Yeah yeah. Rock climbers play with caribiners, surfers play with surfboards, kayakers play with paddles, skiers play with poles (heh, I even snuck in a double entenedre) and runners play with shoes. Fine.

We're just going to have to disagree, you're as stubborn as I am!

well, the logic would seem to satisfy those that think proper training should be required. But I guess that if someone actually pursues that proper training, then people should be scared. kinda circular there, isn't it?

A very long time ago a bunch of people tried less 'deathy' ways of resolving conflicts. It fell on deaf ears so they took up arms to defend their freedom. It may be melodramatic, but it also worked and could continue to work if people weren't more afraid of freedom than they are of death.

Part of my point is exactly that; the idea of gun use as a means of control is completely cyclical.

It kind of reminds me of how racism has escalated in my small town; see, the french and english in Canada seem to "hate each other". I put that in quotation marks because that's what the other side says about their counterpart; "Well he hated me first", etc. The thing is, NB is the only bi-lingual province in Canada and last week our minister of education, a guy I've known most of my life and thought was a borderline dick, Kelly Lamrock decided to completely decimate the early french-immersion program for children before reaching Middle School. A lot of people are not happy. But all it takes is for one person to say "he hates the french", then an english speaking citizen to say "Well you want to turn MY city into your own little french speaking town," followed by "We have the right to our language", and have an the aforementioned english person to say "well we are the majority". Protests follow. It's been that way my whole life here. So, do the French citizens of Fredericton shoot the English? Lord, I hope we've become more civilized then that.

In fact, the idea of saying "him before me" is super barbaric to me. I don't understand this paranoia and ingrained need to defend yourself against something that is a product of your own actions. That "your" isn't pointed at anyone person, but rather a general "your". It's like Fredericton's situation, one person feels threatened so they threaten the other side and it all escalates.

Maybe what you're saying is that we've gone past this point of no return, and there is no answer but violence. I hope not. Maybe it's simply the attitude we sport; maybe it's all our own perception. It all comes off very superior to me. You want to be better then the others and incase they raise to the level you are at, you can raise once again. When does it stop?

The problem with your perception is that you're painting everyone who carries or wants to carry with the same brush and in the same color. That's what ends up dividing the issue and making it so confrontational.

People need to understand that there are people who don't care about others and will use whatever violent means necessary to obtain their objectives over someone weaker than them.

For those people, having that gun means having control over those without one and so your perception for THOSE people would be spot on. For the others, they don't want to be 'better', they just want to not be controlled by the former. I don't think that's trying to be superior, it's just trying to protect ones self.

This is kind of what I was gonna say. Carrying isn't about control for everyone, it's about protection. For me, being a female, I've met way too many of the type that wants to control everyone. And a few that went about it through violence..personally, I'm not willing to just sit back and let that keep happening. I carry to protect myself, it's not because I think it's fun to walk around with a gun.

Crime may be scary to think about, but it's real.

I don't see any logic in that. It's like saying "Carrying a bomb isn't about control (making people afraid), it's about protection." Considering that even well trained people accidentally shoot themselves so often and considering that if one were to engage an evildoer in a firefight how dangerous it would be for bystanders, the idea of associating guns and safety simply doesn't work.

Can you source your hyperbole?

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over the sound of you being owned so hard before. Want another? BAM:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_vio..._United_States
Sourced to:
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfirates2000.html

Wow! That was snotty. Are those accidental gunshot wounds caused by well-trained people as you suggested in your post? Also, how do these numbers compare to the number of times guns are actually fired?

Protection and safety aren't necessarily the same thing. You carry a gun hoping to never have to use it or put anyone in harm's way. Thing is, CCWs are around to be a deterrent and prevent crime. The idea being, a criminal might think twice before committing a crime because that person could be packing. Does that work? No, not enough people carry, but that was the idea.

Suggesting that accidental shootings are "hyperbole" without doing an iota of research is irresponsible.
Are all of the 23,237 wounds caused by people who are trained? Probably not, but statistically some of them are. If you look at my wording:
To clarify, I'm not claiming that it's some great number of well trained gun owners that shoot themselves, as that would be incorrect. I am simply suggesting that even when an individual is very well trained with a gun, accidents can happen. If you have an accident with a car, there are safety precautions taken by the manufacturer that can help to save you and anyone else. If you have an accident with a gun, aside from a safety there's very little to protect whomever or whatever is staring down the barrel.

Wouldn't it make more sense to not conceal the weapon, thus providing visual evidence to said criminal instead of simply giving them statistical odds that you have a gun?

You argued that even well-trained people accidentally shoot themselves "so often". This may be true. I don't know. The statistics you provide do suggest that people do accidentally injure themselves when using firearms. Does this mean that "well-trained people" injure themselves "so often"? It's hard to tell without data on "well-trained" people (whatever than means) and some means of putting that 23,000 number in a context (how many accidents compared to how many uses, etc.).
Agreed.

"So often" wasn't intended to give a specific amount, simply suggest that it's probably a lot more than one or two.

Unfortunately, the information on people who have official training (at a school or range) under their belt isn't available for some reason.

I wouldn't no where to look. It's quite possible that it's never recorded. Regardless, frequency of accidental injury per use is more interesting to me than frequency of accidental injury.

Yep. It's called open carry, which is very common in Az. And I do that too, but it increases the chances of your weapon being used against you.

The frequency isn't altogether inapplicable, though. 23,237 instances? That's quite a few.
So neither is a good option?

How?

Would the benefit of deterrence associated with open carry outweigh the costs?

It sounds like quite a few, but it's hard to tell without information about usage. It would be more compelling if we knew something like accident per user or accident per use.

Well, neither is ideal but you work with what you have. If more people had CCWs I think that the idea could work. But we all know that's not going to happen.

Are you asking how I open carry? In Arizona you can open carry without a CCW as long as the firearm is visible at all times. Most often, people use holsters attached to their belts.

And yeah I think the benefit outweighs the risks in many situations. But that only applies if you are trained, reducing the risk of being disarmed. Even in Arizona, if you open carry people notice and they are a little scared of you because of it. I don't see that as a bad thing.

Sorry I was unclear, I was wondering about how one becomes disarmed, how frequently that actually occurs in open carry situations, and whether in your opinion that frequency outweighs the deterrence benefits. You answered my questions despite my vague post.

I see your point. I have a problem finding the right words to describe how I feel on this site, I don't know why. Nevertheless, I think my internal thoughts, the ones I meant to convey, are being missed; I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. Weapons, in any form, are tools to achieve some sort of superiority.

So there are horrible people who would kill someone else, yes? And you're point is, if the time and place were somehow ever to come about, you would kill that person first?

You see my point as a broad generalization because you don't see yourself within that generalization. You take yourself out of that group, then label the others evil doers. What confuses me is you are both willing to perform the same acts. Yet, you are right, while he is wrong.

You can argue he was going to do it first. Why would he? He felt threatened, hurt, without rights? He was poor and felt his only path was the one leading to your door and your death and, eventually, to your cash. You are his superior, in his eyes, and he wishes to equal the playing ground.

You see him and say "It is a crime for him to do this, etc". You see he has a gun, or access to them. Your thinking "The human race is certainly capable of this, so I need to defend myself". When he shows up, you're already to blow his ass to smithereens.

Don't you see that it goes both ways?

But, when I say there are better ways, I don't mean inviting the gun wielding man into your home for coffee, convincing him violence isn't the way, then giving him a pat on the ass and sending him on his way. I mean find a way to never have the situation happen.

I'm not perfect. I don't want my kids to be killed at school, or my wife raped and beaten, or have me be mugged and stabbed. But I don't want my neighbor to think I'm willing to do that to him. And I hope that he doesn't think the same about me. But, if I were to assume the worst about him, I think that gives him the right to assume that about me.

You justifying this, gives your potential "enemy" reason to justify their actions as well. Maybe I'm wrong.

Some people think that killing is morally acceptable when it's in defense, punk. It's something I suspect you nor I will ever agree with.

This should be moved to Politics, as it's clear that this is no longer about Weaponry, and that it no longer adheres to the purpose of this subsection.

From the Rules of Tilted Weaponry:
Discussing this here is like discussing why porn is evil in Tilted Exhibition.

Who are you calling pun... oh, wait, screen name! Got it.

MOST criminals are cowards at heart and will avoid even the slightest possibility they could be shot or shot at. Seeing the weapon can usually make this happen. Are there exceptions? Of course there are, just like every other rule of the world.

In my 4 years of studying guns, news, and laws I have heard of only one single incident where someone open carrying was robbed specifically for their carried weapon.

So why not carry a taser or pepper spray, things demonstrated to deter, but not (or very, VERY rarely) to kill?

because 'usually' those same criminals/cowards don't fear tasers (because it requires up close contact) or pepper spray (because you miss, you're done), but the thought that death could be imminent from the gun on the intended victims hip does drive home the point.

It's too bad you've not looked into alternatives for firearms recently (in the last 20 years). Most tasers now are projectile in nature, easily reaching distances beyond 15 feet. I wouldn't call that close contact at all.
Miss? I've gotten pepper spray on my jeans and my eyes teared up almost instantly.

If these were such bad options you wouldn't need to misrepresent their effectiveness.

I once sang the marines hymn in a tent filled with CS gas, which is stronger than OC spray, so for some it's effective, for others it isn't. A bullet stops nearly everything.

Yeah, I'm just gonna let dk talk for me. He gets it. Guns are by far a much more effective deterrent.

Note to self, do not fuck with dksuddeth.

I can get a ballistic vest of eBay for less than $120. Shipped. And don't bullshit me about shooting in the head. If you're trained, you're trained to hit the biggest target: the body.

The people you have to worry about almost never plan ahead that well.

Besides, the fact that you have a bullet proof vest doesn't mean a shot won't put you on the ground.

I would think that it's the people that plan ahead that one should be worried about.

If you're trained, you're trained to aim for the largest part of the target FIRST. That doesn't mean that you don't know how to double tap to the chest then head.

you should be concerned about both.

Assassination shot is a hard sell for self defense in court.

I'd argue that the majority of violent crimes are committed by the former. And even if that was the case, there's no reason you wouldn't notice after the first shot that hey this guy isn't stopping and if you had to then aim some place else.

How many people are going to get up even with armor after you double them to the chest? I've never been shot but from what I understand any decently powerful handgun is going to knock them the f out!

Having been shot without a vest, I can tell you that not all wounds are fatal. Had I been in a different state of mind at the time, I probably could have killed the guy even with a big hole.

It's important to remember that while movies are really entertaining, they don't always represent real life.

The irony of this statement is fucking delicious. Aside from your fateful and overused "bullet to the leg", everything you know and feel about how guns are used seems to be taken directly from the media. I'm not surprised, frankly, because most liberals and anti-gun nuts haven't ever seen a gun lawfully used or carried, nor knew someone responsible enough to lawfully carry or use.

I'd blame all the video games I play :thumbsup:

Headshot!