Are you armed?

[Diver0001]

It's simple, guys. You can choose to a great extent how much risk you expose yourself to on the streets.

You can't in your house. If someone enters your house you either defend or you are at their mercy.

Defending your "right" to apply lethal force on the streets is (a) abdicating your responsibility to engage your brain and (b) assuming that the street belongs to you, which it does not.

My take on the "street" is that if you can choose to be there and yuo can choose not to. My Kung-fu teacher used to say "the best defense is not being there". He meant "dodge is better than block" but in this sense "avoid is better than attack" applies too.

The problem I see with allowing every Tom, Dick and Harry to carry a gun on the street is that Tom is a neurotic who is prone to panic attacks, Dick beats his wife and drinks too much and Harry has the IQ of a mouse.

Of the people who would *normally* carry a gun on the streets, maybe 3% of them are normal well adjusted individuals.

R..

 

[TCDiver1]

Of the people who would *normally* carry a gun on the streets, maybe 3% of them are normal well adjusted individuals.

R..

Of the people who can "legally" carry a gun on the streets, maybe 97% of them are normal, well adjusted individuals.

 

[Diver0001]

I said "would" you said "can"

Maybe we're both right.

R..

 

[NETim]

It's simple, guys. You can choose to a great extent how much risk you expose yourself to on the streets.

You can't in your house. If someone enters your house you either defend or you are at their mercy.

Defending your "right" to apply lethal force on the streets is (a) abdicating your responsibility to engage your brain and (b) assuming that the street belongs to you, which it does not.

My take on the "street" is that if you can choose to be there and yuo can choose not to. My Kung-fu teacher used to say "the best defense is not being there". He meant "dodge is better than block" but in this sense "avoid is better than attack" applies too.

The problem I see with allowing every Tom, Dick and Harry to carry a gun on the street is that Tom is a neurotic who is prone to panic attacks, Dick beats his wife and drinks too much and Harry has the IQ of a mouse.

Of the people who would *normally* carry a gun on the streets, maybe 3% of them are normal well adjusted individuals.

R..

The best sign of good training is never having to use it.

We as human beings have an inherent God given right to self defense. Our Constitution recognizes that right via the 2A.

Firearms level the playing field. Suddenly the 56 y/o grandma is the equal of the 20 y/o punk who has ill intent.

Sometimes the darndest of things happen to the nicest of people in the darndest of places.

You are aware that 48 out of 50 states presently allow some form of legal CCW? Just where are the 97% of the population you describe as "abnormal" causing trouble?

 

[syntaxerrorsix]

It's simple, guys. You can choose to a great extent how much risk you expose yourself to on the streets.

You can't in your house. If someone enters your house you either defend or you are at their mercy.

Defending your "right" to apply lethal force on the streets is (a) abdicating your responsibility to engage your brain and (b) assuming that the street belongs to you, which it does not.

My take on the "street" is that if you can choose to be there and yuo can choose not to. My Kung-fu teacher used to say "the best defense is not being there". He meant "dodge is better than block" but in this sense "avoid is better than attack" applies too.

The problem I see with allowing every Tom, Dick and Harry to carry a gun on the street is that Tom is a neurotic who is prone to panic attacks, Dick beats his wife and drinks too much and Harry has the IQ of a mouse.

Of the people who would *normally* carry a gun on the streets, maybe 3% of them are normal well adjusted individuals.

R..

Statistically you are incorrect in your assumption. Crimes committed by folks with a permit to carry a weapon are extremely low. The VAST majority of firearms related crimes are committed by.. you guessed it... criminals. My point is LAWS regarding firearms are only restricting law abiding citizens. Wife beating is domestic violence and is a contra indicator of firearms ownership, as is mental disease and substance abuse. You prefer to stack the cards against the law abiding citizens therefore giving the criminals an advantage. That to me is a poor argument.

You have to realize not just anyone CAN carry a firearm concealed or openly outside the home.

Besides the fact that self defense is a God given right not a government given right and we have an Amendment in our Constitution that claims these rights as inalienable.

 

[syntaxerrorsix]

I said "would" you said "can"

Maybe we're both right.

R..

"Would" and "can" are separated by legal and illegal as well. You have to be permitted, licensed, trained, fingerprinted and have your background checked. It's not as easy as, "I think I'll throw on my 1911 today."

 

[ozziworld]

Have not posted in awhile but this thread got interesting!

The stats on the CCW states is quite interesting since it appears to be growing steadily the last twenty years.

Of course, I wonder how that will change with the current administration but that would be a different subject.

It would be a safe assumption that people who bothered to obtain a CCW in their respective states are also most likely to have obtained "some" level of training as well as an appropriate awareness and attitude towards self-defense.

I think the "97%" that Diver0001 was referring to are the ones that simply chose to "pack some heat" - They are the ones I would be concerned with.

In fact, I don't think we can determine ow many people are actually carrying weapons illegally since they are not doing so in the open. I would also assume the criminals defending themselves against other criminals might take up a large percentage of the streets illegally carried on their persons.

The CCW Laws seem to make so much sense for all individuals who wish to take charge of their self-defense when out and about. Perhaps the same principle for CCW permits can be applied to the homeowner in the sense the registration/licensing/training be adjusted to suit.

An 'armed" citizenry' is okay, but a 'well-armed and well-trained citizenry" is better. I think that is what should be strived for here.

For the collectors and hobbyists? They should train as well.

My problem is - How do we keep from training 'Nuts" ?

 

[syntaxerrorsix]

..................
l.

My problem is - How do we keep from training 'Nuts" ?

I suppose first you would have to determine who decides what "Nuts" is.

You win that war and get back to me

 

[NETim]

Have not posted in awhile but this thread got interesting!

The stats on the CCW states is quite interesting since it appears to be growing steadily the last twenty years.

Of course, I wonder how that will change with the current administration but that would be a different subject.

It would be a safe assumption that people who bothered to obtain a CCW in their respective states are also most likely to have obtained "some" level of training as well as an appropriate awareness and attitude towards self-defense.

I think the "97%" that Diver0001 was referring to are the ones that simply chose to "pack some heat" - They are the ones I would be concerned with.

In fact, I don't think we can determine ow many people are actually carrying weapons illegally since they are not doing so in the open. I would also assume the criminals defending themselves against other criminals might take up a large percentage of the streets illegally carried on their persons.

The CCW Laws seem to make so much sense for all individuals who wish to take charge of their self-defense when out and about. Perhaps the same principle for CCW permits can be applied to the homeowner in the sense the registration/licensing/training be adjusted to suit.

An 'armed" citizenry' is okay, but a 'well-armed and well-trained citizenry" is better. I think that is what should be strived for here.

For the collectors and hobbyists? They should train as well.

My problem is - How do we keep from training 'Nuts" ?

I have dropped thousands of $$$$ into my training.

Mainly here: [url=http://www.thunderranchinc.com]Thunder Ranch Inc [/URL]

Like most good schools, there's no entry unless the applicant is a LEO, or can provide a letter of good conduct from the local PD or already has a CCW permit (which as we all know, involves background checks, mental health checks etc.)

I firmly believe that ALL those who choose to carry legally GET training. It's a huge responsibility and must be taken seriously.

But on the other side of the coin, I don't want to see it mandated by law. .Gov could set the bar so high that none but anti-gun ex-mayors of SF or big time movie stars and all around wonderful and stable citizens like Sean Penn could acquire a permit.

FWIW: Major gangs are sending members into the Armed Forces to learn combat tactics so that when they return to civilian life, they can train their fellow gang members. So, in some ways, Uncle Sam is already training the "nuts."

 

[ozziworld]

The "Nuts" - I think that is the biggest challenge of all.

If training is not mandatory or required by law then it becomes a matter of "education" which is an an even bigger challenge.

If an individual seeks out training voluntarily - they make the best students. If they are "required" they are can be trained. If you leave it up to them, they won't be trained.

Maybe Firearms and self defense training should then be state sponsored like "drivers ed"

Of course we can't address the cost and energy that goes into training for those with less means.

Like all major "issues" this one covers philosophical, economic and social concerns for all who are willing to tackle the subject.