Why I carry a gun, and support your right to do likewise.

[Narf]

I'm a realist. I realize that we live in a country where a small percentage of the population chooses not to respect the rights of others and the rule of law. One only need to turn on the nightly news or pick up a newspaper to see instances of disgruntled employees in the workplace killing their coworkers for some perceived wrong, or a disturbed man with a machette attacking people at a day care center, or street thugs with guns, knives, and gangs using force to carjack motorists, steal our possessions, and commit rape and other terrible crimes. The list goes on and on.

I recognize the fact that we have a limited number of police officers and, with the current economy, we're unlikely to see any more any time soon. The police can't be everywhere at once, and I can't expect them to be my personal security force, or anyone elses for that matter. In fact, more than one U.S. court has maintained that the police are NOT responsible for protecting the general public...despite what the motto on the door of the police cruiser might say. I have come to accept the fact that I, and I alone, am responsible for protecting myself, my family, and my property. Not you, not the police, but me. It is pure fallacy to believe that simply dialing 911 will bring the police rushing to my door to save the day, or charging down the street to stop the man, or men, in the process of assaulting me or my family for the few dollars in my wallet.

I choose to carry a gun because it is the best way I know of to ensure that I will have the ability to stop these kinds of attacks by the segment of the population which doesn't care to obey the rules of society or respect anyone's rights.

I believe the Contitution of the United States guarantees the inalienable right of all law abiding Americans to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and their property. Along with that right comes certain responsibilities, the foremost of which is being properly trained in how, and more importantly, when to use deadly force. Shooting a teenager because he is trying to steal your car radio, or even the whole car, is NOT an acceptable use of lethal force. All gunowners have the responsibility to learn the laws regarding use of deadly force and I DO support the right of the states to require proof of training and competency before a person is allowed to carry a gun. We're all required to be licensed before we can drive a car, perform surgery, or cut hair...gun ownership should be no different. That said, I don't think the government has any business knowing what kind, or how many, guns I own. The only reason they could have for wanting to keep a record of my guns is so they can be sure they get them all when they decide it's time to disarm the citizens.

The right to keep and bear arms does not, nor has it ever had, anything to do with hunting, target shooting, or macho fantasies of machinegunning the neighborhood cats. It's about your right to defend yourself and your family against criminals and yes, even the government, if need be. Guns are a fact of life. At last count there are over 66,000,000 guns in the U.S., in about 45% of the homes in the country. They are NEVER going to go away, no matter how the government may try to regulate them. Our choice is to either cower in fear in our homes, hoping the police will stop the bad man, or we can learn to take care of ourselves and stop depending on someone else to protect us. It's entirely up to us.

That's my free, unsolicited opinion. Remember, you get what you pay for.

[comradebillyboy]

1. i agree

i would carry a pistol in my car, but i am a school teacher and cannot legally bring a weapon on school grounds.

besides i like guns.

[lebkuchen]

2. glad I live in Germany

Last night while eating at a weinbau, I was approached by a stranger sitting at the end of the long table where I sat. Her daughter was married to a deployed soldier, and she had wanted to talk. We got around to discussing the differences in our two cultures, and I said that her approach to me in the U.S. would be considered potentially threatening, where as in Germany, it was perfectly normal and a great way to meet the local nationals and exchange ideas and phone numbers.

That's why I'm glad I live in a country that doesn't pride itself on carrying concealed weapons.

[Narf]

5. I don't pride myself on carrying a concealed weapon...

I'm just glad I live in a country where I have that choice. You are right though, it is certainly a cultural difference. I've lived in the UK, Germany, and Italy and the attitude towards guns is quite different.

[bahrbearian]

7. What's it like to live in your State of Fear..

[Narf]

11. Not a State of Fear....a State of Reality.

I'm not afraid, I'm prepared. There's a difference.

[RC]

23. Because you fear.

That is the reality.
Others have guns, so you think you need one to defend yourself. Now you have have a gun and other will come to know about it and some of the others will feel the need to have a gun also because they will feel uneasy around you because of your gun. and so it goes.

[Narf]

30. You are certainly entitled to your opinion..

But that does not mean you can speak for me on why I own a gun.

[RoeBear]

36. PFFFFFTTTTTtttttttttt...

My closest friends (and immediate family) are the only ones who know I carry. Are you trying to tell me that my friends fear for their lives because I carry? You're funny!

[CO Liberal]

66. Perhaps They Make A Point of Not Pissing You Off....

...because they know you carry.

:-)

[lebkuchen]

45. The U.S. is a very violent culture

I love living beyond its borders.

[DoNotRefill]

56. the last time I was in Germany....

I had a guy offer to sell me some hashish, heroin and a bunch of other stuff. I asked him about getting a gun. He said no problem, he could get me a H&K P7M13, 2 spare mags, and 100 rounds of 9mm ammo but it'd take a couple of hours since it wasn't a "high demand" item. This was in Berlin, BTW, by the "Broken Tooth" and "Lipstick" churches. This was in 2000, and I gave him 10 marks for his time, but didn't buy anything.

If you know where to look, you can get a gun in europe without too much of a problem....start by asking the dope dealers.

[RoeBear]

8. Been getting all your info on US culture...

...from American movies? Did you imagine that I (a CCW permit holder) would have gunned her down for having the audacity of approaching me in a public place?

[Narf]

15. Good point.

As a concealed weapons permit holder I've been fingerprinted, investigated, and trained before I am allowed to carry my gun. Do you believe the same things apply to Joe the Crack Dealer or Jimmy Carjacker?

[bahrbearian]

32. No because they just buy em outside the gun shows..

[Narf]

42. You are correct. It is easy to get a gun in America.

It's even easier if you're a criminal and don't bother with licensed dealers who perform background checks. It's far easier to steal them or buy them from a fellow felon.

[iverglas]

50. there they are again!

It's even easier if you're a criminal and don't bother with licensed dealers who perform background checks. It's far easier to steal them or buy them from a fellow felon.

Those firearms that fell like lawn darts from the sky at the feet of said fellow felon, or sprang full-blown from the forehead of Charlton Heston and into his/her hands, or fell from that passing turnip truck that some people seem to think a lot of the rest of us recently got off ...

.

[DoNotRefill]

57. Iverglas....

cocaine doesn't grow on trees domestically in the US, but we seem to have no shortage of it...I guess they import it, even though it's illegal here.

[iverglas]

61. aha

Now firearms grow on trees??

Not quite the same thing, firearms and cocaine, are they?

Where do the firearms being used to terrorize people in Colombia come from?

Hint: not Colombia.

Where do half (or so) of the firearms used in crimes in Canada come from?

Hint: not Finland.

Does anyone really not think that if the US implemented effective firearms controls domestically, it would be unable to exert effective pressure on other countries to do the same?

On the other hand, does anyone really not think that the big reason why the US does not implement effective firearms controls domestically, and join the community of nations in undertaking effective action against small arms trafficking in the world, is that there are big profits to be made, by people who matter to the US government, by not doing so?

.

[FeebMaster]

74. You have got to be kidding.

Do you actually believe that gun control in the United States has any effect on firearms trafficking around the world? You can buy a fully automatic AK-47 in pretty much any third world country for about $25. It might be less in some places.


"Now firearms grow on trees??

Not quite the same thing, firearms and cocaine, are they?

Where do the firearms being used to terrorize people in Colombia come from?

Hint: not Colombia.

Where do half (or so) of the firearms used in crimes in Canada come from?

Hint: not Finland."


Right. Cocaine grows right on a tree in powder form. There's no work involved whatsoever in purifying it and getting it into powder form.

I hope you aren't trying to imply that people in Colombia and Canada get their firearms from the United States. Now the Colombian government has probably gotten all sorts of shipments of arms from the US government. The drug dealers though? Canadian criminals? If Canadian criminals are smuggling in weapons from the US, well, I don't know what to think. There are better ways of turning a profit.


"Does anyone really not think that if the US implemented effective firearms controls domestically, it would be unable to exert effective pressure on other countries to do the same?"

I'm sure they'd have great luck implementing controls internationally on firearms, just like they've had such great luck implementing controls domestically and internationally on drugs.


On the other hand, does anyone really not think that the big reason why the US does not implement effective firearms controls domestically, and join the community of nations in undertaking effective action against small arms trafficking in the world, is that there are big profits to be made, by people who matter to the US government, by not doing so?

I don't know. The AK-47 seems pretty popular around the world. Unless you think the US government wants former communist countries to turn a big profit.

[iverglas]

76. and I know you're not serious

I hope you aren't trying to imply that people in Colombia and Canada get their firearms from the United States. Now the Colombian government has probably gotten all sorts of shipments of arms from the US government. The drug dealers though? Canadian criminals? If Canadian criminals are smuggling in weapons from the US, well, I don't know what to think. There are better ways of turning a profit.

Do you not read or absorb anything that anyone produces for your edification in this forum???

Your questioning of the USAmerican provenance of the weapons used by both drug cartels and fascistic paramilitaries in Colombia, and of a very substantial proportion of the weapons used in crime in Canada, is quite simply bizarre. As is your absurd response to the question of why the US refuses to sign on to efforts to reduce small arms trafficking worldwide.

So bizarre that it really doesn't even merit response. It just ain't my job to reproduce half of my bookmark file for you every time you profess not to know what I and the rest of the world know. I recommend www.google.com if you actually want to know what you're talking about ... but that's a big "if" that I sure can't answer for you.


... Oh, and were you really saying that US governments really want to "implement controls domestically and internationally on drugs"?? I'd never taken you for naïve ...

(typo fixed)
.

[FeebMaster]

78. Fine then.

Don't respond. But if Canadian criminals really are smuggling weapons in from the United States I must say I'm tempted to move to Canada and become a gun smuggler. I think I could corner the market by shipping in cheap guns from places where they are cheaper and less regulated than the United States.

[DoNotRefill]

89. There are certain parallels....

Firearms do not grow on trees. Neither does cocaine.

The base ingredient in firearms is metal. The base ingredient in cocaine is coca leaves. It's a lot easier to find coca production and eradicate it from the air than it is to find and eradicate all sources of metal and machining.

Both firearms and cocaine require "refining" to manufacture. For guns, there's machine time. For cocaine, there's a chemical refining process. The chemical refining process releases certain chemicals which are measurable from the air. If surveillance discovers a rural place in a drug producing area which is releasing these chemicals (Ether is a big one, IIRC), we've got a pretty good idea what's going on there. With firearms, what're we going to do....eradicate everyplace that machines metal?

In the War on Drugs, we pay producing countries with both money and equipment to eradicate the source crop. It hasn't worked so far.

"Does anyone really not think that if the US implemented effective firearms controls domestically, it would be unable to exert effective pressure on other countries to do the same?"

There's no way in hell. Drugs are universally seen as bad, and are illegal here and just about everyplace else. We've pumped untold billions into world-wide drug eradication programs, and you can still get heroin, cocaine, and pot virtually anywhere in this country. We've put huge amounts of pressure on foreign countries, and it hasn't done squat to stop the flow of drugs. We've even gone as far as to send them both miliary and law enforcement "advisors" to help in the WoD, and it still hasn't done squat. It's easier to find drugs in the US now than it was 20 years ago. They're cheaper and higher quality, too.

"Where do the firearms being used to terrorize people in Colombia come from?"

Umm....the former communist block? Whenever you hear about a spectacular rocket attack, they seem to pretty much always use things like the RPG-7, not the US made counterparts like the LAW or AT-4. You don't REALLY think that if US made guns suddenly disappeared, that the arms trade in combloc stuff would cease, do you? And if the US gun industry suddenly disappeared, you don't really think that canadian gun smugglers would stop their trade, instead of just bringing in comblock stuff, do you? After all, they're already smuggling guns into the country, what difference does the ultimate source make to them?

[lebkuchen]

44. Born and raised in the U.S., my friend

a damned screwed up country...glad to be elsewhere.

[slackmaster]

14. Aw, give me a break

I often discuss cultural differences with people from other countries. Sometimes they approach me, sometimes I approach them.

Maybe you don't have friendly places to hang out in the US. If you're ever in San Diego, meet me at Sparky's and I'll buy you a beer.

http://www.broadwaypub.com

[lebkuchen]

43. Does Sparkies have a "guns not allowed" sign on the front door

as do establishments in the state of Minnesota, to include the hospitals? What a friggin' joke.

I only travel to the U.S. when absolutely necessary, which is very seldom. I don't miss the place.

[FatSlob]

67. Thank you for your continuous statements

about how you don't like the United States. We get the point. If you are trying to start an arguement, it isn't working.

[iverglas]

72. getting the point

Thank you for your continuous statements
about how you don't like the United States.
We get the point.

Funny ... I didn't for a moment think that this was "the point".

But hey, dismissing someone as anti-american ... that's always a good tactic, eh?

Ad personam argument is just always the best strategy, it seems. And that's what portraying someone else as engaged in it, when s/he is not, is.

.

[slackmaster]

75. No, only the owner is allowed to carry a weapon

And California state law prohibits concealed weapons anywhere alcohol is being served (other than by the people who work there).

[billbuckhead]

3. USA has highest homocide rate of advanced nations

almost all the other ones have strong gun regulation. This in spite of the most percapta in prison-criminal justice system and having the death penalty. Far more Americans are killed by the USA's lax gun laws than terrorism. It's a fact. Aren't we tired of being held captive by guns, don't we deserve freedom from guns?

[demsrule4life]

4. Take the guns out of the equation

and we would still have the highest murder rate. What would the exuse be then? Yesterday a lady I worked with was murdered by her husband. Splashed gas on her and lit her up. I rather take a bullet anytime then that.

http://www.waff.com/Global/story.asp?S=1741060&nav=0hBBLqPV

[mstrsplinter326]

6. agreed

but everyone is focused on their right to own a gun, rather than fixing what is wrong with American society that keeps us killing.

Gun nuts: Keep fighting the good fight, and we'll all end up crazy and armed.

We cannot seriously expect to remove guns from society, that's just insane. But we've got to do something about changing society so that we stop wanting to kill each other.

I'll apply my fix-all solution: Raise the minimum wage to at least 10 dollars an hour. Then we can go to prison reform and increasing job security, but I'd bet raising wages would go a long way in this country.

P.S. Nobody needs an AK-47. NO BODY!

[RoeBear]

10. We can certainly force employers to pay...

...a 10 dollar an hour minimum wage. But can we force them to hire people?

[mstrsplinter326]

18. It's a tricky subject

I don't profess to know everything about this, but I am guessing if we broke from NAFTA & WTO, then we could do it.

But we would have to take Richard Florida's advice and tailor this countries economy around the creative and innovative, not the lumbering dinosaur industries.

[RC]

28. If they want to stay in business...

[Turbineguy]

12. You may have something there

Hard to make an honest living, easy to get into jail, impossible to make a honest living after you get out of jail.

No wonder some people "choose" crime.

[FatSlob]

68. Sorry, buddy,

It isn't about need, it is about want. I wanted the semiautomatic version of the Automat Kalishnakov, so I bought two. I guess those pesky righs keep getting in the way.

[RC]

26. Yeah, that is a good excuse for guns all over the place.

[Narf]

33. Guns ARE all over the place.

That fact is never going to change.

[Narf]

9. I'm not held captive by guns, nor am I afraid of them...

I'm afraid of criminals with guns and not being able to stop them.

[Narf]

17. What is your plan for freeing us from guns?

Could confiscation have any hope of ever working?

[MrBenchley]

29. And let's not forget

--that the gun industry is one of the scummiest in the country...

--that the gun industry is dangerously under-regulated...

--that the gun industry engages in outright fraud....

--that the gun industry is allowed to set public policy...

--that in most states any imbecile can buy guns wthout a background check at gun shows...

--that some irresponsible people think that any military-style weapon ought to be allowed on the market, regardless of the danger to public safety...

--that the "gun rights" movement is just old fashioned racist right wing extremism hiding under a new sheet

[DoNotRefill]

58. Prove it....

prove that it's the lax gun laws in the US that CAUSES gun deaths in the US. Correlation isn't causation, even if there's correlation, which is far from a certain thing.

As for "freedom from guns", well, if you just slip those shackles on, we'll keep you safe from the bad people who want to hurt you....yeah, RIGHT.

[LadeJarl]

13. It's just crazy!

I have had this discussion several times with my co-workers who are gun crazy themselves. One lady sleeps with a loaded gun in her bed, go figure.

I'm from a country that has almost Zero hand guns but where most adult men has either a MP-5 or an AG-3 semi-automatic weapon at home as part of their army service. Still, the amount of gun related killings are virtually zero and weapons per se is not much of a problem. Yet here in the US, everyone is running around with a small weapon like a revolver or a pistol and where gun related killings are higher than in any other country on the earth.

Do you never take time to wonder why it is so and if this is the right thing? IMHO, no person has any need for a handgun.

I can understand the inital posters desire to use a weapon, but only from the point of view where lethal force is the only option to any problem that nay arise. To me, that is plain sick.

Erik

[Narf]

16. What is YOUR plan if faced with an armed attacker...

Or a group of men who decide they want your wife or daughter, or an intruder in your home at night in the same room as your child?

[LadeJarl]

20. The problem is

not solved by more weapons.

One interim solution is to make sure your property is protected by alarm systems. And make sure that it is visibly marked as protected by alarm. All research on this shows that a possible burglar will choose a house without alarms compared to one with.

The problem that needs to be addressed is crime itself and the solution is not to arm every citizen.

Erik

[Narf]

25. An ALARM SYSTEM? ROFLMAO!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

To quote another poster to these pages "Too too funny". Perhaps in Norway alarms deter criminals but here in the USA they merely cut the wires, or they're in and out before the cops arrive. Alarms are merely a hinderence to be overcome.

Perhaps I should also post one of these signs on the front door?:

[slackmaster]

34. I have an acquaintence who is an ex-convict, a former burglar

He told me that burglars (who seek to steal from UNOCCUPIED buildings) see the presence of an alarm system as a virutal guarantee that A) Nobody is home, and B) They have at least 20, usually 40 minutes before anyone like police or security guards will show up.

Burglars fear two things above all else: Dogs, and people with guns.

[DoNotRefill]

60. just as all research shows...

that if a burglar knows there's an armed person inside, they'll go someplace else.

The solution isn't to disarm the law abiding folks, since they are law abiding.

[FatSlob]

70. That is way too funny.

Tell that to the woman a mile down the road. Her family's alarm system was on. The criminals merely cut the phone lines before entering to rape her. Alarm systems! HA!

[Narf]

19. So, it's not the guns but rather the criminals that are the problem?

I'm from a country that has almost Zero hand guns but where most adult men has either a MP-5 or an AG-3 semi-automatic weapon at home as part of their army service. Still, the amount of gun related killings are virtually zero and weapons per se is not much of a problem.

Swtizerland? All those people have guns but not many are shooting each other...why is that? Guns are bad and evil, right? Guns kill people, right? Why aren't the streets of Bern or St. Moritz running red with blood?

[LadeJarl]

21. Not, it is not Switzerland

It is Norway

Erik

[Narf]

22. Another good example of civilized society

Where guns don't kill people, people kill people. What happens in Norway if someone uses a gun to harm/kill another person? What happens to gun owners if they do nothing illegal at all?

[LadeJarl]

27. Why don't you spend

some time on the web to find out.

On another note, police does not carry weapons in their daily job either. How about that?

Erik

[Narf]

31. I think it's great that the police don't carry weapons.

I wish our police didn't need to carry weapons, but the reality is that they DO need to carry guns because the criminals have guns and the police realize they are not safe on the street.

[slackmaster]

24. I see the difference as an indictment of American people, not handguns

If all people were good they could be trusted with any kind of weapon at all times. I have a lot more fear of people driving irresponsibly than of a few people carrying guns. The likelihood of getting injured in a traffic accident is far greater for most Americans than that of getting shot randomly. In most of the USA crime is very low; it's concentrated in the bad areas of some of our large cities.

[DoNotRefill]

59. If you don't need a handgun, fine, don't have one.

but don't be trying to take away my right to have one.

[FatSlob]

69. I have a need for a handgun.

However, I chose to get many handguns. My need is protection when I meet strangers for showings. In real estate, that is what we do. I've been happy to have it a time or two. Anyway, in the United States we don't have to demonstrate a need, it is due to those pesky rights or ours.

[muffin_man]

35. Guns will always be a part of our lives.

Gun crime is not committed by people like Narf. Telling him he can't have a an AK or handgun does nothing to save lives.All it takes is one instance of being trapped/attacked by a person or group and feeling that dread of having no recourse no way to escape or protect yourself to change your mind about guns. Unless your a pacifist of Gandhi proportion. Bottom line is the US will always be a gun nation or we will cease to be a free nation. If your familiar with history you know you do not leave citizens unarmed and the government armed. Any government. If you believe LIHOP then you shouldn't have a hard time believing an unarmed public is dangerous to freedom.

[Diogenes2]

37. Guns guns guns

are Great! Spend your life ARMING yourself against the FANTASIZED POSSIBILITY that sometime, somewhere you MAY be attacked! Unless you live in certain well-defined high risk areas in this country, that possibility is as remote as being hit by a comet. But go ahead, obsess, be paranoid, carry a concealed weapon, EVERYBODY get a gun, everybody carry a gun! I think I'd rather have a life where I think about other things. Lay off the copshows! The local news is geared to the disaster mentality. If somewhere in a city of millions one person is attacked it's at the top of the news! GET REAL! You love your disaster mentality, you love fantasizing about being attacked & fending off that attack with your heroic weapon! Find something useful to do with yor time!

[muffin_man]

38. Like I said

just once is all it takes. Hope my fantasy never becomes your reality.High risk area? My brother is a police officer and as he says the only(his words=safe place) low-risk area is a grave.

[Diogenes2]

39. Your brother

is a police officer & HIS JOB is going around with a gun & dealing with the most troubled members of our society. Therefore he sees high risk everywhere because everywhere he usually is there is a high risk. For everyone outside of law enforcement (except in certain clearly defined high risk areas) the possiblity of being attacked is incredibly remote. But I certainly see where you get your disaster mentality.

[muffin_man]

41. Right ,he responds to violence.

His point his no where in town would he say "don't worry when your on this side of town".Violences happen all over in braod daylight and areas you would think are safe. Who would know more what your risk is than a police officer? Please tell me? Crime and especially violent crime is toned down in the US. My brother just sent a letter to the media here explaining how his Dept is skewing the stats they send to the FBI to make the city seem safer. So your idea of what really happens on the street is not to accurate. Incredibly remote possibilty of being attacked? Do you have a friend,relative,co-worker or family member who has been robbed or attacked? If not then you are in the minority. Who says I have to be walking down the street to be attacked? Please check these stats before convincing yourself it will never happen to you. Remember the FBI numbers will be low per what my borther has told me.

Persons in households with an annual income under $75,000 were robbed at a significantly higher rate than persons in households earning more.<more people make under 75k=risk increases>

Persons whose household had an annual income under $50,000 were more likely than person in higher income households to experience rape/sexual assault.<even more under 50k=higher risk>

more with actual numbers.. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_v.htm

I know I can't change your mind anymore than you can change my mind but at least I have some data to back up my claim that the risk is more than you will acknowledge.

[Narf]

40. I've never been in a car accident but I wear a seatbelt.

My children have never been in a car accident but I buckle them up everytime they're in the car. I've never been electrocuted but I don't take my hairdryer into the shower.

It's got nothing to do with paranoia and everything to do with being prepared. I hope that I am never in a car accident, but if I am I will be better prepared to survive because I'm wearing a seatbelt. I hope that I am never attacked but if I am I will be better prepared because I'm carrying a gun that I'm trained to use.

[solinvictus]

46. "Fantasized possibility"?!?

Hmmm, let me see, if I remember correctly the entire civil infrastructure of Los Angeles collapsed in a riot about this time 12 years ago. Call the cops? They won't respond because they're too busy using their weapons to protect their families. The Koreans who had effective rifles, carbines, and shotguns managed to save their businesses, their homes, and their lives from the rioters. Later in 1992, Hurricane Andrew hit Miami and home owners used small arms to deter looters from rummaging through their possessions. Is this an unlikely scenario? I prefer preparation to relying on the good will of others.

[Narf]

48. Outstanding post!

Some people can't seem to accept the fact that calling the police guarantees NOTHING and the police are NOT required, by law, to protect anyone!

[RoeBear]

47. With crime being such a distant possibility...

...why would you have a problem with a law abiding citizen carrying a concealed weapon?

[johann1585]

51. disasters do happen

this is my first post here, and until recently I would have agreed that carrying a gun would be paranoid. however as I was recently stabbed by someone who wanted my motorcycle,I feel that this needs to be reassessed and I am taking my CCW course as soon as I am healthy enough to do so. and that I feel is a very useful way to spend my time

[Columbia]

52. Welcome to DU!

And the gungeon. :evilgrin:

Sorry about your incident, but good on you for taking necessary and prudent measures to prepare for potentially catastrophic eventualties.

[iverglas]

53. oh - please tell!

however as I was recently stabbed by someone who wanted my motorcycle,I feel that this needs to be reassessed and I am taking my CCW course as soon as I am healthy enough to do so.

Please explain, if you would, how having a firearm concealed on your person would have enabled you to prevent this person from stabbing you.

A very simple question, I think.

As a corollary, perhaps you can tell us what the effect of having a firearm on your person would have been had you not been able to prevent the individual in question from stabbing you.

Many thanks in advance for your kind attention to these question.

.

[johann1585]

54. answer to your question

It may not have prevented the initial attack, but it would have been far more effective than my bare hands fending off the following injury's,in future I think it would be prudent on my part to at least have the option available to me

[Columbia]

55. Yes

And thankfully that decision to carry or not is available to be made by you and not made by others and forced upon you.

[iverglas]

62. not quite a complete answer, eh?

It may not have prevented the initial attack, but it would have been far more effective than my bare hands fending off the following injury's, ...

Yes indeed. If it hadn't already been removed from your person by the person with the knife, or if you hadn't already been incapacitated by the person with the knife ...

Again: is the person with the knife likely to just stand there watching while you reach for, draw, aim and brandish/fire your firearm?

I really don't think so, but if you do, well heck, give it a shot, and let us know how it goes.

.

[Columbia]

63. Quite the firearms tactician aren't you?

Tell us, where did you get your training from? Front Sight? GunSite?

[iverglas]

64. what excellent questions

Nothing to do with the subject matter at hand, of course.

On the other hand, having been the victim of violent crimes, I know full well that while having had a firearm in my hand AND eyes in the back of my head and 20-20 foresight (i.e. the ability to predict the future) might have made a difference in those situation, no firearm concealed on my person or in my backpack or wherever people are wont to conceal the things would have made the slightest difference to the outcome of the situations ... except that in one of them, I'm relatively certain I would have been killed.

Now, although the question was not addressed to you, you chose to respond to it. Sadly, you did not answer it ...

.

[MrBenchley]

65. The fact of the matter is

that as your post ably points out, the entire case for CCW consists of either childish Chuck Norris fantasies, or Mary Rosh's outright fraud.

[Columbia]

80. It has everything to do with the subject matter

I wouldn't take medical advice from a lawyer or legal advice from a doctor just as I wouldn't take firearms tactics advice from you.

"Now, although the question was not addressed to you, you chose to respond to it. Sadly, you did not answer it ..."

What is that supposed to mean? You respond to my posts all the time without me addressing you. Why can't I do in kind?

You asked a question towards his situation which was already answered by him in a previous post. He would be the best person to decide what is the best way to protect himself. It should not be made by me, you, or anybody else.

[Narf]

73. It all depends on what led up to the stabbing...

If the attacker simply jumped from the bushes and began stabbing then a gun would have been of limited use, but it could certainly evened up the contest a little. However, if as is more likely, there were some words exchanged (something along the lines of "give me your keys" or "get off the bike, I'm taking it"), and then a knife was displayed to emphasize the attackers seriousness then having a concealed weapon would have been very usefull. With a little training and routine practice an AVERAGE shooter (and I consider my self of average shooting ability) can draw a pistol and place two shots center of mass in under TWO SECONDS...about the same time it took the attacker to demand the man's keys and brandish a knife?

Question for you...what would you do if a man with a knife approached you and demanded your car keys? What if your child was sitting in the car? How will YOU protect YOUR family from an armed attacker?

[iverglas]

77. the brothers grim

Yeah, grim, not Grimm. The horrific fairy tales one has to listen to around here ...

However, if as is more likely, there were some words exchanged (something along the lines of "give me your keys" or "get off the bike, I'm taking it"), and then a knife was displayed to emphasize the attackers seriousness then having a concealed weapon would have been very usefull.

You got some really really stupid criminals on that side of the border, do you? Politely request the keys first, pull the knife second ...

Question for you...what would you do if a man with a knife approached you and demanded your car keys? What if your child was sitting in the car? How will YOU protect YOUR family from an armed attacker?

So, what provisions have you made for protecting your family from falling meteorites? Is there no right that anyone can invoke that would make us all safe from them? Imagine; life holding a risk that the constitution just doesn't cover ...

I still haven't heard an explanation of how one does anything at all when faced with an armed attacker and holding a bag of groceries, or just looking the other way. But I'll keep waiting.

.

[Narf]

79. I can't protect my family from meteors, but I can protect them from thugs.

I still haven't heard an explanation of how one does anything at all when faced with an armed attacker and holding a bag of groceries, or just looking the other way. But I'll keep waiting.

Again, situational awareness is key. In your example one drops ones bag of groceries (good distractor, takes the criminal's eyes off of your gun hand), draw your gun and put two rounds of .45 ACP in his chest. Center of mass. Drops 'em every time. I can't repeat it enough...practice, practice, practice. With a little training and practice you can accomplish this shot in less than two seconds. As for being caught unawares and looking the other way one should make it a practice to be vigilant of ones surroundings. This type of vigilance would also prevent someone with ill intent from getting close enough to you to do you harm without you realizing it.

Allow me to restate the question: What will YOU do if a man with a knife approached you and demanded your car keys? What if your child was sitting in the car? How will YOU protect YOUR family from an armed attacker? I know what I'll do, and I've practiced it hundreds of times.

[TX-RAT]

81. Standard training situation

Officer stands weapon holstered, suspect 15ft away armed with knife.On signal the officer is to draw his weapon before suspect can close distance. Officer gets rubber knife in ribs every time.

[FeebMaster]

82. What's your point? (nt)

[TX-RAT]

83. Point

Weapon useless

[FeebMaster]

84. If you say so.

Because being stabbed while you're unarmed is so much better than being stabbed while you're armed. :eyes:

I guess once you've been stabbed you should just run away or hope you don't get stabbed again. A gun is certainly useless once you've been stabbed once.

[TX-RAT]

87. It's useless if your dead.

[FeebMaster]

88. Yeah.

So then you're better off having one.

[TX-RAT]

90. Would it have changed the outcome?

[FeebMaster]

91. I don't see how it matters.

If you end up dead either way then what does it matter? You've certainly got a better shot at fending off someone with a knife if you have a gun than if you don't have anything.

[TX-RAT]

94. what does it matter

Thats the point of that training exercise. Always be aware of your surroundings, never let a individual get to close. You've lost the fight before you recognized the threat.

[FeebMaster]

96. Good advice.

I still think you're better off with a gun than without one.

[Columbia]

85. Attention cops everywhere!

According to TX-RAT, your weapons are useless! Please send them all to me for immediate disposal! :evilgrin:

[TX-RAT]

86. Thats funny, you missed the point completely.

[Columbia]

92. Easy miss something not there

[iverglas]

95. well, everybody just has to hope

... that he doesn't miss the things he shoots bullets at quite so badly, eh?

Like those names and sticks & stones, disingenousness is a lot easier to deflect than lead, or whatever they're making those things out of these days ...

.

[MrBenchley]

97. Actually it is pretty leaden

and not entirely convincing...but far be it from me to accuse others of bad faith....

[MrBenchley]

93. Shhhhhhh.....

You're disrupting some people's childish fantasies with actual fact and experience...

[FatSlob]

71. Welcome!

Get well soon and have fun in the Gungeon. It does get heated here.

[iverglas]

49. some bottom lines

I believe the Contitution of the United States guarantees the inalienable right of all law abiding Americans to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and their property. Along with that right comes certain responsibilities, the foremost of which is being properly trained in how, and more importantly, when to use deadly force. Shooting a teenager because he is trying to steal your car radio, or even the whole car, is NOT an acceptable use of lethal force.

Let's consider the car-stealing scenario.

Individual lawfully carrying concealed weapon happens upon unknown individual engaged in hot-wiring his/her car where it is parked on a city street, with the evident intention of driving it away.

Does individual carrying concealed weapon draw it and point it at individual engaged in hot-wiring car? Let's put it this way: can we confidently expect that no individual lawfully carrying a concealed weapon will ever do that? Can someone guarantee that this will never happen? Should it never happen?

If the individual hot-wiring the car does not stop, get out and surrender (or run away), and proceeds to start driving the car away, what happens? Does the weapon-carrier shoot him/her? By what justification in law?

If the individual hot-wiring the car stops, but instead of getting out, pulls his/her own firearm and aims it back at the car-owner (or his/her accomplice, who already has a firearm in hand, aims it), what happens? Luck of the draw, as it were, as to who shoots first? Nobody shoots, and the hot-wirer drives, or runs, away?

What guarantee does anyone have that an individual lawfully carrying a concealed weapon will not use it in this manner? What guarantee is there then that someone will not get shot? Is it lawful to kill someone to prevent him/her from stealing a car? How about the people walking on the sidewalk beside the car being hot-wired: can we be sure that neither the hot-wirer nor the car-owner will shoot one of them? How about the car-owner him/herself: if s/he had not pulled out a firearm, and had been unable to stop the car theft, would the would-be car thief have shot him/her or someone else?

What if, fearing that the thief was armed, the car-owner had simply done nothing? A stolen car. How does this compare with the injury(ies) or death(s) that might occur if the car-owner attempted to stop the theft by drawing a firearm? What's a better outcome?

Exactly what value does this concealed firearm add to this scenario? Without it, a car gets stolen. With it, there might be injuries and deaths -- whether of the thief, the owner or uninvolved passers-by. What does the firearm do, that one of those big steering-wheel lock thingies would not have done better?

"Training" does not guarantee compliance. No amount of instruction in what the rules are will ensure that anyone will follow rules.

And I am perfectly happy living in a society in which no one may legally wander around with a concealed weapon which s/he may then use in whatever way and for whatever purpose S/HE might choose, something over which no one has any control at all. That's how my society protects my rights - my right not to be confronted with, or hit by a stray bullet fired by, someone who takes a dislike to what I or someone else is doing and has ready access to the means to do something about it -- and I like that just fine.


It is pure fallacy to believe that simply dialing 911 will bring the police rushing to my door to save the day, or charging down the street to stop the man, or men, in the process of assaulting me or my family for the few dollars in my wallet.

And it is the purest idiocy to think that having a firearm concealed on one's person is going to obviate the element of surprise that is too obviously what muggers and robbers rely on, just for starters.

How is having a firearm in one's purse or tucked in one's belt going to help when one has been hit or grabbed from behind, or "stuck up" from any direction by someone already holding a firearm? How many bad guys are really going to walk up to someone empty-handed and unarmed, and say, from a safe distance, "okay, buddy, now reach into your purse/pocket and hand me your wallet"? How many bad guys are going to make this request of one person in a group, leaving the other(s) to reach for their pistols?


Our choice is to either cower in fear in our homes, hoping the police will stop the bad man, or we can learn to take care of ourselves and stop depending on someone else to protect us. It's entirely up to us.

Excuse me if I've misunderstood here ... but I thought I'd heard that it was NOT fear that was the motivating factor for those who choose to tote firearms around on their person? If the only alternative is said to be to "cower" in one's home in fear or walk abroad with a weapon, it seems to me that fear is very much the motivating factor.

Of course, I don't actually believe it is. I don't actually believe that any of this is the reason why anybody wants to walk around with a gun, at all. Any more than I believe that anyone's objection to things like firearms registries has anything to do with nasty tyrannical governments being able to confiscate his/her guns.

And I find it most interesting that the rationale so often offered is that "the government" is both unable and unwilling to protect individuals, coupled with the allegedly foreseeable attempt by that government to oppress individuals.

What it all amounts to is a repudiation of the entire concept of liberal democracy. One's neighbours are not to be trusted to choose governments that will act in one's own interests, and the government they choose is not to be trusted to act in one's own interests.

This is where I might begin to question whether my interests are perhaps inimical to the interests of my neighbours and my society (I mean, if I weren't already perfectly aware that what I was doing was placing my own interests, being perfectly aware of what they were and of how inimical they were to the values of my society, above the interests and values of my neighbours) ... or at least to expect others to be a tad suspicious of my motives, when what I'm demanding is so plainly based on my perception of them as my enemy and my disregard for their well-being and my contempt for the system they have established and governments they elect for implementing their values.

And if I were one of the neighbours in question, I would indeed be very suspicious.


I believe the Contitution of the United States guarantees the inalienable right of all law abiding Americans to keep and bear arms in defense of ... their property.

I'm wondering whether you could quote that bit for me: both where the right is limited to "law abiding" USAmericans (why wouldn't a non-"law-abiding" person have the right to defend his/her property, not to mention his/her self?), and where the right is stated as being a right to defend property.

.