The reason your safety is your responsibility

Here's a perfect example of why many people choose to carry and all you can do is attack the authors writing skills and atempt to argue that this never should have happened to him statistically.

This is when reading the whole thread enables you not to look like a jackass.

But it all comes down to that one time you have it. I support the right to carry a weapon if you are properly trained to do so. The Man in this story was obviously trained on how to react to the situation, and it saved his life.

Sure and I've acknowledged that.

I guess that's a fundamental difference in view then, those who are familiar with guns don't see any risk in daily carry.

The only real thing I would worry about would be printing & freaking out some idiot. Just what I need, lose my carry permit because some moron saw my holster when I reached for a loaf of bread in the store.

I am familiar with guns(its hard for me to get a CC permit in NY) and I still do not see the need for a daily carry. Why don't people feel the need to carry a flashlight (though many do, still just an example), a case of extra batteries (all possible sizes, who knows what can happen right?), two full changes of clothing, 3 days worth of MRE rations, two full size spare tires, two extra cell phone batteries, enough fluids to refill all possible fluids in your car, waterproof matches (never know when you're going to need to start a fire for warmth), a compass, and a plethora of other items?
Most people don't even have an updated local map in their car at all times, yet, were worried about carrying fully loaded weapons. I think we have a little mix up in priorities here.

The chances of you being in a sitaution were you need that firearm are ridiculously slim. Also many of these situations could be diffused without violence, at minimal loss. Of course there is a badass hero factor involved when talking about CC permits, there is no denying that. You can say "yea but that one time you really need it", sure, but you can say that about a countless number of things. How about that time you ran your car off the road, down a ravine, broke your legs and couldn't phone for help. I bet you sure wish you had that flare gun, food rations and other survival gear with you. You should have had it on you for that one time you really need it right? Realistically you being in an emergency sitaution where you need a tool other than a gun to really help your situation far outweigh the situations you need a gun for your situation. Carrying a gun on you is a power/security blanket/penis issue. You probably never need it, but boy do you feel safe and such a badass at the same time!

But it all comes down to that one time you have it. I support the right to carry a weapon if you are properly trained to do so. The Man in this story was obviously trained on how to react to the situation, and it saved his life.

See my above comment about realistic emergency sitautions you will see yourself in.

I'd love to see some numbers on CC permits, the areas they are issued and the related crime statistics in thoes areas. I am going to venture to guess that the areas with large dense populations with higher crime rates have lower numbers of issues CC permits, like NYC, LA, Detroit, Chicago. This is just a guess.

To reiterate; I fully support firearm ownership and have no problem with people around me carrying guns in public. I'd like to have a CC permit, but they are just incredibly hard to obtain in NYS, and I don't really see a time when I'll want to carry a gun full time. But I'll still get the permit to carry.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: UNESC0
It was a joke. Of course fires are a totally different issue and I'd be a complete idiot to see the two as analagous - unfortunately, it seems that the prevalent attitude is that the reasoning behind gun concealment (which is a different than ownership altogether) is for protection against "the elite and the criminal".

Ok. So when the elites would like to oppress the "common man" they'll just take out their guns and fight back? If enough people are armed then the government can't abuse its power? I fail to see how carrying a gun around can protect someone from the evil "elite" class looking to oppress joe-blow america.

We outnumber them by some 300-to-1, fool. I would gladly wager large odds that the US military could not defeat the people of the United States today. After all, how are they doing in Iraq?

And when a criminal attacks a person, what are their goals? Rape, murder, theft? I'd gladly hand over my wallet to a criminal rather than blow his head off; and that's assuming he dosen't have a gun either - in that case drawing your own weapon would guarantee someone dying instead of being out $50 and inconvenienced by cancelling credit cards. Only a psychopath or serial rapist kills and rapes without provocation or circumstance. It is true that someone of that mental state would rape your girlfriend or kill you but like SampSon and Remy XO said, that's less likely than being hit by lightning (even less in a different country, ie. Canada).

That you place no value on your property does not mean that others feel the same. You observe from a position of luxury. You can afford the sacrifice. Others may not be in a similar position. By denying them the right to protect their property, you oppress the poor who are least able to afford the loss.

It just seems like having a gun on your person at all times goes far beyond normal and reasonable use for a weapon. This isn't about gun control or outlawing guns altogether - its about the need and likelihood of using a concealed weapon to prevent an otherwise inevitable occurrance.

Need and likelihood are irrelevant. It's unlikely that a person will ever need to use a can of mace, shall we outlaw those too? It is not the burden of the people to prove their innocence. Your argument just doesn't hold water.

 

[Remy XO]

Originally posted by: hscorpio

I couldn't disagree more. Of course an armed person is going to scare most criminals. They are cowards by definition, preying on people they assume to be unarmed and weak. You give them far too much credit.

I can't believe you just equated a law abiding citizen carrying for protection to a criminal. WTF kind of warped mentality can lead to such an idea?

Ofcourse in a perfect society, everyone needs to own a firearm and have rights to use it when they feel threatened. Well if that was the case then yes, criminals will think twice about preying on people, but that's not the case. Furthermore, I am not agreeing that everyone shouldn't own a firearm, but the need to carry one everywhere they go. In cases where criminals never had the intention of using their firearm will use it if they feel threatened by another.

For your case to work, everyone in the country should carry a 9mm on their waist. Now that to me sounds ridiculous.

 

[dartworth]

"live free or die"

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Remy XO

Originally posted by: hscorpio
I couldn't disagree more. Of course an armed person is going to scare most criminals. They are cowards by definition, preying on people they assume to be unarmed and weak. You give them far too much credit.

I can't believe you just equated a law abiding citizen carrying for protection to a criminal. WTF kind of warped mentality can lead to such an idea?

Ofcourse in a perfect society, everyone needs to own a firearm and have rights to use it when they feel threatened. Well if that was the case then yes, criminals will think twice about preying on people, but that's not the case. Furthermore, I am not agreeing that everyone shouldn't own a firearm, but in cases where criminals never had the intention of using their firearm will use it if they feel threatened by another.

Define this "perfect society" and explain why you think we don't live in it. Bear in mind that your personal expectations are pretty meaningless in the face of reality. In other words, if your "perfect reality" is utopian, you only expose your own bitterness.

 

[SVT Cobra]

wow good post...ty for sharing...I am not going to get into a debate about this (I believe that guns should be allowed in all states and forms to people who have met the requirements and certifications)......but I will say it just shows how it is so important to train so you can let it kick in automatically and take action

 

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: Remy XO
Oh please, you're talkin about people that live in a society where they can get killed by their own peers at any given time. When a person like this goes up to a regular joe on the street for whatever reason and them having a gun is not going to make them "Scared Sh!tless" It's gonna give them more of a reason to shoot you.

If you go out everyday with a gun to protect you, you're making yourself just like one of them.

I think you missed my point. I don't want them to be scared because I have a gun, I want them to be scared that I might have one. I honestly don't want them (or anyone else) to ever know I have a gun.

If there was a very real chance of armed response robbery would be a much less appealing professionl.

Viper GTS

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: Remy XO

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Again, a relatively fundamental difference in view - I refuse to be pushed around by a criminal minority, and more importantly I will not be part of the brainwashing that has taken place to convince people that their personal safety this one time is more important than the long term effect on society. The "give them what they want" attitude has turned everyone on the street into a potential target. Odds are if I point a gun at you you'll give me whatever I want without the slightest resistance. That is absolutely unacceptable to me. I want criminals to be scared sh!tless of getting their head blown off when they try to hold someone up.

Viper GTS

Oh please, you're talkin about people that live in a society where they can get killed by their own peers at any given time. When a person like this goes up to a regular joe on the street for whatever reason and them having a gun is not going to make them "Scared Sh!tless" It's gonna give them more of a reason to shoot you.

If you go out everyday with a gun to protect you, you're making yourself just like one of them.

Just like one of them? Excuse me, but people with CC permits who carry arent out raping, murdering and robbing people. To even try to compare them is simply ridiculous.
One group of people actively works towards harming others. The other group of people actively works to protect themselves from the former.

As for facing down thugs with guns, thats why training is so vital. You dont just buy a pistol, get the CC and be done withit. You practice. You practice practice practice and when your thoroughly disgusted you shoot some more. You shoot in the cold, you shoot in the rain, you shoot in competitions using props. You shoot offhand, you practice quick darws, you mix in dud rounds to simulate failure to fires and jams. And that gives you the edge you NEED to win. Read that first post again, the guy admits his mind was frozen with fear. When that happens yourbody just follows gut instincts and movements. Thats what he did. His body simply followed the movements he had practiced over and over and over.
And thats why hes still alive today.

But to compare the two and say their "the same level", thats simply ignorance and foolishness.

 

[Remy XO]

Originally posted by: Vic
Define this "perfect society" and explain why you think we don't live in it. Bear in mind that your personal expectations are pretty meaningless in the face of reality. In other words, if your "perfect reality" is utopian, you only expose your own bitterness.

Well if we were in a perfect society then why do you think we need to carry a weapon around all the time? Do you personally carry one? Or do you think just because of this one account where the person had a good reason to use it justifies everyone to carry a hand gun now? I would be more fearful of eveyone carrying a handgun around then the small percentage of crazy men that would kill and rape random people.

Everyone takes an exam and practices to get their driver license and we all know how that still might turn out.

Seriously I may be saying some radical things but I believe that theres no one solution to this problem.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: Remy XO

Originally posted by: Vic
Define this "perfect society" and explain why you think we don't live in it. Bear in mind that your personal expectations are pretty meaningless in the face of reality. In other words, if your "perfect reality" is utopian, you only expose your own bitterness.

Well if we were in a perfect society then why do you think we need to carry a weapon around all the time? Do you personally carry one? Or do you think just because of this one account where the person had a good reason to use it justifies everyone to carry a hand gun now? I would be more fearful of eveyone carrying a handgun around then the small percentage of crazy men that would kill and rape random people.

Everyone takes an exam and practices to get their driver license and we all know how that turns out.

Seriously this topic can be beaten to death. I can agree that theres no one solution to it.

Small percentage?
You do know firearms were used over 2 million times in the defense of life and property right? I'd hardly consider that a small percentage.

To put that in perspective, firearms were used to defend life and property over one hundred times more then there were drunk driving fatalities.

In fact, there werea reported 2,500,000 injuries from all reported traffic accidents in the year 2004.
You realize firearms were used in defense in damn near the same number as people injured in a car wreck?

Better redefine "small percenatge" if you ask me. Either that or brush up on your facts and quit using knee jerk emotional responses as the basis of your..."argument".....

 

[Remy XO]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Small percentage?
You do know firearms were used over 2 million times in the defense of life and property right? I'd hardly consider that a small percentage.

To put that in perspective, firearms were used to defend life and property over ten times more then there were drunk driving fatalities.

Better redefine "small percenatge" if you ask me. Either that or brush up on your facts and quit using knee jerk emotional responses as the basis of your..."argument".....

To my understanding we were talkin about carrying a firearm everywhere we go and to use it when we feel threatened. I have no problem using a firearm when it is clear that a criminal is in your house trying to commit home invasions.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: Remy XO

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Small percentage?
You do know firearms were used over 2 million times in the defense of life and property right? I'd hardly consider that a small percentage.

To put that in perspective, firearms were used to defend life and property over ten times more then there were drunk driving fatalities.

Better redefine "small percenatge" if you ask me. Either that or brush up on your facts and quit using knee jerk emotional responses as the basis of your..."argument".....

To my understanding we were talkin about carrying a firearm everywhere we go and to use it when we feel threatened. I have no problem using a firearm when it is clear that a criminal is going to rob my house or do worse.

So now your saying its ok to use a gun if the criminla breaks into your house to kill you, but its not ok to use a gun if the criminal tries to kill you while your out and about?
What kind of libtard logic are you using here??

 

Missed a few posts, sorry.

Again, a relatively fundamental difference in view - I refuse to be pushed around by a criminal minority, and more importantly I will not be part of the brainwashing that has taken place to convince people that their personal safety this one time is more important than the long term effect on society. The "give them what they want" attitude has turned everyone on the street into a potential target. Odds are if I point a gun at you you'll give me whatever I want without the slightest resistance. That is absolutely unacceptable to me. I want criminals to be scared sh!tless of getting their head blown off when they try to hold someone up.

Right, you point a gun at me I'm going to give you what possessions of mine you want. Why would I risk my life for some menial possessions? In the event an attacker has a gun pointed directly at your face at close range, the smart decision would be to do what he asks, rather than be a hero and get shot.

Of course the odds are miniscule that you'll need it. The odds are miniscule I'll need my seatbelt too.

Viper GTS

Your seatbelt will be used and possibly save your life thousands of times before you ever draw your gun in self-defense. That was a silly statement to make.

Small percentage?
You do know firearms were used over 2 million times in the defense of life and property right? I'd hardly consider that a small percentage.

To put that in perspective, firearms were used to defend life and property over one hundred times more then there were drunk driving fatalities.

Not to nag, but citation of statistics would be nice. Just want to see Remy XO shoosh.

 

[Remy XO]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

So now your saying its ok to use a gun if the criminla breaks into your house to kill you, but its not ok to use a gun if the criminal tries to kill you while your out and about?
What kind of libtard logic are you using here??

My whole point of my goddamn discussion is that not all criminals out there are going to come up to you to kill you for no goddamn reason unless you give them one.

 

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: SampSon
Why don't people feel the need to carry a flashlight (though many do, still just an example), a case of extra batteries (all possible sizes, who knows what can happen right?), two full changes of clothing, 3 days worth of MRE rations, two full size spare tires, two extra cell phone batteries, enough fluids to refill all possible fluids in your car, waterproof matches (never know when you're going to need to start a fire for warmth), a compass, and a plethora of other items?
Most people don't even have an updated local map in their car at all times, yet, were worried about carrying fully loaded weapons. I think we have a little mix up in priorities here.

Most people are rarely (if ever) in a position where they would be seriously at risk by not being prepared in any of those ways.

The majority of people here are rarely without an internet connection, let alone food, heat, etc. Would we all be SOL if there was a sudden, catastrophic loss of infrastructure? Maybe. Personally I have enough faith in the robustness of our society that I don't feel the need to go to such lengths to be prepared.

Why then, you might ask, do I have a CC permit?

1) It requires relatively little inconvenience or hassle on my part. The application process in shall issue states is painless, & I don't see the physical carry as being that large a hurdle.
2) It protects me in one area that I absolutely cannot rely on anyone else in. There won't be anybody around when/if it happens, & by the time the police get there it will be long over.

For those who think I walk around in fear, don't kid yourself. I simply want the option of being armed.

Viper GTS

 

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: SampSon
Right, you point a gun at me I'm going to give you what possessions of mine you want. Why would I risk my life for some menial possessions? In the event an attacker has a gun pointed directly at your face at close range, the smart decision would be to do what he asks, rather than be a hero and get shot.

I'm not necessarily suggesting that someone risk their life for possessions. I do think that society needs to recognize they are in the vast majority & use that to their advantage. Would I suggest reaching for a gun if someone already has one on you? Of course not. Am I going to be looking for the first possible chance to fight back? Of course.

Your seatbelt will be used and possibly save your life thousands of times before you ever draw your gun in self-defense. That was a silly statement to make.

I don't really see them as being that different. In fact, the seatbelt neatly fits me reasoning for concealed carry - Virtually no hassle to me (in fact I feel seriously off if I'm NOT wearing it), & it fills a void where nothing else really can.

Viper GTS

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: SampSon

Of course the odds are miniscule that you'll need it. The odds are miniscule I'll need my seatbelt too.

Viper GTS

Your seatbelt will be used and possibly save your life thousands of times before you ever draw your gun in self-defense. That was a silly statement to make.

Well, if you consider firearms are used approx 2 million times, and accident injuries around around 2 million...Its not unreasonable to say you may end up using a pistol as much as a seatbelt.

Small percentage?
You do know firearms were used over 2 million times in the defense of life and property right? I'd hardly consider that a small percentage.

To put that in perspective, firearms were used to defend life and property over one hundred times more then there were drunk driving fatalities.

Not to nag, but citation of statistics would be nice. Just want to see Remy XO shoosh.

Fair nuff. If one is going to make the claim, one should back it up.

Gun facts
Gun facts
Gun facts

NHTSA data (pdf)

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Remy XO

Originally posted by: Vic
Define this "perfect society" and explain why you think we don't live in it. Bear in mind that your personal expectations are pretty meaningless in the face of reality. In other words, if your "perfect reality" is utopian, you only expose your own bitterness.

Well if we were in a perfect society then why do you think we need to carry a weapon around all the time? Do you personally carry one? Or do you think just because of this one account where the person had a good reason to use it justifies everyone to carry a hand gun now? I would be more fearful of eveyone carrying a handgun around then the small percentage of crazy men that would kill and rape random people.

Everyone takes an exam and practices to get their driver license and we all know how that still might turn out.

Seriously I may be saying some radical things but I believe that theres no one solution to this problem.

Ah HAHA! Swallow your tail much? If we lived in a perfect society, carrying guns would be just fine, but then again a perfect society doesn't need for people to carry guns... :laugh:

Seriously, give up. Your argument is ridiculous and blaming the victim is a low-blow.

 

[Sphexi]

Worst read ever. Was the writer 13? English a 4th language? I got through the majority of the main story, that was it.

 

[bradruth]

I read that on GlockTalk quite some time ago.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: bradruth
I read that on GlockTalk quite some time ago.

Yes, its fairly old.

 

[Toonces]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: UNESC0
It was a joke. Of course fires are a totally different issue and I'd be a complete idiot to see the two as analagous - unfortunately, it seems that the prevalent attitude is that the reasoning behind gun concealment (which is a different than ownership altogether) is for protection against "the elite and the criminal".

Ok. So when the elites would like to oppress the "common man" they'll just take out their guns and fight back? If enough people are armed then the government can't abuse its power? I fail to see how carrying a gun around can protect someone from the evil "elite" class looking to oppress joe-blow america.

We outnumber them by some 300-to-1, fool. I would gladly wager large odds that the US military could not defeat the people of the United States today. After all, how are they doing in Iraq?

Thanks for calling me a fool. Nice, it's great to see an elite member picking on someone new - glad to engage you in a rational and impartial discourse about concealment and carrying of handguns. I also don't perscribe to the belief that a military coup would be a possibility within a liberalized democracy such as the United States. To even think that the government requires civilians to be armed in case the military begins oppressing its citizens borders on paranoia. Pitting a military which spends $500 BILLION dollars on advanced weapons evey year against a bunch of rifle-toting civilians reminds me of that 100 Samurai v. 100 Knight thread, hypothesis and conjecture not even worth considering.

And when a criminal attacks a person, what are their goals? Rape, murder, theft? I'd gladly hand over my wallet to a criminal rather than blow his head off; and that's assuming he dosen't have a gun either - in that case drawing your own weapon would guarantee someone dying instead of being out $50 and inconvenienced by cancelling credit cards. Only a psychopath or serial rapist kills and rapes without provocation or circumstance. It is true that someone of that mental state would rape your girlfriend or kill you but like SampSon and Remy XO said, that's less likely than being hit by lightning (even less in a different country, ie. Canada).

That you place no value on your property does not mean that others feel the same. You observe from a position of luxury. You can afford the sacrifice. Others may not be in a similar position. By denying them the right to protect their property, you oppress the poor who are least able to afford the loss.[/quote]

Again, this is about protecting individual's property from robbery while not within their home. How could someone be out and about with items that they could not afford to sacrifice? Do you personally think there is no security in society for those who are living from paycheck to paycheck that they should spend thousands of dollars on arming themselves, ammunition, gun club fees, registration fees, practise costs that they are the "least able to afford" within society. Handguns and CC permits are not owned by the poor in society, its too expensive for someone living in poverty to own and operate a handgun for personal safety.

It just seems like having a gun on your person at all times goes far beyond normal and reasonable use for a weapon. This isn't about gun control or outlawing guns altogether - its about the need and likelihood of using a concealed weapon to prevent an otherwise inevitable occurrance.

Need and likelihood are irrelevant. It's unlikely that a person will ever need to use a can of mace, shall we outlaw those too? It is not the burden of the people to prove their innocence. Your argument just doesn't hold water.[/quote]

That is your opinion, which evidently stems from paranoia and a pessimistic view of modern society. It is not the "freedom" to own guns for protection which is under question here in this thread, but rather the benefits that carrying a weapon bring to an individual and society at large. The burden of proof falls not to the actions of individuals but rather to those of criminals. By brandishing a weapon can one seriously think the outcome will be more beneficial than without one? Death preferable to loss of property?

Are you one to see society as Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness or Life, liberty, and the pursuit of property? Sounds like the latter to me.

 

[bradruth]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: bradruth
I read that on GlockTalk quite some time ago.

Yes, its fairly old.

Still a good read though. Have you read the one about the off-duty cop in McDonalds with his family? Some robber came in and walked straight to the back office while he was there (ordering at that time, I believe). He had his family and a bunch of customers leave and waited until the robber came out, at which point he engaged him. I remember his story because he places his emphasis on carrying spare ammo and how relieved he was that he was able to reload before approaching the downed suspect. I think about that every time I think about leaving without a spare mag (which, I admit, I still do on occasion...usually due to what I'm wearing).

 

[Toonces]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: SampSon

Of course the odds are miniscule that you'll need it. The odds are miniscule I'll need my seatbelt too.

Viper GTS

Your seatbelt will be used and possibly save your life thousands of times before you ever draw your gun in self-defense. That was a silly statement to make.

Well, if you consider firearms are used approx 2 million times, and accident injuries around around 2 million...Its not unreasonable to say you may end up using a pistol as much as a seatbelt.

Small percentage?
You do know firearms were used over 2 million times in the defense of life and property right? I'd hardly consider that a small percentage.

To put that in perspective, firearms were used to defend life and property over one hundred times more then there were drunk driving fatalities.

Not to nag, but citation of statistics would be nice. Just want to see Remy XO shoosh.

Fair nuff. If one is going to make the claim, one should back it up.

Gun facts
Gun facts
Gun facts

NHTSA data (pdf)

And I take it that these statistics are from peer-reviewed academic journals?

Gunowners.org, Texas State Rifle Association, and Women Against Gun Control are hardly sources that could ever be taken as non-biased. Are there any statistics from leading journals or government agencies?

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: UNESC0
Again, this is about protecting individual's property from robbery while not within their home. How could someone be out and about with items that they could not afford to sacrifice? Do you personally think there is no security in society for those who are living from paycheck to paycheck that they should spend thousands of dollars on arming themselves, ammunition, gun club fees, registration fees, practise costs that they are the "least able to afford" within society. Handguns and CC permits are not owned by the poor in society, its too expensive for someone living in poverty to own and operate a handgun for personal safety.

Tell that to the people in Brazil.
Also, it doesnt take thousands of dollars. In fact, you could easily do it for well under 500.