You Too Can Carry a Gun

Small correction - You do not need to be the actual owner of the handgun to open carry it - you can borrow it.

http://jpfo.org/

http://www.2asisters.org/

You don't need to carry a gun to stop an attack. Carry mace or pepper spray, for God's sake. Carry your fists and feet. A gun just drills an endless hole through everything in front of it. You are not trained adequately to use such a weapon.

You watch too many movies, and you are deluded by them.

LOL at thinking that you can use your "fists and feet" to defeat a gang attack, and then accusing someone else of watching too many movies.

"You don't need to carry a gun to stop an attack. Carry mace or pepper spray, for God's sake. Carry your fists and feet."

Good point on the mace/pepper spray comment, but "Carry your fists and feet don't apply when the attacker is much bigger/stronger and/or has a knife or other weapon.

To add to your comment: pepper spray/mace are preferable overall because in addition to your point, you can use them against multiple attackers more effectively.

Hey Pinatubo, check it out, we posted at the same exact time.

I'll bet we were both laughing at the image of rambler dressed as a ninja at the same time too.

Perhaps Pinatubo can't imagine himself fighting back, but even the smallest and most timid of us can fend off an attacker with pepper spray.

Stray bullets go through walls and fall from flight still possessing lethal energy. The idea of firing a weapon in an urban or other populated area requires the shooter to dismiss the rights and safety of people, seen or unseen, within range of his bullets. The whole idea of carrying a gun in these environments is unsupportable from a public safety perspective, that's why it has become harder and harder to do legally.

People who openly carry unloaded weapons are also easy targets for criminals who want a gun. I doubt the letter writer would be granted the 2 seconds he needs to load his gun if he was mugged by a gun thief.

Maybe if we weren't so squeamish about paying police a decent salary and maybe employing more so they can do their job without unnecessary stress, we wouldn't need to carry guns.

EZK: the point is, the cops can't always be there in time. When you have a psychotic stalker bent on killing you, and maybe they have a gun (guns, like drugs--and like alcohol during prohibition can always be obtained) you need one yourself.

I know the hip knee-jerk far left statist view is to paint gun owners out as Tea Party White Males, which is why I posted to two links I did.

Disarming a society only makes it harder for those who need to defend themselves to do so.

Hey rambler, why aren't these gun thieves you're worried about mugging the cops for their guns?

I think you should both go buy yourselves guns, keep them loaded and in your pants at all times. Or, get one of those slick shoulder holsters and start wearing sport coats to hide the gun. You could get some aviator sunglasses and start chewing toothpicks, too.

Or, you might realistically visualize a situation where you actually pulled the gun and pointed it at somebody. Think back to a situation you have actually been in where your having a gun would have made a difference. Play it out in your mind realistically. Unless you have a richly deluded fantasy world already in place, you'll start to understand my point.

Or, you might realize that the bullies who used to pick on you in school have all grown up and aren't interested in you anymore.

But what about the cop-mugging gun thieves?!?!

Forget it Pinatubo, rambler won't address the points raised and just wants an argument.

The point raised is the gun thief, but it seems obvious. A cop is highly-trained and heavily armed, and not a good target for stealing a gun. Also, their gun is loaded. Their pepper spray, baton, and taser are also handy.

Criminals rarely target cops as victims of any crime, but they do burglarize homes where they believe guns can be had. Even cop's homes, as long as the cop is not home.

A civilian carrying a gun presumably travels through lines in Starbucks, etc., and constantly has people close enough to him to initiate an attack. His gun is unloaded, and he needs at least 2 seconds to realize he is being attacked, take out his gun, take out his ammo, load and cock his gun, and presumably stare down the attacker. None of this would be possible if the attacker struck quickly, and the gun-toter found himself in a struggle, or stunned by a blow.

Or, more likely, the criminal will be armed with a loaded weapon and simply demand that you hand yours over. That can get expensive after a while.

A quick attack on a policeman would have to go perfectly - no second chance there. A policeman has the right to subdue a person who looks like a threat, but a civilian cannot do that until the person makes an overt physical threat. That's a big difference.

Down south a few months ago, two gun-toters ended up in a gun battle with each other while patrolling their neighborhoods. One, and Iraq vet, was paralyzed by his wounds. Tragic as that is, at least no bystanders were hit.

Ramber: Do you favor complete gun control? If not, in what situations should they be allowed? Also, what types of firearms should be allowed?

I've seen cops in line for Starbucks, so your argument is moot. I win.

Okay, first thing: Pinatubo never won a damn thing his whole life. Try getting near a cop's pistol in the Starbucks line. Please, please, tell me when and where you will be doing this so I can watch you go down. Second, I've laid out my arguments pretty clearly. I own guns, but I don't wear them around. It would be asinine to do so. I don't carry pepper spray, and I'm not a trained fighter.

Having said that, I have been in a few dozen fist fights, all in my youth. I batted about 500 overall. My situational awareness is well-tuned and I don't see the value in carrying guns around. I think it's idiotic, and a manifestation of some deeper psychological problems. Ergo, it should be outlawed.

I encourage anyone with overriding paranoia to buy the pistol, load it, and keep it in his/her pocket. Maybe some poor cop will end up putting you out of your miserable existence, or maybe you will shoot somebody and feel like your life finally has meaning.

Nope. I win.

One way to look at these things is statistically.

There may be many individuals here who are capable and responsible enough to own a firearm for personal security reasons. And there will be a probability that such a person might someday safely use that weapon to protect themselves or someone else (e.g. home invasion, mugging).

On the other hand, statistically speaking, the general population's ability to safely own a firearm probably has a wide variance despite the permitting process. And one would expect the number of occurrences of injuries and deaths (e.g accidents, intentional shootings, etc) to increase as more guns are released into the population. Another downside is the probabilities associated with theft should increase with increased ownership in our statistical population.

So when I try to look at both sides of the coin, its not at all clear which way the scales balance. My intuition says overall, the more personal sidearms are released into the general population, they'll cause more problems than they'll solve.

As to the open carry issue, I think the proponents are insecure nutjobs with chips on their shoulders. Sure, Tabor and his band of cowboys may be able to load and fire in two seconds, but make sure you don't hit that barrista behind the counter at Starbucks. Or your reflection in the mirror.

What if the barrista is the one attacking you?

Me thinks gun control is the answer! Violence begets violence and no amount of ammo or gun power is going to protect those who wish to live in peace.

I agree with the Author of the Article. I have been trained by retired Secret Service Uniformed Police Officer on Presidential Detail. He spent two weeks with my class of professionals on "open-carry" and concealed carry in a class room setting. The next two weeks was spent training on an open firing range, drawing, loading and performing a "double-tap", one to the Chest and the other to the Head. I got really good at putting a bullet hole in the head of a paper target, we then moved to "Run & Gun", that is where you start jogging and draw, load and fire your gun at one of three targets, by the end of the day I was KILLING three tango's in one magazine per run. We were trained to draw, load and fire from Five different holstering places on our body, I prefer a Drop-Holster on my Right Thigh and from the small of my Back, and I carry a full size Beretta 92 Government Auto-Pistol.
I recieved my Federal Open Carry certification and authorization from the FBI. I scored a 295 out of 300, expelled over 10K rounds and scored a 95% in load and fire. I had the quickest time for a reload and engagement record in my class. I practice weekly, firing over 1000 rounds of 9mm Hydro-Shok from Federal Law Enforcement grade ammo. I carry a 15 round, a 30 round and a standard 10 round magazine. I have drawn my pistol four times, used it to defend my self and KILLED my aggressor three times out of the Four and was found Justified in all three cases by a panel of 6.
I fear NO one and AM NOT A VICTIM, I wear a Lvl 2 Bullet resistant vest and carry both a Expandable-baton and pepper spray No.5 can, with Permits both concealed and open carry by my State (Virginia) Police.
I have read California Penal code for the same and I can carry and will when I visit my Home State later Next year.

Charles.

That was an extremely bizarre note, Charles. Let's see if I got this straight: you dress in a bullet-proof vest, carry a large automatic, 55 bullets for it, a metal kick-ass stick (illegal in CA unless you are law enforcement), AND pepper spray?

You spend roughly $300 per week on shooting ammo. That's $1200/mo, and $14,400 per year!

You've had four people attack you, and killed three of them? I think you must be in Afghanistan, not Virginia. I kinda get the feeling you're joking, or are a complete BS artist, or both.

As I see it, the fault in the anti-civilian carry arguments in this thread lies within a few incorrect assumptions. Firstly, Rambler assumes that civilians are not well trained to carry and use a firearm which, while unfortunately can be true in some cases, is patently false in many others. Moreover, the converse assumption that police officers are extremely well trained is also not entirely factual. Officers are given initial training and are required to qualify using their firearm, the maintenance of those skills is largely up to the officers own discretion.
On the topic of statistical analysis, actual incidents involving the use of firearms for self-defense or the defense of others have shown that police officers are about 5 times more likely to shoot an unarmed person than civilian gun owners. Given that, if I was in line at Starbucks, I would rather take my chances with an armed civilian protecting me than a trigger happy officer who knows that there are not likely to be serious consequences.
Finally, it is often forgotten that the intention of the second amendment is not only to allow citizens to protect themselves from other civilians, but from the tyranny of governments as well, both foreign and domestic. When counting on the police to protect you, you should first ask what threat you are being protected from. Those who recall the Mercy Road killings in the San Diego area know this all too well. Adding a badge to your gun doesn't always make you a good person.

The constitution was written to put a check on government abuse, which is something authoritarian idealists are unable to, or refuse to recognize.

The moral inconsitancies of the Founding Fathers--sometimes derisively referred to as "Dead White Males" does not preclude the fact that they were able to see how power corrupts people, and that since people are what make up government, human nature needed to be acknowledged in the big picture.

The hard-core criminals will be able to get guns--just as they get hold of illegal drugs. Prohibition didn't stop people from getting hold of alcohol.

The 2nd Amendment is just as valid today as it was two centuries ago. Having said that, I *do* think firearms training before purchasing a gun is very good idea.