made.

The reality is that each of us are responsible for our own well being. It is impossible to take care of others if first we do not act selfishly and take care of our selves first. Every available resource should be leveraged to maximize success in the endeavor of taking care of ones self. There are a slew of reasons on both sides of this issue, enough that each individual needs to make their own decision. That decision will impact the chances of success with regards to well being. Like many other aspects of my life I choose to stack the deck in my favor.

[eagleseven]

I would carry both a gun and an extendable baton, but I work/study on a college campus in New York State, which means I cannot carry anything that may be used as a weapon...

...since I live in a bad neighborhood, this is very upsetting.

[mtene]

I carry a gun legally every time I leave my house. I won't go to places where it is illegal to carry a firearm.

I see many people opposed to gun ownership and wonder why millions of people who were subject to very strict gun control and were murdered by people with guns. How making guns illegal to own is a good idea.

What chaps my ass the most about it all is I don't have a problem with a persons right to not carry a gun. Why do so many think they can tell me I don't have the right to carry a gun.

[LincolnBeardGuy]

Come on, yogi, you're an INTJ, it's called contingency planning. None us want to be in a situation that we don't know a way out of a head of time. Regardless of how unlikely the scenario is.

Exactly.

I have several firearms - some for the above stated purpose and others because it's a hobby. I live in inner city Detroit, one of the worst areas in the US, so I carry concealed routinely in addition to keeping a 9mm in the glove box of my car permanently.

I also own a couple shotguns and several so-called "assault" rifles. The shotgun is ideal for home defense and the rifles just in case society breaks down into massive violence and I have to defend my home or shoot my way out of the city. Far-fetched yes but I try to plan for all possible situations in life. I'm prepared for plenty of other unlikely situations besides just owning firearms.

[zibber]

I have a problem with a lot of people who own guns, but am not necessarily opposed to personal gun ownership.

[pip]

The problem with guns is not the guns, it's the people who insist upon having them.

As many have stated firearms are just tools, admittedly incredibly dangerous tools but tools nontheless.
Tools used responsibly are not a problem. Ever.

However this is where we start running into problems as the vast majority of people are touchy, self-important, and often just plain stupid.
By allowing citizens to possess firearms freely you create a situation where a huge number of people who are completely unsuitable for such responsibility take it upon themselves to assume it.
If you cannot see a problem with this, then I really do despair.

Next we have the argument reagrding the criminal elements.
They will probably always be able to obtain firearms regardless of thier legal status, but when such weapons are freely available to anyone they become commonplace as they are easy to get hold of.
Where such weapons are forbidden you then force the crims to go through all sorts of backdoors to get them - all of which are pretty easy to trace and crack down on.
Eg: In the UK firearms are illegal, but they are still present in some limited way with the less desireable folks. And if some random joe bloggs is shot dead, because its such a rare occurance its front-page headline 'news' for weeks on end.
May I enquire as what attention the US media would give that?
(I'd wager it would be far far less...)

Bottom line: If you want to carry a weapon, join the military. Citizens don't need guns.

[hubcap]

Tools used responsibly are not a problem. Ever.

Next we have the argument reagrding the criminal elements.
They will probably always be able to obtain firearms regardless of thier legal status,

Bottom line: If you want to carry a weapon, join the military. Citizens don't need guns.

Do you see the paradox you have created?

First you admit that used responsibly there is no problem. Ever. Second, you admit that criminals will always be able to obtain firearms. Third, you suggest that citizens don't need guns.

Far more people are killed by automobiles than guns:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

One of the fundamental flaws in your argument is that you admit that when used responsibly guns are NEVER going to be a problem. So why should those who use guns responsibly be denied their use?

[reb]

no one has asked this question, so i will:

show me the legitimate story of a legal-under national law, NICS (no felonies, no forcible mental lockup, no dishonorable discharge from the military)-firearm owner committing a crime. url with real-not some web blog-news outlet. i'll go for nbc, abc, cbs, fox, or maybe even ap.

if you dig into the stories of firearm abuse, i cannot think of one locally. has anyone read 'More Guns; Less Crime'(with an open mind-not one 'already made up') ?:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Corbu]

The problem with guns is not the guns, it's the people who insist upon having them.

Actually the problem is on the other side on this issue. People insisting what I should do for the betterment of society, sorry not drinking that kool aid. I am pro 2A and have never told anyone what they should or should not do in regard to gun ownership!

As many have stated firearms are just tools, admittedly incredibly dangerous tools but tools nontheless.
Tools used responsibly are not a problem. Ever.

All tools can be inherently dangerous. With this statement you conflict yourself and support 2A.

However this is where we start running into problems as the vast majority of people are touchy, self-important, and often just plain stupid.
By allowing citizens to possess firearms freely you create a situation where a huge number of people who are completely unsuitable for such responsibility take it upon themselves to assume it.
If you cannot see a problem with this, then I really do despair.

Here is where you flop on your previous statement. We also allow "vast majority" to breed, drive cars, and sometimes pay taxes. We do not restrict their rights. These sentiments actually reinforce why some firearm owners will never give up their firearms. The mere thought that someone is so certain of others, categorizes and judges them blindly is more of a cause for despair.

Next we have the argument reagrding the criminal elements.
They will probably always be able to obtain firearms regardless of thier legal status, but when such weapons are freely available to anyone they become commonplace as they are easy to get hold of.
Where such weapons are forbidden you then force the crims to go through all sorts of backdoors to get them - all of which are pretty easy to trace and crack down on.
Eg: In the UK firearms are illegal, but they are still present in some limited way with the less desireable folks. And if some random joe bloggs is shot dead, because its such a rare occurance its front-page headline 'news' for weeks on end.
May I enquire as what attention the US media would give that?
(I'd wager it would be far far less...)

Really a non-argument here. Reb already shot some holes into this (pun intended)

Bottom line: If you want to carry a weapon, join the military. Citizens don't need guns.

BTDT - Does this mean as a veteran I am qualified in your esteemed opinion to own a firearm? As a citizen guns are required to keep government officials with similar beliefs in check. Feel free to insert applicable quote from one of the constitutional framers here :)

[reb]

i want to inject a bit of humor with the seriousness of this issue, so, for those that think this is off topic, you need to think more on the matter:
ooops! that's a forum link-slaps hand-here's the meat of the post (allegedly a craig's list ad):
**********
I don't really care if this is legitimate or not, the sentiment expressed is nothing short of perfect, given the standards of behavior displayed in today's society.

Craigslist: To the Guy Who Tried to Mug Me in Downtown Savannah night before last

Posted to Craig’s List / Personals:

To the Guy Who Tried to Mug Me in Downtown Savannah night before last. Date: 2009-05-27, 1:43 A M EST. I was the guy wearing the black Burberry jacket that you demanded that I hand over, shortly after you pulled the knife on me and my girlfriend threatening our lives. You also asked for my girlfriend’s purse and earrings. I can only hope that you somehow come across this rather important message.

First, I’d like to apologize for your embarrassment, I didn’t expect you to actually crap in your pants when I drew my pistol after you took my jacket. The evening was not that cold, and I was wearing the jacket for a reason.. My girlfriend had just bought me that Kimber Model 1911 .45 A CP pistol for my birthday, and we had picked up a shoulder holster for it that very evening. Obviously you agree that it is a very intimidating weapon when pointed at your head … isn’t it! I know it probably wasn’t fun walking back to wherever you’d come from with that brown sludge in your pants. I’m sure it was even worse walking bare footed since I made you leave your shoes, cell phone, and wallet with me. [That prevented you from calling or running to your buddies to come help mug us again].

After I called your mother, or “Momma” as you had her listed in your cell, I explained the entire episode of what you’d done. Then I went and filled up my gas tank as well as four other people’s in the gas station on your credit card. The guy with the big motor home took 150 gallons and was extremely grateful! I gave your shoes to a homeless guy outside Vinnie Van Go Go’s, along with all the cash in you r wallet. [That made his day!] I then threw your wallet into the-edited by reb-car that was parked at the curb … after I broke the windshield and side window and keyed the entire driver’s side of the car.

Later, I called a bunch of phone sex numbers from your cell phone. Ma Bell just now shut down the line, although I only used the phone for a little over a day now, so what’s going on with that? Earlier, I managed to get in two threatening phone calls to the DA’s office and one to the FBI, while mentioning President Obama as my possible target. The FBI guy seemed really intense and we had a nice long chat (I guess while he traced your number etc.). In a way, perhaps I should apologize for not killing you … but I feel this type of retribution is a far more appropriate punishment for your threatened crime. I wish you well as you try to sort through some of these rather immediate pressing issues, and can only hope that you have the opportunity to reflect upon, and perhaps reconsider the career path you’ve chosen to pursue in life.
Remember, next time you might not be so lucky. Have a good day!

Thoughtfully yours,
Bill
P.S. Remember this motto…An armed society makes for a more civil society!******


i cannot begin to think this deviously-as the comment says 'i don't care if this is legit, it reflects how uncivil our society has become'. i want a civil society-i want a fair one. i am an intj; i recognize that this is idealisitic of me, but, i am going to do what i reasonably can to see that we have civil and fair in my vicinity.

and, just as an aside...what happened to that honor student in chicago-that is the antithesis of what my idealistic mind wants to see.

as with nearly every day, my kimber is in its holster, on my belt, and has been since i got out of bed. it will be there while i dig postholes, when i take my nap, when i go up to the mailbox at the top of the hill to get my mail, and will not come off until i wipe it down about 10 pm; it will lay on the sink outside the shower while i get cleaned up, and then will sit by my bed with a surefire flashlight while i sleep. god willing, we will repeat the process tomorrow....and i run 'night flashlight drills' a few times a month with live fire, too. i am fully aware of the responsibility that this imposes upon me, and i accept it williingly. those of you who wave your hands and run when emergencies happen, don't let it bother you. i do not perform in this fashion.

my principle: i do not expect anyone to protect me but myself; i therefore must remain competent and willing to do so.

[Mozzes]

i want to inject a bit of humor with the seriousness of this issue, so, for those that think this is off topic, you need to think more on the matter:
ooops! that's a forum link-slaps hand-here's the meat of the post (allegedly a craig's list ad):
**********
I don't really care if this is legitimate or not, the sentiment expressed is nothing short of perfect, given the standards of behavior displayed in today's society.

Craigslist: To the Guy Who Tried to Mug Me in Downtown Savannah night before last

Posted to Craig’s List / Personals:

To the Guy Who Tried to Mug Me in Downtown Savannah night before last. Date: 2009-05-27, 1:43 A M EST. I was the guy wearing the black Burberry jacket that you demanded that I hand over, shortly after you pulled the knife on me and my girlfriend threatening our lives. You also asked for my girlfriend’s purse and earrings. I can only hope that you somehow come across this rather important message.

First, I’d like to apologize for your embarrassment, I didn’t expect you to actually crap in your pants when I drew my pistol after you took my jacket. The evening was not that cold, and I was wearing the jacket for a reason.. My girlfriend had just bought me that Kimber Model 1911 .45 A CP pistol for my birthday, and we had picked up a shoulder holster for it that very evening. Obviously you agree that it is a very intimidating weapon when pointed at your head … isn’t it! I know it probably wasn’t fun walking back to wherever you’d come from with that brown sludge in your pants. I’m sure it was even worse walking bare footed since I made you leave your shoes, cell phone, and wallet with me. [That prevented you from calling or running to your buddies to come help mug us again].

After I called your mother, or “Momma” as you had her listed in your cell, I explained the entire episode of what you’d done. Then I went and filled up my gas tank as well as four other people’s in the gas station on your credit card. The guy with the big motor home took 150 gallons and was extremely grateful! I gave your shoes to a homeless guy outside Vinnie Van Go Go’s, along with all the cash in you r wallet. [That made his day!] I then threw your wallet into the-edited by reb-car that was parked at the curb … after I broke the windshield and side window and keyed the entire driver’s side of the car.

Later, I called a bunch of phone sex numbers from your cell phone. Ma Bell just now shut down the line, although I only used the phone for a little over a day now, so what’s going on with that? Earlier, I managed to get in two threatening phone calls to the DA’s office and one to the FBI, while mentioning President Obama as my possible target. The FBI guy seemed really intense and we had a nice long chat (I guess while he traced your number etc.). In a way, perhaps I should apologize for not killing you … but I feel this type of retribution is a far more appropriate punishment for your threatened crime. I wish you well as you try to sort through some of these rather immediate pressing issues, and can only hope that you have the opportunity to reflect upon, and perhaps reconsider the career path you’ve chosen to pursue in life.
Remember, next time you might not be so lucky. Have a good day!

Thoughtfully yours,
Bill
P.S. Remember this motto…An armed society makes for a more civil society!******


I doubt that actually happened but if it did then that guy is the biggest idiot in the world. First, he calls the other guy's mother, establishing a witness that, in fact, the cell phone was stolen. Then he threatens federal officials over the phone which is a felony. Then he writes a confession of the entire incident?

I'm a proponent of gun ownership for sane and rational people but I don't yet see the relevance of that narrative other than instruction on how *not* to use a gun or how to practice one-upmanship in sociopathic behavior.

[combustor]

You may find this interesting. Someone requested sources to demonstrate trends in crime. Note the precipitous drop in burglary and robbery for the US during the period, where Canada is flat-lined. I haven't read the entire document yet, but from what I have gathered so far the "Anti" folks will have a tough time explaining away the trends if they want to base an argument on crime statistics.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Prunesquallor]

The pro folks are the ones who want to limit it to crime statistics, since it ignores accidents and stupid people, the big white elephant. Also, it would be just a bit foolish to argue that gun laws are the only relevant factor, the only difference between these countries, and they must therefore cause all differences in statistics.

[combustor]

The pro folks are the ones who want to limit it to crime statistics, since it ignores accidents and stupid people, the big white elephant. Also, it would be just a bit foolish to argue that gun laws are the only relevant factor, the only difference between these countries, and they must therefore cause all differences in statistics.

Well "accidents" are so rare that your kid is 100 times more likely to drown in a friends pool than to be killed by a gun. Why no cry to ban private swimming pools? They are 100 times more likely to cause accidental death than a gun! Show me the elephant.

And about the stats, I agree, in the US we have come a long way from the 1960's policy of revolving door prison system to having very high incarceration rates today (though not high enough).

[reb]

Mozzes, just laugh a little...it's prolly bs. i cannot imagine making someone give me their cell, etc.. i would put nylon ties on them, and either call the cops, or walk off.

Prune, are you about to start analyzing auto accidents vs. firearm accidents vs. chance of lightning vs. trying to rope a sheep and banging up your hip? that's the road you're embarking on, and the stats have shown every time i've looked i have a better chance of someone trying to run me down in a parking lot than getting shot at a rifle range. i probably have a better chance of getting mugged in a city of over 1 million than i do in the country, too. just look at the way things work practically, and we won't get into a statistical squabble. you can't have my kimber in any case; your government won't let you.

out here, if i call the cops, i will wait up to an hour. if somethings serious happens-like i gash my leg with my axe, and there is no one with me, i'm apt to be a dead person. the chance of that happening in some major cities is pretty good, too. not everyone g.a.s.; some who do have no clue what to do to stop serious bleeding.

i think, Prune, i have told you about my neighbor who is a classical pianist? she's Canadian. she hates firearms. she's married to a native texan. he is trying to adapt to 'life in the country'. he got her a shotgun-she is alone sometimes. when they moved out here, i told her 'if someone kicks in your front door, you come out the back, and down my fenceline, climb the fence and go to my back door and pound on it, yelling your name. i will shine a light on you, but i won't shoot you, and no one is going to follow you in here.' i don't think she would use the shotgun; it's a mistake to even have it around her, as i bet she is afraid enough of it, and finds it distasteful, such that whatever he taught her about it, she's either forgotten, or would get wrong under stress. she's a nice lady, but she's a bunny rabbit for the human 'coyotes'.

i had thought i would give her asylum because she is a great pianist, but, the more i hear the 'gun whining', the more i think i ought to tell her 'when you start to vote pro-second amendment, then you can come to me for protection if something happens.' i'm astounded everytime i discuss this issue with 'anti-gunners'. it would appear we don't even live on the same planet; i don't know why i'm not out digging postholes.

does anyone want to outlaw post hole diggers? i sure as hell do.

[RedIrish]

Combustor - thank your for posting your link

Although the research you quote from is now a decade old you will see on pg 138 -

Results
Crime rates from police records
Between 1981 and 1999 the total
number of homicides in Canada
dropped 17.2% (from 647 to 536).11
Controlling for population increases
over this time, this decline in homicide
incidents corresponds to a 33.3%
reduction, from a rate of 0.03 to 0.02
per 1,000 population (figure 1a)

From pg 150 -

Lastly, a program of research should
be initiated to test explanations for the
crime drop in Canada during the
1990’s. We examined some of the key
(potential) explanations (demography,
economy, spending on policing, incar-
ceration, and alternative crime preven-
tion approaches) for the decline in
police-reported crime rates during this
time period.

From looking through this report, at that time the only crimes which were on the increase were vehicle thefts. In recent years this trend has turned around as evidenced by the links provided below.

I will direct to some more recent statistics, including Bloomberg's assertion that Canada's homicide rate is 2/3 lower than the US.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[hubcap]

out here, if i call the cops, i will wait up to an hour. if somethings serious happens-like i gash my leg with my axe, and there is no one with me, i'm apt to be a dead person. the chance of that happening in some major cities is pretty good, too. not everyone g.a.s.; some who do have no clue what to do to stop serious bleeding.

You know what they say: When seconds count the police are only minutes away.

It is unfortunate that some who are uncomfortable with guns would deny them to others. I certainly do not advocate forcing people to own guns, why should others deny me owning them?

That seems a legitimate question.

[Corbu]

Combustor - thank your for posting your link

Although the research you quote from is now a decade old you will see on pg 138 -

Results
Crime rates from police records
Between 1981 and 1999 the total
number of homicides in Canada
dropped 17.2% (from 647 to 536).11
Controlling for population increases
over this time, this decline in homicide
incidents corresponds to a 33.3%
reduction, from a rate of 0.03 to 0.02
per 1,000 population (figure 1a)

From pg 150 -

Lastly, a program of research should
be initiated to test explanations for the
crime drop in Canada during the
1990’s. We examined some of the key
(potential) explanations (demography,
economy, spending on policing, incar-
ceration, and alternative crime preven-
tion approaches) for the decline in
police-reported crime rates during this
time period.

From looking through this report, at that time the only crimes which were on the increase were vehicle thefts. In recent years this trend has turned around as evidenced by the links provided below.

I will direct to some more recent statistics, including Bloomberg's assertion that Canada's homicide rate is 2/3 lower than the US.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Fact: In Canada around 1920, before there was any form of gun control, their homicide rate was 7% of the U.S rate. By 1986, and after significant gun control legislation, Canada’s homicide rate was 35% of the U.S. rate – a significant increase. (40) In 2003, Canada had a violent crime rate more than double that of the U.S. (963 vs. 475 per 100,000).(41)
source :
40 Targeting Guns, Gary Kleck, Aldine Transaction, 1997, at 360.
41 Juristat: Crime Statistics in Canada, 2004 and FBI Uniform Crime Statistics online.

Fact:The crime rate is 66% higher in four Canadian Prairie Provinces than in the northern US states across the border.
source : A Comparison of Violent and Firearm Crime Rates in the Canadian Prairie Provinces and Four U.S. Border States, 1961-2003, Parliamentary Research Branch of the Library of Parliament, March 7, 2005.

Myth: Gun registration works
Fact: Not in Canada. More than 20,000 Canadian gun-owners have publicly refused to register their firearms. Many others (as many as 300,000 (81)) are silently ignoring the law.

The provincial governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba have dumped both the administration and the enforcement of all federal gun-control laws right back into Ottawa's lap, throwing the Canadian government into a paper civil war. (82)

And all at a cost more than 1,646% the original projected cost (the original cost was estimated at 5% of all police expenditures in Canada(83). "The gun registry as it sits right now is causing law abiding citizens to register their guns but it does nothing to take one illegal gun off the street or to increase any type of penalty for anybody that violates any part of the legislation," according to Al Koenig, President, Calgary Police Association (84)

"We have an ongoing gun crisis, including firearms-related homicides lately in Toronto, and a law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them," according to Toronto police Chief Julian Fantino (85).
The system is so bad that six Canadian provinces (British Columbia joins Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Nova Scotia, and Ontario) are refusing to prosecute firearm owners who fail to register. (86)
A bill to abolish the registry has been tabled (introduced) in the Canadian Parliament, which if passed, would eliminate the registry completely. (87)
A Saskatchewan MP who endorsed the long gun registry when first proposed has introduced legislation to abolish it stating that, “[the registry] has not saved one life in Canada, and it has been a financial sinkhole … absolutely useless in helping locate the 255,000 people who have been prohibited from owning firearms by the courts.” (88)


Sources:
81 Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, Evidence number 55, June 5, 2003
82 Ottawa Under Pressure Over Gun Registry Fiasco, David Ljunggren, Rueters, December 4, 2002.
83 When ‘Gun Control’ costs lives, John Lott, Firing Line, September 2001.
84 Calgary Herald, September 1, 2000.
85 Opponents increase pressure to halt Canada's gun control program, Associated Press, Jan 3, 2002.
86 Victoria won't enforce firearms act, Vancouver Sun, June 06, 2003.
87 An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act, Received first reading June 19, 2006.
88 $2 billion worth of police will save more lives than one gun registry, Garry Breitkreuz, National Post, February 27, 2009.

Myth: Licensing will keep bad people from obtaining or using guns
Fact: Not in Canada. Canadian homicide rates were virtually unchanged before and after gun registration requirements were implemented (151/100,000 people in 1998 and 149/100,000 in 2002).(93)
Source:
93 Statistics Canada, Oct 1, 2003.

Considering all the varying sources of information most of what is cited is relatively current given it's dissemination.

How about if I move to Canada, I will follow Canadian law, chances are that won't happen, both you and I will both be happier where we are at :cheesy:





Corbu added to this post, 80 minutes and 49 seconds later...

The pro folks are the ones who want to limit it to crime statistics, since it ignores accidents and stupid people, the big white elephant. Also, it would be just a bit foolish to argue that gun laws are the only relevant factor, the only difference between these countries, and they must therefore cause all differences in statistics.

This falls under the "vast majority" Pip and I discussed earlier. I'll refrain from discussing statistics and instead refer back to personal accountability limiting it to accidents and stupid people, white elephants are off limits due to the illegal ivory trade :) I won't discuss other countries as I have already done that as well ;D.

Stupid people first, it's much easier. Seat belts laws, motorcycle/bicycle helmets, child car seats, warning labels, litigation, politicians, people doing really stupid things etc. There is a lot of cross over here with accidents but bear with me. What do these have to do with guns? Nothing at all, each has caused and prevented death, pain, suffering in their respective ways.

Accidents, I'll limit this strictly to firearms. For those who have no training, understanding or knowledge I will try to keep this brief. To the enthusiast a gun accident means we dropped our firearm causing a blemish in the finish, inadvertently scratched it during cleaning, knocked the scope off of center etc.

No modern firearms accidentally discharge. Modern here is a relative term, I am not talking about firearms older than say 30 years or so, generally speaking older than that it most likely is a heirloom/collector piece. With that said there is something called ND, stands for negligent discharge. The very first rule about firearms is that they are always considered loaded. If one places their bugger picking finger on the trigger and pulls said trigger this will cause a sequence of events generally leading to the discharge of the firearm. This happens because the firearm is always loaded. Now realize that all firearms have some form of mechanical safety, so that means someone had to disengage the safety. Some other secrets about firearms, they are inanimate objects, means someone had to handle the weapon as well.

Lets recap the "Accidental Discharge":

The firearm had to be picked up
the safety disengaged (usually there is more than one)
bugger picker placed on trigger
trigger pulled
bullet "accidentally" destroys object


Where is all this going? Let us assume I represent the average gun owner (prepared to get really scared) I do not own just a singular firearm, conservatively think in the range of 10k price wise just for the firearms, this does not include ammunition, optics, holsters etc. In a bad week I only shoot 50 rounds, my definition of bad is only shooting one box of a particular caliber. Over the course of a year that is 2500 rounds minimal. Realistically once every quarter I spend the weekend training, i.e. going away from home, expending between $500 to $2000 of my hard earned cash for training. This training covers a wide range of topics, fortunately I can and do choose to attend training to suit my fancy. No disrespect to the LEOs out there, most law enforcement officers do not fire their weapons or attend as much training as I do in a calendar year. Getting back to the assumption that I am a average firearm owner. I have owned a firearm for over twenty years and have trained off and on for half of that time. If the need to defend myself or my family arises I assure it will not be "accidentally" nor stupidly. It will be done with calculated precision best utilizing any and all available resources and assets that can be leveraged to nullify and void any threats directed at me and mine.

[reb]

You know what they say: When seconds count the police are only minutes away.

It is unfortunate that some who are uncomfortable with guns would deny them to others. I certainly do not advocate forcing people to own guns, why should others deny me owning them?

That seems a legitimate question.

hubcap,

i view 'the firearm haters' as psychologically bereft. they have issues that require help from a trained psychiatrist. to infuse some 'inanimate object' with pure fear is a form of neurosis or psychosis, depending on degree.

my view is that 'firearms haters' want to control others. it's simply a control issue; a matter of being a control freak. they want to dictate societies mores, when, in many cases, they have mores that are not particularly shining-most specific among those is 'meddling in other peoples' lives'. they were not taught or do not choose to recognize what someone else does that harms no one specifically is 'not their business'. many of these people have no business other than trying to dictate to others....and it irks them mightily that those of us who own firearms cannot be dictated to in the most final way.

these people would do well to find a charity to devote their energies to, rather than to try to tell me what i should do. the world would be improved, the poor would be housed, the hungry would be fed if the busybodies put their efforts to philanthropy, rather than meddling and pontificating. they could certainly come and help me build a planter today, and that would tire them such that momentarily their fears might be allayed. :)

[Prunesquallor]

Mozzes, just laugh a little...it's prolly bs. i cannot imagine making someone give me their cell, etc.. i would put nylon ties on them, and either call the cops, or walk off.

Prune, are you about to start analyzing auto accidents vs. firearm accidents vs. chance of lightning vs. trying to rope a sheep and banging up your hip? that's the road you're embarking on, and the stats have shown every time i've looked i have a better chance of someone trying to run me down in a parking lot than getting shot at a rifle range. i probably have a better chance of getting mugged in a city of over 1 million than i do in the country, too. just look at the way things work practically, and we won't get into a statistical squabble. you can't have my kimber in any case; your government won't let you.

out here, if i call the cops, i will wait up to an hour. if somethings serious happens-like i gash my leg with my axe, and there is no one with me, i'm apt to be a dead person. the chance of that happening in some major cities is pretty good, too. not everyone g.a.s.; some who do have no clue what to do to stop serious bleeding.

i think, Prune, i have told you about my neighbor who is a classical pianist? she's Canadian. she hates firearms. she's married to a native texan. he is trying to adapt to 'life in the country'. he got her a shotgun-she is alone sometimes. when they moved out here, i told her 'if someone kicks in your front door, you come out the back, and down my fenceline, climb the fence and go to my back door and pound on it, yelling your name. i will shine a light on you, but i won't shoot you, and no one is going to follow you in here.' i don't think she would use the shotgun; it's a mistake to even have it around her, as i bet she is afraid enough of it, and finds it distasteful, such that whatever he taught her about it, she's either forgotten, or would get wrong under stress. she's a nice lady, but she's a bunny rabbit for the human 'coyotes'.

i had thought i would give her asylum because she is a great pianist, but, the more i hear the 'gun whining', the more i think i ought to tell her 'when you start to vote pro-second amendment, then you can come to me for protection if something happens.' i'm astounded everytime i discuss this issue with 'anti-gunners'. it would appear we don't even live on the same planet; i don't know why i'm not out digging postholes.

does anyone want to outlaw post hole diggers? i sure as hell do.

No, I'm not in the least interested in that comparison. That's completely silly.

You're not seriously saying that people who dislike guns have mental problems and don't deserve to be protected, are you? Because if so, there you have it = why I hate guns!

[hubcap]

hubcap,

i view 'the firearm haters' as psychologically bereft. they have issues that require help from a trained psychiatrist. to infuse some 'inanimate object' with pure fear is a form of neurosis or psychosis, depending on degree.

Reb - I couldn't agree with you more. The correct term for this is "anthropomorphism", which means - Attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena.

The idea that an inanimate object is inherently "evil" or "dangerous" is indicative of an irrational thought process to say the least.

my view is that 'firearms haters' want to control others. it's simply a control issue; a matter of being a control freak. they want to dictate societies mores, when, in many cases, they have mores that are not particularly shining-most specific among those is 'meddling in other peoples' lives'. they were not taught or do not choose to recognize what someone else does that harms no one specifically is 'not their business'. many of these people have no business other than trying to dictate to others....and it irks them mightily that those of us who own firearms cannot be dictated to in the most final way.
Again, I am in complete agreement, and this is actually the most offensive thing I find about the anti behavior. The willingness to tell other people what is best for them.

If someone wants to embrace irrational ideas about the "evil" qualities of guns without enforcing their views on others, I'm OK with that. However, when they want to tell me what I can or can't own then a conflict is inevitable.

[mmw]

Why are crime statistics even relevant? Why should the responsible citizen be restricted based on negligence and irresponsibility of others. Freedom comes with inherent risks deal with it.

[Slacker]

Some scary persecution complexes in this thread about people protecting themselves daily against a highly unlikely scenario. I doubt their neighborhoods are safer with a bunch of paranoid men carrying guns. Guns are tools, yeah. So is an electric chair. That's no reason to have one in the kitchen.

Still, it's hard to decide whether these CC enthusiasts are dangerous nutjobs, or whether they actually live in neighborhoods so shitty that a random attack is likely. Of course if it is, why hasn't it occurred yet? All I hear is some old lady almost being strangled while waiting for lunch (huh?). I'm sure there's also some disconnect in the mentality I'll never be able to overcome. A person who thinks themselves to be continuously threatened by violence necessarily feels about life in a way I never will.

I've thought of buying a gun, although the idea of carrying it everywhere I go would be comical. I wonder what my boss would say if I shifted around uncomfortably at the beginning of a meeting before plunking a firearm on the table. "Sorry, it was hurting my butt. More comfortable now. What were you saying?" I think it would be fun to own a gun to shoot at cans in the forest. Shooting at rats at the dump like the fictional guitarist in one of the Woody Allen movies seemed very appealing, too. Preferably while drinking. Gun ranges on the other hand seem pretty boring. Nothing moves or explodes there after you hit your target.

You'd need extraordinary circumstances to ban guns in the US. There are so many out there, it's just never going to happen. That specific discussion seems pointless; the ship has sailed. Carrying a concealed weapon, on the other hand, doesn't make much sense to me. If it's ok to carry a gun wherever you go, why not carry it openly? What purpose does concealment serve?

[mmw]

Some scary persecution complexes in this thread about people protecting themselves daily against a highly unlikely scenario. I'm doubt their neighborhoods are safer with a bunch of paranoid men carrying guns. Guns are tools, yeah. So is an electric chair. That's no reason to have one in the kitchen.

It's hard to decide whether these CC enthusiasts are dangerous nutjobs, or whether they actually live in neighborhoods so shitty that a random attack is likely. Of course if it is, why hasn't it occurred yet? All I hear is some old lady almost being strangled while waiting for lunch (huh?). I'm sure there's some disconnect there I'll never be able to overcome. A person who thinks themselves to be continuously threatened by violence necessarily has a viewpoint which I can't share. I can't imagine living that way.

I've thought of buying a gun, although the idea of carrying it everywhere I go would be comical. I wonder what my boss would say if I shifted around uncomfortably at the beginning of a meeting before plunking a firearm on the table. "Sorry, it was hurting my butt. More comfortable now. What were you saying?" I think it would be fun to own a gun to shoot at cans in the forest. Shooting at rats at the dump like the fictional guitarist in one of the Woody Allen movies seemed very appealing, too. Preferably while drinking. Gun ranges on the other hand seem pretty boring. Nothing moves or explodes after you hit it.

You'd need extraordinary circumstances to ban guns in the US. There are so many out there, it's just never going to happen. That specific discussion seems pointless. The ship has sailed. Carrying a concealed weapon, on the other hand, doesn't make much sense to me. If it's ok to carry a gun wherever you go, why not carry it openly? What purpose does concealment have?
There are many advocates for the open carry you describe (I am not one of them) To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[reb]

i lived in idaho for awhile. they have or at least had open carry. the first time i saw a rancher strolling down the sidewalk with a hogleg on his belt, i kinda went 'huh?'. then i got used to it. firearms were a source of pride, social networking, protection, getting food, recreation and constant debate among 'which caliber is best for elk?'. really liked idaho. they dint have much crime, and everyone was very polite.

[hubcap]

Some scary persecution complexes in this thread about people protecting themselves daily against a highly unlikely scenario. I doubt their neighborhoods are safer with a bunch of paranoid men carrying guns. Guns are tools, yeah. So is an electric chair. That's no reason to have one in the kitchen.
I have no intention of having an automobile accident, but I still carry insurance coverage on my vehicle and I wear my seatbelt.

Still, it's hard to decide whether these CC enthusiasts are dangerous nutjobs, or whether they actually live in neighborhoods so shitty that a random attack is likely. Of course if it is, why hasn't it occurred yet? All I hear is some old lady almost being strangled while waiting for lunch (huh?). I'm sure there's also some disconnect in the mentality I'll never be able to overcome. A person who thinks themselves to be continuously threatened by violence necessarily feels about life in a way I never will.
People who legally carry a gun are LESS likely to be involved in a violent crime than the rest of the population.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Chances are if you live in a state that allows concealed carry you are in the presence of someone carrying on a regular basis without ever knowing they are carrying. People who choose to carry come from all walks of life and include bankers, lawyers, doctors, accountants, factory workers, teachers, etc etc These folks are just average citizens who go about their daily lives like everyone else. They aren't a bunch of paranoid nutjobs, although some in the media and in the anti-gun movement would like to portray them as such.

You'd need extraordinary circumstances to ban guns in the US. There are so many out there, it's just never going to happen. That specific discussion seems pointless; the ship has sailed. Carrying a concealed weapon, on the other hand, doesn't make much sense to me. If it's ok to carry a gun wherever you go, why not carry it openly? What purpose does concealment serve?
There are several states where "open carry" is perfectly legal. Reb has already pointed out Idaho, but Arizona is another state where it is legal. In my state (Missouri) there is no state law against open carry, but some municipalities have passed laws against open carry. In any event I haven't seen any evidence that the legal carrying of a firearm has increased crime.

[mmw]

i lived in idaho for awhile. they have or at least had open carry. the first time i saw a rancher strolling down the sidewalk with a hogleg on his belt, i kinda went 'huh?'. then i got used to it. firearms were a source of pride, social networking, protection, getting food, recreation and constant debate among 'which caliber is best for elk?'. really liked idaho. they dint have much crime, and everyone was very polite.
"An armed society is a polite society."

Furthermore as hubcap pointed out with the insurance analogy the carrying of a firearm does not equate to some bizarre level of paranoia. It is merely an innocuous precautionary measure like insurance, a seatbelt, steel toe boots, a deadbolt, etc.

This thread is making me wish I was old enough to get my CC permit.

[RedIrish]

"An armed society is a polite society."

Really?



Many of us who live in unarmed societies frequently find that those who live in armed societies tend to be belligerent and rude, usually because they think they can get away with it.

[Prunesquallor]

Really?



Many of us who live in unarmed societies frequently find that those who live in armed societies tend to be belligerent and rude, usually because they think they can get away with it.

Yeah.

I also kind of like not being afraid to leave the house unarmed, and not considering myself helpless simply because I lack one particular kind of weapon, as if there aren't other ways of defending oneself. (Although people keen trying to convince that this is wrong, since I'm female. They seem very put out that I'm not afraid all the time.) And teddy bears are nicer for dealing with imaginary fears.

I think the main issue with the dialogue is that the main arguments are being assumed on both sides. Gun supporters start with - it's normal property, why should it be restricted? Those against rampant guns start with - it's a dangerous lethal weapon, why should it not be restricted, like most other dangerous things, particularly ones whose primary function is lethal? Why is it a special snowflake?

Also, the gun supporters seem to be seeing things like crime prevention from an individualistic perspective - how can I protect myself? versus how can society be safer? on the other side. If one is considering the latter question, "arm everybody!" is not the most automatic answer. I've yet to see real evidence that people in general are safer in societies with high gun ownership, there's just "well, we gun-owners are safe, and that's what's important - join us!" To be honest, it comes off as a bit cultish sometimes, especially the "if you don't carry a gun, it's your own fault, you can't expect us to protect you, you pansy!" mentality. Thanks, I'll leave that to myself and the police, on the exceedingly rare occasion(s) that this may be relevant.

Much of it really is a social issue, and it's hard to push social norms on someone from a very different place; the arguments don't address the same things. It's hard to get people to get rid of their status symbols, no matter how stupid, and a lot of lemmings don't want to be the odd one out. The fear, though - there are certainly more situations where most of the pro-gun crowd think people ought to be afraid where I cannot see any reason for terror whasoever. Paranoia may sometimes be overstatement, but the danger is very often overstated too, especially "stranger danger!" which is such a small part of things. Some of these situations that were described, though, it's just like...uhm, where's the threat? This culture of fear is not one I belong to, and I'm not going to join, and I'm happy that way, so arguments based on the assumption that "there is danger everywhwere!" and "one should be afraid!" fail to convince. Slacker is right, though, the ideology is far too ingrained in the U.S. to change - at least anytime soon.

[Autoptic]

Thanks, I'll leave that to myself and the police, on the exceedingly rare occasion(s) that this may be relevant.

Unless one is present at the time or the event lasts long enough and actually results in one being notified, police only arrive after the fact. They aren't very preventative just some degree of corrective which can be slim to none depending on the situation by then. They can just become part of the problem though or even a new one.

[Prunesquallor]

Unless one is present at the time or the event lasts long enough and actually results in one being notified, police only arrive after the fact. They aren't very preventative just some degree of corrective which can be slim to none depending on the situation by then. They can just become part of the problem though or even a new one.

I know about cops - my uncle is one, and I've heard that argument. As long as they catch the person who tried to attack me (and failed), they do plenty.
Plus, the chances of anyone attacking me in the first place are exceedingly slim, so I'm really not going to organise my entire life around such an offchance. Too dull.

[RedIrish]

The fear, though - there are certainly more situations where most of the pro-gun crowd think people ought to be afraid where I cannot see any reason for terror whasoever. Paranoia may sometimes be overstatement, but the danger is very often overstated too, especially "stranger danger!" which is such a small part of things. Some of these situations that were described, though, it's just like...uhm, where's the threat? This culture of fear is not one I belong to, and I'm not going to join, and I'm happy that way, so arguments based on the assumption that "there is danger everywhwere!" and "one should be afraid!" fail to convince.

I agree entirely.

Perhaps it is this entire "culture of fear" on which the basic disagreement rests. Like Prunesquallor, I do not see the sky is falling, the world is ending, or that terrorists are sitting on my doorstep waiting to take everything away.

I live in a safe place, with mostly fine people. I am not afraid to go out in the world. It's a cup half full kinda thing.

[reb]

i dunno why anyone's even talking about 'fear'. fear has nothing to do with how i view life. y'all completely misunderstand, at least in my case.

however, many of you do have control issues when you try to tell someone else how they must live or what they can own.

[Prunesquallor]

i dunno why anyone's even talking about 'fear'. fear has nothing to do with how i view life. y'all completely misunderstand, at least in my case.

however, many of you do have control issues when you try to tell someone else how they must live or what they can own.

What about drugs, prescription medications, cars, nuclear bombs? Should they all be unregulated also?
At least be consistent. Otherwise, explain why this one particular form of weapon is a special snowflake.

What would you call seeing danger where none exists? Any words other than paranoia or fear? Hypervigilence, perhaps?

[reb]

drugs and rx meds-they ARE basically unregulated. look at some stuff on the net and actual experience of people in real life. take vioxx as an example. in most cities, you can buy any drugs you want, with some risk.

cars-do you call what has happened with the ford pinto, the bridgestone tire, how some people drive 'regulated'-please-that's too funny.

nuclear bombs-iran is going to have one soon. you think THAT is 'regulated'? there are also a number of russian nukes unaccounted for after 'the fall'. you gonna go find 'em, Prune?

and, lastly, 'guns' as y'all like to term them. there are laws all over the damned place, and yet crooks get them by robbery or subterfuge. there are 'guns' all over canada. you just don't hang out with people who have them.

i call 'not seeing danger' being blind. it's not so much 'danger' as it is 'real life'. there is stuff that will hurt you; my ram will break your leg if you do not watch him. gonna pass a law you can't have a ram?

i think you've drifted off into lala land again. that's ok. nothing wrong with lala land. i go there myself sometimes.

go deal with your control issues, and i'll deal with my 'paranoia'. lol!

[Prunesquallor]

drugs and rx meds-they ARE basically unregulated. look at some stuff on the net and actual experience of people in real life. take vioxx as an example. in most cities, you can buy any drugs you want, with some risk.

cars-do you call what has happened with the ford pinto, the bridgestone tire, how some people drive 'regulated'-please-that's too funny.

nuclear bombs-iran is going to have one soon. you think THAT is 'regulated'? there are also a number of russian nukes unaccounted for after 'the fall'. you gonna go find 'em, Prune?

and, lastly, 'guns' as y'all like to term them. there are laws all over the damned place, and yet crooks get them by robbery or subterfuge. there are 'guns' all over canada. you just don't hang out with people who have them.

i call 'not seeing danger' being blind. it's not so much 'danger' as it is 'real life'. there is stuff that will hurt you; my ram will break your leg if you do not watch him. gonna pass a law you can't have a ram?

i think you've drifted off into lala land again. that's ok. nothing wrong with lala land. i go there myself sometimes.

go deal with your control issues, and i'll deal with my 'paranoia'. lol!

They are regulated. The lack of complete control is not a lack of regulation. Don't be silly. Make a real argument. You're not stupid - you're capable of that.
Umm...as for Iran..people are trying to regulate that, making up rules they don't follow themselves, etc. I'm not really talking about international law/bullying here, though. That's a bit of a red herring, dear.
So again, there are rules, there are also people who don't follow them. Neither negates the other.

So 'real life' equates to constant 'danger' in your world? I'm glad I'm not you. Really glad.

[zibber]

So why should those who use guns responsibly be denied their use?

The risk is that "responsible use" is difficult to pin down.

Me, I have a strong idea that many gun nuts in the USA are hypersensitive about personal security (as in: becoming unnecessarily uncomfortable whenever they see someone with a turban; don't act like you don't know what I mean), spend WAY too much time at the gun range (as in: much more than needed to gain basic proficiency, instead seeming more fetishistic) and are quite likely to shoot any "trespasser" without there actually being a threat.

That's not responsible. That's a problem which will occur if guns are easily obtained.

nuclear bombs-iran is going to have one soon. you think THAT is 'regulated'? there are also a number of russian nukes unaccounted for after 'the fall'. you gonna go find 'em, Prune?

This is off topic, but I think you should really reflect and try to figure out why you would specifically name Iran and Russia, not the USA and Israel. Are the prior two more dangerous, you think?

[firebee]

spend WAY too much time at the gun range (as in: much more than needed to gain basic proficiency, instead seeming more fetishistic)

Minor point here: One of the common things laid on gun folks is that they lack sufficient training in how to use their weapons, compared to the police. Now, we've touched on this earlier in the thread -- that gun folks are likely to consider shooting to be a hobby or sport that they spend more time on than a dispassionate professional cares to.

Now you take this angle of seeing that these folks are in fact practicing, and characterizing that as "spending too much time on the range, therefore indicating a sexual fetish". Leaving aside the "And what would be the problem if it were?" factor, I would dearly like to know how much time you would permit me to engage in recreational activity before I am presumed to kink on it.

This looks suspiciously like a "damned if you do, damned if you don't".

[reb]

They are regulated. The lack of complete control is not a lack of regulation. Don't be silly. Make a real argument. You're not stupid - you're capable of that.
Umm...as for Iran..people are trying to regulate that, making up rules they don't follow themselves, etc. I'm not really talking about international law/bullying here, though. That's a bit of a red herring, dear.
So again, there are rules, there are also people who don't follow them. Neither negates the other.

So 'real life' equates to constant 'danger' in your world? I'm glad I'm not you. Really glad.

so, to use your line of thought, the lack of complete control IS acceptable regulation; therefore, the 'collateral damage' done by drugs, prescription drugs, automobiles and nuclear 'whatevers' is completely acceptable? when i talk about 'international bullying', i am trying to get you to see 'the larger picture', and not focus on your obvious distaste or whatever you might call it for 'firearms'. if you see a 'red herring' anywhere, it is a perfectly acceptable technique; again, a lack of complete control of a discussion lol! i am trying to think of something i hate enough that would cause me to 'centralize' it in a discussion...the only thing i can think of that is 'above the level of complete distaste' is someone trying to tell me how to live. the rock and the hard place :)

rules...c'mon. we both know that the only people who play by the rules are the ones who believe they might get caught and suffer consequences, or the rare 'moral person'. look at your government and mine...my government has an amendment in the senate to take my retirement health care away and force me into the public option. you don't call that 'danger'? you aint been to some of the doctors i've been to-heehe.....your government controls more than mine does, and mine is jealous. they want to keep up with the canadians.

in my world, i try to be 'vigilant' and 'here'. the complete possibility exists that the next moment may have an 'emergency'. my 'consciousness' is not disturbed by this; i allow possibilities to be as they are, and they are infinite. did you ever read 'the black swan'? i'm not gaussian in my thinking-there is no limit to what can happen. whenever i've thought 'well, this cannot happen', by gosh it does, as if someone pulls strings to prove it to me. i am 'open to all possibillities' when i am awake. when i'm sleeping, i'm NOW open to the possibility that a scorpion will climb in bed with me and bite the crap out of me...this is what i get for having so many scorpio girlfriends, i suppose. there should be regulation on THEM!

i'm glad you're not me, too; i don't wanna be anyone other than who i am, so we are in complete agreement-i don't like bitter cold weather, either. i don't know how you'd react the first time you hadda go to the urinal in the men's room if you were me. that would be interesting-for a day.

by the way, we ought to explore that 'beat them with a lead pipe' comment in the 'enfp' thread. where is this violence coming from? perhaps you OUGHT not own a firearm...maybe i see why canadians cannot have handguns. a lead pipe is bad enough. i cannot remember the last time i wanted to shoot someone 'seriously' (i.e., considering 'what to do' is not 'putting my finger on the trigger'), or even beat them with a blunt object.

[Prunesquallor]

so, to use your line of thought, the lack of complete control IS acceptable regulation; therefore, the 'collateral damage' done by drugs, prescription drugs, automobiles and nuclear 'whatevers' is completely acceptable? when i talk about 'international bullying', i am trying to get you to see 'the larger picture', and not focus on your obvious distaste or whatever you might call it for 'firearms'. if you see a 'red herring' anywhere, it is a perfectly acceptable technique; again, a lack of complete control of a discussion lol! i am trying to think of something i hate enough that would cause me to 'centralize' it in a discussion...the only thing i can think of that is 'above the level of complete distaste' is someone trying to tell me how to live. the rock and the hard place :)

rules...c'mon. we both know that the only people who play by the rules are the ones who believe they might get caught and suffer consequences, or the rare 'moral person'. look at your government and mine...my government has an amendment in the senate to take my retirement health care away and force me into the public option. you don't call that 'danger'? you aint been to some of the doctors i've been to-heehe.....your government controls more than mine does, and mine is jealous. they want to keep up with the canadians.

in my world, i try to be 'vigilant' and 'here'. the complete possibility exists that the next moment may have an 'emergency'. my 'consciousness' is not disturbed by this; i allow possibilities to be as they are, and they are infinite. did you ever read 'the black swan'? i'm not gaussian in my thinking-there is no limit to what can happen. whenever i've thought 'well, this cannot happen', by gosh it does, as if someone pulls strings to prove it to me. i am 'open to all possibillities' when i am awake. when i'm sleeping, i'm NOW open to the possibility that a scorpion will climb in bed with me and bite the crap out of me...this is what i get for having so many scorpio girlfriends, i suppose. there should be regulation on THEM!

i'm glad you're not me, too; i don't wanna be anyone other than who i am, so we are in complete agreement-i don't like bitter cold weather, either. i don't know how you'd react the first time you hadda go to the urinal in the men's room if you were me. that would be interesting-for a day.

I never said it was acceptable. I'm asking why you accept those controls and not those on guns. Are you saying it's because you can get away with ignoring these rules, or are you yet again going on an irrelevant tangent? Because this isn't really a response to anything I've said.

[reb]

I never said it was acceptable. I'm asking why you accept those controls and not those on guns. Are you saying it's because you can get away with ignoring these rules, or are you yet again going on an irrelevant tangent? Because this isn't really a response to anything I've said.

you are PRESUMING that i accept those controls. i do not accept them all. i am completely within the law of my area concerning firearms laws. i avoid both rx and non-rx drugs as much as possible (although i do smoke and drink, but i violate no laws with either of those practices). nukes are beyond my control; i truly wish there were no nukes or nuclear energy-mankind has been horrible enough when we had swords and bows. i have not had a traffic ticket, or done anything to even get one, in years. i carefully abide by laws that have consequences, and i abide by actions that are practical which are beyond those laws, i.e., i place greater controls on myself than the law does; hence, i do NOT accept the viability of practicality of the law. i abide by my own control; self control, it's called.

yes, it is a response to what you've said, albeit a somewhat humorous one. there are no irrelevant tangents; things are all interrelated. like beating people with lead pipes, which is quite relevant to this discussion.

many of the controls you mention do not work, or they work only in a spotty fashion. there are tons of 'workarounds' in existence. so the control you seek is only an illusion, and is used by those 'who would control' to control those 'who will abide'. there is a point where i may decide not to abide. do you have a point like that perhaps? bare your soul to me :)

[Prunesquallor]

you are PRESUMING that i accept those controls. i do not accept them all. i am completely within the law of my area concerning firearms laws. i avoid both rx and non-rx drugs as much as possible (although i do smoke and drink, but i violate no laws with either of those practices). nukes are beyond my control; i truly wish there were no nukes or nuclear energy-mankind has been horrible enough when we had swords and bows. i have not had a traffic ticket, or done anything to even get one, in years. i carefully abide by laws that have consequences, and i abide by actions that are practical which are beyond those laws, i.e., i place greater controls on myself than the law does; hence, i do NOT accept the viability of practicality of the law. i abide by my own control; self control, it's called.

yes, it is a response to what you've said, albeit a somewhat humorous one. there are no irrelevant tangents; things are all interrelated. like beating people with lead pipes, which is quite relevant to this discussion.

many of the controls you mention do not work, or they work only in a spotty fashion. there are tons of 'workarounds' in existence. so the control you seek is only an illusion, and is used by those 'who would control' to control those 'who will abide'. there is a point where i may decide not to abide. do you have a point like that perhaps? bare your soul to me :)

So, your basic position is you don't like any controls for anything dangerous set by the government, however democratic, (but you follow rules anyway because you're wonderful)? Any qualifications? Or are all dangerous things an "oughta be free game" situation?
Do you agitate for "nuclear weapons rights" too? The right to take whatever drugs you like, etc., or is it only guns you are interested in protecting? If so, why? Why are they special?

And your reason - because you are responsible, everyone else must be too? Or, the controls aren't perfect, therefore a complete lack thereof is? You do see the logical flaws, I assume, so it has to be something else.

[firebee]

So 'real life' equates to constant 'danger' in your world? I'm glad I'm not you. Really glad.

And this is another one of those things that commonly comes up -- the presumption that gun-having people (or thems what support gun-having) must necessarily exist in a constant state of near-crippling anxiety.

From our perspective, you appear to be just as anxious as you claim we are, if not more so.

It is entirely possible to perceive that life is, in general, dangerous without being overly torn up about it. In fact, I would venture to say that being aware of the various slings and arrows of outrageous fortune and having some assurance that one can deal with such events is much more comforting than simply not thinking about it. I could get in a car wreck today, and I can deal with that. I could come down with swine flu today, and I can deal with that. I could be the target of some criminal today, and I can deal with that.

I hardly think I need your pity. But if you're hell-bent on extending it, I can deal with that too.

[Prunesquallor]

And this is another one of those things that commonly comes up -- the presumption that gun-having people (or thems what support gun-having) must necessarily exist in a constant state of near-crippling anxiety.

From our perspective, you appear to be just as anxious as you claim we are, if not more so.

It is entirely possible to perceive that life is, in general, dangerous without being overly torn up about it. In fact, I would venture to say that being aware of the various slings and arrows of outrageous fortune and having some assurance that one can deal with such events is much more comforting than simply not thinking about it. I could get in a car wreck today, and I can deal with that. I could come down with swine flu today, and I can deal with that. I could be the target of some criminal today, and I can deal with that.

I hardly think I need your pity. But if you're hell-bent on extending it, I can deal with that too.

And I can deal with all these things without a gun. Yay.

[reb]

So, your basic position is you don't like any controls for anything dangerous set by the government, however democratic, (but you follow rules anyway because you're wonderful)? Any qualifications? Or are all dangerous things an "oughta be free game" situation?
Do you agitate for "nuclear weapons rights" too? The right to take whatever drugs you like, etc., or is it only guns you are interested in protecting? If so, why? Why are they special?

And your reason - because you are responsible, everyone else must be too? Or, the controls aren't perfect, therefore a complete lack thereof is? You do see the logical flaws, I assume, so it has to be something else.

my basic position is 180 degrees from what you 'are seeing'. frankly, i have enough common sense to keep myself out of trouble. a goodly number of people do as well; there are far more responsible people than you realize-perhaps, we are now seeing 'your fear' here? i would not be the least afraid to crawl on an airplane with everyone who has not committed a felony, is not drunk or on drugs, and can lawfully carry a firearm carrying one-loaded. i have more to fear from the FAA and it's miserable treatment of air traffic controllers, it's incompetency at updating computer and radar systems and it's currying of the airline industry regarding airplane maintenance and practices than i would from the above constrained people carrying a firearm. had there been 'a few good men or women' on any of those flights that went into the world trade center, the planes would not have gotten there. they would all have crashed like the one that went down in pa.

laws are there to provide 'a common structure', in the most perfect world (the theory world that never exists). in THIS world (the real one), some laws are there to provide leverage for a 'body' (go see the thread about 'corporations as people'). i recognize this. and, yes, i am wonderful...really :) if you got to know me better, you'd be singing 'reb's wonderful...he's marvellous!'.

i think, if you want to take a drug, you should be allowed to...but it should be taxed, just like everything i buy that has to do with 'firearms' is taxed, even my hunting license. i do not think you should be driving; if you do, and get caught, i would support you being made into soylent green to feed the poor. same for drunk drivers. i think perhaps you are wandering in a circle trying to entrap me in your argument, and you have not. very frustrating, isn't it?

i don't agitate for nuclear weapons rights; i am totally against them in every way. however, unlike you, i realize i am not going to control 'everything', or be able to argue such that my words will have any real effect on 'everybody', so i don't usually bother. you are making this far too much fun, however, and it's raining.....

[jonnyb]

This thread exploded....wow man! All I wanted was a thought or two on how others viewed the usefulness of a concelled carry permit. I am still debating if I would benefit by having one or not.

[Warrior]

This thread exploded....wow man! All I wanted was a thought or two on how others viewed the usefulness of a concelled carry permit. I am still debating if I would benefit by having one or not.

What's the downside of not having one? If you get one and never carry a firearm, the only ting you are out is the time and $$$ you put into getting it in the first place.

I meant "what's the downside of *having* one".

[firebee]

This thread exploded....wow man! All I wanted was a thought or two on how others viewed the usefulness of a concelled carry permit. I am still debating if I would benefit by having one or not.

Haha. Well, it's guns, you know...

Here's my perspective as a resident of Colorado (and hence, your mileage may vary depending on the particulars of law in your area):

The concealed carry permit requires one to take some kind of training -- I forget the particulars of what qualifies, but the NRA offers a course which is quite nice and informative. I took it in large degree for the content, since it spent a lot of time covering lethal force issues which are relevant even if one does not carry. Having taken the course, it was just a matter of paying the fees and waiting to get the permit itself, which I did.

The advantage here, IMHO, is that if I decided for some reason I wanted to carry concealed, I could do so immediately rather than 2-3 months from now. And I would do so if I or anyone close to me picked up a stalker or other vindictive person that constituted a potentially significant threat, or if I wanted to travel by car on my own in states where my permit is valid (note that in Colorado one may carry concealed on one's own property or in one's own car without a permit, and openly anywhere per state law).

I would also potentially do so if my interest in firearms picked up enough that I was practicing regularly for the enjoyment of the art, and I also had enough discretionary spending money to be able to set myself up properly. From my perspective, having responsible and intelligent armed citizens distributed through the population is beneficial. Being that I am responsible and intelligent, then, I should therefore take advantage of the existing legal structures that allow me to become armed -- as a service to the community.

Personally, I do not see all that much of an immediate need to carry. A full-sized or approximately-full-sized gun is a lot of stuff to carry around on a daily basis (at least for someone my size) against an eventuality that will likely never occur.

[hubcap]

And I can deal with all these things without a gun. Yay.

I guess you missed my post earlier in this thread where I related the fact that I personally know 3 individuals who were victims of attacks by "evil" people. The only one who did not have a gun was left for dead after being shot by a car-jacker. The other two are fine, although one of them did have to actually shoot his attacker.

So, good on you that you have never been attacked, and I sincerely hope you never are. However in the event you are, you will be at the mercy of your attacker.

[DanteFalling]

This is very true. I think that a lot of people over-estimate the chances of ever truly needing to protect themselves. And I say that despite being strongly pro-carry. I definitely agree though that defensive ability, on the rare occasions when its absence is noticed, is very sorely missed indeed.

I live in one of the worst areas in the U.S. for violent crimes against females. I'm far more concerned with acquaintance crime than stranger crime, but I realize that appearing to be in a certain gender group and in a certain age bracket, I'm more prone to being noticed by strangers.

I have had the need to protect myself, and I value CCW and firearms in general.
I also value child safety and don't find the two necessarily at odds. Violent crime in my area is a serious problem. In the few years I've been in college and grad school, numerous armed thefts, murders, violent rapes, and stalking issues ON and immediately adjacent to my campus have occurred.

It's a cluster of too many issues to truly do it justice in one post.

[eagleseven]

I know about cops - my uncle is one, and I've heard that argument. As long as they catch the person who tried to attack me (and failed), they do plenty.
You assume their attack will fail. What will you do to ensure that their attack will fail?

Stand there and tell them they have no right to violate your personal space?

Plus, the chances of anyone attacking me in the first place are exceedingly slim, so I'm really not going to organise my entire life around such an offchance. Too dull.
Everyone cannot afford the privilege of living in a gated community with a private security force.

In my neighborhood, crime is a fact of life, and I've been held up on more than one occasion. You would endanger me because my life does not fit to your naive mold?

[firebee]

And I can deal with all these things without a gun. Yay.

As can I. Also with.

My point is, you're not going to get anywhere as regards promoting understanding in yourself or others by continuing to misrepresent the motivations of the gun-having in a way that seems to score you points. Presuming that it is your goal to increase understanding, I'd find another tactic; the "You're so insecure, ha ha" argument, aside from smelling strongly of projection, is also trite and quite thoroughly played out.

Guns do not have the same mysterious significance to the gun-having as they do to the not-gun-having. I own a few of the items in question, know where they are, and can lay hands on them in short order. Much like my circular saw, my sword, or my microwave. If continual obsession about these objects preoccupied my time, I imagine I'd either get used to them or get rid of them.

[eagleseven]

Guns do not have the same mysterious significance to the gun-having as they do to the not-gun-having. I own a few of the items in question, know where they are, and can lay hands on them in short order. Much like my circular saw, my sword, or my microwave. If continual obsession about these objects preoccupied my time, I imagine I'd either get used to them or get rid of them.
Indeed. Firearms are just one lethal tool, among many.

In close quarters, I would much prefer to have a baseball bat or chefs knife, two non-weapon tools that can be found in every home, than a pistol. This doesn't mean I "freak out" every time I need to chop some onions...


Hell, at John Hopkins University last month, a student killed a burglar with a katana from his Kendo class.

Baltimore Sun: Sword-wielding Hopkins student kills intruder (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

[MartinH]

This thread exploded....wow man! All I wanted was a thought or two on how others viewed the usefulness of a concelled carry permit. I am still debating if I would benefit by having one or not.

Yes, but at least there was another sensible gun control debate, where lots of people got talked round to the right way of thinking....

:devilish:

[Lucid]

Minor point here: One of the common things laid on gun folks is that they lack sufficient training in how to use their weapons, compared to the police. Now, we've touched on this earlier in the thread -- that gun folks are likely to consider shooting to be a hobby or sport that they spend more time on than a dispassionate professional cares to.

Now you take this angle of seeing that these folks are in fact practicing, and characterizing that as "spending too much time on the range, therefore indicating a sexual fetish". Leaving aside the "And what would be the problem if it were?" factor, I would dearly like to know how much time you would permit me to engage in recreational activity before I am presumed to kink on it.

I'm not sure it's right to use a common criticism of gun owners as a reason the Zibber's argument is wrong or misinformed or hypocritical unless he, himself, has made the afore mentioned common criticism of gun owners.


That said, it seems that this topic can't be discussed without a LOT of heated debate. That's fine, but I will point out that I live in a place that allows concealed carry (and gun ownership in general) and does not require gun registration. I know a great many people with guns of all kinds, from tiny handguns to semi-automatics, to shotguns. I've handled guns myself, I've been around them and I've been around other people who've been handling them.

I've never had any problems arise as the result of someone owning a legal firearm and carrying it or using it (either openly or concealed) in my vicinity.

That said, neither have I ever heard of any of these people using the weapon in question to fend off any kind of danger or protect either themselves or their loved ones. EVER.
In my experience, gun ownership consists of keeping a gun in a box or on a shelf or under the mattress and occasionally taking it out to show people, shoot at cans and road signs, and go to a firing range. Other than that, I've seen absolutely NO actual use of guns in the way mostly described here in this thread by those advocating gun ownership. I've also seen absolutely NONE of the horrendous events described in this thread by those opposing gun ownership. The events described by both sides do, of course, occur. But rarely. So I think it's something of a net zero effect.

I will also say that I have never felt or had a need for one. The only reason I have ever considered owning one is as part of my Zombiepocalypse contingency plans.

Also, the people I've known who own guns are sometimes paranoid and fearful, are sometimes just interested in them and find them fun, and sometimes they're both. One cannot make blanket statements about gun owners, since there are many different people who own guns and they do so for many different reasons.

Everybody calm down. It will all be ok. :)

[firebee]

I'm not sure it's right to use a common criticism of gun owners as a reason the Zibber's argument is wrong or misinformed or hypocritical unless he, himself, has made the afore mentioned common criticism of gun owners.

Probably not.

I do happen to think that it is a legitimate potential criticism, though. Taking your show on the road, so to speak, confers a responsibility to take what you're doing seriously -- which is actually the #2 reason why I don't carry now, despite having the permit and the equipment. Hence, I tend to think that people should in fact spend a fair bit of time at the range if they are going to carry concealed on a regular basis, and should preferably do so as an extension of participation in a shooting sport.

Broadly, I dislike the implication that a person who pursues an interest beyond the point of "basic proficiency" must be acting out some sort of kinky obsession. I passed this point in most of my interests -- including firearms, but ironically not including tying guys up and torturing them -- some time back, and I think that it is hardly illegitimate for me to continue studying these things.


That said, neither have I ever heard of any of these people using the weapon in question to fend off any kind of danger or protect either themselves or their loved ones. EVER.


And while we're on the subject, I rather dislike the "Wear a T-shirt stating your beliefs so that when you're getting beaten to death and I come by, I'll know to leave them to it." argument. This will never happen, and acting as if it is anything resembling a likely possibility for the average person is rather, well, unrealistic.

This is reason #3 why I do not carry -- unless I acquire something cute and pocketable like those little Kel-Tec things, I would have to have a large chunk of metal with pokey bits in my pants on a regular basis which I would then proceed, statistically speaking, never to use.

If I am to have a large chunk of metal with pokey bits in my pants, I demand that it commonly serve some sort of useful purpose.


Also, the people I've known who own guns are sometimes paranoid and fearful, are sometimes just interested in them and find them fun, and sometimes they're both. One cannot make blanket statements about gun owners, since there are many different people who own guns and they do so for many different reasons.

True, and I probably shouldn't entirely deny the presence of a certain scent of fucktard about the gun community sometimes. Namely, it gets a little grating (speaking as a person who has been around some of the shootery forums) to be constantly hearing folks bragging about how they do not exit Condition Yellow to take a crap and they instinctively cut the pie at every single corner they encounter in their lives. The thing is, God bless them, people can be that way (they can be railfans also, and do get me started on them, why don't you?) and still be quite functional, happy, and kind people.

Extremes abound. I don't see the basis for treating the group as a whole with patronizing pity, though.

[RedIrish]

The gun debate is muddied by people who vehement assert that their interest in guns is not motivated by fear, and then make statements like the following...


And I would do so if I or anyone close to me picked up a stalker or other vindictive person that constituted a potentially significant threat, .

[themuzicman]

Gun ownership, as with owning any other tool, should be used with requisite responsibility and regular use to reduce dangers to oneself and others. It is really no different than owning a chain saw or other power equipment which has potential hazards: You should use said tools on a regular basis and practice proper safety procedures when doing so. Then, when the need arises for its use, you can do so in an appropriate manner.

It has been said (and properly so) that both Columbine and VaTech could have been significantly reduced in scope with a single armed individual in the right place who knew how to handle a handgun.

I think the unwarranted fear (firearmophobia?) is that the average, law abiding citizen would be willing to carry and use a firearm without responsibly learning to handle one. That opportunity actually increases when guns are banned, as the availability for use and instruction on handgun use and understanding dangerous situations disappears when owning a gun is illegal.

If you want the study that shows that legalized handguns reduce crime, the man who conducted that study is interviewed here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). The study is here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

[eagleseven]

This is reason #3 why I do not carry -- unless I acquire something cute and pocketable like those little Kel-Tec things, I would have to have a large chunk of metal with pokey bits in my pants on a regular basis which I would then proceed, statistically speaking, never to use.

That's why God gave us the P-3AT ;)

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[zibber]

Minor point here: One of the common things laid on gun folks is that they lack sufficient training in how to use their weapons, compared to the police. Now, we've touched on this earlier in the thread -- that gun folks are likely to consider shooting to be a hobby or sport that they spend more time on than a dispassionate professional cares to.

Now you take this angle of seeing that these folks are in fact practicing, and characterizing that as "spending too much time on the range, therefore indicating a sexual fetish". Leaving aside the "And what would be the problem if it were?" factor, I would dearly like to know how much time you would permit me to engage in recreational activity before I am presumed to kink on it.

This looks suspiciously like a "damned if you do, damned if you don't".

Lucid already explained that I didn't actually say that first thing. (Is this debate that polarized to you, that you group together all arguments from what you discern to be one "side"?)

On fetishism:

I don't think you are the kind of person I'm talking about. I understand the temptation of identifying with people who appear to share your opinion, but the people I'm talking about are generally scary militant bigots who'd love a reason to shoot.

We talked about guns as tools. Do you know anyone who hammers nails into boards once or twice a week for fun? At a certain point you are simply proficient and there is no longer a training aspect to it. It scares me that some people apparently really enjoy shooting.

It is claimed that firearms should be available to private persons for security reasons. I am inclined to agree with this (being the budding revolutionary I am), but I am also inclined to think that this should be seen as a desperate measure to be avoided at all costs. That goes out the window when I see someone going to gun ranges recreationally, socially, leisurely. I don't believe that is just for training purposes. That is suspicious and dangerous to me.

I sincerely suspect that someone who regularly shoots guns and enjoys it would be a lot quicker to resort to using them in a real life situation than someone who abhors violence and sees it as a final resort.

I would be thrilled if you even slightly lifted this shield of defensiveness and got 0.01% of the point I am trying to make.


Broadly, I dislike the implication that a person who pursues an interest beyond the point of "basic proficiency" must be acting out some sort of kinky obsession. I passed this point in most of my interests -- including firearms, but ironically not including tying guys up and torturing them -- some time back, and I think that it is hardly illegitimate for me to continue studying these things.

Please accept the fact that I am not talking about you.

And again, I am not against private possession of firearms. Just to stress that. I admittedly seem to agree with most of what your opponents say (being as disgusted by violence as I am), but I am not arguing against private possession of firearms.

[eagleseven]

Zipper, do you think Shooting should continue to be an official Olympic sport? I am quite certain that the participating athletes thoroughly enjoy shooting.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[hubcap]

We talked about guns as tools. Do you know anyone who hammers nails into boards once or twice a week for fun? At a certain point you are simply proficient and there is no longer a training aspect to it. It scares me that some people apparently really enjoy shooting.
Does it also scare you that some people actually really enjoy driving? Far more people are killed by automobiles than by firearms.

It is claimed that firearms should be available to private persons for security reasons. I am inclined to agree with this (being the budding revolutionary I am), but I am also inclined to think that this should be seen as a desperate measure to be avoided at all costs. That goes out the window when I see someone going to gun ranges recreationally, socially, leisurely. I don't believe that is just for training purposes. That is suspicious and dangerous to me.
Recreational use of firearms is scary to you? Do you realize that over 80 million clay targets are shot each year in the United States just by trapshooters alone? You seem to feel that there is something inherently "evil" with firearms and or those who enjoy that form of recreation.

[reb]

This thread exploded....wow man! All I wanted was a thought or two on how others viewed the usefulness of a concelled carry permit. I am still debating if I would benefit by having one or not.

jonnyb, i can only tell you of the experience i have had, and one or two others i know.

i had two days of class. 1.5 days was classroom instruction, and maybe a half day spent qualifying on the range. most of what was covered in class was common sense. 'be sure of what's behind the target; you must carry the weapon in order for it to be any good to you; de-escalation, or avoidance, is the best defensive technique; if you are involved in an incident, state 'i was in fear for my life' and shut up until your lawyer shows up'. most of this i already knew. 'treat every firearm as if it's loaded' (yeah, you dam well better). they used glock 26s for a cheap 'rental fee', or you could use your own weapon on the range. the ranges were typical of civilian (and police) gunfights-5 yards, 7 yards and 15 yards. not hard to qualify if you have any good practice behind you. our instructor stressed avoidance, places you cannot legally carry and having a good lawyer. a shooting will change your life (no lie-read any ayoob files you can find).

what was NOT covered is the oft repeated maxim 'it's supposed to be comforting, not comfortable'. i spent one lllllooooonnnnngggg trip to san antonio in a honda accord with a 1911 eating my side up. no one spoke about holsters-if you are not 'lucky' you will wind up with a box of holsters that do not work/are not comfortable/are not concealable. due to some of the attitudes we have witnessed here, i am very careful to have my weapon concealed. in any case, the shock value of 'my victim has a weapon' is something to be desired; i would not elect to open carry if it was an option; some people have violent emotional reactions to firearms; i have no need to bust their chops by showing mine or 'printing'.

you will find 'it is not cool to have a carry license'. there are plenty of groups who want to 'out' you. the responsibility of remembering 'i got to take this thing out when i go in the post office' and 'i can't carry in an establishment that gets more than 50% of it's revenue from alchohol sales'-little pita things-will wear on you some. when it's really hot, you will be wearing a large, bright colored shirt-i wear 'hawaiin' (cheapies from walmart). they don't print easily. i finally settled on the dillon iwb made by mitch rosen for 'town', and a fobus paddle for around my place (open carry on my place). fobus is great if you work and carry; you wash them, they are clean. the iwb is the most concealable of all holsters i have found so far.

the fingerprinting and background check will be a pita. our bureaucracy is all balled up. for my renewal, i plan to start a year in advance. they put me through 'bureaucratic hell', with extra pics, extra prints, extra blahblah....until i finally called my state rep. and then i had my license in 3 days.

when it comes to weapons, there are 3 i trust to go bang when i pull the trigger: any major brand 1911 (springfield, kimber, colt and most of the high end guys like brown, wilson if you have the bucks), any glock (most experience with the 26 and 36) and a smith and wesson j frame (the humpbacks with hammer totally enclosed-i don't like the 'lock'-another piece of little metal hunks to stop function, but you can still find old ones, and they fit in a pocket holster, too). anything else, you're going to have to fire 200 rounds of whatever you carry in it to be certain it's going to work. even then, you will get arguments everywhere about 'what works'. i trust ayoob, elmer keith and skeeter skelton. people will all argue about hollowpoints in autos feeding, hollowpoints actually opening up....i carry wadcutters in the smith. i carry one glaser in the chamber on the 1911, and many times the rest round nose fmj. worked in the phillipines; worked in wwII and wwI. i got lectured at the local gun shop about penetration...yep, gotta kneel to be sure my shot goes up, and not through 4 people (duh-people think you get a carry license, you are stupid and don't think about all the details; dumbasses).

1. a carry license is a pain in the ass
2. a carry license is a responsibility if you give a shit about how our society is
3. a carry license can get expensive
4. a carry license has no 'cool factor'; whatever you thought it had, willwear off quickly
5. a carry license is a deterrent to criminals-the same people you may be giving some level of deterrent in open society will give you shit on internet forums for having a carry license and an 'evil handgun'.

having said all the above, it depends entirely on how much you care about 'the tenor of society'. i want a civil and polite society, so i have a carry license. i know people who did not believe as strongly in this as i do, they got a carry license, an expensive firearm, etc., and i KNOW they do not carry. one guy bought a fancy sig sauer limited edition, and it lays by his bed.

you got to look internally and see what you think. read as much as you can find. especially, talk to some concealed carry instructors 'off the record' if you can. talk to your lawyer. then decide if you want to do this.

[yoginimama]

It scares me that some people apparently really enjoy shooting

For me, it would be a question of *why* they enjoy shooting.

My husband took an interest in firearms for a while, and as a result, I've fired various sorts of firearms at a range, I've "pulled" for him, and even once went to a...party?...in someone's country back yard where the object was to shoot targets pasted up against the barn.

As a result:

I think I can see the idea of just wanting to improve your marksmanship for its own sake--enjoying the challenge of lining everything up, going perfectly still, squeezing the trigger with proper technique and without moving any other muscles (harder than it sounds by far).

For me, I must admit, it was boring. I did not find any of those challenges inherently fascinating. (My husband also lost interest soon after.) But, I can see where another person might think it was the perfect outlet for their perfectionism.

But then we come to the question of pulling (squeezing) the trigger itself.

I didn't mind *aiming* whatever firearm I was working with at the time, but--and maybe hubcap or reb can weigh in on this--I haaaaaaaaaated firing. My heart would pound, I felt like the resistance in the trigger was my karma telling me I was making a serious mistake, my vision would blur and I'd be terrified that somehow (despite all the precautions being taken) someone would pop up in front of the target and I'd accidentally shoot them. I would just close my eyes and get it over with, and feel oddly depleted after the squeeze. I don't know why I felt this way, but I did.

So, I guess I would say that I understand where Zibber is coming from with his mistrust of anyone who enjoys firing a gun on a visceral level. But I would like to phrase it as a question--for those who do enjoy it, why? What about it feels right to you? Do you ever question that? Do you consider people like me neurotic?

the responsibility of remembering 'i got to take this thing out when i go in the post office' and 'i can't carry in an establishment that gets more than 50% of it's revenue from alchohol sales'-little pita things-will wear on you some....

1. a carry license is a pain in the ass
2. a carry license is a responsibility if you give a shit about how our society is
3. a carry license can get expensive
4. a carry license has no 'cool factor'; whatever you thought it had, willwear off quickly
5. a carry license is a deterrent to criminals-the same people you may be giving some level of deterrent in open society will give you shit on internet forums for having a carry license and an 'evil handgun'.

See, in my opinion, this is why we have a professional police force--so *they* can worry about all that stuff, and the rest of us can devote all that time and bother to something else.

[boldbidder]

But then we come to the question of pulling (squeezing) the trigger itself.

I didn't mind *aiming* whatever firearm I was working with at the time, but--and maybe hubcap or reb can weigh in on this--I haaaaaaaaaated firing. My heart would pound, I felt like the resistance in the trigger was my karma telling me I was making a serious mistake, my vision would blur and I'd be terrified that somehow (despite all the precautions being taken) someone would pop up in front of the target and I'd accidentally shoot them. I would just close my eyes and get it over with, and feel oddly depleted after the squeeze. I don't know why I felt this way, but I did.


It's natural to be scared/startled by the gun going off when you pull the trigger. The recoil combined with the crack of the sound barrier being broken is intimidating. With that said, your fear and apprehension would go away the more rounds you put down range. What you experienced is consistent with what most new shooters go through.

I was at the range this weekend sighting in my new baby (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). There was another shooter there who was an avid handgun shooter, but had little experience with rifles. I let him run a few rounds through my rifle and even though he was experienced handgunner, he admitted to being quite startled while actually firing. It's just one of those things that goes away with practice.

[hubcap]

But then we come to the question of pulling (squeezing) the trigger itself.

I didn't mind *aiming* whatever firearm I was working with at the time, but--and maybe hubcap or reb can weigh in on this--I haaaaaaaaaated firing. My heart would pound, I felt like the resistance in the trigger was my karma telling me I was making a serious mistake, my vision would blur and I'd be terrified that somehow (despite all the precautions being taken) someone would pop up in front of the target and I'd accidentally shoot them. I would just close my eyes and get it over with, and feel oddly depleted after the squeeze. I don't know why I felt this way, but I did.
I will confess here that I am actually certified as a handgun instructor and as a personal protection instructor. I say that simply to add some perspective to my views on the subject.
I have shot competitively off and on for over 30 years in a wide range of shooting sports. I no longer compete, but I shoot recreationally on a weekly basis.

Having said all that, I would point out that boldbidder is quite correct about the way some people respond to the actual "firing" of a gun, which is why I always insist on proper ear and eye protection when shooting. In addition I always start students off with a .22 as it has the quietest report and the least amount of recoil. Many people are "turned off" when introduced to shooting simply because they are introduced to the sport with the wrong gun. A gun which has too much recoil and is too loud tends to overwhelm a new shooter. On the other hand I have NEVER had a student who felt overwhelmed by a .22

As far as "enjoying" shooting goes, I confess that I do enjoy it immensely. As you suspected it is really a matter of self-improvement for many people, and is definitely so in my case. Competing in the shooting sports is no different than competing in any other individual sport such as bowling or throwing darts. Many people simply have a competitive nature and will compete at virtually anything imagineable.

Contrary to popular belief many people in law enforcement are lousy shots. Relatively few law enforcement officers ever fire their guns in the course of performing their job. I have a number of acquaintences in the law enforcement community and most of them only fire their guns when required to maintain their qualifications.

There should be no cause for alarm about an individual because they enjoy shooting, any more than there should be cause for alarm because an individual enjoys playing frisbee. Many of the shooting sports have quite the social aspect to them and are enjoyed in group settings, not to mention that many shooters are also avid hunters who enjoy time afield in pursuit of various game animals.

In my experience those who enjoy shooting come from all walks of life, social backgrounds, income levels, races, and sexes. The shooting community as a whole is made up of some of the nicest people I've ever met. I've shot with doctors, lawyers, clergy, housewives, factory workers, engineers, etc. None of whom were crazed sociopaths with a desire to go around killing people.

[combustor]

Whenever I see this debate it seems that much of the resistance and hatred towards guns and gun owners stems from a misunderstanding shaped by lack of actual experience, biased media spin and the loud voice of misinformation by the anti crowd. Over time this bombardment from a young age elicits a negative emotional response toward an inanimate object that is both powerful and subconscious. As fellow INTJs I have hope for many of you that you will investigate the facts, become self-informed, and overcome such an illogical and emotional reaction.

[firebee]

The gun debate is muddied by people who vehement assert that their interest in guns is not motivated by fear, and then make statements like the following...

Why do you think that this would be a decision motivated by fear?

Here's why I said what I did: When I am doing my ordinary business, examined over the time span of my entire life, I do not think that my risk of being a crime victim over that time span is worth the bother of carrying a full-sized firearm for all of it (although I may do so for other reasons, as outlined above).

If, however, my life becomes non-ordinary for some relatively short period of time... Say, for instance, that I date someone, or one of my lovers dates someone, who is fucking bugnuts and they find themselves with a crazy stalker who may or may not have violent intentions. At this point the equation potentially changes. Essentially, if someone sent you a memo saying "I might be lurking outside your door with a knife of stabbity sometime in the next six months or so, until I lose interest" -- you'd then have a particular reason to implement a number of precautions that you would normally consider unduly inconvenient, of which one potential precaution would be carrying and practicing the use of the gun that you already have.

So where's the fear in thinking "In this situation -- and mind, a similar thing did in fact happen to a close friend of mine -- I would consider doing X"?

And let's say that I am a person who has inherited (memetically and/or genetically) a tendency towards anxiety. Which is reasonable, because it happens to be true. Let's say that the matter of self-defense is an area in which I commonly suffer said anxiety (which happens not to be true), and let's say that I have formulated the above plan as a means of defusing it. Given that this plan allows me to live a life which is functional, happy, and kind, do I deserve to be patronized and pitied for either my selection of grandparents or the means by which I manage the consequences of that?

[combustor]

That's why God gave us the P-3AT ;)

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You should at least be shooting hollowpoints in your mousegun!!

[Prunesquallor]

my basic position is 180 degrees from what you 'are seeing'. frankly, i have enough common sense to keep myself out of trouble. a goodly number of people do as well; there are far more responsible people than you realize-perhaps, we are now seeing 'your fear' here? i would not be the least afraid to crawl on an airplane with everyone who has not committed a felony, is not drunk or on drugs, and can lawfully carry a firearm carrying one-loaded. i have more to fear from the FAA and it's miserable treatment of air traffic controllers, it's incompetency at updating computer and radar systems and it's currying of the airline industry regarding airplane maintenance and practices than i would from the above constrained people carrying a firearm. had there been 'a few good men or women' on any of those flights that went into the world trade center, the planes would not have gotten there. they would all have crashed like the one that went down in pa.

laws are there to provide 'a common structure', in the most perfect world (the theory world that never exists). in THIS world (the real one), some laws are there to provide leverage for a 'body' (go see the thread about 'corporations as people'). i recognize this. and, yes, i am wonderful...really :) if you got to know me better, you'd be singing 'reb's wonderful...he's marvellous!'.

i think, if you want to take a drug, you should be allowed to...but it should be taxed, just like everything i buy that has to do with 'firearms' is taxed, even my hunting license. i do not think you should be driving; if you do, and get caught, i would support you being made into soylent green to feed the poor. same for drunk drivers. i think perhaps you are wandering in a circle trying to entrap me in your argument, and you have not. very frustrating, isn't it?

i don't agitate for nuclear weapons rights; i am totally against them in every way. however, unlike you, i realize i am not going to control 'everything', or be able to argue such that my words will have any real effect on 'everybody', so i don't usually bother. you are making this far too much fun, however, and it's raining.....

Dude, don't just do the soapbox thing. You could try directly answering me. And this "control freak" stereotyping is getting old.

I guess you missed my post earlier in this thread where I related the fact that I personally know 3 individuals who were victims of attacks by "evil" people. The only one who did not have a gun was left for dead after being shot by a car-jacker. The other two are fine, although one of them did have to actually shoot his attacker.

So, good on you that you have never been attacked, and I sincerely hope you never are. However in the event you are, you will be at the mercy of your attacker.

No, I will not. Lack of a firearm does not equate to helplessness. Basic fact. Plus, the likelihood of me ever being attacked is so small, I have no interest in organising my life around such a faint possibility, especially since lack of a particular type of weapon will hardly be my undoing.

You assume their attack will fail. What will you do to ensure that their attack will fail?

Stand there and tell them they have no right to violate your personal space?

Everyone cannot afford the privilege of living in a gated community with a private security force.

In my neighborhood, crime is a fact of life, and I've been held up on more than one occasion. You would endanger me because my life does not fit to your naive mold?

Oh, bollocks sterotyping.
I can defend myself from anything truly dangerous without the need of a firearm or massive self-defense training. Most people are not entirely helpless without a firearm, that is a silly concept. And I would never live in a gated community - they are revolting. I don't deal well with rich people. I just live in an average city. A couple of people tried to hold me up too, and I didn't even need violence to get away. One I just left, and the other gained a whole $3.50. Whoop-de-doo. Also, someone wanting my wallet is hardly a fantastically dangerous situation which requires the use of lethal force in defense. Just saying. If one were to worry about assault and all that, strangers are hardly the most likely culprits either.

As can I. Also with.

My point is, you're not going to get anywhere as regards promoting understanding in yourself or others by continuing to misrepresent the motivations of the gun-having in a way that seems to score you points. Presuming that it is your goal to increase understanding, I'd find another tactic; the "You're so insecure, ha ha" argument, aside from smelling strongly of projection, is also trite and quite thoroughly played out.

Guns do not have the same mysterious significance to the gun-having as they do to the not-gun-having. I own a few of the items in question, know where they are, and can lay hands on them in short order. Much like my circular saw, my sword, or my microwave. If continual obsession about these objects preoccupied my time, I imagine I'd either get used to them or get rid of them.

They don't have much mysterious significance to me either, which is why it is hard to understand the strange religious dogma aspect of so much of the arguments I hear in their favour. A right to self defense is one thing, but this is only one tool, and placing some limitations on it, as governments do with many lethal objects, is hardly out of the ordinary, so the strong reactionary responses are still strange, especially considering how utterly superfluous they are the vast majority of the time.

To clarify, by "culture of fear" I do not mean one is constantly experiencing the physical experience of fear, but that one sees danger in far more places than people in comparable situations, and alters one's life significantly in response to statistical outliers. Seeing threats where no one else does may not be "fear" per se, but it is part of the same family, the same one that spawned the idea or "pre-emptive non-aggression." It's an overreaction based on hyper perception of danger in a large majority of cases. This is not to say that there aren't people who are actually in danger of their life fairly regularly, but the average gun owner doesn't fall into that category - and there's nothing that says guns are the only useful thing either, hence why they should get special status is a little more to do with culture than anything else. It's not something fundamental.

[reb]

Prune, i will directly answer you...you cannot have my firearm. it's not because 'i'm scared', it's not because your government won't let you. it's because it's MINE. i have 'mine', and you have everything that's 'not mine'-isn't that enough for you?

i worked for years next to engineers; i LOVE the parts and physics involved in firearms; the design and workmanship, the metallurgy, the internal and external ballistics; the simple 'form follows function'. this is as 'emotional' as i can get for you. to me, 'not being able to have a firearm' is on the 'emotional level' of 'not being able to make art'; and to carry it one step further 'not being able to make art because the ideas supposedly represented in the art might be dangerous'.

'what you want' is not going to happen 'here in my home'. it does not matter to me 'how beautiful and rational' your arguments for 'your way' may be, they do not sway me one iota..nor even a skosh. the fact is, you are coming from a place of irrational fear concerning firearms, i believe. your 'attachment of fear to an object' drifts away from persuasion when you try to make the 'fear' sound logical. i am afraid of drowning like you are afraid of 'people having firearms', but i'm not afraid of 'people trying to drown me' cause i don't get near the water when with nitwits (although i have made that mistake in the past-ick! damn woman dint know how to anchor a boat).

you have no business with a firearm. you have adequately proven that to me. give it up. you cannot have mine.

[Prunesquallor]

Prune, i will directly answer you...you cannot have my firearm. it's not because 'i'm scared', it's not because your government won't let you. it's because it's MINE. i have 'mine', and you have everything that's 'not mine'-isn't that enough for you?

i worked for years next to engineers; i LOVE the parts and physics involved in firearms; the design and workmanship, the metallurgy, the internal and external ballistics; the simple 'form follows function'. this is as 'emotional' as i can get for you. to me, 'not being able to have a firearm' is on the 'emotional level' of 'not being able to make art'; and to carry it one step further 'not being able to make art because the ideas supposedly represented in the art might be dangerous'.

'what you want' is not going to happen 'here in my home'. it does not matter to me 'how beautiful and rational' your arguments for 'your way' may be, they do not sway me one iota..nor even a skosh. the fact is, you are coming from a place of irrational fear concerning firearms, i believe. your 'attachment of fear to an object' drifts away from persuasion when you try to make the 'fear' sound logical. i am afraid of drowning like you are afraid of 'people having firearms', but i'm not afraid of 'people trying to drown me' cause i don't get near the water when with nitwits (although i have made that mistake in the past-ick! damn woman dint know how to anchor a boat).

you have no business with a firearm. you have adequately proven that to me. give it up. you cannot have mine.

I don't want yours, I don't find them frightening, just irrelevant, I just don't see why they're so fucking special that they must be defended at all costs from anyone, whatever their motives, whatever the possibile success of their scheme, from creating any rules regarding them.
What I want to know is, why (in your opinion) are guns so special, so important, that, unlike most potentially dangerous things, they should not be regulated in any way?

[Warrior]

I don't want yours, I don't find them frightening, just irrelevant, I just don't see why they're so fucking special that they must be defended at all costs from anyone, whatever their motives, whatever the possibile success of their scheme, from creating any rules regarding them.
What I want to know is, why (in your opinion) are guns so special, so important, that, unlike most potentially dangerous things, they should not be regulated in any way?

My view is that they are not all that special and most potentially dangerous things are not regulated in any way. Such is the issue with firearms regualtions in general - we're quick to single them out and apply high levels of regulation for reasons that could just as easily apply to pratically anything.

[Prunesquallor]

My view is that they are not all that special and most potentially dangerous things are not regulated in any way. Such is the issue with firearms regualtions in general - we're quick to single them out and apply high levels of regulation for reasons that could just as easily apply to pratically anything.

Most things whose primary function is lethal tend to be regulated.

A much smaller percentage of things that can cause lethal accidents, yes, but their primary purposes are not the same.

[combustor]

I don't want yours, I don't find them frightening, just irrelevant, I just don't see why they're so fucking special that they must be defended at all costs from anyone, whatever their motives, whatever the possibile success of their scheme, from creating any rules regarding them.
What I want to know is, why (in your opinion) are guns so special, so important, that, unlike most potentially dangerous things, they should not be regulated in any way?

Your argument is going off the deep end here. Who has said that "guns should not be regulated in any way"? Personally I think we have enough gun laws, and many are unconstitutional and should be repealed. The only irrational fear is with the anti-gun crowd. Like most people you have been taught or conditioned what to fear by experience, culture, and media, NOT logic or reason. For example, you don't recognize a potentially dangerous situation because you have never experienced an attack. Likewise the nightly news never reports the countless prevented crimes by defensive use of firearm daily, so you lack information. Just as you don't hear about the daily deaths from cancer, heart disease, or influenza.

The ultimate responsibility of an armed populace was and is to prevent a tyrranical government or force from brutally oppressing its citizens. But again since you haven't experienced it yourself, you again rationalize with yourself that it "can't happen to me."

[Warrior]

Most things whose primary function is lethal tend to be regulated.

A much smaller percentage of things that can cause lethal accidents, yes, but their primary purposes are not the same.

I'm not talking about accidents. I can use a lot of things as a weapon and many of them are equally lethal and much more carryable and disposable than a gun. I don't see that primary purpose should matter too much. If it is lethal, its lethal.

[Prunesquallor]

Your argument is going off the deep end here. Who has said that "guns should not be regulated in any way"? Personally I think we have enough gun laws, and many are unconstitutional and should be repealed. The only irrational fear is with the anti-gun crowd. Like most people you have been taught or conditioned what to fear by experience, culture, and media, NOT logic or reason. For example, you don't recognize a potentially dangerous situation because you have never experienced an attack. Likewise the nightly news never reports the countless prevented crimes by defensive use of firearm daily, so you lack information. Just as you don't hear about the daily deaths from cancer, heart disease, or influenza.

So if we're agreed that there should be regulation, then what's the problem? I merely stated at the beginning that some regulation is a good thing, though I may have stricter standards than some, and all I've got is "gun rights, you terrified pansy!" and one or two points that were not complete condescension. Few, though.

You are making a hell of a lot of assumptions here, and very few arguments.





Prunesquallor added to this post, 1 minutes and 36 seconds later...

I'm not talking about accidents. I can use a lot of things as a weapon and many of them are equally lethal and much more carryable and disposable than a gun. I don't see that primary purpose should matter too much. If it is lethal, its lethal.

If the primary purpose is extremely functional, or the lethal usage is very unlikely, then yes it matters.
I could beat someone to death with my hockey stick, but calling for it therefore to be regulated is a lot more paranoid than wanting restrictions on actual weapons.


- I'm not saying that no one should have a weapon ever, just that there are idiots and jerks and psychopaths out there, and it shouldn't be too easy for them to get a gun. Hardly controversial, I would think, and yet... And that most of the statements of "stranger danger!" are completely overstated. And that to live without having to constantly be aware of (mostly imaginary) potential death threats everywhere is nice, and it wouldn't be a bad idea to work towards that kind of society, instead of one where everyone is armed because crime is everywhere - they think.

[combustor]

So if we're agreed that there should be regulation, then what's the problem? I merely stated at the beginning that some regulation is a good thing, though I may have stricter standards than some, and all I've got is "gun rights, you terrified pansy!" and one or two points that were not complete condescension. Few, though.

You are making a hell of a lot of assumptions here, and very few arguments.





Prunesquallor added to this post, 1 minutes and 36 seconds later...



If the primary purpose is extremely functional, or the lethal usage is very unlikely, then yes it matters.
I could beat someone to death with my hockey stick, but calling for it therefore to be regulated is a lot more paranoid than wanting restrictions on actual weapons.

So what if we kept most guns laws and repealed everything from the GCA of 1968 onward, would you have a problem with that and why?

"Actual weapons?" I think you know that a massive majority of guns are used for recreation, not against a fellow man. And many of the rest are used to SAVE lives, not take them. I suppose you could tell the 500,000 to 2 million (depending on who you believe) Americans who use their gun to prevent a rape, robbery, murder, burglary, to just sacrifice themselves to the starving criminal that needs their orgasm, money, life, or property much more than the victim does.

[Prunesquallor]

So what if we kept most guns laws and repealed everything from the GCA of 1968 onward, would you have a problem with that and why?

"Actual weapons?" I think you know that a massive majority of guns are used for recreation, not against a fellow man. And many of the rest are used to SAVE lives, not take them. I suppose you could tell the 500,000 to 2 million (depending on who you believe) Americans who use their gun to prevent a rape, robbery, murder, burglary, to just sacrifice themselves to the starving criminal that needs their orgasm, money, life, or property much more than the victim does.

Not an expert in your country's laws, so not going to bother answering that one. Basic idea is don't make it too easy for the irresponsible paranoid freaks to get them.

It's a weapon, that's a silly thing to argue. They are weapons, plain and simple.
But genuinely responsible people with training, never had a huge problem with that, I just have a high standard for "responsible" considering the possible consequences. I most strongly have a problem with the culture that surrounds gun fetishizing and Fox News also, but that's not really a matter of legislation.
I also think that crime prevention should be considered at a community level, rather than only leaving individuals to defend themselves, make sure they're armed and vicious, and think that's enough. And that considering crime prevention and protection in a wider scope should be the main focus.
I'm quite surprised that this is so offensive.

[combustor]

- I'm not saying that no one should have a weapon ever, just that there are idiots and jerks and psychopaths out there, and it shouldn't be too easy for them to get a gun. Hardly controversial, I would think, and yet... And that most of the statements of "stranger danger!" are completely overstated. And that to live without having to constantly be aware of (mostly imaginary) potential death threats everywhere is nice, and it wouldn't be a bad idea to work towards that kind of society, instead of one where everyone is armed because crime is everywhere - they think.

I am no more "constantly aware of imaginary death threats everywhere" as I am constantly worried about a car accident! I still pay attention while driving on the freeway, just as I pay attention when I'm out in public. Strapping on my gun in the morning takes about the same amount of thought and effort as strapping on my seat belt before leaving for work. It is done and I don't give it a thought until needed. This myth about paranoid fetishist gun owners is quite persistent though!

[Prunesquallor]

I am no more "constantly aware of imaginary death threats everywhere" as I am constantly worried about a car accident! I still pay attention while driving on the freeway, just as I pay attention when I'm out in public. Strapping on my gun in the morning takes about the same amount of thought and effort as strapping on my seat belt before leaving for work. It is done and I don't give it a thought until needed. This myth about paranoid fetishist gun owners is quite persistent though!

And a 'myth' very much fed by all of them telling me I'm in horrible danger because I don't carry one! And that omg, they saw on the news that there was an attack, and I'm clearly going to get killed and raped because I don't carry a weapon! (and it'll be my own fault for not "protecting myself") How is a person supposed to leave the house without a lethal weapon? After all, clearly being outside means one's life is in danger! It's just normal caution!
The majority of the arguments I get are "stranger danger! You should be afraid!"
Crazy how one draws conclusions, eh?
If you don't want people to think you're paranoid, then drop those arguments.

I didn't think very hard about hugging my teddy bear when I fell asleep, or put much effort into it, when a 3-year old, yet to say fear was not involved would also be a fallacy.

[combustor]

Not an expert in your country's laws, so not going to bother answering that one. Basic idea is don't make it too easy for the irresponsible paranoid freaks to get them.

It's a weapon, that's a silly thing to argue. They are weapons, plain and simple.
But genuinely responsible people with training, never had a huge problem with that, I just have a high standard for "responsible" considering the possible consequences. I most strongly have a problem with the culture that surrounds gun fetishizing and Fox News also, but that's not really a matter of legislation.
I also think that crime prevention should be considered at a community level, rather than only leaving individuals to defend themselves, make sure they're armed and vicious, and think that's enough. And that considering crime prevention and protection in a wider scope should be the main focus.
I'm quite surprised that this is so offensive.

What is offensive is your contempt and distrust of your fellow man.

From a law enforcement or military perspective, countless objects are "weapons." Hands and feet are "weapons." Lots of items can either be used or improvised into weapons. It is an irrelevant term.

Like many people from outside the US, you have grown up in a place where you have always been disarmed, and therefore rationalize this with the notion that no one else "needs" to be. It is classic psychology.

[Prunesquallor]

What is offensive is your contempt and distrust of your fellow man.

From a law enforcement or military perspective, countless objects are "weapons." Hands and feet are "weapons." Lots of items can either be used or improvised into weapons. It is an irrelevant term.

Like many people from outside the US, you have grown up in a place where you have always been disarmed, and therefore rationalize this with the notion that no one else "needs" to be. It is classic psychology.

You have a very high opinion of humanity in general, and yet it seems a very low opinion of them in particular. I prefer the other way around. It's more likely to be accurate. Humans are crap - be offended if you like, but that's not going to change my opinion.

You draw a lot of bogus conclusions about me on very little data. Kindly limit yourself to discussing subjects you actually know something about - my psychology is not one of them.

Some people do need to be armed, as I have said, just not nearly as much or often as most of them claim.

[Autoptic]

You draw a lot of bogus conclusions about me on very little data. Kindly limit yourself to discussing subjects you actually know something about - my psychology is not one of them.

Yet you get to psychoanalyze people and make assumptions about situations both of which you know nothing about. Convenient.

[Prunesquallor]

Yet you get to psychoanalyze people and make assumptions about situations both of which you know nothing about. Convenient.

I know something about the society, enough, and analyse common paradigms within it.
I'm not analysing any individuals here. That would be stupid.

[hubcap]

And a 'myth' very much fed by all of them telling me I'm in horrible danger because I don't carry one! And that omg, they saw on the news that there was an attack, and I'm clearly going to get killed and raped because I don't carry a weapon! (and it'll be my own fault for not "protecting myself") How is a person supposed to leave the house without a lethal weapon? After all, clearly being outside means one's life is in danger! It's just normal caution!

I completely agree that you shouldn't have to carry a gun.

On the other hand there were almost 94,000 rapes in the United States in 2005.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

A woman in Canada is over twice as likely to be raped as a woman in the United States.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I suspect none of those women expected to be raped.

[combustor]

I am not trying to analyze you as an individual. I am stating a well known and nearly instinctual defense mechanism that comes into play in your situation. The same as if you were to be born blind rather than losing your sight in the prime of your life. It is almost unthinkable to those who can see to lose that ability, but to the man who was born blind it should be no big deal for the rest of humanity if they were to lose their sight tomorrow.

[Prunesquallor]

I completely agree that you shouldn't have to carry a gun.

On the other hand there were almost 94,000 rapes in the United States in 2005.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

A woman in Canada is over twice as likely to be raped as a woman in the United States.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I suspect none of those women expected to be raped.

And most of them by people they knew, not strangers. In situations where many people who do carry guns wouldn't have one with them. Where other means of self-defense would be rather more reliable.

I am not trying to analyze you as an individual. I am stating a well known and nearly instinctual defense mechanism that comes into play in your situation. The same as if you were to be born blind rather than losing your sight in the prime of your life. It is almost unthinkable to those who can see to lose that ability, but to the man who was born blind it should be no big deal for the rest of humanity if they were to lose their sight tomorrow.

And to those accustomed to thinking they're in danger, safety must seem very strange, by the same token? And they wouldn't want to give up their precious, unnecessary weapons? None of this is relevant without some evidence it describes reality. You have none; you do not know me in the slightest.

I'm not discussing anything with you as you continue to make bogus pseudopsychological, completely unsupported claims about me that have nothing to do with the matter at hand. You clearly cannot make a real argument, so I'm no longer going to respond to your condescending attempts. Cheers. :)

[Synamon]

I suppose you could tell the 500,000 to 2 million (depending on who you believe) Americans who use their gun to prevent a rape, robbery, murder, burglary, to just sacrifice themselves to the starving criminal that needs their orgasm, money, life, or property much more than the victim does.
Let's see a source on that.

[hubcap]

And most of them by people they knew, not strangers. In situations where many people who do carry guns wouldn't have one with them. Where other means of self-defense would be rather more reliable.
OK - I will accept your argument.

That means that only 40,000 or so women were raped in the United States in 2005 by people they didn't know.

Wonder where the police were when all those rapes were going on?

Wonder if any of those 40,000 or so women could have prevented themselves being raped if they would have been armed?

[Prunesquallor]

OK - I will accept your argument.

That means that only 40,000 or so women were raped in the United States in 2005 by people they didn't know.

Wonder where the police were when all those rapes were going on?

Wonder if any of those 40,000 or so women could have prevented themselves being raped if they would have been armed?

Wonder if other forms of self-defense (e.g. hand to hand) would be infinitely more effective given the circumstances of most rapes, instead of focussing on outliers?
Wonder how many rapists had guns?

[hubcap]

Wonder if other forms of self-defense (e.g. hand to hand) would be infinitely more effective given the circumstances of most rapes, instead of focussing on outliers?
Wonder how many rapists had guns?

I'd be interested in knowing how many women would like the odds of going hand to hand with a man.

[Prunesquallor]

I'd be interested in knowing how many women would like the odds of going hand to hand with a man.

It's perfectly possible, with a little training. And I do mean little. Especially if one just wants to get away. We're not as small and weak and helpless as people like to think.

Wonder how many woman would rather go hand to hand than face a rapist with a gun?

[hubcap]

It's perfectly possible, with a little training. And I do mean little. Especially if one just wants to get away. We're not as small and weak and helpless as people like to think.

Wonder how many woman would rather go hand to hand than face a rapist with a gun?
Well apparently 94000 women in the United States in 2005 were unable to overcome their adversaries.

You certainly have every right to hold onto your beliefs and I would never attempt to force my views on you.

What I do not understand is why you would deny other women the means to defend themselves.

[Prunesquallor]

Well apparently 94000 women in the United States in 2005 were unable to overcome their adversaries.

You certainly have every right to hold onto your beliefs and I would never attempt to force my views on you.

What I do not understand is why you would deny other women the means to defend themselves.

I wouldn't. I'd like to deny rapists the weapons they use against these women, though.
I'd also say it might be a good idea to have less focus on something that won't help them in the vast majority of rape cases (and might also give them a false sense of security), but instead focus on offering them useful help. If these women knew a few little self-defense tricks, things they cannot leave at home, they might have had a better chance.

[Synamon]

Well apparently 94000 women in the United States in 2005 were unable to overcome their adversaries.

You certainly have every right to hold onto your beliefs and I would never attempt to force my views on you.

What I do not understand is why you would deny other women the means to defend themselves.
Since we are playing "I wonder", I wonder how many of those rapists had a gun?

This is a ridiculous point to argue unless you actually have data specific to how rapes are prevented by having a gun. Try again.

[hubcap]

I'd like to deny rapists the weapons they use against these women, though.

I would hope we could agree that idea isn't feasible.

I'd also say it might be a good idea to have less focus on something that won't help them in the vast majority of rape cases (and might also give them a false sense of security), but instead focus on offering them useful help. If these women knew a few little self-defense tricks, things they cannot leave at home, they might have had a better chance.

I can assure you that possession of a gun by someone who is properly trained in its use as in personal protection will give a them more security than any hand to hand training.

That is why cops carry guns.





hubcap added to this post, 3 minutes and 4 seconds later...

Since we are playing "I wonder", I wonder how many of those rapists had a gun?

This is a ridiculous point to argue unless you actually have data specific to how many rapes are prevented at gunpoint. Try again.

No, it isn't ridiculous.

An attacker who has a gun is not automatically advantaged if the potential victim is properly armed.

The fact is 94,000 rapes occurred, which is less than half as many per capita as Canada.

What would you like for me to try?

[Prunesquallor]

I would hope we could agree that idea isn't feasible.

I can assure you that possession of a gun by someone who is properly trained in its use as in personal protection will give a them more security than any hand to hand training.

That is why cops carry guns.

Not 100% feasible, sure. I would hope we could agree that we shouldn't therefore say "oh, what the hell, may as well give up. No point trying to protect people because occasionally we will fail!"

If they don't have the gun it won't give any security whatsoever. And again, this is people one knows, people one starts to trust, in most cases. Situations in which one is less likely to be armed. Although the attacker may well be if we make it easy for them to get weapons.

[combustor]

I wouldn't. I'd like to deny rapists the weapons they use against these women, though.
I'd also say it might be a good idea to have less focus on something that won't help them in the vast majority of rape cases (and might also give them a false sense of security), but instead focus on offering them useful help. If these women knew a few little self-defense tricks, things they cannot leave at home, they might have had a better chance.

Training can help, but can never equalize otherwise overwhelming physical superiority. I guess you don't remember a few years ago there was a female karate champion that was brutally raped by one man of average build. If you had ever been through law enforcement or military training you would quickly learn that no amount of skills will make up completely for brute size and strength in a physical confrontation. Also conveniently forgotten are the old or disabled. "little self-defense tricks" are good to know, but less effective than you might imagine toward a determined attacker.





combustor added to this post, 3 minutes and 48 seconds later...

Since we are playing "I wonder", I wonder how many of those rapists had a gun?

This is a ridiculous point to argue unless you actually have data specific to how rapes are prevented by having a gun. Try again.

Will HAVING a gun ever CAUSE a rape? Highly doubt it! Will having a gun prevent a rape? Not every time, but it is a tool that every victim wishes she had at that moment I would bet.

[Synamon]

No, it isn't ridiculous.

An attacker who has a gun is not automatically advantaged if the potential victim is properly armed.

The fact is 94,000 rapes occurred, which is less than half as many per capita as Canada.

What would you like for me to try?
You haven't shown that the rape data is linked to gun ownership. You are making a giant leap with nothing to back it up. There are many factors that affect those numbers, first and foremost the percentage of rapes reported.

Until you can show causation linked to firearms, there is nothing for me to refute.

You are three times more likely to be murdered in the US than Canada, shall we discuss that? There are even handy numbers for firearms related murder in your statistics.
US
0.042 total murder rate per 1000
0.028 firearm murder rate per 1000
0.014 non-firearm murder rate per 1000

Canada
0.014 total murder rate per 1000
0.005 firearm murder rate per 1000
0.009 non-firearm murder rate per 1000

If you back out the firearm murders for each country the US is only 50% higher on non-firearm murders than Canada. That's a pretty healthy drop from 300% higher for total murder rate.

[combustor]

You haven't shown that the rape data is linked to gun ownership. You are making a giant leap with nothing to back it up. There are many factors that affect those numbers, first and foremost the percentage of rapes reported.

Until you can show causation linked to firearms, there is nothing for me to refute.

You do make a good point. This is a difficult link to make without a real scientifically controlled study.





combustor added to this post, 3 minutes and 59 seconds later...

If some of you "never leave home without it" types live near GA, we should start an INTJ gun club and meet up for clays or steel.

[Prunesquallor]

Training can help, but can never equalize otherwise overwhelming physical superiority. I guess you don't remember a few years ago there was a female karate champion that was brutally raped by one man of average build. If you had ever been through law enforcement or military training you would quickly learn that no amount of skills will make up completely for brute size and strength in a physical confrontation. Also conveniently forgotten are the old or disabled. "little self-defense tricks" are good to know, but less effective than you might imagine toward a determined attacker.

In this one situation, you have made a point, albeit a small one. I hope it's a trend. I do remember the case, of course, and I am not offering a panacea, just recommending a shift in focus.
My point still stands - a big campaign against rape needs not to focus on the outliers, such as pretending that rape is "stranger danger" in the night on a street that one can fight with a handy gun, but instead to centre around the common, average situations. Situations in which one is not so likely to be armed, situations with people one knows, situations with people of average health and strength. And the average women is not overwhelmingly inferior physically to the average man, not in the slightest. She can use things like her speed or lower centre of gravity, just for example, to gain just enough space that she can then get the hell out of there. Engaging in a full-on fight, however tempting, is not self-defense.

This does not entail throwing the outliers to the wolves. Actions focussing on the perpetrators, rather than potential victims, will benefit them as well. I would possibly be open to the idea of special consideration for the disabled, depending on how that is handled. A gun, nonetheless, is not an advantage when it isn't there, like many situations in which rape actually happens, and I don't know that women taking them out on every date they go on is an improvement. Living one's life expecting to be attacked is not enviable. Guns also do diddly-squat against rohypnol. There are other approaches to self-defense, not limited to hand-to-hand by any means, which is merely a small part, that do far more in the situations likely to occur.

[combustor]

In this one situation, you have made a point, albeit a small one. I hope it's a trend. I do remember the case, of course, and I am not offering a panacea, just recommending a shift in focus.
My point still stands - a big campaign against rape needs not to focus on the outliers, such as pretending that rape is "stranger danger" in the night on a street that one can fight with a handy gun, but instead to centre around the common, average situations. Situations in which one is not so likely to be armed, situations with people one knows, situations with people of average health and strength. And the average women is not overwhelmingly inferior physically to the average man, not in the slightest. She can use things like her speed or lower centre of gravity, just for example, to gain just enough space that she can then get the hell out of there. Engaging in a full-on fight, however tempting, is not self-defense.

This does not entail throwing the outliers to the wolves. Actions focussing on the perpetrators, rather than potential victims, will benefit them as well. I would possibly be open to the idea of special consideration for the disabled, depending on how that is handled. A gun, nonetheless, is not an advantage when it isn't there, like many situations in which rape actually happens, and I don't know that women taking them out on every date they go on is an improvement. Living one's life expecting to be attacked is not enviable. Guns also do diddly-squat against rohypnol. There are other approaches to self-defense, not limited to hand-to-hand by any means, which is merely a small part, that do far more in the situations likely to occur.

"Special considerations" for one group or another is reprehensable, and subject to tyranny of the majority. Exactly why the consitution of the US and bill of rights were written, to prevent such tyranny.

I do agree with your general idea about rape and self-defense in general on several points however. Awareness, attitude, and 'violence of action' are much more important tools to have going for you than simply having a gun.
Last date I went on the girl was packing. I think I'm in love!

[yoginimama]

I'd be interested in knowing how many women would like the odds of going hand to hand with a man.

Yeah, ugh, not me. Just look at 'em. The big ones are muscular and the little ones are bony. And those reflexes they've got, the lucky fuckers.

I prefer (1) avoidance, (2) avoidance, (3) avoidance, (4) avoidance, (5) avoidance and then (6) reasoning (7) screaming (8) elbows (9) blind instinct.

The problem is one of evolution. Primates are supposed to be like bears--only aggressive if they sense a threat. The "freeze or flail" instinct of women under attack, which self-defense teachers try so patiently to train them out of, should work for us. It says "Oh, excuse me, sir, there appears to be a mistake. You see, I am not a credible threat, so obviously you should step the hell off me now."

The problem is, there are guys out there whose instincts have gotten all screwed up and they start acting more like tigers--looking for opportunities to aggress. Someday, we will figure out how to medicate these men.

Until then, I'm in favor of more streetlights, more community policing, "eyes on the street" as in old mafia neighborhoods, escort services, plenty of caseworkers to identify and help young people who show early warning signs of developing violent traits, safe houses, home alarms, personal alarms if one feels they are needed, well-trained dogs if one feels they are needed, and anything else which could peacefully help create a context where there are essentially no opportunities to commit assault and exponentially fewer people who want to.

Small steps make a big difference.

#

I suppose I should address the fact that we don't yet have all the above in every community, so what should people do until then.

Well...I don't know. Create as much of those conditions as possible in one's own life, I suppose, by going places with friends as much as possible etc. Get seriously in touch with your instincts and trust them. If your instincts tell you to carry a gun, carry it. Maybe some part of you senses that you may one day be in a situation where having it would help you. Mine specifically tell me not to. Maybe I have unknowingly been, or may someday be, in a situation where having one would harm me.

To each his own.

[hubcap]

You haven't shown that the rape data is linked to gun ownership. You are making a giant leap with nothing to back it up. There are many factors that affect those numbers, first and foremost the percentage of rapes reported.

Until you can show causation linked to firearms, there is nothing for me to refute.
I haven't made any attempt to show causation is linked to firearms. I was simply attempting to point out that many of those rapes could have been avoided had the victims been properly armed.

Unfortunately it is hard to pin down a statistic which shows how much crime "never happened" because the intended victim was able to successfully defend themself with the legal use of a gun.

[Prunesquallor]

"Special considerations" for one group or another is reprehensable, and subject to tyranny of the majority. Exactly why the consitution of the US and bill of rights were written, to prevent such tyranny.

I do agree with your general idea about rape and self-defense in general on several points however. Awareness, attitude, and 'violence of action' are much more important tools to have going for you than simply having a gun.
Last date I went on the girl was packing. I think I'm in love!

Right, and we shouldn't have wheelchair ramps either. :suspicious: It all depends on the special considerations. I'm not advocating it, just saying that if awareness, attitude, and 'violence of action' are somehow denied to old ladies and cripples, and if someone has a good idea for their protection from rape that is less relevant for everyone else, then I'm open to hearing it. Different tactics may be a better way of phrasing it. Whatever. I'm not going to make one up, because this thread is really getting boring and I just don't want to go there. And I don't care about your constitution or bill of rights, can we stop quoting them as if they were the bible? They do not constitute proof.

[reb]

Prune, our differences on this issue are irreconcilable. i don't feel you are any more 'wrong' than i am, or 'right'. i tried to toss in 'art' to see if you can use that to jump to another 'step'; it's the difference between loving Mozart and Bartok. neither one is 'wrong'; both have good points and bad. so, i'm not going to argue this any longer; it's a waste of our time that could be spent doing something productive, and i have guests coming for a week. frankly, the bottom line for me is, i don't want to live in a society that tries to control everything i have/do/try to be.

yoginimama, some people are completely messed up by 'loud noise' (i can be...spooks me...i'll go into 'alert mode' when someone drops a tray at the restaurant). in your psyche, you may have some kind of 'issue' where all the evil or violence in the world is associated with 'a firearm'; maybe it can't be fixed. personally, i have one of those triggers in my dna-i associate 'evil' with 'being controlled by outside forces'.

if you enjoy the concept of 'hitting a target', you might find a stick bow (like a martin howatt hunter, or a longbow) to be 'your thing'. i find it fascinating to be able to go into 'zen' mode, squeeze a trigger, and hit a tiny thing 100 yards away. i used to could do the same thing with my old martin longbow....i could hit tennis balls thrown at random out to 30 yards. it's a challenge ('Zen and the Art of Archery' is a great book on the subject). it would please me no end if people could find something that challenges them physically and mentally like archery. i really dislike seeing such an ancient sport dying in some regards. a friend of mine told me at a 3d tournament 'watching you shoot that thing is like going back to the middle ages'.

if you really want to shoot something, if you have 20 feet, get an 'airgun bullet trap' from midway or someone, and a daisy 717/747/777. the daisy's are single shots-shoot about 300 fps. cheap to shoot, and very accurate (particularly the 777).

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

they are not loud at all. a friend and i used to shoot in his basement at 30 feet. 15 shots for a malt, 30 shots for a burger. the 45 shots would test both your skill, focus and endurance, and it was lots of fun. be sure, if you try cartridge arms again you use good ear protection.

the kel-tec p3a...i had two. i sold them. i carried them in my pants pockets around here working. i found when i would squat to do something, my pants would go tight over my thigh....and a couple times i heard 'click'. when i investigated, i found the magazine release had been pushed by my pants over my thigh, and kicked the magazine loose. i recommend them for holsters only. if i carry something in my pants pocket now, it's a smith 340 pd. the whole 'centennial series' will not become 'single shots' on you unless you seriously abuse them. the kel tec has much to recommend it, but that 'magazine comes loose under certain conditions' is a fatal flaw to me.

i probably missed something i ought to reply to here; i'll take another look, but i've got to get my lazy butt up and move here in abit. busy day.

combustor, i would NEVER want a woman who could not fend for herself. i have always said, 'if i EVER get married again, it will be to a woman who knows how to pull the plug from the wall when the shit hits the fan.'.

[hubcap]

And I don't care about your constitution or bill of rights, can we stop quoting them as if they were the bible? They do not constitute proof.
This is a perfect example of why the Founders of the United States wrote the Constitution in the manner they chose...........to prevent the "tyranny of the majority".

The fact that you don't care about individual rights in these matters is quite revealing.

As Reb already stated, we are at an impasse in the discussion as you aren't going to change your views, and neither are we.

[Prunesquallor]

This is a perfect example of why the Founders of the United States wrote the Constitution in the manner they chose...........to prevent the "tyranny of the majority".

The fact that you don't care about individual rights in these matters is quite revealing.

As Reb already stated, we are at an impasse in the discussion as you aren't going to change your views, and neither are we.

Thinking individual rights to a gun, as if that were a right, don't trump everything else, is not the same thing as thinking all individual rights are useless.
This discussion goes nowhere if you can't quit with that foolishness. It's going nowhere anyway, and I'm tired of your inability to grasp what I'm actually saying, so I'm not going to bother correcting your misperceptions anymore.

[hubcap]

Thinking individual rights to a gun, as if that were a right, don't trump everything else, is not the same thing as thinking all individual rights are useless.

In the United States a citizen does have a right to a gun. I would not suggest it trumps anything else.

This discussion goes nowhere if you can't quit with that foolishness. It's going nowhere anyway, and I'm tired of your inability to grasp what I'm actually saying, so I'm not going to bother correcting your misperceptions anymore.
I grasp what you are saying, I simply disagree. In any event I enjoyed the dialogue. Thank you.

[themuzicman]

But not impossible to demonstrate crimes prevented with a gun To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Prunesquallor]

In the United States a citizen does have a right to a gun. I would not suggest it trumps anything else.

Not guns specifically, no. Arms. Which doesn't include nuclear bombs, I would think, on an individual level, so clearly there are acceptable limitations. We disagree on what they are, sure, but if you are arguing 'what's best for the U.S.' and I'm not limiting myself to discussing simply one country, then there are bound to be communication difficulties. Although I may have opinions on the optimal system, I am well aware that certain conditions in your country limit what is possible to implement, and therefore a strategy for the U.S. alone has different paramenters. Appeals to authority are anyway meaningless; if you wanted to reference your constitution as - this determines what we can do in the U.S. - rather than - it says so in the constitution therefore that's proof it's fundamentally right - then I would not object, though I feel discussing one country only rather limits the parameters of the discussion and not in a good way.

I grasp what you are saying, I simply disagree. In any event I enjoyed the dialogue. Thank you.

I doubt you grasp what I'm saying, but if you did, I'd be very impressed since most arguments in this thread are directed either for an extreme position on your side, or against an extreme position I'm not arguing. "No I'm not in danger, so that argument won't get me to support guns" turns into "therefore no one else is in danger either" somehow, and "some restrictions are necessary, ideally ones that will work against criminals" turns into "you're against all individual rights" and "an approach to crime that focusses on everyone, even those who are, for example, too poor to carry guns, and also in situations where people are unlikely to have them" turns into "I want to take all of your guns!" This whole discussion has been very very weird. I don't know how to communicate my points in a form that isn't blocked by ideology. It's kind of unnerving, really.

[combustor]

Well, I too have enjoyed the discussion. To me it boils down to natural rights. Humans of the world (not just US) were born with certain rights and some of those rights just happen to be recognized by the COTUS. Rights are not "granted" and to be denied in another part of the world is nothing more or less than oppression, no matter what euphamism you come up with. Nothing good can come of it, unless Nazi Germany, Ayatollah Iran, Chavez's Venezuela, and other despotic regimes appeal to you. In all cases it became possible to implement AFTER the citzenry was disarmed. I know, you can vote so it can never happen to you, and that is what these people thought.

[Prunesquallor]

Well, I too have enjoyed the discussion. To me it boils down to natural rights. Humans of the world (not just US) were born with certain rights and some of those rights just happen to be recognized by the COTUS. Rights are not "granted" and to be denied in another part of the world is nothing more or less than oppression, no matter what euphamism you come up with. Nothing good can come of it, unless Nazi Germany, Ayatollah Iran, Chavez's Venezuela, and other despotic regimes appeal to you. In all cases it became possible to implement AFTER the citzenry was disarmed. I know, you can vote so it can never happen to you, and that is what these people thought.

And yet, when guns still abound, the U.S. government is...responsible to its citizens? A shining model of democracy? Really?

I too believe in rights, I just also like, among others, the right to life - not getting shot, for example. Where guns genuinely protect people's rights, I have no objection, I just don't find it a blanket benefit attached to all firearms. And I recognise that some regulations, some, add a sum benefit in terms of freedom.

Rights are not granted, but if they are unrecognised by those who hold power, not so great things can happen.

Your ideologies, are lovely, but arguing for the ideologies does not prove that unregulated guns support these ideologies, save the "right" to guns.

[Corbu]

And yet, when guns still abound, the U.S. government is...responsible to its citizens? A shining model of democracy? Really?

I too believe in rights, I just also like, among others, the right to life - not getting shot, for example. Where guns genuinely protect people's rights, I have no objection, I just don't find it a blanket benefit attached to all firearms. And I recognise that some regulations, some, add a sum benefit in terms of freedom.

Rights are not granted, but if they are unrecognised by those who hold power, not so great things can happen.

Your ideologies, are lovely, but arguing for the ideologies does not prove that unregulated guns support these ideologies, save the "right" to guns.
Nice flip flop in here. With that all aside, most of what you write does not support your position, no offense other than the anti-2A position you hold, it seems much is based upon your opinion. If that is your position that is okay, we can agree that we disagree, neither one of us has to be right. Earlier in the thread it has been stated this is a complex issue and each person needs to make their own choice. You come across as anti America, have you been here? How did you make it out alive with all the guns we have?

[Prunesquallor]

Nice flip flop in here. With that all aside, most of what you write does not support your position, no offense other than the anti-2A position you hold, it seems much is based upon your opinion. If that is your position that is okay, we can agree that we disagree, neither one of us has to be right. Earlier in the thread it has been stated this is a complex issue and each person needs to make their own choice. You come across as anti America, have you been here? How did you make it out alive with all the guns we have?

With all due respect, I don't believe you actually know what my position is.

I am anti-America in the sense that I dislike many of its government's policies, think that its people have been betrayed by special interests in many situations, and find its culture uncomfortable. Of course, that describes my opinion of most countries. All, to an extent, are inadequate. Frankly, I seriously dislike many aspects of my own country, especially with the idiot we have in charge now. Of course, I like other aspects, and I even like aspects of the States. I am not anti-America in the sense that I hate everything associated with automatically and everyone in it. You do need to distinguish these. The latter may be a reason to cry bias, the former is not.

[hubcap]

Rights are not granted, but if they are unrecognised by those who hold power, not so great things can happen.

Your ideologies, are lovely, but arguing for the ideologies does not prove that unregulated guns support these ideologies, save the "right" to guns.
I believe you may have the wrong idea about the right to "guns". The right is much more than just the right to a gun. The right we are talking about is the right to life...............the right to self-defense.

In the United States the to self-defense is recognized. I understand that is not the case in all other countries. In some countries you can be put into prison for defending yourself..........England comes to mind, which illustrates your point pefectly well about what happens when rights are not recognized.

The gun itself is just a means to the end............defense of life.

[Prunesquallor]

I believe you may have the wrong idea about the right to "guns". The right is much more than just the right to a gun. The right we are talking about is the right to life...............the right to self-defense.

In the United States the to self-defense is recognized. I understand that is not the case in all other countries. In some countries you can be put into prison for defending yourself..........England comes to mind, which illustrates your point pefectly well about what happens when rights are not recognized.

The gun itself is just a means to the end............defense of life.

Exactly. It is only a means. And where one means is limited, there is no lack of others to take its place. Maybe even ones available when one is attacked by someone one trusts & doesn't expect to need a weapon, or ones available to poor people, legally...

Making someone sign a form on a gun - or even taking it away - is not taking away the right to self-defense.

[hubcap]

Making someone sign a form on a gun - or even taking it away - is not taking away the right to self-defense.
Taking away the means is a de facto denial of the right.

[Prunesquallor]

Taking away the means is a de facto denial of the right.

Sure, if it's the only means.

It isn't.



The point is not to deny people the right to defend themselves, the point is to keep guns away from people who are likely to attack. Since there is no perfection in either goal, a balance that reduces danger the most seems optimal. I have no interest in denying guns to everybody, particularly those who genuinely have a need, just criminals. Since, again, there will be no 100% in this, the idea is to find a balance in restrictions that targets mostly criminals and inconveniences few victims. A large quantity of easily available guns does benefit criminals too.

Of course, crime prevention in general I like generally to focus on things that benefit everyone and isn't centred around outliers, and where allowing people guns too freely interferes with a bigger push against crime, then I am not so worried about adding a few restrictions. It's about the sum benefit. I just don't find guns beneficial automatically, just because they're there. There are sometimes better ways of dealing with crime. The benefits of personal gun ownership are often seriously overstated.
This is of course an opinion, and having an opinion does not mean I believe it should be enforced on everyone whether they agree or not. Societies where guns already play a huge role have to work with that, and find something optimal given that restriction.

[hubcap]

Sure, if it's the only means.

It isn't.
It is if your attacker has a gun.


I have no interest in denying guns to everybody, particularly those who genuinely have a need, just criminals. Since, again, there will be no 100% in this, the idea is to find a balance in restrictions that targets mostly criminals and inconveniences few victims.
In this country it is already illegal for anyone convicted of a felony to be in possession of a gun. In addition, all dealers of firearms must be federally licensed. Anyone purchasing a gun from a dealer must fill out paperwork, show proof of identification, and is subject to an instant background check to determine if they are eligible for purchasing a firearm.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Some states have stricter laws which include waiting periods and so forth.

IF strict gun laws reduced violent crime then Washington DC should have had the lowest violent crime rate in the nation. Prior to last years Supreme Court ruling it was illegal to own a handgun in Washington DC. The ban was passed in 1976. In the years between 1976 and 2008 there were 8400 murders in Washington DC.

Many statistics have been compiled that point to the conclusion that states and municipalities with the strictest gun control laws have the most crime.

I too am in favor of reducing crime. However, gun control is a method that is not effective. Most crime in this country is perpetrated by repeat offenders. If we incarcerated the offenders and kept them incarcerated they wouldn't be able to commit more crimes, which seems like a much more pragmatic solution.

[LordCorbin]

I am a supporter of conscientious and responsible regulation of firearms.
I didnt notice/read any arguments to the contrary by those in favor of personal firearm ownership(at least not in this thread). The world is a dangerous place, and I employ situational awareness and conflict avoidance first and foremost, but sometimes that simply isnt enough. If you(general you here, not anyone specifically) dont feel the need to protect yourself(with a gun) then by all means carry on, but knowing I am in the minority(of people who are attacked) wont make me feel any better after being the victim of a violent crime(and I wont feel anything at all if being a victim of violent crime leaves me dead). So, from where I stand, carrying a firearm, concealed or otherwise, seems like a sensible precaution.
Ideally we would live in a world where no one carried firearms, but that includes law enforcement personnel and the military (because if private citizens cant be trusted to carry firearms, then agents of the state cant be trusted either).

[TechTact0h]

Since this thread is winding down to its end, I wish to contribute my own opinions.

Of what I gather, Prune is the strongest anti-gun advocate here, and with good reasoning. Controlling and limiting the source of the problem should be effective in preventing it, thus not needing to even consider the idea of owning a firearm for personal defense, not to mention many other preventive techniques that do not require a firearm. Although there are a few things that would make this option unfeasible in the US (mostly due to the fact that we already have more than enough guns for everybody, EVER, and the backlash those laws would create would allow illegal purchasing to remain as easily available choice, if not easier.), the chance that it would work still stands. Sadly, we are not ready for it. A little more brainwashing might do the trick.

As a Texan, however, I may be biased on this issue. Heck, I am strongly against the current prison system where repeat offenders get off with a slap on the wrist. Not only that, but the costs and efficiency wasted in the legal system could be put to use somewhere else. I still think the state should use its death penalty liberally, though.

[blueback]

I think that responsible gun regulation is a much more limited term than it is generally assumed to be. The idea that if someone has a gun they are suddenly going to start shooting people is absurd. The vast majority of US citizens avoid violence and are unlikely to throw a punch at someone else, let alone shoot a gun at someone else. Hell, the vast majority of people in the US would be too lazy to carry a gun at all times even if they were issued a gun and holster at birth.

There is a very small minority in the US that commits violent crimes. Golly gee it would sure be swell if we could ensure that none of them could get a hold of guns. However, since they obviously don't care about breaking rules as important, and carrying as much punishment, as robbery, assault and murder. . .they obviously are not going to care about breaking rules that say they can't have certain things. If no one is allowed to have guns, then the only people with guns will be those who break the law. By definition, law breakers are those who do what they want no matter what the law says. You can't regulate their behavior with more laws.

What you can regulate their behavior with is consequences. They still respond to punishment, just like everyone else. There is plenty of evidence available to support the fact that if potential victims are armed, or could be armed, criminals are less likely to target them. No one wants to get shot. Even the criminals would prefer to avoid that.

So, responsible regulation should merely extend to obvious laws like stopping felons and the mentally deranged from owning guns. Probably children below a certain age, too.

[Prunesquallor]

It is if your attacker has a gun.

No, it isn't. Guns don't immediately make the other person helpless.
Of course, with some controls, the attacker might not have a gun.

In this country it is already illegal for anyone convicted of a felony to be in possession of a gun. In addition, all dealers of firearms must be federally licensed. Anyone purchasing a gun from a dealer must fill out paperwork, show proof of identification, and is subject to an instant background check to determine if they are eligible for purchasing a firearm.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Some states have stricter laws which include waiting periods and so forth.

IF strict gun laws reduced violent crime then Washington DC should have had the lowest violent crime rate in the nation. Prior to last years Supreme Court ruling it was illegal to own a handgun in Washington DC. The ban was passed in 1976. In the years between 1976 and 2008 there were 8400 murders in Washington DC.

Many statistics have been compiled that point to the conclusion that states and municipalities with the strictest gun control laws have the most crime.

I too am in favor of reducing crime. However, gun control is a method that is not effective. Most crime in this country is perpetrated by repeat offenders. If we incarcerated the offenders and kept them incarcerated they wouldn't be able to commit more crimes, which seems like a much more pragmatic solution.

Correlation is not causation. And gun control in places that have lots of guns, and where people are very fond of them for ideological reasons they cannot divorce from more practical discussion, such can be difficult, even more problematic than letting it alone - at least initially and with such special interest groups arrayed against these laws, even long-term.

I am aware there are already laws. This I like, usually. Some of them are more useful than others. Some of them are only useful in certain situations. Some are highly ineffective when there is a vast quantity of guns already available. Gun control is also fairly useless for crime in general, there has to be a far wider view of crime prevention than just guns, as I have said. I've never argued that every gun law ever implemented is good. And those implemented in the U.S. have so much to work against, that there are far more difficulties than there might be in other countries. Many of them, due to the population, are simply ineffective - this does not, however, necessarily generalise to places without the same loving relationship to this particular kind of weaponry.

In general social programs tend to be the most effective against crime, though it doesn't have the satisfying 'punishment' aspect people like so terribly much. There are a lot of statistics that show prolonged incarceration has huuuuuge issues, but I'm too busy to dig them up and it's a whole other topic anyway. Countries with such extreme gaps between the rich and the poor are logically likely to have more of certain types of crime, too. It's a much bigger issue than guns - although some self-protection may be a useful supplement, it's a very minor issue in something so complicated. Crime prevention really ought to focus on the more important things.

The conclusions are not so different, though the reasons are - it's just that I consider more American solutions as making the best of a difficult situation, rather than optimal. The optimal situation would only be able to be implemented in countries that are not facing the same difficulties.

[combustor]

From both sides of the argument I get the sense that people feel like if there were no guns and even violent criminals couldn't get guns, we'd have nothing but a peaceful eutopia.
It is a false and myopic assumption. Plenty of violent crimes are committed with no weapon at all, or with common and unregulated objects. The notion that you are on near equal terms with a potential assailant if you are both unarmed is false. I'm a guy of average build, with more training than most. Against a big, powerful and determined guy with no other advantage my chances aren't good if I can't take him out quickly or get away. Against the average assailant otherwise I might be OK. Fortunately for me at this point in my life I'm an unattractive target for a creton. Women, elderly, disabled, etc. ARE attractive targets and are the least capable of resisting. I don't care what some martial arts instructor has told you, women, a determined young male attacker isn't likely to lose that fight if you are unarmed. Retreat may not be available, or could put you in more danger than fighting. I find it ironic that the most effective tool to level the odds is often feared the most by those it could help.

[Prunesquallor]

From both sides of the argument I get the sense that people feel like if there were no guns and even violent criminals couldn't get guns, we'd have nothing but a peaceful eutopia.
It is a false and myopic assumption. Plenty of violent crimes are committed with no weapon at all, or with common and unregulated objects. The notion that you are on near equal terms with a potential assailant if you are both unarmed is false. I'm a guy of average build, with more training than most. Against a big, powerful and determined guy with no other advantage my chances aren't good if I can't take him out quickly or get away. Against the average assailant otherwise I might be OK. Fortunately for me at this point in my life I'm an unattractive target for a creton. Women, elderly, disabled, etc. ARE attractive targets and are the least capable of resisting. I don't care what some martial arts instructor has told you, women, a determined young male attacker isn't likely to lose that fight if you are unarmed. Retreat may not be available, or could put you in more danger than fighting. I find it ironic that the most effective tool to level the odds is often feared the most by those it could help.

Utopia is silly.
It's easier to fight off someone with a knife than someone with a gun, and even easier to fight off someone unarmed. Doesn't mean it's easy, but one barrier is removed. And it's not like there's nothing but guns as self-defense.
And there are plenty of things unrelated whatsoever to guns that do a lot more to help people than passing out weaponry.

Can we quit grouping women with the disabled and incapable? Seriously.

[Warrior]

Utopia is silly.
It's easier to fight off someone with a knife than someone with a gun, and even easier to fight off someone unarmed. Doesn't mean it's easy, but one barrier is removed. And it's not like there's nothing but guns as self-defense.


That statement is very misleading. I'm very well trained and in any kind of close quarter situation, I would rather face someone with a gun than someone with a knife. Many things have to happen right to get shot. One small accident with a knife from someone who has no intention of really using it will kill you. At close range, a knife is much more lethel. An untrained, knife weilding attacker can cover 21 feet and deliver a lethal stab before a trained gunman can pull, aim, and fire his weapon.

[yoginimama]

That statement is very misleading. I'm very well trained and in any kind of close quarter situation, I would rather face someone with a gun than someone with a knife. Many things have to happen right to get shot. One small accident with a knife from someone who has no intention of really using it will kill you. At close range, a knife is much more lethel. An untrained, knife weilding attacker can cover 21 feet and deliver a lethal stab before a trained gunman can pull, aim, and fire his weapon.

You know, it is true that the 14-year-old Cheryl Crane fatally stabbed the big, bad, violent, grown-up gangster Johnny Stompanato without a whole lot of effort--without, in fact, even having intended to stab him at all (if I remember correctly), let alone kill him. He never saw it coming.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Let's go over this again:

"At close range, a knife is much more lethal. An untrained, knife-wielding attacker can cover 21 feet and deliver a lethal stab before a trained gunman can pull, aim and fire his weapon."

So it's agreed then--your 88-year-old grandma, disabled best bud, and friendly neighborhood woman should be carrying a knife for self-defense, because they can deploy it much faster and less-obviously than a firearm and they have a reasonably decent chance of laying their attacker out even if (like poor Cheryl Crane was) they're out of their minds with terror.

Glad we got that cleared up :)

#

Personally, my feeling is--get a rottweiler, if you feel you need something.

[Warrior]

You know, it is true that the 14-year-old Cheryl Crane fatally stabbed the big, bad, violent, grown-up gangster Johnny Stompanato without a whole lot of effort--without, in fact, even having intended to stab him at all (if I remember correctly), let alone kill him. He never saw it coming.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Let's go over this again:

"At close range, a knife is much more lethal. An untrained, knife-wielding attacker can cover 21 feet and deliver a lethal stab before a trained gunman can pull, aim and fire his weapon."

So it's agreed then--your 88-year-old grandma, disabled best bud, and friendly neighborhood woman should be carrying a knife for self-defense, because they can deploy it much faster and less-obviously than a firearm and they have a reasonably decent chance of laying their attacker out even if they're out of their minds with terror.

Glad we got that cleared up :)

Clearly not, but neither should she be carrying a gun in that situation either. My point is simply not to get to carried away with the weapon ranking scale. Many things come into play. That was what I was getting to many posts ago when I said guns shouldn't be treated special. The lethality of a weapon in any situation is hard to judge and it is incorrect to simply rank weapons and draw a line above which we regulate more harshly.

Having said that, you can bet your bottom dollar that I will think twice before I rush grandma if she is waving a knife around like a wild woman. I would not think twice if she were waving a gun around in the same manner.

[combustor]

That statement is very misleading. I'm very well trained and in any kind of close quarter situation, I would rather face someone with a gun than someone with a knife. Many things have to happen right to get shot. One small accident with a knife from someone who has no intention of really using it will kill you. At close range, a knife is much more lethel. An untrained, knife weilding attacker can cover 21 feet and deliver a lethal stab before a trained gunman can pull, aim, and fire his weapon.

Man, you beat me to it! As someone with this type of training also, I can tell you first hand that facing an attacker with a knife is scary as hell, especially if they know what they're doing. Most people have no idea unless they've actually done it. In the movies the bad guy with the knife always gets it kicked out of his hand or grabbed by the good guy, it's not reality.
I didn't mean to imply that women are helpless, far from it. In general women can be viscious fighters, and have less problem than men throwing away the notion of a "fair fight" which is essential. Women are at a size and strength disadvantage though, and in today's politically correct society it isn't emphasized how much of a shortcoming this is in a life and death struggle with another unarmed human.

[yoginimama]

...you can bet your bottom dollar that I will think twice before I rush grandma if she is waving a knife around like a wild woman. I would not think twice if she were waving a gun around in the same manner.

As someone with this type of training also, I can tell you first hand that facing an attacker with a knife is scary as hell, especially if they know what they're doing....

This is exactly what I was trying to get at--clumsily--up-thread when I expressed doubts as to how effective a firearm really is for self-defense. But here we have it: folks who claim to be trained and experienced fighters saying that, really, a potential victim brandishing a gun is not that off-putting: "I would not think twice [about rushing grandma] if she were waving a gun around."

One final note:

In general women can be viscious fighters, and have less problem than men throwing away the notion of a "fair fight" which is essential.

Well, any guy who grabs, shoves or hits a woman has himself already thrown away the notion of a "fair fight," so the woman's not going to be too scrupulous about how she fights back (if she chooses to do so) :)

[combustor]

This is exactly what I was trying to get at--clumsily--up-thread when I expressed doubts as to how effective a firearm really is for self-defense. But here we have it: folks who claim to be trained and experienced fighters saying that, really, a potential victim brandishing a gun is not that off-putting: "I would not think twice [about rushing grandma] if she were waving a gun around."

Don't misunderstand, a gun is the most effective physical tool available as a fight stopper. To say you doubt its effectiveness for self-defense or "brandishing a gun is not that off-putting" is nuts. One of the most common defensive shootings involves the criminal trying to "rush" the victim after refusing immediate compliance. Everything has a counter, and if you try to 'rush someone with your ninja skills' who regularly drills you will get shot. I would say that brandishing itself is foolish however; using sensible tactics by the time a gun is revealed to the wanna-be scum he will have taken 2 or 3 to the chest, unless it is feasable without endangering yourself to demand compliance first.

[zibber]

Zipper, do you think Shooting should continue to be an official Olympic sport? I am quite certain that the participating athletes thoroughly enjoy shooting.


Come on. Zipper?

This is what happens when the arguments run out?

Does it also scare you that some people actually really enjoy driving? Far more people are killed by automobiles than by firearms.

Cars aren't made for killing.

(Nice try. Some day.)

And fuck personal cars, anyway. What hubris. Maybe during one of their leisurely drives, the users can think for two seconds about how much I enjoy inhaling exhaust fumes and how wonderful I find it that my atmosphere is slowly turning to shit.

(You brought it up, friend.)

[hubcap]

Don't misunderstand, a gun is the most effective physical tool available as a fight stopper. To say you doubt its effectiveness for self-defense or "brandishing a gun is not that off-putting" is nuts. One of the most common defensive shootings involves the criminal trying to "rush" the victim after refusing immediate compliance. Everything has a counter, and if you try to 'rush someone with your ninja skills' who regularly drills you will get shot. I would say that brandishing itself is foolish however; using sensible tactics by the time a gun is revealed to the wanna-be scum he will have taken 2 or 3 to the chest, unless it is feasable without endangering yourself to demand compliance first.

I believe that there should be some clarification here. If faced with a choice between:

A) A gun weilding assailant at 20 feet
or
B) A knife weilding assailant at 20 feet

I'm going to choose "B" every time. The assailant with the gun can kill you without ever moving in about .5 seconds. The assailant holding the knife is going to require at least 2.0 seconds to cover the distance, which gives you significantly more time to respond. You can begin retreating while drawing your gun from its holster to give you more time so probably end up with 3 seconds or a little more to respond with force.

When you are attacked with a knife you die by "bleeding out". Which takes a relatively long time. If you were cut in the femoral artery it would probably take 5 minutes. This is one of the reasons that victims of stabbings are typically stabbed many times, because they are resisting their attacker for at least several minutes while the attack continues.

If you are attacked with a gun by being shot you could be instantly incapacitated if you take a hit to the "central nervous system", which could be either the brain or the spine.

If someone is pointing a gun at you it would be in your best interest to treat it as seriously as cancer, because they can kill you in an instant by simply moving one finger.

As always the best plan is conflict avoidance at all costs, but given the choice I'd choose the knife weilding attacker any day over the gunman.





hubcap added to this post, 3 minutes and 10 seconds later...

Come on. Zipper?

This is what happens when the arguments run out?



Cars aren't made for killing.

(Nice try. Some day.)

And fuck personal cars, anyway. What hubris. Maybe during one of their leisurely drives, the users can think for two seconds about how much I enjoy inhaling exhaust fumes and how wonderful I find it that my atmosphere is slowly turning to shit.

(You brought it up, friend.)

This perfectly demonstrates that you believe guns are just made for killing. Nothing could be further from the truth.

[Corbu]

Don't misunderstand, a gun is the most effective physical tool available as a fight stopper. To say you doubt its effectiveness for self-defense or "brandishing a gun is not that off-putting" is nuts. One of the most common defensive shootings involves the criminal trying to "rush" the victim after refusing immediate compliance. Everything has a counter, and if you try to 'rush someone with your ninja skills' who regularly drills you will get shot. I would say that brandishing itself is foolish however; using sensible tactics by the time a gun is revealed to the wanna-be scum he will have taken 2 or 3 to the chest, unless it is feasable without endangering yourself to demand compliance first.

We have a winner! Text book tactics application. To touch briefly on what LordCorbin mentioned earlier situational awareness is critical. Can't say for anyone else but if you are inside the engagement zone (we'll use 21 feet since it was mentioned) you have already been visually evaluated using a variety of risk management criteria.

The whole knife vs gun thing is an interesting topic, and will concur that it is feasible. Generally speaking any person with a knife who engages someone armed with a firearm is either highly skilled or completely desperate. If the person is highly skilled they probably don't need the knife. The desperate will have a tremendous advantage of being underestimated most likely. Through history more battles and engagements have been lost due to underestimating the opponents capabilities. An interesting training exercise is knife vs gun and have seen it, even more interesting was two knife wielders vs gun. Let me just say one on one seemed a fair fight, two on one the gun won every time.

Some points to consider with knives; is that against a singular attacker I would still prefer a handgun, the knife blade needs to be a certain length for maximum effectiveness (think military knives lengths +6inch blades) and well constructed. Most pocket knives would snap at their bolsters or not penetrate deep enough. Barring few places on human anatomy where an instant kill can occur, knife wounds tend to take time for a person to bleed out, of course this can vary from seconds to minutes. A hit from a firearm will knock most people to the ground depending on caliber, effectively reducing the attackers capabilities. As a defensive weapon against more than one attacker, melee weapons have a disadvantage, they need space to be able to used/swung etc.

[JustMel]

Guns and I have a long history. My family has a long history with guns. When each of us kids turned 6/7 granddad took us out to the woods with him. He would shoot a dear, rabbit, squirrel, etc and then take us up to the corpse and say "don't touch a gun unless you intend to use it, always assume it's loaded and understand that this is the outcome of firing that gun at someone/something" while making us look at the mess. Powerful lesson for most of us.

My mother shot and killed my stepfather after he nearly beat us both to death. It happened in my bedroom and since it was a .45 at less than 6 ft range it was messy to say the least.

I never pick up a gun unless I intend to use it. I always assume it's loaded. I treat them with the same respect I would a pissed off rattle snake or copperhead.

If someone intends to hurt someone they don't need a gun to do it. You can literally beat someone to death with your bare hands. If they outlawed guns it wouldn't stop gun violence. It would just mean criminals would be better armed than civilians. If they outlaw guns they need to outlaw iron skillets, baseball bats, knives, lead pipes, etc too. The baseball bat doesn't kill a person, it's an instrument used by another person to kill someone. A gun doesn't kill anyone, the person pulling the trigger does.

We don't have guns in my house because everyone agrees that if I were angry enough to pick one up I'd use it and none of us want that.

[Warrior]

I believe that there should be some clarification here. If faced with a choice between:

A) A gun weilding assailant at 20 feet
or
B) A knife weilding assailant at 20 feet


I'm going to choose "B" every time. The assailant with the gun can kill you without ever moving in about .5 seconds. The assailant holding the knife is going to require at least 2.0 seconds to cover the distance, which gives you significantly more time to respond. You can begin retreating while drawing your gun from its holster to give you more time so probably end up with 3 seconds or a little more to respond with force.

All other things being equal, yes I would prefer my attacker to have a knofe if he were 20 feet away, but don't underestimate how quickly the distance can be covered.

When you are attacked with a knife you die by "bleeding out". Which takes a relatively long time. If you were cut in the femoral artery it would probably take 5 minutes. This is one of the reasons that victims of stabbings are typically stabbed many times, because they are resisting their attacker for at least several minutes while the attack continues.

I don't know about five minutes, but your point is correct. You may not even realize you have been stabbed until you have been hit a few times. The knock down power of a firearm is a definite advantage they have.

If you are attacked with a gun by being shot you could be instantly incapacitated if you take a hit to the "central nervous system", which could be either the brain or the spine.

If someone is pointing a gun at you it would be in your best interest to treat it as seriously as cancer, because they can kill you in an instant by simply moving one finger.

No doubt. I bever meant to say it should be taken lightly, but the best place to be if you have to defend against a firearm is up close and personal. Against a knife, distance is your friend.

As always the best plan is conflict avoidance at all costs, but given the choice I'd choose the knife weilding attacker any day over the gunman.

I wouldn't claim this. Both are serious situations and many factors are involved. If we are in an elevator, I'd prefer to be up against the gun. If we are in an open field, I'd prefer my attacker have a knife.

Anyway, I think my comments probably got the whole thread off track. My only point is that it isn't possible to list all weapons by order of deadliness and then apply some restrictions based on that list.

[polaroid]

I don't know a lot about gun control issues.

All I know is that something is seriously wrong when someone like me can legally own a firearm.

[yoginimama]

If we are in an elevator, I'd prefer to be up against the gun. If we are in an open field, I'd prefer my attacker have a knife.

I think it's reasonable to assume that most muggings, rapes, batteries etc involve close quarters--an assailant tracking a victim into an isolated and dead-end type of setting like a stairwell, a hallway, the aforementioned elevator, and then moving in rapidly to overwhelm, possibly from behind or the side.

It therefore sounds to me like a knife would be a more effective item to be carrying in terms of self-defense...if a person wants to carry a weapon at all.

I don't see why raising that point would derail the thread. I think it's central to the issue of the thread. I could be wrong.

[eagleseven]

I think it's reasonable to assume that most muggings, rapes, batteries etc involve close quarters--an assailant tracking a victim into an isolated and dead-end type of setting like a stairwell, a hallway, the aforementioned elevator, and then moving in rapidly to overwhelm, possibly from behind or the side.

It therefore sounds to me like a knife would be a more effective item to be carrying in terms of self-defense...if a person wants to carry a weapon at all.

I don't see why raising that point would derail the thread. I think it's central to the issue of the thread. I could be wrong.

With one critical assumption: that there is a single mugger.

As soon as you introduce another mugger (as criminals often work in groups), you'll want the gun over the knife. While your knife is lodged in one perp's stomach, the other perp is free to butcher you. With a gun, you can rapidly shift focus from one target to the other, without leaving yourself open to lethal counter-attack.

This is why most of the CCW license-holders I know carry both a pistol and a knife.
The more options you have, the more likely you are to survive an emergency situation.

[hubcap]

It therefore sounds to me like a knife would be a more effective item to be carrying in terms of self-defense...if a person wants to carry a weapon at all.

The problem with using a knife for self-defense is that you have to be within arms reach to use it effectively. If you can reach your attacker then your attacker can reach you. The other problem is the fact that it is not likely that you will immediately incapacitate your attacker with the use of a knife.

If I were uncomfortable with the use of lethal force (gun) I would buy the best pepper spray or mace that I could get my hands on. Pepper spray will incapacitate your attacker quickly and can be used at much longer range than a knife.

[Evangelist]

I don't own a gun, but push me in a corner and I am coming out with razorblades and lemonjuice. If that don't work, hot grits, oatmeal and boiled sugarwater.

[Profit]

Well, at least this didn't happen at a soccer game.....

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Corbu]

Well, at least this didn't happen at a soccer game.....

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Sorry not seeing relevancy, this didn't happen at a soccer game either
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Riverratt]

I carry a sidearm with me practically ALL the time, I am also in full compliance with Virginia Law. This includes shopping trips, work, eating out, evenings out with the family, even our recent South Carolina Beach Vacation..


In Virginia there are only a few places where it is illegal for me to carry my sidearm, I don't ask any business for permission...If they did not want me their, they would comply with Virginia law, and post a no guns sign, but those are rarer than hen's teeth.. So they don't ask, and I don't ask permission and I don't tell.... Worst they could do is ask me to leave, and take my money with me.


But since it concealed NO ONE EVER KNOWS.......


When I married my wife, I took a solemn vow to protect her, and our children. This I fully intend to do, my sidearm is the best means of these defense.


I will be leaving the house soon, to go out for a bit....This photo shows what I will be carrying with me, and even shows what pocket or side the items will be in


On the right, is my Glock 36 in .45 ACP Caliber. Along with my wallet, and under the muzzle of my sidearm, is my Virginia Concealed Handgun License. Which is good in sevral other US States, Like NC, WV, TN, KY, SC, FL, OH, NM, just to name a few...


In my left, is my cell phone, and two extra magazines for the Glock.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

My families life is worth defending...... A firearm IS, the best means of this.

[Holiman]

Gun's are great protection. This seem's like a valid argument and is used alot but is it true ?

WINTER SPRINGS, Fla. - A man who thought there was an intruder in his house shot and killed his fiancee the day before they were to be married, police said Friday.

"Right now everything points to a tragic accident," Police Chief Kevin Brunelle told The Associated Press, adding investigators were awaiting forensic results.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

In 1999 there were 1776 gun deaths in the 0 through 17 age group and 3385 gun deaths in the 0 through 19 age group. By subtraction we find that there were a whopping 1609 gun deaths in just the 18 through 19 age group.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Finally, after extensively studying the number of accidental shootings, there is no evidence that increasing the number of concealed handguns increases accidental shootings. We know that the type of person who obtains a permit is extremely law-abiding and possibly they are extremely careful in how they take care of their guns. The total number of accidental gun deaths each year is about 1,300 and each year such accidents take the lives of 200 children 14 years of age and under. However, these regrettable numbers of lives lost need to be put into some perspective with the other risks children face. Despite over 200 million guns owned by between 76 to 85 million people, the children killed is much smaller than the number lost through bicycle accidents, drowning, and fires. Children are 14.5 times more likely to die from car accidents than from accidents involving guns.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Now I am entirely acceptable with the concept of gun ownership but the protection is only half the story the biggest issue is people by and large are stupid and giving a moron a gun is dangerouse. I would aggresively defend our right to bare arms, however I would sincerely suggest stronger education and training with penalties for stupid behavior.

[JustMel]

If you're in a situation where you need two extra magazines for that gun, you're in bigger trouble than just defending your family.

I agree with everything else you said and even have a concealed permit of my own but I don't carry extra magazines unless going out of town. If you need that much fire power you should travel with a pack.

[Riverratt]

That gun, only holds 6 rounds.. Even with the extra magazines, it only has as much firepower as a full sized 9mm glock, or a Beretta 9mm with an extended mag.

It is only a single stacked magazine, it is a small gun that fires a BIG Bullet. It is a sub compact that fires the .45 ACP round.

The small size makes it easy to carry, EVERYDAY...But small guns tend to be small calibers, so the tradeoff for a "full powered" round is, less of them in the magazine.

And I was a Boy Scout, Always Prepared.

[eagleseven]

Now I am entirely acceptable with the concept of gun ownership but the protection is only half the story the biggest issue is people by and large are stupid and giving a moron a gun is dangerouse. I would aggresively defend our right to bare arms, however I would sincerely suggest stronger education and training with penalties for stupid behavior.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This is how the government protects you from yourself. Why should everyone be forced to live this way?

There already is a penalty for stupid behavior. They're called Darwin Awards.





eagleseven added to this post, 9 minutes and 2 seconds later...

That gun, only holds 6 rounds.. Even with the extra magazines, it only has as much firepower as a full sized 9mm glock, or a Beretta 9mm with an extended mag.

It is only a single stacked magazine, it is a small gun that fires a BIG Bullet. It is a sub compact that fires the .45 ACP round.

The small size makes it easy to carry, EVERYDAY...But small guns tend to be small calibers, so the tradeoff for a "full powered" round is, less of them in the magazine.

And I was a Boy Scout, Always Prepared.

Sub-compact that fires .45 ACP? Poppycock!

No self-respecting sub-compact can handle that caliber. Enjoy the beauty of a true sub-compact, the P3AT .380 ACP hydra-shok JHP.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Because the best gun is the one you'll actually carry. Yes, the .380 ACP is weak, and the 7-round capacity is small, but it sure beats fisticuffs. Not to mention that effective shot placement makes up for what the .380 ACP lacks in power.

[Corbu]

If you're in a situation where you need two extra magazines for that gun, you're in bigger trouble than just defending your family.

I agree with everything else you said and even have a concealed permit of my own but I don't carry extra magazines unless going out of town. If you need that much fire power you should travel with a pack.

Two extra magazines tends to be the norm for people who daily carry. Most law enforcement officers I know carry between two and four extra magazines for their primary firearm on duty and generally speaking two magazines off duty. While I respect your decision to not carry additional magazines that is your choice, Riverratt chooses to carry more. Pistols tend to be defensive weapons. Without ammo they are just a hunks of metal. There is an old saying that I read somewhere: "No one ever complains when they bring too much ammo when the need to use their gun"

Riverratt: you really need a good flashlight.

Holiman: No such thing as an "accidental shootings" please reference earlier posts. While the first link you posted the information is current news the other two utilize out dated data (also discussed earlier). I agree with your statement about training :).

[JustMel]

Two extra magazines tends to be the norm for people who daily carry. Most law enforcement officers I know carry between two and four extra magazines for their primary firearm on duty and generally speaking two magazines off duty. While I respect your decision to not carry additional magazines that is your choice, Riverratt chooses to carry more. Pistols tend to be defensive weapons. Without ammo they are just a hunks of metal. There is an old saying that I read somewhere: "No one ever complains when they bring too much ammo when the need to use their gun"

I don't know any private citizens that carry add'l magazines unless they're going out of town or camping. The cops I know do carry add'l but they're cops and it's expected.

I live just outside of Memphis with a crime rate of 18% and last I checked had the highest number of murders in the country, although LA or Atlanta may have passed us now, and if you need more than what's in your gun you're usually dead anyway. It's a personal choice and whatever you're comfortable with but for me unless I'm headed to a really bad part of town it's not something I consider.

[KalaKesar]

I feel quite secure living in the woods where the men - and most of the women - have firearms. I prefer it this way. The alternative example is Africa, where in many countries weapons are banned and therefore only the bad guys are armed.
Learn what happens to an unarmed populace. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

[admittedheretic]

I'm no stranger to guns. I've shot the AR15,M16,AK47 and all sorts of hunting rifles/shotguns and pistols. I just don't feel I ever put myself in any situation where I would need a concealed pistol and I've been in some shady situations. If I had the pistol I would be much more worried about someone finding it on me and using it against me. And I would even be more concerned that I would do something foolish with it more so than I would be concerned I would NEED it.

I think the majority of people who carry such small pistols would be just as well off with a taser gun unless one has to reason to believe they will be dealing with someone who is likely to pull a gun on them. In which case, I would pack more than a pistol or plan on accurate shots to the immediate head or just run for the hills.

[Paul Siraisi]

The video is about carrying a fire arm, OK? It's hilarious.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[porousshield]

KalaKesar, in the example you gave I don't think that even if the populace had guns they wouldn't be able to do much against armed soldiers.

I'd be more worried about a knife being pulled on me than a gun. The guy with the knife got to get up close and personal with me to use it while I may never know what hit me with the gun. You'd need to do some serious damage with a knife, major artery or stabbed in the head, to drop a person quickly. Even then you could survive it. I'm reminded of the guy with the steak knife lodged in his head that sruvived.

I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea of everyone walking around with concealed weapons.

[eagleseven]

Civilians would have a hard time fighting a professional army with just assault rifles...we'd need something with a bit more spunk...

...like this...
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

...or this...
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

...or maybe even this...
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[hubcap]

KalaKesar, in the example you gave I don't think that even if the populace had guns they wouldn't be able to do much against armed soldiers.

Guerilla soldiers typically do surprisingly well against soldiers. For an interesting perspective on this you might be interested in reading about the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising against the Nazi's during WWII. The armed civilians did quite well against armed soldiers in that case.

Ultimately an army can overcome an armed civilian population if they are willing to use a scorched earth policy and destroy everything and everyone. The question is whether they have the will to do so.

But, I'm not sure what this actually has to do with licensed civilians carrying concealed weapons in a civilized nation that is not at war with its civilians.

[porousshield]

The many guerilla loses against militaries tend to get glossed over in the history books. Yes, they can do well but I'd love to see the score sheet for losses/victories (figuring out what constituted a victory or a loss could be bookish in length).

[combustor]

Guerilla soldiers typically do surprisingly well against soldiers. For an interesting perspective on this you might be interested in reading about the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising against the Nazi's during WWII. The armed civilians did quite well against armed soldiers in that case.

Ultimately an army can overcome an armed civilian population if they are willing to use a scorched earth policy and destroy everything and everyone. The question is whether they have the will to do so.

But, I'm not sure what this actually has to do with licensed civilians carrying concealed weapons in a civilized nation that is not at war with its civilians.

Not only that, but with a volunteer military, many American soldiers are freedom conscious, and would defend the constitution if some power grabbing politicians set out to brutally oppress the citizens. Similar to the Honduran situation happening now.

[hubcap]

The many guerilla loses against militaries tend to get glossed over in the history books. Yes, they can do well but I'd love to see the score sheet for losses/victories (figuring out what constituted a victory or a loss could be bookish in length).

Guerillas cannot fight conventional warfare with any success against a military. The way guerillas win is by continuing to fight over a long period of time and wearing down the will of the politicians to continue to wage war.

[porousshield]

Guerillas cannot fight conventional warfare with any success against a military. The way guerillas win is by continuing to fight over a long period of time and wearing down the will of the politicians to continue to wage war.

Still a lot of guerilla movements are utterly crushed by the military. People seem to like the idea of the under dog winning so in movies and books the rebels seem to win more often than not.

[Ytterbium]

I don't see a reason at all to carry weapons. I've been carrying around weapons when I was in the air force. I just saw them as useless lump of metal that always were in my way. I've been shooting with pistols, rifles, machine guns and thrown handgrandes. It goes boom, ratatata etc. And I never understood why that would be interesting.
It's more likely I get struck by lighting than needing to use a gun whilst I'm 'out'. But that doesn't mean I carry around a lightning rod connected to ground.

[KeithIndy]

I don't know a lot about gun control issues.

All I know is that something is seriously wrong when someone like me can legally own a firearm.

Why, have you killed anyone with the many other tools available around you?

Knife, club, hammer, your two hands. Have you driving a car into a crowd.

[Ytterbium]

Why, have you killed anyone with the many other tools available around you?

Knife, club, hammer, your two hands. Have you driving a car into a crowd.
Why would you need a gun then if you can kill people with a floppy disk? Seems like a waste carrying a gun when I can strangle the enemy with my bare hands. :p

[hubcap]

Seems like a waste carrying a gun when I can strangle the enemy with my bare hands. :p

You might find it difficult to strangle your enemy if he was armed with a gun.

[Ytterbium]

You might find it difficult to strangle your enemy if he was armed with a gun.
Not if he can't grab it first. My point was however as you said. A gun is more dangerous than bare hands and thus should be treated as such.

[Zelder]

I don't think anyone should need a permit to carry. If I decided to carry I would just do it. There have been a few occasions when I have but I almost never do it because I don't feel the need.

[Hatsumomo1]

I would like to get a CCL, but I'm not sure if they're legal or not in Philly. I've heard they are and I heard they aren't. Plus, I can't exactly afford a gun right now, but I'd like to get one when I can afford one. Since living here, I think I'd feel a little more safe if I could carry, or at least keep one at home. A few days ago someone was shot in the neighborhood not too far away from mine, and I live in one of the nicer neighborhoods here.

[Zelder]

I would like to get a CCL, but I'm not sure if they're legal or not in Philly. I've heard they are and I heard they aren't. Plus, I can't exactly afford a gun right now, but I'd like to get one when I can afford one. Since living here, I think I'd feel a little more safe if I could carry, or at least keep one at home. A few days ago someone was shot in the neighborhood not too far away from mine, and I live in one of the nicer neighborhoods here.

Go to a local gun store, they can tell you if CCL's legal and tell you how to get started.

[Riverratt]

I would like to get a CCL, but I'm not sure if they're legal or not in Philly. I've heard they are and I heard they aren't. Plus, I can't exactly afford a gun right now, but I'd like to get one when I can afford one. Since living here, I think I'd feel a little more safe if I could carry, or at least keep one at home. A few days ago someone was shot in the neighborhood not too far away from mine, and I live in one of the nicer neighborhoods here.



First of we need to talk a moment about you carrying a sidearm. You must ask yourself these very serious questions:


Are you, willing to act, without hesitation, {once you learn the laws regarding self defense.} Are you willing to take a life? Are you prepared to deal with the consequences? Not just the legal, but the emotional?


Odds are that in Pennsylvania, like the rest of the states, there is no, legal justification, for “pulling a gun” on someone, even if that person is threatening your life? Once the threshold for a justifiable, self defense has occurred, your only action is to draw your sidearm and open fire... Unless of course the “target ceases being a threat”, before you have a chance to pull the trigger, which happens more often then not.


Before you even BUY a gun, you need to already have it in your mind, that YOU, will act. People that buy gun, for protection that have not already made their minds up on what they are going to do with it, are the ones who get their own guns taken away from them, or end up shot themselves, while they are pondering those above questions DURING the attack. When in a lethal self defense situation, you will not have time to ask yourself these questions.


To pull a gun, without the intent of justifiable self defense, is illegal, and is called “brandishing”.


In the eyes of the law, either you DO, have a reason to shoot, or you don't.


You must learn what constitutes a “lethal” threat . For example, I, am a 6 foot man, 250+ pounds..


Another man running up to me with his fists, is NOT a lethal threat, that same man with a stick, or a rock IS....


But to a 5.5 foot 100 pound woman, that same man with his fists, IS, a lethal threat in the state of Virginia.


You must be willing to learn the “in's and out's” of self defense law, this means, lots of research, and speaking with a lawyer.


You must be willing to practice...


Also, how is your temperament? Are you constantly “cool” in stressful situations? When you are wearing a gun, you MUST allow the “common assholes” that you run into in life the ability, to think that they “won”....You must be meek toward pushy people, who get angry for little reason....



Because, if you get into an argument, it escalates and something happens, even if you a legally justified in using that sidearm, the focus will be on YOU, and your gun.... It will be about how you “lured” the idiot into escalation, …..just so you could shoot him....


When I was younger I used to be hyper-defensive, and would stand up to anyone, anytime, not now...the realities of carrying a sidearm has “tamed the beast” that I once was.


I am not trying to talk you out of getting your CCW permit, I just want you to realize what your getting yourself into... If your not willing to take a life, to save yours, or a loved ones, get a can of pepper spray, and hope it works.




Pennsylvania has full preemption of all gun control laws, Philadelphia might WANT stricter gun laws, but the state, has stated, and passed a law, telling them, NO, the mayor needs to get over it..


Here is a quick reference to CCW laws in Pennsylvania..Including Self Defence law.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I use this site all the time, when I travel, to brush up on other states laws, your PA permit, is good in many other states, like VA....

[Warrior]

First of we need to talk a moment about you carrying a sidearm. You must ask yourself these very serious questions:


Are you, willing to act, without hesitation, {once you learn the laws regarding self defense.} Are you willing to take a life? Are you prepared to deal with the consequences? Not just the legal, but the emotional?

I'm with you up to this point . . . .


Odds are that in Pennsylvania, like the rest of the states, there is no, legal justification, for “pulling a gun” on someone, even if that person is threatening your life? Once the threshold for a justifiable, self defense has occurred, your only action is to draw your sidearm and open fire... Unless of course the “target ceases being a threat”, before you have a chance to pull the trigger, which happens more often then not.

. . but you lost me here. You seem to contradict yourself. If someone is threatening your life, why can you not pull your gun?

[Riverratt]

It is clear... It is the law that is picky, their is an old saying.. "If you see my gun, it will be smoking" that is the way the state views it.. there is NO legal justification for pulling a gun, and NOT using it. In law, it is ALL OR NOTHING.. Your simply justified in shooting to kill, or YOUR NOT, their is no grey area...



Now, brandishing, can be JUSTIFIED, in court (this happened to me once)



Once the threat to your life “disappears” as in, when he sees you draw a gun, he does A, turn and run, B, drops the stick, rock ,or other weapon... The justification for self defense ENDS, right then...



And technically, your standing their, brandishing a gun....



Yes, you can be charged (rarely happens in LEGITIMATE cases)...Yes, odds are, the judge will toss out the charges as “justifiable”.

All I am trying to do, is let folks know, just what kind of things, someone who chooses to carry a gun, need to be aware of.

Also, realize, this is VIRGINIA law, your state's law may be different.

[Warrior]

It is clear... It is the law that is picky, their is an old saying.. "If you see my gun, it will be smoking" that is the way the state views it.. there is NO legal justification for pulling a gun, and NOT using it. In law, it is ALL OR NOTHING.. Your simply justified in shooting to kill, or YOUR NOT, their is no grey area...



Now, brandishing, can be JUSTIFIED, in court (this happened to me once)



Once the threat to your life “disappears” as in, when he sees you draw a gun, he does A, turn and run, B, drops the stick, rock ,or other weapon... The justification for self defense ENDS, right then...



And technically, your standing their, brandishing a gun....



Yes, you can be charged (rarely happens in LEGITIMATE cases)...Yes, odds are, the judge will toss out the charges as “justifiable”.

All I am trying to do, is let folks know, just what kind of things, someone who chooses to carry a gun, need to be aware of.

Also, realize, this is VIRGINIA law, your state's law may be different.

I see. You're saying it is brandishing. I can't say I'm well versed with the law in every state and you may well be correct for yours, but I don't think it could be considered brandishing here. Brandishing here is pulling your gun in the absence of some immediate threat, usually (although it doesn't have to be) with the intent of intimidating someone. If someone were threatening you, I don't think our brandishing laws would apply.

However, I agree you should know the law in any area you plan to carry a gun. The laws do differ by large degrees.

[hubcap]

In some states you can be charged with brandishing if your shirt comes up and someone sees you packing. The laws vary greatly from state to state.

[reb]

an article on andy brown was in the new issue of 'american handgunner'. here's what can happen when you have to defend yourself with a firearm....i am NOT saying 'do not do get a carry license'. i think carrying is a service to society, and preserves a certain amount of psychological and physical safety for many who are sometimes even arguing against firearms. but be aware of how your life is and could be affected...sometimes, the weapon is literally 'a pain in the ass'. certainly, the process of 'getting a license' is.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

btw, if anyone knows someone in service, it's my understanding they can read 'american handgunner' online-the impression i get from the magazine editorials is that it is free.

[astrolite]

Carrying a gun on ones self is a lot easier than trying to tackle nation-wide societal issues.

[eagleseven]

Carrying a gun on ones self is a lot easier than trying to tackle nation-wide societal issues.
And far more effective.

[Theaetetus]

And far more effective.

Way to be constructive... There are social problems which in some places may require you to carry a firearm. If you remove the problems, then no problem exists, and you're not in a dangerous situation that requires a firearm in the fire place. I don't see how ignoring the problem and dealing with the symptoms is more effective.

[astrolite]

Way to be constructive... There are social problems which in some places may require you to carry a firearm. If you remove the problems, then no problem exists, and you're not in a dangerous situation that requires a firearm in the fire place. I don't see how ignoring the problem and dealing with the symptoms is more effective.

How can an individual solve societal issues of such a grand nature? You need to adapt to your current environment, not some far-off utopia where man is not a violent beast. Obviously a world without violent crime would be great, but I don't think we'll be seeing that until evolution removes traits that have allowed us to survive adverse conditions in the past...