An armed society is a polite society

[lordofthereef]

I was in the exact same boat as you (plus my parents hate guns) until about 2 years ago when I went to my first shooting range. I got my own guns and have taken up target shooting as one of my hobbies, probably my favorite too. I don't view my guns as killing devices, they are to punch holes in paper at specified distances. My concern is irresponsible people and criminals making one of my favorite hobbies illegal.

You can view them however you want kind sir. The gun was not invented as a hole puncher. It was invented as a life taker. There simply is no argument against this. I am, however, happy that you can responsibly enjoy your hobby. What you are doing is different from other examples of carrying your weapon onto school premises with the right permit though.

 

[lordofthereef]

I'm not really advocating anything, just trying to get people to think. I don't want America to end up like the UK, that's really the extent of my intentions.

Though, since you bring it up, I would like to carry every where

I asked the question because I had the feeling this is where this was going. There was a time in the US where one COULD carry everywhere. In fact it was the norm. Does anyone know why gun laws have become much more strict? (PS taking a jab at a certain political party is not the answer, for those who may be tempted).

 

[Frisco]

The gun was not invented as a hole puncher. It was invented as a life taker.

Well, sort of. The invention and evolution of firearms is more complicated than that.

Life taker and life saver seem to be sort of parallel in the history of these things. Mine are all life and property savers. I keep fire extinguishers and I keep guns.

ymmv

 

[Crude]

Well, sort of. The invention and evolution of firearms is more complicated than that.

Life taker and life saver seem to be sort of parallel in the history of these things. Mine are all life and property savers. I keep fire extinguishers and I keep guns.

ymmv

And then there was the substitute to the the bow and arrow....

 

[Frisco]

And then there was the substitute to the the bow and arrow....

..and the rock.

Kidding aside, I think one of the most dangerous personal weapon in the hands of a bad guy would be the crossbow. They tried to outlaw those in some century past, as just going too far with weapons of warfare.

Quiet and lethal.

 

[trackball]

You can view them however you want kind sir. The gun was not invented as a hole puncher. It was invented as a life taker. There simply is no argument against this. I am, however, happy that you can responsibly enjoy your hobby. What you are doing is different from other examples of carrying your weapon onto school premises with the right permit though.

Alls I'm trying to say is that a tool's use is determined by its user.

Practically everything in the world invented for one purpose or another takes on a different use with time, or can be used differently with the correct type of user...for the better or worse.

The point I try to make in any discussion of violence (since this thread started as a London riot discussion that merged with a gun thread) is that its not the fault of inanimate objects (guns, cricket or baseball bats, ball point pens...you name it), laws, words, media, whatever...At the very core of violence is a person making a conscious decision to commit a violent act, and there is no argument against that.

 

[lordofthereef]

I agree with you. Here's the thing. It's a lot easier to kill a whole lot of people with a weapon that accurately launches projectiles, possibly many per second (talking a handgun here), than it is with said pen, bat, etc. How many guys could you actually kill with a pen? Unless you were some trained assassin, I would say maybe one before the public (or said guy's buddies) take you out. What about a simple 5 round handgun. In theory, 5 people, far more easily than one can do with the pen.

Let's talk about the xbow too. If silencers are illegal, then so should be the xbow, IMO. Still, I could be mistaken, but a guy walking around with an xbow is way more obvious in public than a guy with a silenced handgun, no?

 

[lordofthereef]

Well, sort of. The invention and evolution of firearms is more complicated than that.

Life taker and life saver seem to be sort of parallel in the history of these things. Mine are all life and property savers. I keep fire extinguishers and I keep guns.

ymmv

Unless I am mistaken, the gun, or musket, or firearm, or whatever you want to call it, was invented for warfare, no? Would that not make these items, at their core, invented for the taking of life? If we didn't have a life taker then we wouldn't need a life saver, right?

 

[lordofthereef]

Important Dates in Gun History

 

[noah way]

Important Dates in Gun History

Bogus. This is a better list:

2011 Gabrielle Giffords (survived)
1986 Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme
1984 Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi
1981 US President Ronald Reagan (survived)
1980 John Lennon
1979 South Korean President Park Chung-hee
1978 Leo Ryan, Congressman from California
1978 San Francisco Mayor George Moscone
1978 San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk
1975 US President Gerald Ford (survived)
1972 US Presidential candidate George Wallace (survived)
1968 US Senator Robert F. Kennedy
1968 Political activist Martin Luther King, Jr.
1965 Activist Malcolm X
1963 US President John F. Kennedy
1962 French President Charles de Gaulle (survived)
1950 US President Harry S. Truman (survived)
1948 Political and Spiritual Leader Mahatma Gandhi
1935 US Senator Huey Long
1912 former US President Theodore Roosevelt
1909 Prime Minister of Japan Itoh Hirobumi
1901 US President William McKinley
1881 US President James Garfield
1865 US President Abraham Lincoln
1864 US President Abraham Lincoln (survived)
1840 Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom Survived
1835 US President Andrew Jackson
1812 UK Prime Minister Spencer Perceval

Notice how many US presidents are on the list ...

 

[lordofthereef]

Thanks for that. For the record, I was attempting to go back and simply show what guns were produced/created for to begin with. No doubt they have been being used for the same reasons throughout history.

 

[330D]

Unless I am mistaken, the gun, or musket, or firearm, or whatever you want to call it, was invented for warfare, no? Would that not make these items, at their core, invented for the taking of life? If we didn't have a life taker then we wouldn't need a life saver, right?

It's a little too late for what ifs....

I am a proud owner of firearms. I know many many other who are also. Have you ever lived in a rural area? There are multitudes of families who don't use guns for violence, but as a tool for sustenance. Necessity if you will. They can't afford to buy meat at the grocery store. Or they choose to eat healthy, natural game instead of processed injected store bought crap.

I consider myself a liberal, open minded thinker with pretty conservative tendencies. I know that makes no sense. Bear with me. I would NEVER use a gun in an act of violence. Except to stop one happening to me. And only ever as a last resort.

I grew up with guns. (I'm sure that must be obvious) To me they are not scary, they are not anything more than a tool. The problem lies with the way they are perceived in society today. We have grown to be a deserving needy stupid fat culture who takes and takes and takes until there is nothing left. Political correctness has made us completely limp wristed when faced with any sort of opposition to where we stand individually or as a whole. A hundred years ago when every one had a gun, there was much more respect for fellow (wo)man. Where has the respect gone? I treat everyone with respect, until they show me they do not deserve it (which is more often than I care to admit.)

All gun regulation laws do is take away the LEGAL guns that most use for protection. It does nothing for the illegal untraceable weapons most crimes are committed with.

So, at the end of my rant I say this... The problem is not with the gun. It is a complete and total lack of respect in our society, for each other and for the good of the whole.

 

[lordofthereef]

I am not sure why you feel we are talking about what ifs...

You seem to think that I am trying to condemn guns. I am very well aware that they are, at times, necessary. Sustenance would be one of them. Likewise there are also times where they are, by no means, necessary. One of those times would be when picking your kid up from pre-school. There is no legitimate reason that I can think of that a member of the public would need to be carrying a concealed weapon.

Where I live now is far more rural than when I was in CA. Plenty of people here hunt, and I have no issues with that whatsoever, so long as they are done within the boundaries of the law. These people, however, are also not carrying their hunting rifles into the local Hy Vee (grocer), as I feel it should be.

So many times people tend to read a person's latest post and decide what their overall stance is on a topic. I urge you to please read ALL of my thoughts and not just sum up what you think I may be feeling based on a single post.

 

[Frisco]

So many times people tend to read a person's latest post and decide what their overall stance is on a topic. I urge you to please read ALL of my thoughts and not just sum up what you think I may be feeling based on a single post.

+1

We see this going on like a firecracker string chain reaction in some threads, where users come into the thread and react to the last post (or two) they see, without getting a feel for the thread, and as you say, for the overall stance another member has taken and expressed in previous postings in that same thread.

We're all a bit guilty of that, and it's a good heads up to at least read back 10 0r 12 posts or more in a long thread. Particularly the posts of the member we're about to address.

 

[330D]

I am not sure why you feel we are talking about what ifs...

You seem to think that I am trying to condemn guns. I am very well aware that they are, at times, necessary. Sustenance would be one of them. Likewise there are also times where they are, by no means, necessary. One of those times would be when picking your kid up from pre-school. There is no legitimate reason that I can think of that a member of the public would need to be carrying a concealed weapon.

Where I live now is far more rural than when I was in CA. Plenty of people here hunt, and I have no issues with that whatsoever, so long as they are done within the boundaries of the law. These people, however, are also not carrying their hunting rifles into the local Hy Vee (grocer), as I feel it should be.

So many times people tend to read a person's latest post and decide what their overall stance is on a topic. I urge you to please read ALL of my thoughts and not just sum up what you think I may be feeling based on a single post.

I read the thread. And I agree partially with what you are saying. I believe that if there was no reason to have to carry a gun, many would not. I think the best time to be carrying a gun is when you can defend your family. Especially your children. Crazy things happen when we least expect them, and preparedness is all we can have at those moments.

I agree about staying within the boundaries of the law. I would never toe the line when it comes to carrying.

As far as the what ifs, you said If we didn't have a life taker then we wouldn't need a life saver. (sorry I didn't quote it) That is the what if I speak of.

I wish there were an easy answer to the question asked. But there is not. And it is an issue we will forever deal with in our lifetimes.

Apologies if I came across the wrong way. I don't mean to offend you or berate your opinion. But there is too much gray area here to not put forth my thoughts.

We live in a great society where we can speak freely of topics like this on an open forum. I hope it remains that way.

 

[lordofthereef]

The biggest reason I oppose "carry everywhere" law is because I don't want people taking the law into their own hands. Heaven forbid a person who thinks he is a much better gunslinger fires, misses, and hits my wife on the other side of the supermarket. If he were being attacked, he probably would not even deal with legal trouble as a result. All of this, because the guy was packing heat and potnetially misinterpreted a situation.

I made my "what if" point because there was question as to why the gun was created. It was not created as means of protection, it was created to kill people. You, your neighbor, or his grandfather may use it as protection. That's great. It protects you because it gives you the power to kill your attacker, simple as that. If it wasn't a killing device, it wouldn't be as powerful as it is (I am more fearful of a guy pointing a gun of my face than a guy holding a stick because there is an infinitely higher chance that I am killed instantly with said gun than said stick). When we, as a society, stray away from the real reason guns exist today, we put everyone, including ourselves, in danger.

I didn't feel attacked, berated, etc. but I certainly did feel that not all of my previous points were taken into consideration. Had they been there would not need to have been any mention of hunting, protection, etc. as a direct response to my statement.

 

[Frisco]

The biggest reason I oppose "carry everywhere" law is because I don't want people taking the law into their own hands.

Concealed Carry permit applicants are trained away from doing that very thing, and even advised on how to "de-escalate" most tense situations rather than use their weapon.

"If you've come here because you don't get along with somebody in particular, or with people in general, you've come to the wrong place," the State Patrol speaker remarked right away.

 

[330D]

The biggest reason I oppose "carry everywhere" law is because I don't want people taking the law into their own hands. Heaven forbid a person who thinks he is a much better gunslinger fires, misses, and hits my wife on the other side of the supermarket. If he were being attacked, he probably would not even deal with legal trouble as a result. All of this, because the guy was packing heat and potnetially misinterpreted a situation.

I made my "what if" point because there was question as to why the gun was created. It was not created as means of protection, it was created to kill people. You, your neighbor, or his grandfather may use it as protection. That's great. It protects you because it gives you the power to kill your attacker, simple as that. If it wasn't a killing device, it wouldn't be as powerful as it is (I am more fearful of a guy pointing a gun of my face than a guy holding a stick because there is an infinitely higher chance that I am killed instantly with said gun than said stick). When we, as a society, stray away from the real reason guns exist today, we put everyone, including ourselves, in danger.

I didn't feel attacked, berated, etc. but I certainly did feel that not all of my previous points were taken into consideration. Had they been there would not need to have been any mention of hunting, protection, etc. as a direct response to my statement.

And that being said... I know it is impossible to enforce, but training and preparedness in which to be able to read situations and understand when or even if to draw a weapon should be a prerequisite to being allowed a ccp. Alas that will never be the case, and we must rely on the judgement of the party involved to carry responsibly. I know I will do all in my power to bear arms with care and forethought. I wish that society and gun owners in general ( I know many do) thought the same way as I do. But if wishes were horses, beggars would ride, and we wouldn't need guns as society would be well cared for and at peace. But that is not the case, and all we can do is the best we can with what we are given. And when that dude is pointing the gun in my face be assured that I am glad I have a ccp, and can answer his call to arms. We cannot go back and uninvent the gun. At this point all we can do is deal with the ramifications and stipulations of being part of an armed society.


I do understand why the gun was invented, and probably have a better respect for it than most. I will never lose sight of that fact. I think that is why I am a responsible gun owner. Every day when I get in my car to drive to work, I stand a much greater chance of dying in an accident because the teenager in front of me is tweeting from his(er) phone about the shirt he bought at abercrombie rather than from an armed attacker. It is the risk we take. I will better my chances and my family's by carrying legally and responsibly.

 

[batgeek]

Thanks for that. For the record, I was attempting to go back and simply show what guns were produced/created for to begin with. No doubt they have been being used for the same reasons throughout history.

i all actuality, the first "firearms" were created by the Chinese as a method to deliver fireworks. they were then adapted to become weapons.

 

[batgeek]

And that being said... I know it is impossible to enforce, but training and preparedness in which to be able to read situations and understand when or even if to draw a weapon should be a prerequisite to being allowed a ccp. Alas that will never be the case, and we must rely on the judgement of the party involved to carry responsibly. I know I will do all in my power to bear arms with care and forethought. I wish that society and gun owners in general ( I know many do) thought the same way as I do. But if wishes were horses, beggars would ride, and we wouldn't need guns as society would be well cared for and at peace. But that is not the case, and all we can do is the best we can with what we are given. And when that dude is pointing the gun in my face be assured that I am glad I have a ccp, and can answer his call to arms. We cannot go back and uninvent the gun. At this point all we can do is deal with the ramifications and stipulations of being part of an armed society.


I do understand why the gun was invented, and probably have a better respect for it than most. I will never lose sight of that fact. I think that is why I am a responsible gun owner. Every day when I get in my car to drive to work, I stand a much greater chance of dying in an accident because the teenager in front of me is tweeting from his(er) phone about the shirt he bought at abercrombie rather than from an armed attacker. It is the risk we take. I will better my chances and my family's by carrying legally and responsibly.

if it wasn't firearms, it would be some other implement designed to gain an advantage over another.

 

[Crude]

I agree with you. Here's the thing. It's a lot easier to kill a whole lot of people with a weapon that accurately launches projectiles, possibly many per second (talking a handgun here), than it is with said pen, bat, etc. How many guys could you actually kill with a pen? Unless you were some trained assassin, I would say maybe one before the public (or said guy's buddies) take you out. What about a simple 5 round handgun. In theory, 5 people, far more easily than one can do with the pen.

Let's talk about the xbow too. If silencers are illegal, then so should be the xbow, IMO. Still, I could be mistaken, but a guy walking around with an xbow is way more obvious in public than a guy with a silenced handgun, no?

Actually silencer are legal in a lot of states. My state does not allow them...but we are working on that

Unless I am mistaken, the gun, or musket, or firearm, or whatever you want to call it, was invented for warfare, no? Would that not make these items, at their core, invented for the taking of life? If we didn't have a life taker then we wouldn't need a life saver, right?

A lot of mankind's advancements come for purpose of war. I don't know if this is a good argument for anything. It's just the way it is.

It's a little too late for what ifs....

I am a proud owner of firearms. I know many many other who are also. Have you ever lived in a rural area? There are multitudes of families who don't use guns for violence, but as a tool for sustenance. Necessity if you will. They can't afford to buy meat at the grocery store. Or they choose to eat healthy, natural game instead of processed injected store bought crap.

I consider myself a liberal, open minded thinker with pretty conservative tendencies. I know that makes no sense. Bear with me. I would NEVER use a gun in an act of violence. Except to stop one happening to me. And only ever as a last resort.

That's all the 'gun nuts' want, is to be able to defend them selves.

All gun regulation laws do is take away the LEGAL guns that most use for protection. It does nothing for the illegal untraceable weapons most crimes are committed with.

So, at the end of my rant I say this... The problem is not with the gun. It is a complete and total lack of respect in our society, for each other and for the good of the whole.

qft

The biggest reason I oppose "carry everywhere" law is because I don't want people taking the law into their own hands. Heaven forbid a person who thinks he is a much better gunslinger fires, misses, and hits my wife on the other side of the supermarket. If he were being attacked, he probably would not even deal with legal trouble as a result. All of this, because the guy was packing heat and potnetially misinterpreted a situation.

I made my "what if" point because there was question as to why the gun was created. It was not created as means of protection, it was created to kill people. You, your neighbor, or his grandfather may use it as protection. That's great. It protects you because it gives you the power to kill your attacker, simple as that. If it wasn't a killing device, it wouldn't be as powerful as it is (I am more fearful of a guy pointing a gun of my face than a guy holding a stick because there is an infinitely higher chance that I am killed instantly with said gun than said stick). When we, as a society, stray away from the real reason guns exist today, we put everyone, including ourselves, in danger.

I can't speak for other states, but in my state I've now taken two classes on CCW. And both classes make it abundantly clear that you are responsible for every bullet that leaves your barrel.

Also, I spend a lot of time researching ccw incidents. it's rather atypical that the attacker is killed. I have no documentation to go by but I would guess that it's around 10% of the attackers that are killed. On the same notion if the assailant has a gun it's likely that the defender received at least one bullet wound. I'd say about half the cases I've researched where the attacker had a gun he was likely to kill more then one person if not stopped. Obviously it's impossible to know a persons true intentions.

I guess I don't understand what purpose a concealed firearm is in an un-populated area? I want to be able to defend myself at home, in my car, at the sporting goods store, when I buy my meat and when I pick my kid up from school.

Concealed Carry permit applicants are trained away from doing that very thing, and even advised on how to "de-escalate" most tense situations rather than use their weapon.

This is also rather true, if you are indeed a responsible ccw'er your mindset is to not want to kill some one. You would logically try to find a better solution. If nothing else the legal nightmare that will ensue after a shooting, justified or not, should dissuade anyone from shooting another person unless it's to safe a life. My research indicates that most ccw shootings will not be blamed on the ccw's by the court. The truth is that the court date is typically at least a year away for these people. On the flip side a civil suit has costed at least one CCW'er his entire life savings.

In summary, no one is asking for a return to the wild west. I have no problem with background checks and licenses. But I feel that if I can go there then I should be able to go there with an ability to defend myself. If I could carry a cop in my pocket I would rather do that.

 

[lordofthereef]

FWIW, plenty of invention in war were not invented to take lives. Many inventions exist to actually save and spare lives. I am not saying that because this item was used and advanced for war, it is bad. All I am saying is that it was invented for taking life. Lose sight of that and, IMO, we have huge problems. Many of the other items that are used in war are, in fact, illegal, no? One cannot walk around with a cannister of napalm, or a bomb, or some sort of chemical nerve gas, right?

I did not know that about silencers. I would argue, then, that if silencers are ok, so should be crossbows, although I am saying that being completely ignorant about the crossbows "pro's" outside of perhaps how silently they operate.

I like the comment about de-escalating a situation. Perhaps we should all be taught this in some form or another, even if we have no plans to carry.

To be a little more clear, I am personally advocating that there should always be places where one should not be allowed to carry a weapon. Someone mentioned schools, and that is just scarey to me. I just don't see any situation where a member of the general public should ever need to bring a weapon onto campus. As I said, it would be a shame if we went backwards here and people felt inclined to carry a weapon just to go to the grocery store (regarding a mentality where everyone in town has a ccp so I feel like I need one to stay safe). Also, I think if the majority of the public started carrying, we might actually see criminals using different forms of weaponry to commit violent crimes. Can't scare people with guns anymore? That's cool. I will walk into a bank with bombs, or perhaps gas masks and chemical nerve agents and still get what I want. Properly planned, not a damn thing even a couple dozen people could do with concealed weapons permits. Unless, of course, they are willing to die while taking their attacker out.

 

[lordofthereef]

i all actuality, the first "firearms" were created by the Chinese as a method to deliver fireworks. they were then adapted to become weapons.

I don't doubt this is true. I also don't doubt that you know what I actually meant. A firework is a far cry from even the most crude "true" firearm.

 

[lordofthereef]

Concealed Carry permit applicants are trained away from doing that very thing, and even advised on how to "de-escalate" most tense situations rather than use their weapon.

"If you've come here because you don't get along with somebody in particular, or with people in general, you've come to the wrong place," the State Patrol speaker remarked right away.

Supposedly we are trained before we get behind a wheel and drive too. Lord knows there are various levels of training (some great, some not so great). Still, people die every day as a result of fools not taking the responsibility of driving seriously.

 

[Frisco]

Supposedly we are trained before we get behind a wheel and drive too. Lord knows there are various levels of training (some great, some not so great). Still, people die every day as a result of fools not taking the responsibility of driving seriously.

I know.

But things seem to be working, with the permit system. It's hard to come up with any stats (maybe somebody viewing this thread will), but permit holders don't seem to be involved in the mayhem we read about going on with hand guns.

I don't think very many gang bullies apply for permits, for example, mostly for the obvious reason that their application would be rejected post haste for priors, DUIs, etc.

The vast majority who apply for and acquire concealed carry permits are law abiding citizens out there.