So I just had an argument with an anti-gun type and... [Archive]

jsp98m3

October 9, 2005, 02:28 PM

USP,

I have no problem with you. We've disagreed before. But so what? I disagree with lots of people lots of time. I don't care (yet) if you can figure out how to carry interplanetary disruptors. ;) Besides, I'm perfectly clear that I'm wrong about issues at least as often as I am right. But I have to live in this skull, so we're all stuck with what I've got upstairs.

Here is my issue with CCW.

To my knowledge there is no way for LEO's to verify that you are not a goofball before issuing a permit. Now they might be able to do it except they would probably violate your other rights to do it. I think that most nut jobs eventually run into some type of trouble with the law. But..... Can we legally or logically only give CCW permits to people who are old enough to have gotten into trouble and "outed" themselves? How old is old enough? 18, 21, 30, 50? I don't have any answers, either.

But I do have my concerns.

I do not think that you are a whack job if you want or feel you must carry a pistol for protection.

But there are people on this board that are on the fringe. At least in my opinion and as a member of a larger society, my voice has exactly the same weight as any other persons. I do not think that responsible carrying of a weapon by responsible people is a problem. But the people who are so far out there that they are a tool of the weapon and not the other way around are a source of worry for me. Especially when they get demonstrably angry and aggressive when ridiculed about it. What else might set them off? And how far off will they go?

Do you think I post the way I do to be a troublemaker? Well maybe a little :) I am definitely a chain yanker at times. But I had a purpose. I wanted to check my observations about certain people and certain outlooks on life. Some people (you for one) are adamant supporters of CCW without seemingly being an idiot about it.

On the other hand, I have my concerns about some people, who are clearly not quite clear headed about their little substitute for manhood.

Therefore, the more I see of people acting strange and being supported by other seemingly normal (or at least not goofy) people, the more I wonder about the actual practice of handing out permits to individuals who cannot be verified to have a normal brain function.

Oddly, I'm much more comfortable with states like FL or TX where almost anyone could have a gun. Then, if the legal goofballs tip over the edge, maybe someone else will be there to "solve" the problem. But the gun whack jobs also tend to be well trained and well prepared. If and when one goes over the edge, it could be all the worse in outcome.

Jim

USP45usp

October 9, 2005, 02:59 PM

Jim, (nice to meet you, instead of having to start out with JSP)

In a way I understand what you are saying. Some of the members may come off abit strong or may seem to be driven by emotion moreso than common sense, heck, to tell you the truth, I used to be that way and sometimes revert back to my bad habits.

But I've found that as I grow older, I also grew wiser (or up in this case). That many of the members that I think that you are refering are the younger set and that one has to remember how they were at that age. All we can do is to help them grow and teach them the lessons that we learned earlier.

And I am still learning. Each and every day upon this board as well as others. I've made my mistakes, and I find that I continue to do so, but the main thing is that I learn from these mistakes and grow from them.

I will admit that I find myself reading those who I have problems with moreso than any others on the board. I find myself actually seeking the posts of Sendec, Josh, Jammer and others, not to argue mind you, but to help me understand them more. To find the angle or thought process they are coming from and so then I can either see their points, or debate against them. I do so because I don't judge them, or create a judgement against them, I just want to know them.

Yet, I will never say that I believe that they shouldn't have the Rights that they have and that one has the right to take away their Rights.

Jim, the world is a dangerous place, and the US is a very dangerous place. The reason being is that we have Rights that no other nation in this world has. We can't take away a Right from a person until that person abuses that Right. Even though we sometimes wish that we could, it's not our place to do so. That is not America, America is that we leave people alone until they break a law, even if it is a most wicked one like murder, and then we bring them to the courts to be judged and sentenced, not until then.

When you have absolute Freedom, and as written and given, they are absolute, you run into the fact that some in our society will abuse those freedoms. But in real freedom, you can't take those freedoms until they are abused and you can only take them away from the abuser for the amount of time that they are sentenced.

I think that this is where the divid lays. With absolute freedom, some people may extend that to their bathrooms, to their speech, to what they write or what they own, to their beliefs of whatever god or gods. Yet they actually have the right to do all the above. To you, as an individual, you may decide for yourself that that person shouldn't have the Right to do this or that, or that you, as an individual, think that the person is paranoid or mentally disabled, but it's only an opinion of a lone individual.

And since it's only an opinion, it should be held as such and not forced upon others that may not hold the same opinion. You can state your observations, but until they do something to give up their Rights for a limited time, or face death, your observations are just that, opinions.

I like you Jim, and I do enjoy reading you. As long as I am allowed to be a member of this board, I will always enjoy debating with you and even agreeing with you on some points. I just wanted to point out that until the Right is abused, then the Right is theirs to have and keep for as long as they are able.

Wayne

jsp98m3

October 9, 2005, 04:05 PM

USP,

I have no problem with rights. I have 5 weapons. One of them purely by coincidence is laying in the bathroom right now!

I am even OK with people having full auto weapons with some usage/location restrictions.

My problem is with the mental attitudes of people with those rights. Can you (not you specifically) sit on the toilet and take a crap without a .45 clutched in one hand and a wad of double ply in the other? Then you are normal. If you really feel that you are too vulnerable to drop your pants without a gun within grasping range you might want to move. There are other neighborhoods, cities, states, countries, planets you can move to. Or maybe your head and neck aren't using the same threads?

Rights are one thing, psychotic paranoia is an entirely differnet animal. Mix it with a zealous need to carry a gun in all possible locations and I personally sense a problem.

Did you read the post from the guy with the belly band holster who found it a good option at the beach. At the beach. Why go to the beach? Really? Why? If you have a holster in a belly band, you aren't going to enjoy the water or the sun. I guess you could be named Roy Schneider and be sitting in a shark tower.....

Whatever. I was totally serious when I posted that message about calling yourself (again, not you specifically) Kurzon Glock. If you watched Star Trek, Deep Space Nine, you'll get it.

wayneinFL

October 9, 2005, 07:45 PM

"Did you read the post from the guy with the belly band holster who found it a good option at the beach. At the beach. Why go to the beach? Really? Why? If you have a holster in a belly band, you aren't going to enjoy the water or the sun. I guess you could be named Roy Schneider and be sitting in a shark tower....."

Why not have a gun at the beach? Okay, so you couldn't swim. (unless it's a glock, you don't want a real gun getting all rusty, hee, hee) You could still hangout at the beach in Fort Lauderdale and pick up chicks.

There's a good reason to carry at the beach.

There's a lot of crime at the beach. Mostly car break-ins. Think about it- where do people leave their wallets and purses when they go on the beach? You leave your gun in the trunk or glove box and it's gone when you get back. Some thug is out robbing a liquor store with it tonight.

Burglary of a conveyance isn't the only crime that happens at the beach. We had a deputy sheriff who murdered 5 girls at Tiger Shores beach up here. I wouldn't blame a woman for going to the beach to suntan and keeping the gun in a beach bag.

I remember when I was a kid there was a somebody in a tent on Jensen Beach who was attacked by a guy with a knife.

Our less populated beaches used to be the place for guys to run drugs. The guy me and my dad used to fish with got stuck outside the St. Lucie Inlet one night. He tried to come in and apparently interrupted a drug deal on the beach. Somebody started shooting at him with a rifle from a pickup truck on the beach. (He said that was the only time he ever got seasick- lying in the bottom of a 14' boat in 6' seas ducking bullets.)

There was a story in one of the gun rags last year about a woman who was attacked by a serial rapist/murderer in the Caribbean. She had tucked a 25 auto in a pocket in her bathrobe. (How paranoid!) The guy beat her up at the beach, threw her over his shoulder and was carrying her over the dune to where he raped and killed the other women, when she pulled her gun out of the pocket and shot him in the leg.

Carry at the beach? No more paranoid than anywhere else.

jsp98m3

October 9, 2005, 08:05 PM

Ok. There are exceptions to every rule.

But the post said he carried at the beach.

It didn't say he was at the beach at night, surf fishing. Or hanging on drug scenes. And I guess if I was a woman that was going to go to a beach so deserted that I could actually be raped there then I could see carrying a gun.

But for the most part, there are without a doubt something odd about some people. Me included. But I don't live my life around the needs of a gun, a car or anything else. That cannot be said for some gun owners. And its especially unnerving in a gun owner when they get just a wee bit too committed to the gun.

If people just want to admit their gun owns them, then I'm cool with that. Once people admit that the gun is a fetish, an addiction, then they can come to terms with it and take appropriate measures to control their own behaviour.

I'll start. "Hello, my name is Jim and I'm addicted to Hostess Ho-ho's"

Ok, your turn.

Dust_Devil

October 9, 2005, 08:38 PM

A person who is against the ownership of guns for personal protection is a person who never has never been in a life threatening situation, ignores the fact that there is bad people out in the world and lives a carefree and pampered life.
Though it may seem good that a person has never felt or seen any threats, not being prepared for the unexpected is much worse.
It is much better to carry a gun and never have to use it than not to have one and then need it.

gddyup

October 9, 2005, 09:08 PM

Rights are one thing, psychotic paranoia is an entirely differnet animal. Mix it with a zealous need to carry a gun in all possible locations and I personally sense a problem...

"Paranoia is an illogical fear not based on fact." Who knows what some people have been through or had to deal with. Maybe someone they know was raped in a bathroom or attacked in the shower. Who knows. I've actually seen someone who was murdered in the shower once. Thought it was pretty damn weird to have been killed in the shower too. B&E that went bad. To bad the victim didn't have a tactical thigh holster on with a pistol hanging in it...:p

People approach their protection in different ways and who are we to say how they should or should not do it until we've walked 10 feet in their shoes?

stratus

October 9, 2005, 09:32 PM

lol sorry guys, I really didn't mean for two threads to get going with this. If you haven't checked the general discussion forum about the same topic, go for it. I decided it wasn't really that much of a straight "tactical" topic, but more one of principle.

John R.

October 9, 2005, 10:11 PM

I appreciate this interesting discussion, having considered many of the points of view expressed. Here are a couple considerations.

First, not everyone who sounds like a psychopath on the internet is anywhere near being one in real life (conversely, I've no doubt that the real "nut jobs" frequently come across as normal in both settings).

Second, the thing I notice and enjoy most about these forums (and shooters in general) is a strong tradition of civility and respect, and a realistic understanding of what will happen if a gun must be used in self defense. At times, yes, comments are made that suggest a disturbing lack of common sense. But it is far from the norm.

But there is a big difference between expressing a concern that there appear to be people with arms and CCW permits who may be irresponsible, and advocating that rights should be revoked pre-emptively. I didn't hear Jim advocating that anyone should lose their rights, just concern that some seem disturbingly likely to abuse that right. I can't say I'm convinced by his examples, but I've seen enough to know there are people out there who are not really able to handle the responsibilities inherent in owning a firearm, much less carrying one on a daily basis.

I guess if it was up to me I would want to see the right to keep and bear arms respected as a right (duh) as opposed to something that can be denied as a matter of whim by local authorities. However, I would also want to have a high standard of competence, safety, and understanding of the legal issues around the ownership and defensive use of firearms. Is it possible to have real standards of competency and sanity without compromising the fundamental right?

John

stratus

October 9, 2005, 10:15 PM

Yeah, I'm just gonna let this thread be what it is, it's become something entirely else since my "oops" post. I will contribute in a consequential way when the time is right.

joshua

October 9, 2005, 10:20 PM

Elitist? Some gun owners act that way. If we can't unite as one and agree everyone has rights except convicted criminals, then we are setting ourselves for failure. I had a supervisor that was very much against ownership of any type of assault type firearms. He voiced out his opinions on non sporting use of so called assault weapons - anything hi capacity and black in nature of course. I explained to him what I experienced during the LA Rodney King riots and he answered back to me that was a job for the police and military. This person did not understand the reason why the military was called into action and the lives that were lost due to lawlessness that erupted. josh

wayneinFL

October 9, 2005, 11:05 PM

John R., you make some good points.

"I didn't hear Jim advocating that anyone should lose their rights, just concern that some seem disturbingly likely to abuse that right."

I understand that. But he seems to be hung up on geography. That there are places that should be gun free. Like a gun is ok in someone's house, but it's some kind of breach in etiquete at a golf course, beach or a Luby's cafeteria.

As far as I'm concerned there is no place that should be off limits. Some people should be prohibited, sure. There are some activities when carrying a gun should be off limits. But I can't think of too many places where carrying should be off limits. Can you think of a place where no one has been killed?

Some people think guns should be prohibited in the workplace. I suppose this is where it hits home for me. Don't think there aren't people, gun owners or not, who would freak if they knew I was carrying in the office. Makes perfect sense to me and others, but some people think it irrational to the point of being paranoid. I'd rather not be judged so I let it go when I talk to a cop at the range who keeps a gun under his pillow. Seems a little freaky to me, but what the heck, I never woke up with someone I busted standing over me.

jsp98m3

October 9, 2005, 11:26 PM

I am not saying that there are places that are off limits. Not at all. There are of course. Court houses, visiting rooms at prisons, airport metal detectors, etc.

My concern is not where you have it. My concern is people who can't seem to be able to function if they don't have it and readily admit that there are places they won't go if their gun isn't welcome.

People are normal that won't go somewhere if they can't bring their biological children. People are not normal that won't go somewhere without their gun when 99.999999% of the time this is a non-threatening location.

I'm not suggesting you leave your gun at home if you are going to be at a dangerous location like being a Jew at an Al Queada convention. But you just might make it through your child's baptism without standing back to back with your wife, both at full cock and finger on the trigger.

wayneinFL

October 10, 2005, 12:01 AM

"My concern is people who can't seem to be able to function if they don't have it and readily admit that there are places they won't go if their gun isn't welcome."

Well, you must be concerned about me then. I walked into a credit union near me and found they not only have an antigun policy, they have metal detectors there to enforce it. I'm gonna walk across the parking lot with $1000 when everybody knows I'm not armed. I took my money down the road to another bank. Sure coming out of the bank 99.9999% of the time is a non threatening siutuation. I went somewhere else mostly on principle.

99% non threatening?

Someone got robbed at gunpoint in our parking lot at work last year. I carry there. I just calculated it. Considering the amount of people coming and going I have a 99.9997% chance of making it through the parking lot safely in the morning. I still carry across that parking lot. I don't go around poised to blow someone away, but it's always there. Is that paranoid?

Please note to get it across the parking lot I have it in the office, and in the bathroom too.

jsp98m3

October 10, 2005, 12:05 AM

You are correct.

Bravo25

October 10, 2005, 05:35 AM

If you were to read some of my other post, you would probably get the idea that I am the "resident wacko". But that is how we have been acclimated to think of people that we don't agree with. I may not be real articulate, and lack some clarification in my posting, but should I be judged soley on what is written here. I have very strong conviction about things, and most people are middle of the road, and I still carry. But guess what, I had to pass a MMPI2 pshyc eval to get there.

There are those here on this forum that should be the next SCOTUS justice because they are so good at passing judgement, and without complete information. For the most, part people here understand what this forum is, and take it for what they can get from it, ansd contibute to it. I don't think anyone here is any kind of position to judge anothers rights based soley on what is written on these pages.

Sure we all get a sense of feeling about someone based on what we read, but until you have stood face to face, and spent some time with them I think that declaring they should not even own firearms is a persons own shortcommings, and they need to look inside themselves to find the real issue.

sreising

October 10, 2005, 06:15 AM

Hello All!

I've been following the thread, and I figured I would give an optional idea, one that comes from a woman, and from a woman who owns.

So, yeah, I think, that in most situations, it's pretty unproductive to argue with a knock-down-full-out-doesn't-matter-what-you-say anti. It's one of those "discussions" one has to pull back and analyze, on a personal level, what good is it to be right in that instance. In that kind of situation, imho, I would try to offer an alternative solution that may prove to be a win-win, or at least an attempt of such.

Tell the person you respect their opinions. Respect does not have to equal belief. You would want that person to respect your opinions, therefore, the respect should be given primarily by the first. As the old adage goes...respect is not given, it is earned.

So, how do you "earn" that respect from someone who adamantly opposed such a strong issue? You give them the opportunity. You say, "Let's make a deal. I go to one of your left-wing meetings and you come to the range with me on Saturday afternoon"

Sounds a little crazy? Maybe. But, what is more looney.....talking in circles or providing a chance for both persons to learn about the other and begin an open line of communication that both may learn from away from becoming the defender of this and that which they believe is right. You never know. Both of you may learn something about the other that is completely opposite of what you humanly and preimptively judged about one another.

But...of course, that's just my $0.02. :)

Shan

PythonGuy

October 10, 2005, 08:00 AM

I have to admit I am totally in agreement with jsp98m3, And I am NOT anti gun. I just worry that some guys tend to solve all their problems by carrying a gun. There is no guaranteee that having a gun will save your life unless it is in your hand 24/7, and that is not practical. The guys who try and keep it with them 24/7 do seem to be a little, high strung shall we say. And as for USP45usp's arguement that youth needs to learn and we were all like that, I agree. However, when it comes to a gun and possibly killing or maiming a person because of a youthful mistake, that's a hard pill to swallow. We have the right to keep and bear arms, and we always should. We don't have the right to use deadly force for someone breaking into our car, what happened to youthful mistakes? Does that apply to only gun owners, what about the kid who makes a mistake breaking into a car and house and gets himself killed? What if its your son? Will you be happy an armed citizen ended the threat then, when its only property. This is a very tough subject for pro gun people to deal with, but we have to if we want to maintain our rights. As jsp98m3 said, if you can't go to the bathroom or take a shower without a gun in your hand, there may be a bigger problem.....

Trip20

October 10, 2005, 08:48 AM

Most of the reasoning I've read - against CCW - is akin to some reasoning used by the Brady Campaign.

I love how people throw out the disclaimers before they say something Brady-esque, like "Hey, don't get me wrong I own like 6 guns, but..."

Do some people seem a little weird, of course. But I'm not arrogant enough to impose my beliefs - about what is normal/abnormal - on their lifestyle.

And, this business about not needing to carry in a place "that is 99.9999999999999% safe,” is real brilliant.

If we're going to systematically base our opinions/judgments on percentages, then we should really oppose CCW all together - because statistically we'll never need a firearm for self-defense, right?

The problem is you never know when, or where, a piece of scum will decide it's a good time and place to commit a violent crime against you, or your loved ones. This is what breeds the "need" to carry everywhere, at all times. It's not completely irrational - as some of you try to make it seem with your belittling comments.

Mocking one who chooses to carry at all times by making funny cracks about taking' a poop with a .45 in their hand, or going full-out James Bond during your child’s baptism, is purely to stir up the pot.

If you've ever done something and used the term, "Just in case..." - then you fully understand some people's need to carry constantly.

EIGHTYDUECE

October 10, 2005, 09:04 AM

The psycho types are carrying wheather they have a CCW or not. Many states have had CCW for over 10 years now and the big liberal fear of nut cases running wild having shootouts at the mall..etc never came to pass.

As for statistics showing the odds of being a victim of violent crime.

Col. Cooper put it best when he said "Statistics are a cold comfort when you find yourself in the life or death self defense situation"

jsp98m3

October 10, 2005, 09:08 AM

I worry about some people. Just in case.

Your arguments for having to always have the guns just in case do not answer some of my original questions of this type of thinking. Why not wear a lightning rod on your head? Why not always carry bee and snake venom kits. You are much more likely to need them.

The majority of people in America will be involved in an auto accident eventually. Why not wrap yourself in bubble wrap every morning?

Etc, etc.

I don't care if you carry your gun to the crapper. I find you amusing. I think you all would be healthier people inside your own little heads if you admitted that its 'all about the gun'.

If you can't, I understand.

JohnLizCas

October 10, 2005, 09:08 AM

I read these articles and take what they say with a grain of salt. After all they are mostly opinions (which everyone is entitled to). Here in NJ we don't even have an option to carry. It burns me up that we dont even have the option to become "paranoid". LOL John:mad:

EIGHTYDUECE

October 10, 2005, 09:41 AM

Your house will probably never burn down, yet you will still buy insurance and check smoke detector batteries.

I don't understand what you mean by carrying to the bathroom. Are you saying that while at Wal-Mart, you should put your gun in your car and then return to the store to use the bathroom? If at home there is no reason to carry so the bathroom statement should not apply there.

I think most that first get their CCW will carry everywhere for awhile, then it becomes more of a "depending on the situation type of thing". I feel no reason to carry at grandmothers house...etc. yet If I must go to the laundry mat after dark then, the pistol follows.

It all depends on where you live also. If you live in an upscale neaborhood where crime is a very extreme rarety, then I see your point. But if you live in an apartment complex that has hade at least to armed mugging in the parking lot after hours (like where I live) then you tend to carry more often.

Trip20

October 10, 2005, 09:46 AM

Your arguments for having to always have the guns just in case do not answer some of my original questions of this type of thinking. Why not wear a lightning rod on your head? Why not always carry bee and snake venom kits. You are much more likely to need them.
You know the answer to these silly questions. It's plainly obvious why we do not wear lightening rods on our heads, and/or carry bee and snake venom kits. It's not practical - and a bite by either, rarely results in instant death - there is time to seek medical attention in most cases.

Though, if I were walking in rattlesnake country, I might just have a venom kit. However, I'm rather confident that I'm not going to be bitten by a rattlesnake on my way to the grocery store. I can't say the same about being mugged, beaten, or killed.

On the other hand, people do die quickly from a gunshot wound. Last time I looked into it, dialing 911 while dead from a gunshot wound, is pretty difficult. Hence the practical need to carry the "bad guy kit", or firearm as we call it. A practical solution to a problem - regardless of the apparent frequency in which the problem occurs.

The majority of people in America will be involved in an auto accident eventually. Why not wrap yourself in bubble wrap every morning?
We have airbags, seat belts, side impact beams...etc. Again, these are practical solutions for a problem (auto accidents) - in lieu of "bubble wrap". Pretty funny though.

I don't care if you carry your gun to the crapper. I find you amusing. I think you all would be healthier people inside your own little heads if you admitted that its 'all about the gun'.
You find me amusing? I'm confused, now. I've never carried a concealed weapon in my life (you see, it's illegal in Wisconsin), so surely I cannot be this "wacko" type that you speak of. But, if talking down to members of this board makes you feel superior, I'm willing to take it with a grain of salt. ;)

Clinot

October 10, 2005, 10:11 AM

I can see where Jim is coming from, as a responsible gun owner it is a bit strange to share the same space with others that I honestly do not consider responsible gun owners.

Some posts that I have read here leave me to think that the poster lives his/her life for the gun and envisions pretty much any solution where they get the chance to act the hero or stand in for a law enforcement officer with that tool. Or that same poster is so paranoid about their environment that while they have honed their observation skills upward to take awareness of their situations, while they honed down their ability for a little common sense and good judgement.

A lot of those posts really do great justice for the anti-gun crowd, and honestly if I were in their shoes and reading some of the material presented by some of the more shall we say exotic users, I too would be passing around a Brady petition to get weapons out of hands of these people.

But people are people, and I hope that a lot of what I read is just online-bravado.

PythonGuy

October 10, 2005, 10:17 AM

Trip20,

Relax dude, he's just trying to make a point and voice his opinion, don't be so defensive, it makes you sound para......:D

Trip20

October 10, 2005, 10:32 AM

A lot of those posts really do great justice for the anti-gun crowd, and honestly if I were in their shoes and reading some of the material presented by some of the more shall we say exotic users, I too would be passing around a Brady petition to get weapons out of hands of these people.
I don't believe you. You’re more intelligent than this.

Contrary to popular belief, the streets are not running with blood due to the paranoid, gun-obsessed wacko gun owners... One would think they are, based on some of the things you read on TFL (especially in the Tactics & Training forum).

I think you've nailed it with bravado. Harmless in and of itself - but harmful in the opinion it facilitates.

blackmind

October 10, 2005, 10:43 AM

I think that anyone calling guns a "fetish" object is quite possibly seeing himself in others -- othewise known as "projecting."

I mean, where does one get off saying that anyone who simply has decided to keep a gun at ready as much of the time as possible is "fetishizing" the gun, rather than just "opting to be prepared"? Does this person KNOW everyone about whom he speaks?? I carry when I go to the beach, but usually when I go, I carry a roll-top "dry bag" for use on my kayak. I keep more than just a gun there; I keep my wallet, money, cellular phone, etc. as well.

JSP, who are you to pass such judgment on others just because you feel there are times when you have some sort of magical protection that means you won't end up needing a gun in a dire situation?

-blackmind

Trip20

October 10, 2005, 10:43 AM

Relax dude, he's just trying to make a point and voice his opinion, don't be so defensive, it makes you sound para......
That's not all he's doing. He said it himself:

Do you think I post the way I do to be a troublemaker? Well maybe a little :) I am definitely a chain yanker at times.

He knows what he's doing - and it's not "just trying to make a point and voice his opinion". You don't bring up lightening rods and such... unless your now just trying to be a "chain yanker"... I'm perfectly willing to listen to reasonable discussion. He's being unreasonable in a few areas, that's all. I've taken it upon myself to point those areas out, just as you've taken it upon yourself to be the defender of jsp98m3.

Now hold on, I think I just heard something downstairs. I'm going code sea-foam green (not sure what that signifies). I'll let you all know how it turns out.

blackmind

October 10, 2005, 10:47 AM

I don't care if you carry your gun to the crapper. I find you amusing. I think you all would be healthier people inside your own little heads if you admitted that its 'all about the gun'.

If you can't, I understand.

Man, you seem to be one condescending dude. I can hardly believe you would trot this kind of rhetoric out, here.

Someone said it smacks of anti... I am strongly inclined to agree. It has the same elitist "I get to be amused by how weird or stupid or paranoid you are, from my throne on the Mount of Normality" stink. :barf:

-blackmind

DocFox

October 10, 2005, 10:49 AM

This may not be the wisest choice for a first post...but, oh well...

First, from a psychological standpoint, people engaged in casual conversation or conversation aimed at "impressing" others tend to not verbalize true intent, but instead relay emotion. In other words.. Bravado...

Secondly, jsp98m3 , although the statistic is about 4 years old, the last study I have seen showed that LESS than 1% of CCW holders have had their permits revoked for criminal behavior. While not perfect, it would seem that the numbers are in our favor of excluding the "nuts" , that would carry anyway.

Third... is it truly irrational paranoia to carry everywhere possible? That is merely a matter of perspective. Do I carry a gun to the bathroom in my own home, yes. Have I always, no. Why did I change? Simple, Over the years there has been a steady increase of home invasions (in nice neighborhoods I should add) and it boils down to one simple fact, IF it happened, do I want my gun closer to them , or closer to me. It is a matter of keeping control of your weapon, not excited anticipation of "getting to use my piece".

Fourth... Consider this fact... The criminals know where a person may or may not legally carry a weapon... where do you believe they will choose to mug/rob/rape/kidnap someone?

Finally... I agree that some comments are disconcerting, but this is true about conversations involving religion, politics and many other subjects. Whether you open your mind and look at the world from an unbiased perspective, or simply form a quick opinion is ultimately your choice... please do enjoy the freedom to do so.

Trip20

October 10, 2005, 10:56 AM

I disagree DocFox. That was a very good first post.

blackmind

October 10, 2005, 11:59 AM

Do I carry a gun to the bathroom in my own home, yes. Have I always, no. Why did I change? Simple, Over the years there has been a steady increase of home invasions (in nice neighborhoods I should add) and it boils down to one simple fact, IF it happened, do I want my gun closer to them , or closer to me. It is a matter of keeping control of your weapon, not excited anticipation of "getting to use my piece".

+1!

Doc, good points.

It seems to me that JSP is inclined toward thinking that anyone who wishes to never be caught with his pants down (pun intended) is paranoid.

When I shower, I do bring my little pack into the bathroom with me. I imagine how I'd feel if I heard the front door shoved in and realized, "Crap! I left my piece in the living room/bedroom/closet!" If it is no trouble to STAY prepared, why would one ever allow oneself to be UNprepared? Bravado? Should I want to "challenge" myself, or allow the home invader some sort of more level playing field? Even his chances? NO. I want to stack the odds as much in my favor as possible.

There is no downside that I can think of to keeping the gun close by even when in the home. I think that anyone who allows himself to relax his guard just because he's home either lives in a fortified bunker (and his attitude is warranted) or he is fooling himself about his security and may just be the one who is unprepared for the unexpected intruder. Home invasions DO happen. Residents do NOT get to choose when and how. Sometimes it's the guy who "just ran out of gas and needs to use the phone." Other times, it's the dude who just bashes the door with no warning. Other times, it's the guy who sneaks in during the night when everyone's asleep, and gets discovered in the dark hallway.

I'd like JSP to explain why it's unwise to keep a firearm close by, just in case. What's the harm of doing it -- "seeming paranoid"? Who cares how I seem? I want to be ready.

-blackmind

Severian

October 10, 2005, 01:11 PM

---Though I may disagree with what you say, I'll defend to the death your right to say it.---

Don't focus on the individual. It is the spirit, the essence of the right that needs championing.

People will never cease to disappoint.

Everyone* has the right to get a license and drive a car. Should they ALL? No.

Everyone has the right to vote. Should they ALL vote? NO,NO,NO.

Everyone has the right to procreate and multiply. Should they ALL? Heck NO.

Everyone has the right to own a gun (and once officially allowed, to CCW). Should EVERYBODY own and/or carry a gun? NO.

The point is...

Everyone has these rights. However, I also answered NO to all the above. It is MY mind, MY opinion, MY standards that "everyone" is held up to.
Luckily, I have no executive power (my Beginner's Benevolent Dictator Kit Mk.I has yet to arrive in the mail) and thus everyone retains these rights.

I also enjoy these rights. I am the greatest driver to sail the streets. My political and dictatorial prowess is uncanny at the very least. My genes are of a stock greater than Nature has ever witnessed. I am a very responsible gun owner.

All kidding aside. I would be very cross indeed if these rights (of which I humbly feel I am qualified for) were to be restricted. It doesnt matter if some dumb-butt drives recklessly, father's 14 felonious seeds, or goes crazy with a gun. It is not right to punish the whole for the mistakes of the dumb.

There are 6+ billion people in the world. How many would you actually trust with a gun? Procreating? Driving? Voting? Truthfully answer that and you'll see that only YOU truly are qualified.

Me, I like my guns. I'll have em till some higher power takes them. Then I'll be powerless and sad.

If you read closely, there's a little sarcasm, a little humor, and a little truth in there.

Take no offence. What do I know, I'm just a dum bass.

*everyone in a loose, not literal sense, please.

gddyup

October 10, 2005, 01:59 PM

+1 for DocFox. I hope to see more of your ideas and thoughts posted in TFL. Good to have you aboard.

DocFox

October 10, 2005, 02:08 PM

Thank all of you for your kindness, I only hope to contribute in a positive manner.

blackmind

October 10, 2005, 02:41 PM

Everyone* has the right to get a license and drive a car. Should they ALL? No.

Everyone has the right to vote. Should they ALL vote? NO,NO,NO.

Everyone has the right to procreate and multiply. Should they ALL? Heck NO.

Everyone has the right to own a gun (and once officially allowed, to CCW). Should EVERYBODY have a gun and be allowed to carry concealed? NO.

Look carefully at how you phrased this.

For voting, driving, procreating, you finished with "SHOULD they?"

For gun and carry, you finished with "SHOULD THEY HAVE BE ALLOWED TO?"

That is quite different from the others. I would possibly agree with questioning whether some people SHOULD (period), but NOT with whether they should be allowed to. Why the subtly different phrasing?

-blackmind

Trip20

October 10, 2005, 02:43 PM

Driving is a privilege, not a right. :D

CarlosDJackal

October 10, 2005, 04:17 PM

To my knowledge there is no way for LEO's to verify that you are not a goofball before issuing a permit. Now they might be able to do it except they would probably violate your other rights to do it. I think that most nut jobs eventually run into some type of trouble with the law...

Correct. The only thing we can check is if this individual has a criminal record and sometimes, if they have had mental problems. This is no different that someone obtaining a driver's license, a pilot's license, or a hunting license.

So basically the problem you have is not with CCW but with society in general. In other words you feel that the Constitution should not apply to "goofballs" regardless of whether or not they are criminals or law-abiding citizens. This is a very dangerous thing because this type of thinking is exactly what the Constituion is trying to prevent. This is the same exact thinking the nazis held except they actually specifically labelled Jews, homosexuals, Gypsies, non-nazis and indidivudals who are not of Aryan decent as "goofballs".

I am personally of the opinion that anyone who wants to carry legally should be required to attend some sort of training within a certain number of weeks after they are issued a permit. This way anyone who needs a permit now, can obtain a "temporary permit" now and just get the training within a reasonable amount of time. With the ability to conduct a criminal background check instantly, this should not be a problem. The temporary permit can be good for 30, 60, or 90-days after which the holder needs to present proof of their technical, legal, and mental competency before they can be issued a permanent permit.

JM2CW.

CarlosDJackal

October 10, 2005, 04:53 PM

...Why not wear a lightning rod on your head?...

Because the chances of getting hit by lighting is so remote it's not really worth carrying a lighting rod. Plus the utility of wearing such a device is very much questionable because it is more likely to attract a strike than prevent it.

...Why not always carry bee and snake venom kits. You are much more likely to need them.

People who are fatally allergic to bee stings should carry bee sting kits iwth them. The same with people who live in areas where there are a lot of agressive snakes.

Your numbers are ridiculously bogus and you are full of crap. I've been stung by bees exactly twice in my 41 years. I've never been bitten by snakes and the closest I ever came to it was when a Water Mocassin tried to slither onto the canoe I was riding while on the Chatahoochee River in Georgia. It never did try to bite me or anything - it was just looking for a ride (as far as I can tell).

But in the same number of years, I've been shot at once and had a loaded gun pointed at my face. So that's at least two instances where it would have been nice for me to have one of my own.

The majority of people in America will be involved in an auto accident eventually. Why not wrap yourself in bubble wrap every morning?

Because bubble wrap is not very comfortable and would actually act as a catalyst in case of fire. But in lieu of bubble wrap, I wear a seatbelt, both my vehicles have airbags, and I have collision insurance. Even if I did not have any of these, I would still drive defensively. By your logic, just because you do not expect to get a flat there is no reason to have a spare tire and jack in your car.

I don't care if you carry your gun to the crapper. I find you amusing. I think you all would be healthier people inside your own little heads if you admitted that its 'all about the gun'...

A gun is a tool of last resort. Let me repeat that only louder: A GUN IS A TOOL OF LAST RESORT. I liken it to a reserve parachute when skydiving or Paratrooping. The only thing worse than getting into a position where you need to use one is getting into a position where you wish you had one (been there). As we used to say in Alaska: "I'd rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it." This is why I carry one in the crapper.

Contrary to your narrow-minded way of looking at this, it is not about the gun. If there was a better tool with which I could walk around with, I would. If light sabers were real, I'd walk around with one and train to be a Jedi Knight. If I could wear some sort of talisman that would guarantee my safety in any situation, I would wear that. The only reason I carry a handgun is because it is hard to conceal my CAR-15 (you sheeple would panic if I started doing this).

I lock the doors of my house not because I've had someone try to break in, but because I don't want to make it any easier for anyone to try. I carry a gun not because I am paranoid, but because I have common sense. To paraphrase Clint Smith: "People ask me how why I am so paranoid. I ask them why should I be paranoid, I have a gun!!" JM2CW.

Severian

October 11, 2005, 09:35 AM

thanks blackmind.

No subtlety intended...once it's typed I tend to move on and not look back closely enough. I meant to place those rights on the same level and should have worded the last one more similar to the others. I think I was more focused on humor by that point (trying to lighten things up).

I don't post much, so please excuse my mistakes.

blackmind

October 11, 2005, 10:07 AM

No worries. :)

-blackmind

Harley Quinn

October 11, 2005, 10:16 AM

I have not been on this thread so as I was reading it I was thinking of some answers. Just about the time I see it is winding down to give me a chance to post I read your post.

Good one. Pretty much where I was going. But you did it first and better I am sure.:D

Virgina is/was the leader in producing the 'on the leading edge' when we needed a Constitution, I see they are still hanging in there.

Thanks it saved me some time to look at the news and read how our rights are evaporating as we type.

Common Law and common sense, Natural law and the law of nature. Biological functions are part of our nature, others should get used to it. All houses should have indoor plumbing.:eek:
Lets be civilized and agree with me.:D

Harley

wayneinFL

October 11, 2005, 10:27 AM

PythonGuy:

"Does that apply to only gun owners, what about the kid who makes a mistake breaking into a car and house and gets himself killed? What if its your son? Will you be happy an armed citizen ended the threat then, when its only property. This is a very tough subject for pro gun people to deal with, but we have to if we want to maintain our rights."

My dad always told me not to to break into peoples houses at night, vandalize, etc. because I'd likely be shot. He probably wouldn't have been happy about it, but he made it clear to me that if I was exhibiting some sort of criminal behavior, especially on someone else's property, I was on my own.

wayneinFL

October 11, 2005, 10:52 AM

Jim:

"Why not wear a lightning rod on your head? Why not always carry bee and snake venom kits."

"The majority of people in America will be involved in an auto accident eventually. Why not wrap yourself in bubble wrap every morning?"

Lightning rod? Wouldn't work. Besides, it would require a major lifestyle change.

Bee kit? I have a buddy who keeps one in every car he drives or rides in, even though he hasn't been stung in 30 years. He's allergic, and a bee sting could kill him. I'm not allergic, so inconceivable I would die from a bee sting.

Snake venom kit? Are you talking about those kits with the little suction thing? I was told they're ineffective. If you are talking about something that is effective and not cost-prohibitive, let me know. I spend a lot of time in snake country. I saw 2 yesterday. My son stepped on a snake in my front yard yesterday, too. I never saw that one.

(I hear pythons are getting out of control around here. Does anyone have a kit that will stop a snake that will swallow a six-foot 'gator?:eek: )

Bubble wrap? I wear my seatbelt religiously. Seatbelts are effective; bubble wrap would not be effective. Also, wearing bubble wrap would require a major lifestyle change.

Bubble wrap, bee sting kits, and personal lightning rods are poor analogies. All are ineffective and would require and/or would require a huge change in the way you live your life.

Carrying a snubby revolver in my pocket does not require much of a change in lifestyle for me. I have to wear pants with big pockets, and I have to avoid conflict. As a result I wear more comfortable pants, behave in a more civilized manner and I am safer. If you feel the gun owns me, that the gun makes me what I am, then so be it. Guns made me a better person.

gb_in_ga

October 11, 2005, 10:54 AM

About the bathroom thing:

Well, yes, I carry a gun with me when I go to the bathroom, even in my own home. And everywhere else I go. Since I've got it right there, IWB, well, where I go, it goes. Just like my wallet, Leatherman, pocket knife, cell phone, car keys, glasses and my watch. It becomes more of an article of attire than anything else. Why would I take it off, go to the bathroom, and then put it back on? Besides that, isn't it more secure when it is on my person than not?

It isn't being paranoid -- it is just another tool I have on my person.

gb_in_ga

October 11, 2005, 11:09 AM

Wayne: I agree with your line of reasoning.

"Bee kit? I have a buddy who keeps one in every car he drives or rides in, even though he hasn't been stung in 30 years. He's allergic, and a bee sting could kill him. I'm not allergic, so inconceivable I would die from a bee sting."

As you say, unless you are allergic to bee stings, you don't need the kit. If you are, you sure better have one with you at all times. My wife is violently allergic to seafood -- even traces of it will cause her windpipe to swell, it is life-threatening -- and has to carry a Epi-Pen. Same thing, in other words.

"Snake venom kit? Are you talking about those kits with the little suction thing? I was told they're ineffective. If you are talking about something that is effective and not cost-prohibitive, let me know. I spend a lot of time in snake country. I saw 2 yesterday. My son stepped on a snake in my front yard yesterday, too. I never saw that one."

For the most part, snake bites are overrated, as long as you can get to an ER. You are better off not using those snakebite kits, they do more harm than good. If you are in snake country -- like if you are hunting in the brush country back home in Tx -- you are better served by wearing leather boots with snake leggings, and by carrying a snubby loaded with snake shot. Oh, and the snake leggings help with the cactus thorns, too! Anyway, the point here is that if you recognize that you are going into a high snake threat area, it isn't being paranoid or weird or anything if you take precautions against them. Now, if I were to take those sorts of snake precautions when I was just heading out to check the mail here in suburbia, well, that's another matter. And I think that's the point you are getting at.

Trip20

October 11, 2005, 11:33 AM

pax hit the nail on the head with post #26 on this thread (http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=184344&page=2), with regards to those who carry everywhere, those who carry occasionally, and those who think carrying at all makes you a whacko paranoid gun-obsessed mongrel.

pax’s post made good sense to me. It contrasts the different types of carry-persons we find debating on this and other similar threads.

I think it points out how someone who carries everywhere – yes, even the lavatory, - doesn’t necessarily mean they’re Gollum-like (LOTR), and their pistol is their “precious”… it’s more like their watch, wallet…etc. It’s all about your default setting. More than likely, your default setting is different from the guy next to you… but it doesn’t mean he’s a nut.

PythonGuy ~

Good post. Let me try to find some common ground.

I know what you mean about some posts being funny. You're amused by folks who carry everywhere. I'm bemused when I see threads with titles like, "Do you carry to a friend's house?" "Do you carry at home?" "Do you carry to work?" "Do you carry at church?" etc ad infinitum.

The reason those threads amuse me is because, well, I carry. And I go places and do things. I don't carry "to a friend's house," or "to church" or "at home" -- I simply carry, wherever I might be. My default setting is to carry and if I'm not carrying it is because I made a deliberate decision not to do so right then. The reason I carry is never because I think whatever I'm doing is particularly dangerous; if I think something is particularly dangerous, I simply don't do it (or at least I find a way to do it more safely -- such as during the day instead of at night, or with a friend instead of alone). So all the angst about whether carry is appropriate in a particular venue just leaves me bemused.

A lot of people do the exact opposite. They go places and do things, but their default setting is to leave the gun locked up at home. If they carry at all, it's because they made a conscious decision to carry that day -- generally because they thought they were doing something particularly dangerous. I don't do it that way simply because my crystal ball has never been very good and I've noticed that bad things generally happen to me when I'm not expecting it. If other folks have noticed that bad things happen to them only when they are expecting it and prepared for it, who am I to argue? It's their lives.

I just wish they could refrain from insulting me for my choices, in the same way I refrain from insulting them for their choices.

pax

sreising

October 11, 2005, 11:39 AM

+1

:)

Shan

wayneinFL

October 11, 2005, 11:55 AM

Now, if I were to take those sorts of snake precautions when I was just heading out to check the mail here in suburbia, well, that's another matter.

O.T., but I did tell my son to put his shoes on and that if he'd mow the danged yard when I tell him to, we wouldn't have so many snakes here in suburbia.

pax

October 11, 2005, 12:24 PM

From 'way back on the first page: And I guess if I was a woman that was going to go to a beach so deserted that I could actually be raped there then I could see carrying a gun.
Jim,

This isn't for you, but for any women out there who might need to know: the most likely place for a rape isn't a deserted area, but rather a "fringe" area, a secluded spot not too far from lots of other people.

Think about it: the rapist has to have a victim. In order to find a victim, he's going to go where there are people.

But he also needs privacy to do his thing.

So the most dangerous area, rape-wise, is a relatively quiet spot where you are 30 seconds or more from the crowd and where your voice either won't carry far enough or won't sound out of place. At a party, it's a back room (as all too many college girls have discovered to their sorrow). At the shopping mall, it's that long, deserted hallway on the way to the bathrooms. At the county fair, it's back behind the carnival rides or at the back of the sheep barn.

And at a beach? It's not an empty beach that's a danger; it's the beach with lots of people, but which has sand dunes (so you're out of sight and out of hearing) or the parking lot full of cars but empty of other people.

Too many people think they are safe from assault simply because other people are not far away. But the presence of other people is what makes an attack possible in the first place, so the areas you have to be most alert in are the fringe areas near, but not in, a crowd.

Edited to add: I learned this first from Marc MacYoung (www.nononsenseselfdefense.com), but have heard it since from many other reputable trainers as well.

pax