Your gun doesn’t make me safer

[SecularMotion]

This past summer seems to have been a pretty violent three months. Between the Sikh temple shooting, the Colorado movie theater gunfire, the Empire State Building incident and others, guns have been in the forefront of the national discussion.

Firearms are a deeply ingrained part of the American fabric. We view firearms as a God-given right and some of the strongest lobbying comes from gun groups on both sides of the issue. I personally have no problem with the owning and use of pistols, rifles, shotguns or other similar firearms. I do have opinions on fully automatic weapons, but ultimately that isn’t the point of this article.

I have to admit it pains me to hear of a massacre like the one in Colorado happening, and the first thing many like to argue is that people in the theater would have been safer if there were more liberal laws allowing licensed owners to carry their guns. In other words, if someone else in that theater had a gun many people may not have died. We will never know for sure, but statistics tell us that, other people shooting as well is probably a recipe for disaster.

I don’t know why guys in particular buy a gun and automatically think they are marksmen. Any time these topics come up, many guys start preening about what they would have done if they had been in that theater. In Ramboesque bluster they claim they could pull their gun and put the shooter down. Isn’t that the main argument you get from those in favor of “open carry” and “concelaed carry” laws? The argument is we are all safer if others have guns. Let’s explore this.

http://www.hollandsentinel.com/mobile_opinion/x264122366/Your-gun-doesn-t-make-me-safer?zc_p=0

[rrneck]

1. Your public policy doesn't make md safer. nt

[holdencaufield]

2. I'm not keen to make YOU safer ...

I'm only interested in the safety of me and mine. I'm not a sheepdog.

If you want someone to make YOU safer -- get a gun or get someone with a gun to care about you (good luck with that). Of course, if you're in trouble, you can always call 911 -- they might show up to take a report.

[Starboard Tack]

42. Appreciate your honesty. - "I'm only interested in the safety of me and mine."

Kinda sums it all up. Fortunately, most of us do not share your lack of social conscience.

[holdencaufield]

44. I have a social conscience ...

... I'm just not "Batman" (or another superhero that uses guns -- "The Shadow"?)

[Starboard Tack]

49. Really? How does your statement reflect that you have a social conscience.

"I'm only interested in the safety of me and mine."
Is there something I'm missing in that statement?

What on earth do superheroes have to do with anything, Holden? Is that the world you live in?

[holdencaufield]

50. Apparently ...

...they do in your world. If you believe "social conscience" means it's MY job to provide YOU with safety.

In our country -- we have freedoms, the freedom to go where we want, dress how we want, an do pretty much what we want. You make your choices and accept the consequences for any potential repercussions.

If you want me to be responsible for your personal safety then I can only do it by one of two methods --

-- I can be your mum, limiting your freedoms so that you can never purposely or accidentally do anything remotely dangerous, go anywhere potentially dangerous (including school, the post office, or a movie theatre), or eat/drink anything potentially harmful (Thanks, Mayor Bloomberg!)

OR

-- I can be "Batman", letting you do pretty much whatever you want and following you around 24/7 to deal with the consequences before they can harm you (just let me check my utility belt for the Bat-Cholesterol Remover)

I don't carry a firearm to make you sit in your room and be safe or to chase the bad guys away when you're stumble drunk into a biker bar screaming about how cool it was that you just micturated on seven Harleys. You're on your own there, Sparky.

My responsibility for providing physical safety pretty much ends at how I conduct my own personal affairs -- keeping my home safe and not a target for invasion, driving in a safe responsible manner, doing my utmost not to urinate on some man's hog and - finally - providing myself with a means of personal protection when and if I (and the people for whom I actually am responsible) are threatened by the unpredictable.

[Eleanors38]

79. Funny, if in extremis we are to have social consciousness...

We would be accused of being macho!

[glacierbay]

51. He is honest

and correct. A citizen who holds a CC permit is not a police officer and therefore is not responsible for the safety of the public, that's my job. A CC permit is usually obtained for the express purpose of protecting the holder of such permit.
I'm of the mind that a permittee should not intervene in a crime in progress unless there is absolutely no other option, they should just call 911 and give all the details they can if possible. If you don't have to escalate the situation, then don't.

[Starboard Tack]

59. I agree 100%

I was just confirming that citizens who carry do so for purely selfish motives and not, in any way, for the benefit of society as a whole. I understand that some members of LE support that and others don't. Personally, I cannot imagine having to do your job in that kind of environment.

[DWC]

60. Finally, we agree!

I carry a defensive firearm for purely selfish motives - I highly value and will do everything in my power to keep from losing my life.

I use my seatbelt in vehicles for purely selfish motives - I highly value and will do everything in my power to keep from losing my life.

I wear a life vest when boating for purely selfish motives - I highly value and will do everything in my power to keep from losing my life.

A law Enforcement Officer carries a gun, not to protect the citizenry, but to "selfishly" protect himself.

Semper Fi,

[Starboard Tack]

63. A law enforcement officer is there to protect everyone, including himself

If you conduct yourself purely selfishly, that's your business.
I have no idea how you equate carrying a loaded firearm around with wearing seatbelts and life vests, which to my knowledge were not designed to kill people and have never been used for that purpose.

Semper veritas

[oneshooter]

66. A law enforcement officer is not required to "protect" you or anybody else

unless you are under arrest.

As for a CHL holder acting "purely selfishly" what do you expect of them? Please tell us what a CHL holder should do so that you will not consider them to be "purely selfish".

[glacierbay]

68. Absolutely correct

My job is not to protect the individual unless in my custody, my job is to protect the general public.

[Starboard Tack]

69. I expect a CHL holder to be purely selfish

That's my whole point. The job of LE is to protect life, it's their duty.

[oneshooter]

70. "I expect a CHL holder to be purely selfish" And why is that? n/t

[glacierbay]

71. I think, and I could be wrong,

what he's saying is that he expects a CC permit holder to use their gun only for themselves or their loved ones, not for the general public. He could have worded it better, but I believe that's what he meant.
Hope I got that right ST.

[Starboard Tack]

72. Because that's what they are telling me, including you.

I'm not insinuating that they are selfish in every aspect of their lives.

[oneshooter]

75. Please tell us what a CHL holder should do so that you will not consider them to be "purely selfish"

[Starboard Tack]

86. Get over his irrational fear and leave his gun at home.

[oneshooter]

93. What"irrational fear" are you talking about?

[Jenoch]

85. This is a case where the word 'selfish'

is NOT used in the pejorative sense. 'Selfish' in this case is protecting yourself and your loved ones. That is an honorable thing to do.

[Starboard Tack]

87. You might call it honorable

and I would agree, if it didn't also entail the introduction of deadly weapons into the public arena. I would also protect myself and my loved ones when faced with danger, but I would not use any tools which might endanger other innocents.

[ManiacJoe]

89. If the tool does not have the potential to harm innocents (and others)

then the tool is useless as a weapon in the situations where you need a weapon.

A holstered gun poses no threat to anyone including innocents.

[Starboard Tack]

90. And when you unholster it all the rules change.

Well, the tools I would use do not have the potential to harm innocents, unless I choose to do that. In the public arena, I would not use a tool that can send lethal projectiles through walls or other objects I can't see through. Firing a gun is extremely dangerous, even when fired in the air. In closed environments, ricochets are common and potentially lethal.
It's your choice. Good luck.

[ManiacJoe]

91. The dangerousness of the gun is what makes it useful as a tool.

If my self defense situation call for a distance weapon to be used, a gun is a good choice. Short distances work well with handguns, long guns are better for longer distances. Safety Rule #4: be aware of your target, what's behind it, and what's beyond it.

A gun is not always the best weapon choice for a given situation. Sometimes edged weapons are better, sometimes clubs.

Sometimes the situation requires something in the non-lethal category.

Since you brought it up, what self defense tools would you use against a lethal opponent out of range of your contact weapons?

[holdencaufield]

92. "Firing a gun is extremely dangerous, EVEN when fired in the air."

ESPECIALLY when fired into the air. Only a complete moron would fire a gun in the air.

Allow me to review the rules which which all competent firearm users are intimately familiar ... (Jeff Cooper version)

1. All guns are always loaded.
2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.
4. Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.

—Jeff Cooper

[DWC]

73. A seatbelt is designed

to keep me from loosing my life in a vehicular crash.

A life vest is designed to keep me from loosing my life by drowning

My defensive firearm is designed to keep me from loosing my life to a violent criminal or a crazy.

That is how I equate the three.

Semper Fi,

[Starboard Tack]

74. Again, you are correct about the first two. That is their specific design.

Your firearm is not designed specifically to save your life. You can tell yourself that, and the guy you bought it from can tell you that, but it don't make it so.
As a marine, I'm sure you learned what a gun is actually designed to do and it sure as hell isn't to save lives. You could argue that there is a possibility of it saving your life, by taking the life of another. That's the closest you'll get to the truth.
No firearm is defensive, but you can use it defensively. They are designed to kill, period.

OTOH, life jackets and seatbelts are not designed to kill and you'd have trouble trying to adapt one for that purpose. So, for the sake of having an intelligent, adult conversation, let's leave the seatbelts, life preservers, fire extinguishers and other obfuscation off the table.

I can understand anyone's concern regarding their personal safety, but resorting to carrying a firearm around guarantees nothing, except it puts one more gun out on the street.

[Clames]

76. For that same sake, you can start anytime you want when you start understanding that firearms...

...serve as valid tools for self-defense. Defensive/offensive use depends SOLELY on the person using it. You'll just have to learn to live with the reality that there are people that know nothing is guaranteed in life and as such will carry a firearm for self-defense. Your arguments will never change that.

[DWC]

77. You are absolutely correct

in stating that

As a marine, I'm sure you learned what a gun is actually designed to do

When I am wearing MY seatbelt, it is being worn to protect MY life.

When I am wearing MY life vest, it is being worn to protect MY life.

When I am carrying MY defensive firearm, it is being carried to protect MY life.

If attacked by a criminal or crazy; my weapons, including my guns, are designed to help me stop the attack and protect MY life. Whether or not the attacker(s) survive the encounter is irrelevant to MY defense.

Semper Fi,

[Eleanors38]

78. Each item you listed is appropriate to the threat, esp. the gun.nt

[glacierbay]

61. What kind of environment are you referring to?

I have no problem whatsoever with armed citizens as long as they have met all the legal requirements set forth by the state of MO, Here are the MO Revised Statues for concealed carry.

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c500-599/5710000101.htm

As soon as I am handed the persons DL or State ID, I know whether or not they are licensed to carry. By and far, CC permit citizens are not a problem at all, it's the criminal I worry about who doesn't give a shit about CC laws, or any laws for that matter.

[Starboard Tack]

64. Each to his own. Stay safe.

[glacierbay]

65. Thank you

you stay safe also.

[Eleanors38]

80. "Benefit of society" is often termed "macho" in these threads, no? nt

[Starboard Tack]

83. Sorry, but I have no idea what you mean. nt

[Eleanors38]

84. In many discussions about the advisability of carrying firearms, gun-controllers...

have said that the practice is dangerous to others, and flows from an illusion that the armed individual will protect his fellow citizens; shoot the attacker, and be a hero, a "macho"-type engaged in vigilantism and a threat to others. In the discussion at-hand, another gun-controller suggested that the only motivation for some concealed-carry folks was "selfish," and concerned only about him/herself.

So which is it? Is the concealed-carry citizen "selfish" (concerned only about himself), or is he/she a "macho" type, laboring under a grand illusion of saving the world, or at least the crowded classroom?

I subscribe to the "selfish" motivation chiefly, as carrying a weapon for self-defense is pre-eminently personal, not social policy. That it might have ramifications on social policy is unclear. But I have no illusions of "macho" superman actions.

So I am selfish, but not macho. Whew, I was worried.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

95. You are Protecting Neither

....yourself or me and endangering both of us.

[Eleanors38]

99. You of course have no basis for your beliefs.nt

[fightthegoodfightnow]

100. Gosh...OK

Neither do you.


LOL.


Feel better?






.

[Loudly]

3. To be more precise:

Your *access* to guns and ammunition makes the entire society less safe.

And your belief that such access is some kind of "right" rather than merely a pandering political indulgence makes the entire society less safe.

[Remmah2]

4. Who is "your"?

Is that like "you people" as in ethnic and racial categorizing?

"You people" make me feel less safe. Is that what is meant?

[Loudly]

5. "Your" as in mine and everyone's. Generalized access to convenient lethality.

[Remmah2]

7. A civil right is not a "pandering political indulgence " either.

The Bill of Rights is a package deal not ala carte.

[Loudly]

13. You're attributing something to the BOR which is not there.

You've adorned it with superfluous ornamentation in your inexplicable desire for an American populace armed with convenient lethality.

Truly as inexplicable as it is inexcusable.

[glacierbay]

14. Just because you use pretty words trying to make your point

it's still a pointless bullshit argument.
Face it Shares, your argument has left the train station and it ain't coming back, gun ownership is up, violent crime, including shootings, is declining, you lost, but don't ever give up, we need a good laugh here now and then.

[glacierbay]

9. Hey SharesUnited

what are you doing to repeal the 2A? What I'm doing is making sure that prohibitionists like you never see it happen, and so far, it's working pretty well.

[Missycim]

6. The 2nd gives us access to

guns and ammo, if you don't like them apples you can always repeal it.

[Loudly]

8. Correction:

It is only the willful misinterpretation of the 2nd which gives us access to guns and ammo.

Read the dissenting opinion in Heller and you'll see what I mean, and how close to a corrective majority opinion we might actually be. (Provided Barack Obama wins a second term.)

[slackmaster]

10. People have had "access" to firearms and ammunition since long before the country was founded

Your tedious repetition of a bizarre fantasy will never make it come true.

[glacierbay]

11. Saying that as often as you do Shares

doesn't make it so, and just what makes you think that the SCOTUS is going to revisit this? SC rarely revisit settled law. But if this is what keeps you all warm and fuzzy at night, more power to ya.

[Loudly]

15. It depends on the cases which present themselves.

I give the best chance to:

One in which the manufacture and/or sale of guns and ammo is involved.

And one in which carrying firearms outside the home is involved.

Heller is vulnerable to being easily reconciled with a much stricter ruling in those areas.

[holdencaufield]

16. Roe V Wade ...

... had a dissenting opinion too? Are you looking to have that repealed as well?

[Loudly]

18. You don't mean repealed, do you? You mean reversed.

Harlan was the sole dissenting justice in Plessy v. Ferguson.

But his view became the unanimous reversing decision in Brown v. Board of Education.

I'm fine with Roe and oppose the end runs around it.

But I would enthusiastically support end runs around Heller and McDonald, as well as outright reversal or reconciliation with other more restrictive rulings.

Hopefully the number of people being shot and killed and crippled can achieve that, so all the pain and grief isn't completely wasted.

[holdencaufield]

20. "Hopefully the number of people being shot and killed and crippled..."

You hope for some pretty sick stuff.

Keep me off your Xmas list, please.

[Loudly]

24. That's very unfair.

And deliberately so.

What I hope for is that some good can come out of all the horror which access is causing.

The access which I *oppose* and which you *support*.

[holdencaufield]

25. Not unfair at all.

You specifically said you hope for "people being shot and killed and crippled" to further your political agenda.

That's pretty sick

[friendly_iconoclast]

48. For some, the ends justify *any* means- and sharesunited/Loudly has made it explicit.

[4th law of robotics]

31. You do realize there are fewer people being killed and crippled

as far as percentages go now, with more guns, than there were 40 years ago.

So you seek to prevent the relatively better situation we have today by reverting to a time when things were relatively worse.

Why is that a good or sensible thing?

[Loudly]

35. No, I didn't. Source please.

[4th law of robotics]

36. Ok:

Chttp://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/viort.cfm

[4th law of robotics]

37. Can you provide a source that our loosening gun control laws

have lead to any increase in violence?

What's good for the goose is good for the grabber.

[friendly_iconoclast]

47. Well played,4th l.o.r.

[PavePusher]

41. This information has been given to you many times, Shares. n/t

[DWC]

40. You mean like Auschwitz & Birkenau

when the population was disarmed and murdered by the millions by a fascist regime?

I assure you, the pain and murder of millions by governments who first disarmed their populations and then murdered millions when the people could not fight back is very well documented.

WE WILL NOT FORGET and, with the 2nd amendment in tact, it will not happen here.

Semper Fi,

[Missycim]

33. To late, unless you believe its alright to override

stari decies (sp). If so then you wont be to mad if they go after abortion right? Or is it only good to do that to things you disagree with?

[oneshooter]

53. Do you activly support the Brady Campaign or the VPC?

And if you do, then how much do you donate to them a year?

[Reasonable_Argument]

29. Awesome

And your belief that such access is some kind of "right" rather than merely a pandering political indulgence makes the entire society less safe.

Look everyone! He's doing his greatest hits for the 100th time!

I swear I'm going to make a drinking game out of some of you. It's like groundhog day, you say the same thing and get the same replies. Then you stop posting for awhile. Somebody needs to phone up Doctor Who and let'em know we've got a time loop on our hands.

[4th law of robotics]

32. Be careful with that drinking game.

If it's anything like "take a drink every time an old and thoroughly discredited anti-gun talking point is repeated" you will surely die.

[oneshooter]

67. Do you activly support the Brady Campaign or the VPC?

[Eleanors38]

12. Uh, yeah, that's right. Get your own...

If you are in distress, I'll try to sort you out after I cover my own ass.

[Common Sense Party]

17. My gun makes ME safer, and my family, as well.

My gun does not make you any less safe.

[montanto]

19. That's right, mate,

unless you are sleeping in my guest room, my guns are of no service to you. My guns also don't have anything to do with Sikh temples, Colorado, or the Empire State Building, as they rarely travel anywhere but from my house to the range and back. Based on that, they are neither contributing to your safety, nor are they any danger you.

[ileus]

21. That's why it's up to you to get your CHP or Open Carry.

My firearm isn't meant to protect you or your family. Sure it may someday help you out of a jam, but is that a gamble you're willing to take?

I recommend a compact 9mm or 38 revolver, training, and never ceasing vigilance.


Good luck, and I'm glad you finally decided to take the step to protect yourself and the ones you loved.

[rl6214]

22. No and it's not intended to

But my gun does make me safer.

ETA: the Empire state building shooting proves that part of that article is correct...the part about the cops not being able to hit ANYTHING they shoot at. Concealed carry holders on the other hand practice...A LOT.

[slackmaster]

23. That's correct Mr. Madden. I am not responsible for your safety, nor are you for mine.

I'm glad you figured it out.

[Hangingon]

26. Anyone seenand analyzed the "statistics"?

"but statistics tell us that, other people shooting as well is probably a recipe for disaster"

I wonder where Holland is.

[Atypical Liberal]

27. When violent crime is stopped, it is almost always stopped by the use or threat of force.

The simple fact is, nearly all of these shootings, including the one in Colorodo, the shooter stops when people with guns show up and they realize the jig is up.

If I was in a mass shooting situation, if I had my choice, I'd rather that person with the gun be an expert marksman Navy Seal who never misses and is wearing body armor.

But failing that, I'd take anyone with a gun willing to stand up to the shooter.

Yes, your average citizen with a concealed weapon might not be an expert marksman. Maybe they will miss. Maybe the will hit an innocent bystander.

It's still a better option than waiting until the police show up.

[AtheistCrusader]

28. Oh look, a giant pack of stupidity and mendacity.

Yes, police hit ratios are abysmal. Awful. 'training' aside.

There are statistics available for non-law enforcement shootings. Quell surprise the pinhead author of this article didn't bother looking them up. You see, it wouldn't fit his bullshit made up pulled directly from his asshole narrative.

(First off, New York PD's hit ratio is much better, in the 30% range. LAPD as well. Some police departments are as low as 17%)

Officers 11 times more likely to shoot the wrong person: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1143&full=1

"Consider, for example, an argument that is not made by opponents of licensing laws but that they could also use to suggest that citizens' carrying arms will result in needless deaths. The police, who are "extensively trained" in the use and security of their weapons, mistakenly kill about 330 innocent citizens a year. [77] How many more wrongful deaths, then, might one expect at the hands of poorly trained permit holders? Although the argument exhibits the same logic, opponents of licensing laws do not seize on it. Doubtless that is due in part to the fact that it does not show the police in too favorable a light, yet it is upon them that the opponents of licensing laws are asking us to rely when they try to disabuse us of the notion of relying also on ourselves. But a more telling reason is that the information is actually available to refute it. In fact, gun owners mistakenly kill about 30 innocent persons a year, one-eleventh of the number killed by police. [78]"

And that's with a LOT more shootings conducted by civilians. US Department of Justice pins the number of lawful defensive gun uses per year at, year over year, 60-100,000.

[4th law of robotics]

30. You not having a gun doesn't make me any safer

but I will allow you that privilege.

[Trunk Monkey]

38. My gun isn't SUPPOSED to make YOU safer. It's supposed to make ME safer. NT

[DWC]

39. I am a private citizen

I am not responsible for Public Safety. I am definitely not responsible for your safety. I am responsible for the safety of myself and those in my charge. I will use every capability and asset at my disposal to meet my responsibility including firearms.

You have your choices to make and I have mine. That is called Freedom.

Semper Fi,

[GreenStormCloud]

43. The article has these lies:

Statistics say you are as likely to shoot me as the bad guy. Not so. There have been several mass shootings in which a person with a CCW stopped the killing. In none of those situations did the CCWer shoot the wrong person. In other defensive situations it is extremely rare for the CCWer to shoot the wrong person.

"...highly trained officers..." Common anti-gun fallacy. Most cops are not highly trained marksman. Since most cops will never fire their weapon except on the range one or twice a year, their training is in police procedures. Lasers for pistols are fairly cheap nowdays, and are a great aid in accuracy. Squeeze the handle, put red dot on bad guy, pull trigger without jerking gun. I guess he has never heard of them.

"I don’t know why guys in particular buy a gun and automatically think they are marksmen." Many of us with CCWs don't think that. We practice.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

45. The Use of My Gun is Intended to make Me Safer. What you do with or without your gun

is entirely up to you. Choose wisely, grasshopper.

[cherokeeprogressive]

46. My gun doesn't make you anything at all.

But, you knew that already didn't you.

[oneshooter]

52. Do you activly support the Brady Campaign or the VPC?

[Berserker]

54. The first paragraph

says it all

This past summer seems to have been a pretty violent three months. Between the Sikh temple shooting, the Colorado movie theater gunfire, the Empire State Building incident and others, guns have been in the forefront of the national discussion.
Guns have been in the forefront of the national discussion. WTF why is this where the thinking stops. Is it the guns or the sick fucks that do these crimes? Just answer this one question.

[Eleanors38]

81. Maybe mass murders get more style points than falling crime rates? Nt

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

82. If it bleeds, it leads. 'nuff said.

[trouble.smith]

55. Aurora was a special case because of the body armor and the overall high level of premeditation.

In the infantry, we call that situation a near ambush (as opposed to a far ambush). What we know about a near ambush is this, if you find yourself in one, you're pretty well fucked and you're very likely going to be wounded or killed. Nothing would have made you safer in that situation other than an unobstructed path to a close exit. It really is a miracle that it wasn't any worse than it was actually. Having said all of that, had I been there and carrying, I would have gotten some lead into that guy guaranteed.

[Ashgrey77]

57. He didn't have body armor on. Just a tac vest. n/t

[trouble.smith]

58. is that the official police report?

cuz everything else says he was armored from head to toe pretty much.

[jbgood1977]

56. What are the stats for private citizens

hit? I recall that it is much higher than the "highly trained" police officers but cannot find it.

[Francis Marion]

62. especially when

...it's locked up in a box at home, miles away from where we need it.

[Remmah2]

88. Your gun laws don't make me safer either.

nt

[fightthegoodfightnow]

94. BRAVO

Well said.

[PavePusher]

96. Not unless you're giving me a paycheck, it sure isn't.... n/t

[spin]

97. If you create a post it would make sense that you should participate in the discussion. ...

Do you personally feel that those carrying a firearm for their own protection or for the protection of their family have a requirement to save your life?

Realistically it all depends on the situation. Most who carry a firearm realize that we are not police officers or sheepdogs. Most of us lack the necessary training, the experience or the badge and we realize this. It may well be the wisest choice to merely allow a robbery or an attack to happen if we are present and merely observe carefully so as to be able to give a good description of the bad guy. The incident might well end without injury to the victim while if an armed observer would have attempted to intervene someone may have ended up seriously injured.

I've known off duty police officers who were carrying a weapon who were able to stop an armed robbery in progress. I admire their bravery and devotion to protecting others but I am not a cop. I have absolutely no requirement to serve and protect. Fortunately I have never found myself in such situation and hope that I never will. If I was a witness to a robbery and it turned violent, I MIGHT make a decision to take action. At that time I would consider my own life to be in danger as I am a witness. If I was close enough to be certain that I could shoot the attacker and if there was little chance that I could strike an innocent person I MIGHT make the decision to use my concealed handgun fully realizing that I might end up seriously injured or six feet under. Of course I might simply chose to run. I don't consider myself a hero nor do I wish others to view me as one.

I've been shooting handguns for over 40 years and while I realize that I have not mastered target shooting many people who watch me are impressed. Still I realize that shooting at a paper target that is not moving is far different from being in a real life and death encounter where stress will decrease your accuracy considerably. If I had been in the theater in Colorado and had been armed I would have been very hesitant to engage the shooter unless he was at extremely close range. Even then I might well have failed to stop his attack as my .38 caliber revolver is not extremely powerful or effective and he had superior firepower. In that situation quite possibly escape have been the best choice.

Of course I wouldn't have been in that theater as firearms were forbidden. It was a gun free zone. I personally avoid such venues unless I have no other choice. I simply take my business elsewhere as I prefer to carry my handgun rather than leave it in my locked car where it might be stolen. People who plan a massacre often chose gun free zones as shooting galleries. The shooter might well have chosen a different location for his attack if legal weapons had been allowed in the theater. This is a point largely ignored by the media.

I have watched many police officers on the range and while a few are excellent shooters, most are not interested in target shooting and are just capable of qualifying on a yearly or biyearly basis. I've known a lot of people who carry on a regular basis who can shoot far more accurately and faster than the average police officer. Such citizens practice on a very regular basis. Another factor is that often a police officer will find himself taking a shot at a criminal at a much larger distance than a civilian. Therefore it is not surprising that police officers often miss when they have to use their handguns. (To be fair a lot of people who legally carry rarely practice. Still most times a civilian has to use a firearm for self defense the encounter occurs at extreme close range. Comparing the hit rate of cops to civilians is a lot like comparing apples to oranges.)

It is true that I know some people who legally carry a firearm who can not hit the broadside of a barn but view themselves as a Rambo. However a very high percentage of those who have carry permits and carry on a regular basis are interested in shooting and realize that practice is important.

People who legally carry a firearm have stopped massacres in the past. Perhaps that is why shooters with serious mental issues prefer gun free zones. They wish to rack up a high score of kills before they are shot or decide to take their lives.

If you prefer to go to an establishment or business that forbids firearms feel free to do so. I firmly support the right of a private business to forbid firearms but I definitely will not be there. Since massacres are extremely rare you should have little or nothing to worry about.

[ileus]

98. Another day 10/9/12 my personal safety device didn't keep you safe.

However.com it did a fine job keeping my family safe.