Guns

[Francesca]

Originally Posted by Mr_D

No one else was there, other than the two "gentlemen" and myself. I felt threatened enough to show that I was armed. No one else needs to "judge" what I did or how I responded.

Hi, Mr. D

Just to be clear, I used the word "judge" in reference to my own decision making.
I don't presume that I can do the same for others.
And I do appreciate the sharing of details from personal experience.
So much of what one hears on the subject is apocryphal- there's nothing like getting first-hand accounts.

Francesca

[LadyFitz...]

Originally Posted by DrScott

...For those who say therre is something wrong with people who live in 'condition yellow' I would suggest taking a personal safety course--many are offered by police departments. Your best defense is an awareness of your surroundings BEFORE a problem starts...

I totally agree that the best defense is an awareness of your surroundings. I wouldn't go so far as to call it "condition yellow," however. One can be aware of what is going on around them without it being the foremost thing on their mind. Same as simple things such as immediately locking one's car doors when getting in. It becomes habit. It's not a state of fear. My habit when I get into my vehicle is I lock all the doors while I'm getting in (a simple button press on the door handle), start the engine (so I can take off in a hurry if necessary; haven't needed to yet), then put on my seatbelt. It's habit for me; I don't even think about it.

Equally important is not appearing to be a victim. As previously stated, the bad guys look for those who appear to be defenseless. While physical size can be an advantage, it isn't necessary (I'm big but a physical pushover; however, I have the good sense not to advertise that). I have a friend who is a whopping 5' tall and probably doesn't weigh much more than 100 lb., if that. Yet I seriously doubt anyone will ever mess with her because of the self confidence she projects (be ex-Navy helps with that). Simple things like subtly letting the bad guys know you are aware of their presence (all it takes is a glance) is usually enough to get them to look for someone they feel will be an easier victim.

[DrScott]

Then I guess that we can agree that, for us anyway, it is an issue of semantics, not intent or 'fear.'

Living in fear, IMO, is a waste of a life.

Those who choose to have a CCW have a different backup plan than those who do not have a CCW.

As an aside, One instructor suggested that, if walking along a sidewalk (for example) and you notice a group of not-so-savory-looking folks walking toward you, rather than crossing the street and looking afraid, start having a rather heated conversation with yourself. Those folks like easy targets, not unpredictable ones.

[ArmyMPFromMO]

Originally Posted by dagray

When I have done my 218 qualification the joke has been in the past if you go to New York City you can be the test case if they accept the 218 permit. I believe they have by now. It is not usually the rank and file policeman that have a problem with legally carrying a gun. It is the politically motivated Chiefs and Sheriff's that claim they don't want people carrying guns. At least that is my perception here in California.

I was also told the last time I qualified that hollow points were good in all states.

New York is their own planet, blurring the thin blue line.

You're correct about the hollow point. I'm not sure whether you use your duty ammo for qualification or a less expensive FMJ, but we load up like we're still on the road, ammo wise. I always load with the same slug/buck for the 870 as I used on the road. It's a good habit not to break. Stay safe.

[chasfm11]

Originally Posted by Francesca

Hi, Mr. D

Just to be clear, I used the word "judge" in reference to my own decision making.
I don't presume that I can do the same for others.
And I do appreciate the sharing of details from personal experience.
So much of what one hears on the subject is apocryphal- there's nothing like getting first-hand accounts.

Francesca

While some don't like the organization who collections them, there are lots and lots more real life, personal experience self-defense stories. Search "Armed Citizen". Each story is paraphrased, many with links back to the original news story.

[Paul R. Haller]

'FBI statistics that show areas with concealed permits and lots of guns have lower crime rates than areas with very strict gun restrictions."

Statistics also show that if armed confrontation arises, the person carrying the weapon for defense is 18 times more likely to die with their own gun. Lets also count how many thousands, perhaps 10s of thousands, most of which are children under the age of 12, die each year or are maimed from accidental shootings including the former VPs hunting partner in Texas. (did I just bring that up) Did you also know that alcohol abuse and cigarette smoking are statistically much more likely to occur when a person has 1 or more registered guns? I'm not saying that one leads to the other just that they share a personality trait associated with risky behavior. No surprise there.

For the record, I am not in favor of taking guns away from the people.

We need tighter controls on what is sold and to whom and we need to enforce the lock up the gun rules as strongly as we enforce a DUI. If a jack azz is found with a gun under the car seat... we need to aggressively pursue legal action against them. I also believe no citizen needs access to an AK47, a MAC10, or a M16. Assault weapons are not for the general population. Owning or selling one would be a crime punishable by a jail term.

We have the technology available now to recognize a specific owner by electronic analysis. Force all gun manufacturers to include this technology on all weapons large or small. That way there would not be accidental shootings nor could a weapon be removed from someone forcibly and used against them. Who could possibly be against that except the most rabid of owners who cry it would cost too much. I then ask how much is a childs life, or their own, worth? The government shall authorize a clunker for cash exchange program where the definition of a clunker is a weapon without electronic id capability. After 25 years all outdated weapons are considered contraband.

There are ways to achieve a balance between the pry it from my cold dead fingers crowd and the ones who would take away the right altogether.
So, what's the next course of action?!? Run for president elect... or president of the NRA? I have included some solutions to show a middle ground can be found.

America is going to be a fight on every issue. Show me another country where someone is shouting at the top of their lungs center stage that which I have spent a lifetime opposing shouting at the top of mine. Show me another place where we not only love our flag and it represents democracy and freedom but also have the legal right to burn it in protest. America will fight on everything because we as a people are passionate and we love the democratic ideal. Show me an America united on workable solutions to gun ownership.
-Paul R. Haller-

[randco]

Man, I would think that there are a plethera of situations that are "condition yellow". Let's name a few. Driving an automobile on the highway, driving a RV on the highway, sitting in a McDonalds, Burger King, etc. in a nice neighborhood and being attacked by a gun toting individual, "going postal" situations, sending your child to school in a nice neighborhood and hoping and praying for their safe return, the fear of driving a MH on tires older than 7 years and so on...

I agree with LadyFitz that "the best defense is an awareness of your surroundings" but, none of us can control all situations.

I happen to think that any of the above examples could place an individual in "condition yellow". Being cognizant to them is one thing, being proactive is another. Then there is life, which can put us in the wrong place at the wrong time. For me, I thank my higher power every day for allowing me to not live in fear.

[dagray]

The VP's hunting partner was under 12 years old.

[Paul R. Haller]

"start having a rather heated conversation with yourself. Those folks like easy targets, not unpredictable ones."

Are we talking about unsavory characters or RV and truck salesman?
-Paul R. Haller-

[Ramblin]

Originally Posted by Paul R. Haller

Statistics also show that if armed confrontation arises, the person carrying the weapon for defense is 18 times more likely to die with their own gun.

What does this mean? 18 times more likely than what?

Originally Posted by Paul R. Haller

Lets also count how many thousands, perhaps 10s of thousands, most of which are children under the age of 12, die each year or are maimed from accidental shootings

I could not find any supporting information for the above. Most accidental shootings are children under 12? I'd like to know more about this. Where did you learn this statstic?

Originally Posted by Paul R. Haller

Did you also know that alcohol abuse and cigarette smoking are statistically much more likely to occur when a person has 1 or more registered guns? I'm not saying that one leads to the other just that they share a personality trait associated with risky behavior. No surprise there.

This is a bit like saying RV owners are statisticly more likely to sleep in walmart parking lots, isn't it? They really have nothing to do with each other, and are irrelevant to the topic.

Originally Posted by Paul R. Haller

We need tighter controls on what is sold and to whom and we need to enforce the lock up the gun rules as strongly as we enforce a DUI. If a jack azz is found with a gun under the car seat... we need to aggressively pursue legal action against them. I also believe no citizen needs access to an AK47, a MAC10, or a M16. Assault weapons are not for the general population. Owning or selling one would be a crime punishable by a jail term.

So only people who disregard the laws should be able to have AK47s? Passing more restrictive laws does nothing to reduce the number of assault rifles. Laws only apply to the lawful, who by definition aren't the ones who are committing gun crimes.

Originally Posted by Paul R. Haller

We have the technology available now to recognize a specific owner by electronic analysis. Force all gun manufacturers to include this technology on all weapons large or small. That way there would not be accidental shootings nor could a weapon be removed from someone forcibly and used against them. Who could possibly be against that except the most rabid of owners who cry it would cost too much.

Guns are very simple devices. The technology exists to do what you mention, but the technology doesn't exist to render a gun permanently inoperable if the biometric device is tampered with or removed. Maybe one day, but not today.

Originally Posted by Paul R. Haller

I then ask how much is a childs life, or their own, worth? The government shall authorize a clunker for cash exchange program where the definition of a clunker is a weapon without electronic id capability. After 25 years all outdated weapons are considered contraband.

Considering guns contraband doesn't make them go away. Prohibition laws never work, because where there is demand, someone will always provide the supply. Prohibition laws don't change that basic premise, they only create black markets and all the problems associated with black markets.

Originally Posted by Paul R. Haller

There are ways to achieve a balance between the pry it from my cold dead fingers crowd and the ones who would take away the right altogether.
So, what's the next course of action?!? Run for president elect... or president of the NRA? I have included some solutions to show a middle ground can be found.

More laws is not the answer. Its already against the law to shoot someone, as it should be. You will NEVER be able to reduce the number of guns the criminals have by passing more restrictive laws on the good guys. Wanna reduce gun crime? Increase prosperity. I don't have the answers, but I have seen what doesn't work.

Originally Posted by Paul R. Haller

America is going to be a fight on every issue. Show me another country where someone is shouting at the top of their lungs center stage that which I have spent a lifetime opposing shouting at the top of mine. Show me another place where we not only love our flag and it represents democracy and freedom but also have the legal right to burn it in protest. America will fight on everything because we as a people are passionate and we love the democratic ideal. Show me an America united on workable solutions to gun ownership.
-Paul R. Haller-

Preach on brother. That is something we can all agree on.

[Yellowreef]

Originally Posted by Paul R. Haller

We need tighter controls on what is sold and to whom and we need to enforce the lock up the gun rules as strongly as we enforce a DUI. If a jack azz is found with a gun under the car seat... we need to aggressively pursue legal action against them. I also believe no citizen needs access to an AK47, a MAC10, or a M16. Assault weapons are not for the general population. Owning or selling one would be a crime punishable by a jail term.


-Paul R. Haller-

Paul,

I dont wish to engage in the age old debate with you, however since you are parroting all the gun control cliches I will throw something back. "Tighter controls" keeps guns away from law abiding citizens, not criminals. Criminals get guns on the street, not from stores where the "controls" would be implemented. If the argument is more control to curb crime, then how is restricting law abiding citizens going to help? Banning guns to keep them away from criminals is like banning cars to keep them away from drunk drivers, you are penalizing people who abide by the laws and have done nothing wrong. Guns are banned in Mexico, yet they have daily shootouts on the streets. By your logic, they shouldnt have shootouts or gun crimes because guns are banned. Just because you dont feel people should have certain guns doesnt make it so.

On another note, your definition and understanding of "assault weapons" is flawed. Rifles sold at gun stores that resemble AK47, M16, and such are not assault weapons. Owning or selling the real ones is ALREADY punishable by federal and most states law. These are civillian versions that LOOK like the military assault rifles you mentioned, yet only fire one round at a time. What is the difference between one of those and say a "ranch rifle" that also fires the same exact bullet one at a time? It looks meaner? I participate in organized sporting events in which I utilize these rifles in competition. Who is any other citizen to tell me I shouldnt have the instruments and equipment I use for sport? I know we cant all agree in how we feel about guns, but live and let live would go a long way in this issue.

[Mr_D]

Originally Posted by Paul R. Haller

Show me an America united on workable solutions to gun ownership.

Guess you haven't found the correct place to get your "statistics" from yet.

We already have it!! It's called the Second Amendment, the one that protects all the others from usurpation by the government.

[LadyFitz...]

Originally Posted by Paul R. Haller

"start having a rather heated conversation with yourself. Those folks like easy targets, not unpredictable ones."

Are we talking about unsavory characters or RV and truck salesman?
-Paul R. Haller-

Yes.

[Francesca]

You forgot the smiley, Ladyfitz!

Paul made a joke, everybody-
He's trying to lighten the mood!

Let's give each other a break, here...

This is an important topic.
I'd hate to see it become "banned" because we're jumping all over each other.

Thanks, I hope...

Francesca