why carry?
 

I own a few guns, including a couple handguns. They mostly sit forgotten and locked up in a closet. Why do you bother with carrying a concealed gun? Seems like a pain in the ass. I've got enough shit to carry around and I've never felt even remotely threatened enough to wish I had a gun with me.

I admit I have a big wooden stick in my car, but it's mostly forgotten under the seat as well. It also makes me nervous knowing the guy next to me might have a gun on him. I don't trust people that much.

Re: why carry?
 

It can definitely be a pain in the ass -- sometimes, literally. However, if no one carries, the deterrant effect of a CCW law is nullified.

Someone who carries shouldn't make you nervous (first off, since you probably shouldn't notice in the first place), as they may save your ass if some wacko starts shooting up a McDonald's that you happen to visit. Hopefully neither of us are in a situation where a handgun would have helped, and one was not available.

"Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst."

I don't personally believe in carrying
 

Being 6 feet tall and living in a really nice Massachussetts neighborhood. I just moved here, not sure if I spelled MA right. anyhow... I think it's important to preserve what's left of citizens rights to arm themselves. Currently I think most people are better off without a weapon. I'd rather get the crap beaten out of me or have my wallet stolen then escalate any situation to lethal force. But the world was once a dangerous place, and times change. They can change alot. And they WILL change. Laws made today have the potential to affect the laws made tommorow in hundreds of other countries for hundreds of years.

I agree with Kel that we should have the right to arm ourselves. But, like my grandfather said, if you carry a gun, you're asking for trouble. One day, I want to get whatever license is necessary for me to keep one under the seat of my car, but I don't think I'll ever carry one while I walk through town or go shopping. I'm just not ready for the burden. Sure, it would come in handy if someone was robbing the Mickie D's while I was there, but what about the rest of the time? What about when I'm just walking down the street and some punks want my wallet? They see my gun, and it's playtime for them and lights out for me. Just my humble opinion.

I don't normally feel threatened, and carrying is a hassle.

I usually only carry when I am going on a trip, or somewhere that I know is sketchy. But I want the ability to carry whenever I feel I need too.

I dont believe in guns. Suppose you're being robbed by an armed thief. If you have no gun, then the probability that he will use it against you (other than for intimidating) are really low; whereas, if you draw your gun, bullets are bound to come flying.

It is better to have a gun and not need one, than to need a gun and not have one.

If I feel that to be the situation, then I won't draw. If I feel like I really am in danger, then I want to be able to defend myself.

Also, it would be foolish to draw while someone is looking at you and pointing their gun at you. The whole idea of having a gun is to get to it before someone gets the drop on you, so the bad guy won't ever get a chance to point his gun at you.

*shrug* Choose to not believe in guns all you want - they exist.

I've never understood that phrase. "I don't believe in guns". I can understand not believeing in God or the Tooth Fairy, but guns? Guns aren't a belief issue. Take a look at the cop down the street. The gun on his/her hip is very real, and entirely unconcerned as to whether or not you believe in it.

As to the question, I have a CCW permit. I don't carry on my person, but frequently carry in my vehicle. My job requires that I drive quite a bit and do so frequently in unsavory neighborhoods. As such, I consider the firearm to be insurance. I've never needed it, and that is how I like it. But I'd rather have it, just in case.

Simply becasue I can....when I turn 21...

btw... the claim that you're more likely to be hurt when defending yourself w/ a gun is bunk. There was some new research released that showed exactly the opposite. Saw it on FARK. It said something to the effect that women were 2.4 times more likely to escape serious physical injury when using a gun. ( with men is was like 1.6 times) Wish I wasn't so lazy....I'd find the article and link it.

here's a few links: (lost some of the laziness)

http://www.ncpa.org/pi/crime/may98c.html
http://www.ncpa.org/pi/crime/pd010401a.html
http://www.ncpa.org/pi/crime/pd060200a.html

Found the one I was talking about.

http://www.guntruths.com/Myths/when_one_is_attacked.htm

Woot!

I think if u live in a bad neighborhood (as I sorta do in Newark, NJ) than i belive its a good thing to have a gun JUST in case.

I've lived in really bad neighborhoods too (in Chicago)... and still never felt I needed the "security" of a gun. I felt, and still do, that I am wise enough to not get in a situation where I might need a gun, which is why I really don't buy the "just in case" theory...

I guess I can buy the need for someone to have a gun in his/her home more than the need to carry one...because if you are in your home, any potential trouble is really coming to you, and you have no way to avoid it. Out in public, you have very much, almost complete, control over avoiding trouble.

Good for you. However, people who carry handguns do not make an effort to get into trouble, and are taught to avoid bad neighborhoods, suspicious groups of people, etc. However, if you and Joe-Handgun-Carrier both are attacked seemingly randomly, Joe-Handgun-Carrier will have a much better chance of escaping unharmed. The most important aspect of shall-issue carry laws is that it acts as a crime deterrant, not that civilians packing guns can roam the streets in yellow tights and be superheroes.

If someone is determined to rob/rape/assault/kill you, there is little that you can do to stop them. You can only cross the street so many times. If you are clairvoyant and know beyond a doubt that you have absolutely no need for a gun for personal protection, then by all means do not get one. However, not all of us posess such gifts and so may feel the need to have a relatively fail-safe method of self-defense. Please don't suggest that those who carry are less competant or ignorant, as the opposite is true.

Ay, and therein lies the rub. It is very unclear whether Joe-handgun-carrier is better off. There is the argument worth entertaining that if you give up your wallet, get raped etc. that no one will be killed. You might even argue that bringing a gun into the situation escalates it to lethal force and only makes things worse. This is based on the belief that most criminals are not interested in killing or harming their victims. Determining what is really the case requires accurate statistical analysis that really isn't possible on the data available (police reports).

It's all an ugly numbers game that no one plays fair. Or at least that's my take on the issue.

To carry or not to carry that is the question. Whether tis better to suffer...
Yadda yadda you know the rest

was it texas where some maniac decided to start shooting ppl in a mcdonalds? what if someone was ther and armed, knew what ther were doing and shot that bastard before he had the chance to hurt anymore ppl than he did? wouldnt that justify carrying a weapon? or is it just ok for maniacs to carry guns and shoot innocents unopposed?

I personally dont want to trust that a criminal isnt interested in hurting me. I want protection from even giving him a chance to hurt me.

In doing so you may feel safe, but statistically you increase the chance of getting shot with your own weapon. You do not increase the chance of coming out of an encounter unscathed (some would argue maybe me :-)
Your literally, shooting yourself in the foot. Individual situations count for nothing. It is the most likely to occur situation that counts.

If you want to do it on principle go ahead, I believe other people have the right to do risky things. No one stops me from inline skating on the highway without a helmet.

"In doing so you may feel safe, but statistically you increase the chance of getting shot with your own weapon. "

This is an inane tautology if I've ever read one. Of course you have a greater chance of getting injured by your own weapon in a conflict if you carry. If you don't carry it, it will not be involved in the conflict at all. Inane.

Let's see...

Chance of getting injured by a gun I left at home at the time of an assault: zero
Chance of getting injured by a gun I have on my person at the time of an assault: miniscule

Miniscule is a substantial increase from zero. Wow.

And this is why I called it a tautology.

As much as I like guns, I don't feel the need to carry a hand-gun at all. I'm glad I live in an area of the world that has very little gun crimes. It's nice to go to bed and not have to worry about that shit.

Heh, my bad. The argument put in a single sentence is:
"Joe handgun carrier is more likely to be shot or seriously injured then Jane miss wussy pants who just loses her wallet or her purity"
Whether it occurs with your own gun or someone elses, JHC is less likely to come home that night.

The point of debate is whether the statistics being quoted by the NRA or the liberal lefty's are more accurate. Whether the above is the case depends on that.

Anyway, the first presentation was the same. You only quoted the first sentence and then called it an inane tautology.
:(

It is much better to be safe than sorry. The only place I dont carry my Glock is 1) In a bar 2) University Campus 3) Any place that is posted "No Firearms" . Simply because even with a CCW they will put your ass in jail. I would much rather have a gun and not need it than to need it and not have it. I completely agree with debaser.

Yeah, the woman should just go along with being raped. After all, she probably "deserved" it by wearing a short skirt or something, right?

:rolleyes:

Getting back to where I started
 

3rd try :-)

I am not trying to be sarcastic, just trying to focus attention on the real issue I have been trying to talk about but which no one has acknowledged yet.

Carrying a weapon decreases the odds of you becoming a victim, but it also decreases the odds of walking away from an encounter unscathed. Escalating the situation to involve lethal weapons, does it truly make you safer?

It's the question I have been asking the whole time. No one answers to that question.

I posed it as a question of statistical analysis. Is the above the reality or not?
If you want to comment on my line of thought that is the question to answer.

You can bring studies which cite sources. For instance a study that investigates nationwide police reports comparing incidents where the victim was armed and incidents where the victim was unarmed. Statistically, was the armed victim more likely to walk away unscathed?
It's a black and white yes or no answer.
The muddy part is that each side of the issue tends to pick reports and incidents in favor of their view of the issue. But if you can find an impartial

Now there are plenty of other reasons to carry. Some people would rather take the risk and not end up a victim. Others want to exercise their carry rights as a deterrent to criminals. I am not addressing that. I agree with all of them, but I value my own safety more, and carrying is hassle. So please try and stay on target ;-)

As for the womans proper response?
Scream really loud... run... Break out the mace! Really, mace is amazing stuff, I got a full facial with it a while back becuase someone in my highschool though it would be funny to do it right before the big game. Was an incredible experience to say the least. This was back when I was 15. Barring any of those being safe options. Well life isn't fair.

Re: Getting back to where I started
 

Yes, it does.

Given the option to defend yourself, if neccessary, with lethal force makes you considerably less likely to suffer greivous injury or death at the hands of an attacker.

If the carrier is not careful, it can also lead to the escalation of a minor situation. This was stressed in the CC course I took. When I carry, you will not find a more respectful, courteous person than me. The point is to avoid situations, like flipping off another driver, that could lead to an altercation.

Where you got the statistics that carrying a weapon makes you less likely to walk away from a situation unscathed, I do not know, but I can see no truth in it.

Also, don't forget the general deterent that armed citizens have on violent criminals.

Again, it is better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.


Edit - Oh yeah, mace doesn't work at all against a determined attacker. I got sprayed as part of my training, and kicked the hell out of the guy who sprayed me.

I am not asking for a conceptual argument. I want to look at the statistical reality. This will be my last post on the subject.
Stay safe everyone.
Cheers!

I don't know if anyone has actually done a hard study to provide those statistics. Most of what we have is inference based on existing databases, which is horrible skewed to one side of the argument or the other, based on who produces it...

I have a "Right to Bear Arms" so I do. If you have the training. And like anything you got to take it out and practice with it. Just to have a CW permit is not enough.

Precisely the point behind CCW laws, particularly in AZ. It's better to be prepared, and not need that preparation, then be found wanting. The loud annoucement that you have a gun and are not afraid to use it in a threatening situation (one thing generally required for a clean shoot) changes things dramatically. Most criminals and ne'er-do-wells prefer complacency on the part of their intended targets. Its more hassle than its worth, if someone fights back. Particularly when that someone might be able to dish out more punishment. That's the reason I carry a legally concelable knofe (blade length under 4" in most states). I can take that one anywhere, without the need for my permit. Add the gun when I am in legal areas, and there you go. :)

Most of the time I don't carry, simply because most of the places around me have seen fit to legally declare that no weapons are allowed inside. But its nice when I have to travel, particularly to some of the nastier places like Phoenix, Tucson, or Yuma.

Veritas en Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

A friend of mine was a police officer. His advice on handguns was simple. If you carry one, be prepared to use it. If you use it, be prepared to kill someone. Waving a gun around will usually get you shot. This was the reason he left the police force. He was unprepared to kill another human being. It is usually better to avoid dangerous situations than to expect to get out of them with what little training you may have in using a handgun. Handguns in an urban setting have only one use - to kill another person.

If deterence is your rationale, why do you conceal them?

It seems to me that a visable weapon would deter would-be attackers more than a hidden one.

You don't have to see something to have it be a deterent. Just the "what if" should be enough to make someone think twice. You wear a condom because she <i>may</i> have a disease, regardless if you see any visible signs of it or not.

I carry almost without exception...but then again, as an officer, my viewpoint is kind of skewed.

Yeah, a visible weapon is definitely more of a deterrent, but, most people who carry don't want to have to announce to the world that they are armed.

Plus, concealed carry is a general deterent, rather than a specific one. You are made safer by it whether you choose to carry or not.

Kel: I dont know if your still listening though you stopped posting but ill tell you right now that the statistics say that allowing a rapist to rape you instead of fighting it( with whatever you have including a gun) will most likely lead to the rapist raping again. Beyond that, your minimizing rape to the loss of purity is pathetic and shows disrespect to all the women that have gone through such traumatic events. I dont know how old you are but I would like to hear you tell your wife/significant other that you believe rape is not a significant injury and that if she was in a situation where she was about to be raped she should not be a wuss and just take it.

kel,

look back up at my links I posted a few days back. they contain statistical data and should answer your questions.

This is the point!! An unarmed society of good citizens makes a great society of victims!!

If all guns are outlawed along with CCW then only outlaws will have guns!! i.e. NYC, Washington DC, Chicago

I carry 24/7, 365!! If the building is posted and you are detected it is only tresspassing!

I do not believe the hype that my gun will be used against me!

Train, Train, Train!! I shoot 2-4 hundred rounds a week, every week!!

There are a lot of crazy quotes out there, i.e. From my cold dead hands! But to tell you the truth they are just a way for someone to express themselves!!

Kel, check out "More Guns, Less Crime" by Locke. It is a useful book of studies and statistics. It also has the advantage of being written by someone that was neutral on the issue if not leaning slightly towards gun control friendly. He is now a major advocate of gun rights.

As to the "in part" portion of your post, the entire post was a tautology. If it was intended as a question, I missed it. As a question, it is, of course, no tautology. For the answer to your question, see the above book. It is an eye-opener.

Well i can say this - had I been carrying my handgun the night I was robbed on my front porch, the apartment complex's worries would have been more in the scope of cleaning bodies off my porch instead of my ranting about security in their office.

If you have no gun, you will be robbed. If you have a gun and are trained in its use, you may prevent the robbery.

Can't verify it, but a graduate of a combat handgun class was accosted by TWO robbers, both armed with guns. He drew his own gun and shot each one three times apiece, terminating the robbery. The distance was very, very close. I don't believe he suffered any legal hassle from it, as they had two perps and two weapons, and he was carrying legally. The point...it can be done.

I would agree that if you're not PREPARED to use a gun, it would be foolish to carry it. There are four criteria for weapons use:

1. The weapon has to be in your hand.
2. You MUST be trained in its use.
3. The weapon has to work (function and be effective, both)
4. YOU MUST BE WILLING TO USE IT.

A law enforcement officer explained it to me this way: If people who are afraid of guns see this, and then decide to call the police, you have to deal with that. Even if your legal to carry that, its more of a pain in the ass than its really worth. Carry it concealed, then you have it if you need it, and nobody knows any better. A criminal is generally looking for people with weapons, and if they look hard enough, they will notice it. If not, their loss. If they are a threat to my life... they are DRT.

because of my job i can carry 24/7 if i want within my state....

but i rarely do when im not at work.....

mainly because it depends upon what im wearing...

and obviously im not gonna go out drinking on a friday night packing "heat"

That logic is flawed. The reason that concealing a weapon is a deterrant is because a criminal doesn't know if a potential victim is carrying or not. Therefore, people who are not carrying "could be" doing so. If everyone who had a permit were to wear their gun on their hip it would 1) easily show criminals who are and are not easy victims, and 2) make those who carry more likely victims of gun theft.

I used to be of the frame of mind that I didn't carry off duty, but I live not too far from the area I work in. It's a rude awakening to be out at the mall with your wife and have the guy you just locked up the night before walk past you. I've had too many "close encounters" and too many death threats to be caught without my gun.

i grew up in a bad area in delaware both my perents carry and beleave me it has saved us
we where on the way home when we stopped at the local 7-11
just as we walked in some perp walks in with a 9mm
nether the less he didnt walk out
beleave me thay didnt want to do it but he pushed it when he butted me with his 9 mm and turned to my dad
i bealve in carring but i also dont beleave in carring sometimes it is a pain but other times its a life saver

Most people have already handled this for me, but I figured I would also post a response myself.

1) Open weapons draw attention. In this day and age, its generally not recommended to advertise that you are armed, as many out there will automatically categorize you as a criminal or lunatic.

2)Open weapons are more likely to be stolen, lost, dropped, etc. If no one knows you have it, they can't take it from you when you aren't paying attention. A good concealed carry also places the weapon more directly under your control.

3)The ability to carry concealed serves the purpose of muddying the line between victim/non-victim for the bad guys. If they don't know who has what, when, or where, they are less likely to try and do something to you.

Interesting point, though, and I understand your thinking.

Veritas en Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

I have had a CC permit for 20 years (former deputy sheriff) and carry a Ruger P90 everywhere I go. It is sometimes a pain as it is a large frame handgun and of course, there are places where it isn't practical but I agree with several of the previous posts. It is much better to have a weapon and not need it than to need it and not have it. BTW, in all those years, never even had to show it to anyone.

I've moved this to Politics, since the basic premis is a political question.

Places with a higher percentage of folks that carry have less gun crime. Period.

i find this all a little scary. I have never considered carrying a gun. I live in Australia and i imagine that gun crime/deaths against population would be far less than some places in the US. Although the only proof i have of this is bowling for columbine, but i don't know how far from the truth that documentary was?

It seems to me that the large reason ofr carrying the gun is fear. Is that right? you're scared something bad will happen to you, so you carry a gun to hopefully protect yourself. That is fear, which isn't neccesaryily a bad thing, it could also be replaced with caution, which has a more comforting or reasonable conatation to it.
Anyway, i guess i am "lucky" to not feel so scared or worried, such that i need a gun to help reassure myself.

Finally, i don't mean to sound too silly, but i don't fully agree with this "It is much better to have a weapon and not need it than to need it and not have it". Its true to an extent, but i guess the same thing could be said that i need to have a helmet on all the time, in case a brick falls on my head, cause it'll be better that i have the helmet and not need it, than to not have the helmet and have a birck fall on my head. Just basically, i guess i am a little naive having never been to america and not knowing too much about the amount of crime and such, but its hard for me to imagine a whole lot of people needing to draw a gun often.

i just think, maybe all this fear, may start to become counterproductive to the way we live our lives in hopefully a free society.

I wonder how many of the "guns are bad" folks out there have actually taken the time to do any actual research on the subject at all. (This would exclude such masterpieces as "Bowling for Columbine")

Learn the facts, your opinions do not matter. Oh, and I am generally right.

LSD

Sleepyjack:
Y'all's Violent Crime rate has risen by 60% since your near-universal handgun ban of a few months back, and is now on the fast track to catch up to the US, in per-capita terms.
Bowling For Columbine was one massive lie from start to finish. Heston's "speech the week after Columbine" was a fraud; bits and pieces of over a half-dozen speeches spanning 18 months, edited together and being presented as the speech he gave at the NRA Convention. In fact, his speech was breif, low-keyed, and required by ther NRA's charter. They had canceled -every- other even of the 5-day convention except the dinner/speech, which is required to maintain their non-profit status, and is also required in their organizational charter.
Moore also went out of his way to equate the NRA with the Ku Klux Klan, which is a fallacy the size of Detroit.
The "Bank Account For Gun" incident was staged. You cannot simply walk into a bank and out again with a rifle; the state where that incident occurred has a 7-day waiting period on the purchase of any firearm. Moore opened his account a week before the scene was shot, had the rifle delivered to the a local FFL ( licensed Firearms dealer ) took it into the bank, had a teller hand it to him, and walked out. This gave the -appearance- that one could simply open an account and be handed a rifle with no checks, licenses, fees, wait, anything. This was, in fact, not true.
Moore also broke Canadian law, on film, when purchasing ammunition. He did not have a license to buy the stuff, nor did he display his identification. An ordinary Canadian would be in prison for this, but since Moore is an anti-gun celebrity with loads of cash...

I don't think moore is anti-gun, in fact he was a member of the NRA himself and a skilled marksman, well maybe. But the main point of Bowling for columbine, was not some anti-gun rant, it had more to do with the media and other sources spreading fear, such that people feel they all needed guns and then use them at will. And if their wasn't so much fear out there, then maybe people wouldn't think we need all these guns.

However, you say crime rate has risen with a universal ban, so i really don't know what to think.... as long as the statistics are correct.
That said, i still think i'd feel more unsafe with a gun, which is a little ironic i guess. If you're not breaking the law though, then there shouldn't be anything stopping you from carrying a gun around. I just don't feel i need it atm.

Well it still depends on the area you live. The area I live has very few gun crimes and not very many people carry guns. So the argument more gun carrying = less crime isn't entirely true.

I mainly carry a gun if I am traveling alone or if I am going to somewhere I feel threatened. However, I am blessed with not having to go to those places and living in a good area so generally I don't need one.

However I would carry one travelling - you never know who is waiting at a rest area or whatever.

BUT - at the same time, a gun can't always save you. If two guys sneak up on you and put a gun to your back, getting a gun won't mean a thing.

And of course, the best deterrent is to go places where there are a lot of people. Criminals try to stake out deserted places. So really there should be no reason to go somewhere deserted if you can.

The key to the carrying of guns is simple - its up to the user. You have to have the responsibility.

You cannot get angry over another driver and threaten them with a gun. You have to understand that the gun you have can end the life of another person. You also have to know that your gun can't be used to threaten others, to get your way. And also you have to realize that if you miss you may kill someone innocent, so in other words, you have to understand how to use it.

Its too bad theres a lot of people out there who carry it and don't udnerstand that and get into more trouble, such as road rage.

Sleepyjack,

Your pretty on target for one of the 'dang fur-in-ners'. America has been pretty swept up in a cult of fear.

How many people, REALLY, get car-jacked or mugged? I mean, if we're talking statistics, your SUV is probably more likely to have a blowout and rollover than for you to be mugged.

Do you have a spare tire in your SUV?

Do you buckle your seat belt?

It's not about fear, it's about facing the reality that it COULD happen to YOU and being prepared for it.

It seems like a lot of the people that are wondering why we carry guns have very uneducated opinion. Not saying everyone here, because i have seen some very good posts on both sides of the fence. What I would like people to realize is that 99% of the ppl that have a concealed weapons permit are the most law abiding citizens in the nation. What better person to have carry a gun, other than and officer? Cops cant be everywhere all the time.
I know that laws differ from state to state on when and where you are allowed to use your weapon, but here in utah, for example, just because someone is holding up a McDonalds at gunpoint doesnt give me the right to pull my gun and start shooting. (i would go to jail depending on the circumstances) If the guy started shooting and i felt that there was an immediate danger to myself and those around me, then yes, i can then pull my weapon and take out the guy, and i would feel a duty to do so. i mean how would u feel, packing a gun, someone pulls a gun and demands the money from the register, but goes apeshit and starts shooting up the place. but you didnt do anything and ppl died. i would feel like shit, knowing that i could have done something about it.
That is why we carry, because we feel the need to protect ourselves and those around us, even if they are perfect strangers. I feel safer even when i'm not carrying, but i know someone around me is.

personally i carry a .38 i dont find it as an inconvenience at all i figure it is better to be safe than sorry

Im with Sleepyjack on this one. Sure, there is alot of sound minded individuals carrying guns around. But the incidence of these guns causing stupid shootings are too much to overlook.
You can think what you like about Mooore's filmmaking technique (even though the documentary genre has always been a subjective field in its nature) but the facts are obvious about how many people are getting killed with guns (as opposed to the rest of the world) every year.

His "filmmaking technique" isn't what is being questioned, it's his oblivious attitude towards facts.

Actually, when you factor in the entire rest of the world, the US is pretty near the bottom. Brazil, Russia, all of eastern Europe and most of south-east Asia all have MUCH higher rates of violent crimes committed with firearms than does the US. All of these nations also have stringent gun-control laws, with the exception of Brazil.
Furthermore, guns do not 'cause' stupid incidents, idiots do. Concealed Carry Permit holders are responsible for less than .01% of all crimes committed with a gun, according to the CDC. In addition, the "X children killed per day!!!" figures you hear so often are wildly inflated; any person under the age of 21 is counted as a 'child' and the means of their demise is never mentioned. When you're dealing with juviniles over the age of 12, the most common cause of "gun violence" deaths is one gangbanger killing another, closely followed by teenage burgalers and muggers being shot by their intended victims. I'm sorry, but a 16-year-old breaking into my home gets no special leniancy from me on account of his age, neither should the little bastards who raped a 14-year-old in my hometown recently; both being 16.
Fact is, if you exclude justified shootings in self-defense, the numbers drop by nealy 1/2. Exclude gangbangers shooting each other, and you're left with less than 1200 deaths of under-21's per year, less than drownings, poisonings, disease, asphyxia, strangulation, blunt-force trauma, and automobile accidents. Accidental gun deaths in the US are VERY low on a per-capita basis.

Statistics only count when you are one(I just made that up, I think).
If you wish to carry. Carry. If you don't. Don't. It's your choice. Hope you made the right one.

*laughs* Perhaps within the States. But if you peer out into the big bad world, you'll find yourselves leaders in violent crime. Well ahead of most nations that don't allow people to amble around with handguns.

I will now tell my gun story.

I was taking my rifles and pistols out of my car after a nice afternoon shooting. My sexy neighbor saw and scolded me. She told me that guns are bad, and that I was sick for having them. For a month or so, she gave me the cold shoulder. As much as I tried to be nice to her, she wouldnt have it.

One night at 11pm my phone rang. It was her. She was screaming into the phone that someone was in the house and she locked herself in her room. I grabbed my pistol and went over. I went from room to room and it was just a dog in the house. She thought it was gone with her roommate, but it was tied up in the back. It seemed to get loose and came in the doggie door.

When I told her it was safe I asked her why she called me, when her boyfriend lived across the street. Why not call him instead?

Her answer. "You have a gun".



Everyone hates guns untill they need them.

Actually, it sounds like she didn't need one.

I don't live in evil Amerikka, I have never seen a gun fired, never held a gun. The cops don't carry guns. I have never seen a weapon drawn in a fight, and eventual gun killings will reach national media. If you kill anyone with a gun, you'll get your face all over the place.

Uh....yeah I had no point, just wanted to brag about my higher-rate-of-living, peaceful, not-gun-crazy little country. Don't start asking me about drug laws now.

From the Washington Post, 9-24-01Gave ma a chuckle.

That's the silliest thing I've ever heard. Individual situations count for everything here because for each person, they are the only ones that matter!

Yes she did, the fact that It was mine doesnt invalidate the fact that she needed a gun to protect her.

You also live in a nation with no diversity. Add people of thousands of ethnicities, races, religons and backgrounds in to the nation and watch as problems arise.

Diversity, America's greatest strength, and biggest problem. ITs a bizarre paradox.

Too bad that isn't always the case.

How do any of those stories relate to carrying a concealed weapon?

I wasn't responding to carrying a concealed weapon; I was responding to your comment regarding FEL's story.

Hmm,
I can find myself in most of the things told by Sleepyjack and the people who support him in his opinion. I can't really add much that isn't already said by people but maybe this:

A gun in the hands of a wise and responsable person doesn't pose a threat to anyone so therefor I have nothing against people who can be wise and responsable at all time when carrying these guns.

However, all to often, you can read, see or experience that alot of people carrying guns do unwise and unresponsable things. Sometimes wise and responsable people get into situations where their actions are all but wise and responsable.
These situations pose a threat not only to them selves but to the people around them.

I cannot support rules & laws that make it possible for wise and responsible people to posess an all too convenient way to end someone's life in situations where their actions are all but wise and responsable.

My friends uncle Paul was always a very responsible and wise person with a normal life and a normal job. Until the day he snapped, shot his wife and then shot himself. Too bad he had that gun. But yeah ... this isn't really an explanation, nobody knows what actually happened. Maybe he was so angry that he would have done it with a baseball bat, a kitchen knive or even a newspaper (there are tons of ways and examples that non lethal objects can be used very lethal) ...

Gun laws only stop those who abide by them and the ones who abide by them will not commit the crimes that you blame guns for. Once the gun restriction laws stop affecting anyone who doesn't abide by them it is time to give up on them, because then you'll have impeded criminal efforts as much as you possibley can.
Concealed gun = gun

Removing a means does not remove the feelings or will behind the action. If someone is at the point that they are willing to take a life along with their own, taking one means of doing so away from them will have little effect.

I believe you can relate this to the whole Euthanasia discussion...
if there would be an easy legal pill you could take to kill yourself, wouldn't you think that alot more people would do it ?

Maybe that's for the best, but maybe those people would be even better off with a little counceling ...

but you are right offcourse, removing a means doesn't remove the feelings ...

Nope, you can easily acquire pills which you can overdose-to-death on, and I don't believe the suicide rate has jumped significantly because of them.

[I was parked one night watching planes come and go. Car load of butts come up to start a problem. My .38 caught their interest and they left. If I hadn't had it then what?

I usually only carry when my wife and I are on long motorcycle trips across the country. There are times on the back country roads where I may not see another vehicle or house for several hours at a time. I just feel a little safer with some self protection on me. I am probably illegal sometimes though. I am licensed in my state but I am not sure if all other states recognize it.

I recently moved to Ohio and they require you to go through a 12 hour training course before giving you a permit here. What a waste of time for those of us who have been using firearms for years. The good thing is that now that I'm out in the country and own some land, I can target practice right off my deck.

I live in the outer western suburbs of Sydney where there are a few naughty boys getting around. I have a S&W .357mag that I use for target matches, but it can easily put local rowdies in a body bag, which it will do if the situation arises. It's illegal to carry in Australia, anyway. But you do have to transport the firearm to the range, and who's to say that's not where you were going?

Stick:
I applaud you for having the sand to stand up to the hopolophobic nightmare that is the Australian Gov't. It saddens me every day to think that the brave nation that gave 50,000 of its' men at Gallipoli and Suvla Bay has been disarmed: you have brightened my day!

You might want to do some more research on that book (and it's by John Lott, not Locke). The study he and David Mustard published was horrendously flawed. Here is a link that goes over the major mistakes he made when conducting the study.

John Lott also answered those criticisms.

I'm not sure how you can "answer" the fact that he made mistakes in indentifying when states changed their gun laws. That is kind of basic data you have to have right.

If you have a link to these "answers", I'd love to see it.

Here you go.

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...p/t-24052.html

Here's another website with a bunch of links on the subject:

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Lott_v...ntroversy.html


This study (linked there) was also interesting:

http://bingweb.binghamton.edu/%7Efplass/gun.pdf

I haven't had time to dig into much more.

http://www.crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/guncontrol.htm
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Lott_v..._to_Teret.html
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Lott_v...o_Webster.html
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Lott_v...Lott_v_HCI.htm
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Lott_v...to_Lambert.htm

As I don't have a copy of the book, and most of those responses are one-liner "see my book on page blah", I can't verify them. But I did notice that he doesn't even *try* to refute the fact that he misidentified basic data such as when laws were changed. Mistakes at that level throw the whole study into suspicion

The idea that I may be talking to someone who has a concealed weapon gives me the shits. I hate it.

But then again, I come from Europe where gun laws are much more strict. And from Ireland, which by European standards is even more strict. I can't understand why Americans feel it's their right to bear arms. I think it's complete nonesense. People don't need guns. Obviously it's too late to turn back the clock and change the US now. It's an armed republic and will stay that way.

Isn't it wierd how one's background can result in totally different opinions on things such as gun control?


Mr Mephisto

Mr. Mephisto:
I wonder what Padraic Pearse, Mick Collins, and James Connolly would have to say about the current state ot Irish gun laws? Considering that their response to English laws of a much less restrictive nature was to purchase 20,000 rifles, 500 machineguns, and 10 75-mm howitzers from Germany in 1916 ( in one shipment alone; the one that went to the bottom with the Aud and got Roger Casement arrested ), I think I can guess.

On a slightly different note, I usually don't care to go into depth when reading legal opinions as I find them dry and overly verbose (I already have plenty of that when reading computer texts), so I usually skip to the conclusion or executive summary.

But this scholarly paper was actually a good read.

http://www.saf.org/journal/11McClurg.pdf

In it, the author, Andrew J. McClurg tackles the myths and fallacies on both sides of the debate.

For anyone interested in an honest attempt at digging into the issues that keep both sides of the gun debate issue appart, I recommend it.

What kind of nonesense is that?

Pearce, Collins and Connolly were leaders in the Irish War of Independence.
Comparing military leaders who are embarked upon a war of independence (or "rebels" if you will) with our current societal opinions towards an armed citizenry more than 80 years later is completely ridiculous.

Ireland remains one of the few countries in Europe with no armed police (except for Detectives and special armed units) and Irish society is strongly against personal ownership of weapons.

What would they say? Well, their actions speak louder than words. When the Irish Free State was created, the Government specifically decided to create a gun-free society and chose to have an unarmed police force.

What's your point?

Mr Mephisto

EDIT: By the way, the Aud carried 10 or 20 thousand rifles (depending upon your source) and "several machine guns" (not 500). There were no howitzers

As you "don't have a copy of the book", I'm not sure then why you sieze upon the first thing you saw on the HCI website (which was not even substantiated) to discredit the work without even making an effort to read any of the critiques and responses.

If you want to discredit it, you might at least go to the last link I provided. There seems to be some interesting points against it even if I don't agree with them.

I read this thread at warp speed, so I apologize if I'm repeating something that was said earlier.

That disclaimer over with, hasn't anyone posted Gary Kleck's research from 12 years ago? I thought things had been so clearly documented that this wasn't even being argued anymore.

Anyway, "Gary Kleck is a Liberal. He is, by his own admission, a member of the ACLU, Amnesty International, Independent Action, Democrats 2000, and Common Cause, among other politically liberal organizations. He is a life-long registered Democrat, as well as a regular contributor to Democratic Party candidates."

He also said that Americans, using firearms, defend themselves from crime between 800,000 to 2.5 million times a YEAR.

I'm not sure if he's still there, but he was a professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University in Tallahassee.

Isn't criminology the field in which Smooth is pursuing a PhD?

Oh yeah. I've defended myself with a pistol twice. I didn't have to fire it, but I would have.

Interesting statistics. I should like to read more about this if you have references.

What does this prove though? Not arguing, just asking. How often do firearms prevent crime should the question, no?

What's this got to do with anything? I don't think you'll see smooth around as much as beforehand. Real life beckons.

Mr Mephisto

Mr. Mephisto:
My response did not directly deal with the issue of defensive carry, it was a thrust towards the heart of our Second Amendment: the guarantee that we Americans would always be able to do what your countrymen so nobly did in 1916 and 1920-21. Ireland has no violent-crime problem to speak of outside Dublin, so the Defensive-Carry arguement does not much apply to your country. However, it was observation while I was there that a similar sort of citizen-based deterrance is practiced in most areas: car-theives have an inconveniant tendancy to end up with both legs broken, for instance. That seems to work admirably for your country; keep it up!

I greatly admire the Gardai for their unarmed position: when I was in Ireland several years ago it was one of the things that most impressed me about your country, which in many aspects is freer than my own. However, it was my observation that a great many "pikes in the thatch" were still around, and that many an "old Fenian gun" was still to be found if one knew who to talk to. One old gentleman on the train from Limerick to Dublin quite proudly told me that the old Mauser in his bedroom wall was staying right where it was, "just in case." Perhaps he was taking the micky out on me, but I doubt it. This old fellow had a look in his eyes that said that he was all steel behind his wrinkles and checked cap.

As I've said, your countrymen have a far less crime-prone society than we do: in large part due to cultural homogenity, small population, and a tightly-knit system of informal social controls which results in swift community-based punishments ( like car-theives getting their legs broken. ) You have an entirely different set of day-to-day realities than we do here in the States. That being said, however, my original point was that you also have a much more recent history of armed struggle than we do, and that it is for such events that we Americans maintain our right to keep arms.

Dunedan,

Thanks for your well thought out response.

First let me preface my response with the fact that I was simply stating an opinion on the fact that I don't believe ordinary citizens need to carry guns. I appreciate your country is different from mine, so I know the "right to bear arms" will almost certainly never be rescinded. That doesn't obviate the fact that I don't believe such a right is "inalienable" or fundamental.

With regards to the specifics of Ireland and your example of car thieves, I think you are mistaken. In some highcrime areas of Ireland, Sinn Fein (the political wing of the Provisional IRA), have been known to organize vigilante "punishment beatings" or "punishment shootings". The vast majority of these are very localized in one or two suburbs and almost all aimed at drug dealers. I have never heard of a car thief being dealt "hard justice" in Dublin by the PIRA or at the behest of Sinn Fein. In the late 80's and 90's there were some exceptions, which were again aimed at drug dealers, and the authorities very quickly stepped in to deal with this. To consider it common or typical would be akin to me thinking that all Americans go to the Mafia Don and ask for justice, a la the scene in the famous film the Godfather. It might make a good story, but it's not indicative of fact.

With regards to the Old Man and His Mauser, you can rest assured you were almost certainly told a tall tale; something the Irish are famous for. Undoubtedly there are still some old rifles lying about, the same way there are some old Civil War muskets in American attics. Again, it's a bit naive to consider this as typical of Irish society. I warrant a guess that these old Mausers number less than 100 in all the Republic.

We do have a problem with arms in the hands of paramilitaries. Indeed, the failure to publicly dispose of these, with photographic verification, was resulted in the failure of the latest develoments in Ireland's Peace Process. That along with the IRA's recent multi-million dollar bank robbery in Northern Ireland.

Dublin, and some parts of Ireland, does have a problem with organized crime. You may have heard of Veronica Guerin, a famous Irish journalist who was murdered due to her ongoing revelations of their drug dealing activities. It was recently made into a Hollywood film staring Cate Blanchett. Again, the fact that we have a few career criminals (who sometimes resort to gun-related violence) does not make Ireland any different from any other nation on Earth. In 1999 we had a grand total of 12 homicides with fire-arms. Not that high a number.

So, in summary, the opinions I posted were (by definition) personal. I don't expect to change the minds of any gun-lovers. I simply commented on the way people's backgrounds cause them to believe different things. A rather obvious statement I agree, but one made none the less. Car thieves do not get their legs broken in Ireland, or Dublin for that matter, any more than the Mafia runs the justice system of the United States. And old men on trains who tell you they have a Mauser from the Irish War of Independence are probably spinning a yarn. They would have to have been in their 90's for starters.


Mr Mephisto

Mr. Mephisto,
I had gotten the distinct impression that vigilante beatings in the RoI had dramatically decreased, but that they were still practiced in many place, just not very often. I appear to have been misinformed; thank you for correcting me in this.

I also know that the man I spoke to on the train was no Easter-16 vet: he was old, but nothing like that old! I got the impression that he was the son of an Official IRA fighter who had been brought up in the shadow of his father's struggle, and had kept the rifle as a result. I'm well-acquainted with the Irish propensity for tale-telling, being mostly Irish myself and having numerous friends and family still living there. I didn't, however, get the impression that this gentleman was pulling my chain.

I also know from my friends and cousins in the North that it's widely thought ( up there, anyway; or at least by them ) that the PIRA had nothing to do with the recent bank-robbery, given that they didn't claim credit for it, which they'd always done in the past. Most of my contacts seem to think the CIRA, RIRA, or one of the Loyalist groups such as the Red Hand Defenders or UDA was responsible.