Welcome to Gaia! ::

Blind Guardian the 2nd
GunsmithKitten
Blind Guardian the 2nd


Please do excuse me if I think a citizens civic duty is to protect the vulnerable without the use of firearms. I don't expect people with disabilities to be able to defend themselves: I expect members of a community to do so on their behalf.


So, my neighborhood should become uncompensated and unpaid bodyguards? Yea, they'll surely go for THAT. stare


They'd probably be more willing if it wasn't a certainty that aggressors would have guns.

Maybe where you're from, but here in America we have a much more "you're on your own" mindset. Atleast in the rural areas I'm from. There's a fine divide. Many people will go out of their way to help a stranger, but there's also the mindset that you don't want to get involved in someone else's business unless they ask for it. And that doesn't just go one way either. I was taught that if I have a problem, I do NOT burden other people with it. If I need help, I go to the family first, friends second. Random strangers would be a distant eighth or ninth.

We give help freely, but we sure as hell don't expect it from others. That's just plain rude.
Testament of Death
Blind Guardian the 2nd
GunsmithKitten
Blind Guardian the 2nd


Please do excuse me if I think a citizens civic duty is to protect the vulnerable without the use of firearms. I don't expect people with disabilities to be able to defend themselves: I expect members of a community to do so on their behalf.


So, my neighborhood should become uncompensated and unpaid bodyguards? Yea, they'll surely go for THAT. stare


They'd probably be more willing if it wasn't a certainty that aggressors would have guns.

Maybe where you're from, but here in America we have a much more "you're on your own" mindset. Atleast in the rural areas I'm from. There's a fine divide. Many people will go out of their way to help a stranger, but there's also the mindset that you don't want to get involved in someone else's business unless they ask for it. And that doesn't just go one way either. I was taught that if I have a problem, I do NOT burden other people with it. If I need help, I go to the family first, friends second. Random strangers would be a distant eighth or ninth.

We give help freely, but we sure as hell don't expect it from others. That's just plain rude.


Most people don't get involved. The bullshit of 'well, if you didn't have an armed populace, more people would get involved' is disproven by the simple fact that the nanny nations didn't see an increase in others getting involved in crimes. If anything, they're more likely to get the ******** away from it.
Old Blue Collar Joe
I'm not speculating on my families safety. I will use the best means at my disposal to protect them.


You're confusing my statement on an ideal situation with a statement upon what should be actual policy.
Ive learned to balance two key points on my own opinion to gun control and conceal/open carry.


Sure, I'm all about self defense in dire situations - however in a realistic situation - a regular Joe with a firearm and carry permit on them is more of a threat to everyone around and himself, without proper or effective training you put yourself up as a primary target to the said criminal.

There is a video somewhere on Youtube (I'll find it) where they had taken a group of random people - all of their experiences with firearms ranging from little to no time spent on even operating one.

They put them all in a simulated situation with special Glock side arms that shot paint rounds - (realistic weight and all) where an intruder stormed into a room of people without warning at a random time and began to pop off rounds. Almost every one of the participants (even the ones with fire arm experience) had trouble being able to react and got shot before they were even able to pull their fire arm out.


"But, but I have a defense carry 38. that will ******** anybody up... and I practice on the range! I'll defend my family AT ALL COSTS HHNNGG."

Yeah, so? When that adrenaline is pumping and your hands are shaking and you get that tunnel vision as somebody aims at you, that awsome .38 gets hard to pull out of the holster doesn't it? You are the one who is gonna done ******** up.


So realistically aside from this test and seeing first hand - having a firearm on you without proper defensive training is kinda useless. The only people I know who would be effective with something like a carry permit would be either ex or active police officers and military or those with enough money to afford defensive and tactical fire arm training.

BUT EVEN THEN - the chances of coming into gun point and be able to take down a gun man in a situation without being shot yourself is very... slim.





Now with the other half - lets say somebody actually does effectively take down a gun man during a robbery or hold up. Unless somebody or yourself was already shot - you are going to be facing some questionable laws depending on the state you are in and dependent on what sort of fire arm you used.

Many times a carry permit can be a beacon for police to have reason to draw upon you and it has happened many many times.

So all in all, carry/conceal permits to me are a 50/50 since there is a huge gray area between the effectiveness and the laws regarding somebody actually defending their life.

Yes, if somebody is holding you up or is threatening your life either at home or in public - obviously you would want to do something about it. However, remember this.

Criminals have rights too. You blast a robber's head off with a shotgun or some high caliber BFG, you are more than likely going to go to jail or face manslaughter.
Machine_Gun_Blues
Ive learned to balance two key points on my own opinion to gun control and conceal/open carry.


Sure, I'm all about self defense in dire situations - however in a realistic situation - a regular Joe with a firearm and carry permit on them is more of a threat to everyone around and himself, without proper or effective training you put yourself up as a primary target to the said criminal.

There is a video somewhere on Youtube (I'll find it) where they had taken a group of random people - all of their experiences with firearms ranging from little to no time spent on even operating one.

They put them all in a simulated situation with special Glock side arms that shot paint rounds - (realistic weight and all) where an intruder stormed into a room of people without warning at a random time and began to pop off rounds. Almost every one of the participants (even the ones with fire arm experience) had trouble being able to react and got shot before they were even able to pull their fire arm out.


"But, but I have a defense carry 38. that will ******** anybody up... and I practice on the range! I'll defend my family AT ALL COSTS HHNNGG."

Yeah, so? When that adrenaline is pumping and your hands are shaking and you get that tunnel vision as somebody aims at you, that awsome .38 gets hard to pull out of the holster doesn't it? You are the one who is gonna done ******** up.


So realistically aside from this test and seeing first hand - having a firearm on you without proper defensive training is kinda useless. The only people I know who would be effective with something like a carry permit would be either ex or active police officers and military or those with enough money to afford defensive and tactical fire arm training.

BUT EVEN THEN - the chances of coming into gun point and be able to take down a gun man in a situation without being shot yourself is very... slim.





Now with the other half - lets say somebody actually does effectively take down a gun man during a robbery or hold up. Unless somebody or yourself was already shot - you are going to be facing some questionable laws depending on the state you are in and dependent on what sort of fire arm you used.

Many times a carry permit can be a beacon for police to have reason to draw upon you and it has happened many many times.

So all in all, carry/conceal permits to me are a 50/50 since there is a huge gray area between the effectiveness and the laws regarding somebody actually defending their life.

Yes, if somebody is holding you up or is threatening your life either at home or in public - obviously you would want to do something about it. However, remember this.

Criminals have rights too. You blast a robber's head off with a shotgun or some high caliber BFG, you are more than likely going to go to jail or face manslaughter.


You're aware of the fact that video was staged, right? They purposely took people with no firearms experience, or who had never carried and concealed and stuck them in there.
They also violated one of the first rules of CC, which is dress style. I've seen the video. Don't tell me they had 'moderate range experience'. Those folks had no clue what to do in that situation, and ******** tried to draw their sidearm through the shirts.
It was actually hilarious to watch it, knowing that there was no experience in that room, nor training.
As for your comment about being 'more dangerous to everyone around them'? Proof please? While I strongly recommend everyone who chooses to CC attends at least one or two courses on CC and proper execution of it, I still like to know there are others out there.
Blind Guardian the 2nd
Old Blue Collar Joe
I'm not speculating on my families safety. I will use the best means at my disposal to protect them.


You're confusing my statement on an ideal situation with a statement upon what should be actual policy.


No, I'm addressing your speculations that haven't been proven to even be remotely accurate to date in any society that has severely limited firearms.
Blind Guardian the 2nd

Please do excuse me if I think a citizens civic duty is to protect the vulnerable without the use of firearms. I don't expect people with disabilities to be able to defend themselves: I expect members of a community to do so on their behalf.


So... instead of taking personal responsibility, you think such people should be a burden on society? I'm sure if you were disabled, you would love having someone baby you 24/7 instead of taking strides toward taking care of yourself...

Blind Guardian the 2nd

We've already discussed that idea in other areas of this topic. It's far more likely that political pressure from any number of origins would dissuade the USA from taking action against its own citizens, to the point that the "governmental genocide" idea is non-sequitur.


Well this isn't happening now so....


Blind Guardian the 2nd

Please tell me why encouraging people to be armed is more personally responsible than encouraging people not to commit crimes?


Ok. So you are either retarded or trolling, since I said nothing remotely similar to this. For the sake of playing along, however -
Steve is a person. Steve cannot control what Bill does. Bill might be nice, or Bill might be a psychotic with no ability to control his actions. Steve shows personal responsibility by BOTH 1) being a reasonable individual who chooses not to commit crimes AND 2) arming himself in case Bill decides to attempt to eat his face. Since Steve does not have mind control powers, he understands that these are the limits of his personal responsibility, as he no matter how much education and encouragement he provides, Bill is the one that is ultimately going to determine what Bill does.

Blind Guardian the 2nd

By the same logic, I can say that it is up to the individual to decide whether purchasing drugs is responsible, whether abusing children is responsible, or obtaining military-grade hardware. Invoking a "free society" tends to imply that individuals will not make decisions that need regulating in order to preserve said free society: just as I would argue that firearms deprive many individuals of the freedom to live without illegal interference from others.


It is absolutely up to the individual to decide whether purchasing drugs is responsible or not. This is the essence of personal responsibility to decide what to consume and what not to consume (whether the substance in question is marsh mellows, alcohol, or heroin).

Abusing children is obviously not a choice of personal responsibility, because you are directly impacting someone else, and limiting their freedom as a result. However, if we lived in a rationale and well-armed society, hopefully that abused child would have the knowledge to defend themselves from their abuser, instead of being continually beaten and stuck hoping that someone else will arrive to help them.
Samadhi23
Blind Guardian the 2nd

Please do excuse me if I think a citizens civic duty is to protect the vulnerable without the use of firearms. I don't expect people with disabilities to be able to defend themselves: I expect members of a community to do so on their behalf.


So... instead of taking personal responsibility, you think such people should be a burden on society? I'm sure if you were disabled, you would love having someone baby you 24/7 instead of taking strides toward taking care of yourself...

Blind Guardian the 2nd

We've already discussed that idea in other areas of this topic. It's far more likely that political pressure from any number of origins would dissuade the USA from taking action against its own citizens, to the point that the "governmental genocide" idea is non-sequitur.


Well this isn't happening now so....


Blind Guardian the 2nd

Please tell me why encouraging people to be armed is more personally responsible than encouraging people not to commit crimes?


Ok. So you are either retarded or trolling, since I said nothing remotely similar to this. For the sake of playing along, however -
Steve is a person. Steve cannot control what Bill does. Bill might be nice, or Bill might be a psychotic with no ability to control his actions. Steve shows personal responsibility by BOTH 1) being a reasonable individual who chooses not to commit crimes AND 2) arming himself in case Bill decides to attempt to eat his face. Since Steve does not have mind control powers, he understands that these are the limits of his personal responsibility, as he no matter how much education and encouragement he provides, Bill is the one that is ultimately going to determine what Bill does.

Blind Guardian the 2nd

By the same logic, I can say that it is up to the individual to decide whether purchasing drugs is responsible, whether abusing children is responsible, or obtaining military-grade hardware. Invoking a "free society" tends to imply that individuals will not make decisions that need regulating in order to preserve said free society: just as I would argue that firearms deprive many individuals of the freedom to live without illegal interference from others.


It is absolutely up to the individual to decide whether purchasing drugs is responsible or not. This is the essence of personal responsibility to decide what to consume and what not to consume (whether the substance in question is marsh mellows, alcohol, or heroin).

Abusing children is obviously not a choice of personal responsibility, because you are directly impacting someone else, and limiting their freedom as a result. However, if we lived in a rationale and well-armed society, hopefully that abused child would have the knowledge to defend themselves from their abuser, instead of being continually beaten and stuck hoping that someone else will arrive to help them.


Don't you love the 'buy military grade hardware' fallacy? We can't buy military graded hardware, and the very few full auto's out there? The people who can afford them are the people that don't rob people because if you can afford 5k and up, plus the ammo? You're not worried about how much money the QuikTrip has in it.
GunsmithKitten's avatar

Aged Lunatic

Old Blue Collar Joe
Samadhi23
Blind Guardian the 2nd

Please do excuse me if I think a citizens civic duty is to protect the vulnerable without the use of firearms. I don't expect people with disabilities to be able to defend themselves: I expect members of a community to do so on their behalf.


So... instead of taking personal responsibility, you think such people should be a burden on society? I'm sure if you were disabled, you would love having someone baby you 24/7 instead of taking strides toward taking care of yourself...

Blind Guardian the 2nd

We've already discussed that idea in other areas of this topic. It's far more likely that political pressure from any number of origins would dissuade the USA from taking action against its own citizens, to the point that the "governmental genocide" idea is non-sequitur.


Well this isn't happening now so....


Blind Guardian the 2nd

Please tell me why encouraging people to be armed is more personally responsible than encouraging people not to commit crimes?


Ok. So you are either retarded or trolling, since I said nothing remotely similar to this. For the sake of playing along, however -
Steve is a person. Steve cannot control what Bill does. Bill might be nice, or Bill might be a psychotic with no ability to control his actions. Steve shows personal responsibility by BOTH 1) being a reasonable individual who chooses not to commit crimes AND 2) arming himself in case Bill decides to attempt to eat his face. Since Steve does not have mind control powers, he understands that these are the limits of his personal responsibility, as he no matter how much education and encouragement he provides, Bill is the one that is ultimately going to determine what Bill does.

Blind Guardian the 2nd

By the same logic, I can say that it is up to the individual to decide whether purchasing drugs is responsible, whether abusing children is responsible, or obtaining military-grade hardware. Invoking a "free society" tends to imply that individuals will not make decisions that need regulating in order to preserve said free society: just as I would argue that firearms deprive many individuals of the freedom to live without illegal interference from others.


It is absolutely up to the individual to decide whether purchasing drugs is responsible or not. This is the essence of personal responsibility to decide what to consume and what not to consume (whether the substance in question is marsh mellows, alcohol, or heroin).

Abusing children is obviously not a choice of personal responsibility, because you are directly impacting someone else, and limiting their freedom as a result. However, if we lived in a rationale and well-armed society, hopefully that abused child would have the knowledge to defend themselves from their abuser, instead of being continually beaten and stuck hoping that someone else will arrive to help them.


Don't you love the 'buy military grade hardware' fallacy? We can't buy military graded hardware, and the very few full auto's out there? The people who can afford them are the people that don't rob people because if you can afford 5k and up, plus the ammo? You're not worried about how much money the QuikTrip has in it.


Not to mention that if you own a full auto, you become a screaming blip on every law enforcement agency in the country. They WILL know where that gun is and if it's used in a crime, your a** is grass. God forbid you use it in a crime yourself, and the SWAT team will be up your a** like gerbils in Rob Lowe.

As for other military ordinance, a lot of it is banned more by explosive and hazardous materials laws than firearm laws.
GunsmithKitten
Old Blue Collar Joe
Samadhi23
Blind Guardian the 2nd

Please do excuse me if I think a citizens civic duty is to protect the vulnerable without the use of firearms. I don't expect people with disabilities to be able to defend themselves: I expect members of a community to do so on their behalf.


So... instead of taking personal responsibility, you think such people should be a burden on society? I'm sure if you were disabled, you would love having someone baby you 24/7 instead of taking strides toward taking care of yourself...

Blind Guardian the 2nd

We've already discussed that idea in other areas of this topic. It's far more likely that political pressure from any number of origins would dissuade the USA from taking action against its own citizens, to the point that the "governmental genocide" idea is non-sequitur.


Well this isn't happening now so....


Blind Guardian the 2nd

Please tell me why encouraging people to be armed is more personally responsible than encouraging people not to commit crimes?


Ok. So you are either retarded or trolling, since I said nothing remotely similar to this. For the sake of playing along, however -
Steve is a person. Steve cannot control what Bill does. Bill might be nice, or Bill might be a psychotic with no ability to control his actions. Steve shows personal responsibility by BOTH 1) being a reasonable individual who chooses not to commit crimes AND 2) arming himself in case Bill decides to attempt to eat his face. Since Steve does not have mind control powers, he understands that these are the limits of his personal responsibility, as he no matter how much education and encouragement he provides, Bill is the one that is ultimately going to determine what Bill does.

Blind Guardian the 2nd

By the same logic, I can say that it is up to the individual to decide whether purchasing drugs is responsible, whether abusing children is responsible, or obtaining military-grade hardware. Invoking a "free society" tends to imply that individuals will not make decisions that need regulating in order to preserve said free society: just as I would argue that firearms deprive many individuals of the freedom to live without illegal interference from others.


It is absolutely up to the individual to decide whether purchasing drugs is responsible or not. This is the essence of personal responsibility to decide what to consume and what not to consume (whether the substance in question is marsh mellows, alcohol, or heroin).

Abusing children is obviously not a choice of personal responsibility, because you are directly impacting someone else, and limiting their freedom as a result. However, if we lived in a rationale and well-armed society, hopefully that abused child would have the knowledge to defend themselves from their abuser, instead of being continually beaten and stuck hoping that someone else will arrive to help them.


Don't you love the 'buy military grade hardware' fallacy? We can't buy military graded hardware, and the very few full auto's out there? The people who can afford them are the people that don't rob people because if you can afford 5k and up, plus the ammo? You're not worried about how much money the QuikTrip has in it.


Not to mention that if you own a full auto, you become a screaming blip on every law enforcement agency in the country. They WILL know where that gun is and if it's used in a crime, your a** is grass. God forbid you use it in a crime yourself, and the SWAT team will be up your a** like gerbils in Rob Lowe.

As for other military ordinance, a lot of it is banned more by explosive and hazardous materials laws than firearm laws.


Yup. You even have to notify the ATF if you're taking it on vacation, the route, and where you're going and for how long, as well as notifying the local law enforcement.
The cheapest I've seen a 16 for is 15 grand, and that was in decent condition, but not great. Plus, they break down? You can't just order those parts off line. And you damn well don't take them down to your local gunsmith. They take an expert, usually to fabricate the part, and that isn't cheap.
Old Blue Collar Joe
Machine_Gun_Blues
Ive learned to balance two key points on my own opinion to gun control and conceal/open carry.


Sure, I'm all about self defense in dire situations - however in a realistic situation - a regular Joe with a firearm and carry permit on them is more of a threat to everyone around and himself, without proper or effective training you put yourself up as a primary target to the said criminal.

There is a video somewhere on Youtube (I'll find it) where they had taken a group of random people - all of their experiences with firearms ranging from little to no time spent on even operating one.

They put them all in a simulated situation with special Glock side arms that shot paint rounds - (realistic weight and all) where an intruder stormed into a room of people without warning at a random time and began to pop off rounds. Almost every one of the participants (even the ones with fire arm experience) had trouble being able to react and got shot before they were even able to pull their fire arm out.


"But, but I have a defense carry 38. that will ******** anybody up... and I practice on the range! I'll defend my family AT ALL COSTS HHNNGG."

Yeah, so? When that adrenaline is pumping and your hands are shaking and you get that tunnel vision as somebody aims at you, that awsome .38 gets hard to pull out of the holster doesn't it? You are the one who is gonna done ******** up.


So realistically aside from this test and seeing first hand - having a firearm on you without proper defensive training is kinda useless. The only people I know who would be effective with something like a carry permit would be either ex or active police officers and military or those with enough money to afford defensive and tactical fire arm training.

BUT EVEN THEN - the chances of coming into gun point and be able to take down a gun man in a situation without being shot yourself is very... slim.





Now with the other half - lets say somebody actually does effectively take down a gun man during a robbery or hold up. Unless somebody or yourself was already shot - you are going to be facing some questionable laws depending on the state you are in and dependent on what sort of fire arm you used.

Many times a carry permit can be a beacon for police to have reason to draw upon you and it has happened many many times.

So all in all, carry/conceal permits to me are a 50/50 since there is a huge gray area between the effectiveness and the laws regarding somebody actually defending their life.

Yes, if somebody is holding you up or is threatening your life either at home or in public - obviously you would want to do something about it. However, remember this.

Criminals have rights too. You blast a robber's head off with a shotgun or some high caliber BFG, you are more than likely going to go to jail or face manslaughter.


You're aware of the fact that video was staged, right? They purposely took people with no firearms experience, or who had never carried and concealed and stuck them in there.
They also violated one of the first rules of CC, which is dress style. I've seen the video. Don't tell me they had 'moderate range experience'. Those folks had no clue what to do in that situation, and ******** tried to draw their sidearm through the shirts.
It was actually hilarious to watch it, knowing that there was no experience in that room, nor training.
As for your comment about being 'more dangerous to everyone around them'? Proof please? While I strongly recommend everyone who chooses to CC attends at least one or two courses on CC and proper execution of it, I still like to know there are others out there.


That was my exact point to the video... so thanks for repeating. Even if it was staged, a lot of people have the misconception and they create fantasies that they could stop any situation if they were armed when in reality it depends on many different variables. You know how many Joe's I hear bragging or walking around about how they conceal/open carry? Shits stupid.

Dress style? I remember clearly that they were all wearing white overalls and protective gear - there was no distinction between anyone.

The fact that no one in the group was able to draw their pistol out accordingly only showed that they were not trained how to act effectively in a high-stress adrenaline boosted situation. The video to me was true to the realism a regular Joe with a carry permit would do. Fail.

Think about it, someone without proper training as to handling their own fire arm is a danger and liability since they could hurt themselves and others around. Its common sense. My point was not against open/conceal carry - since I myself have a permit. My point was that if you are going to carry, you better know what you are doing and what you are willing to take on.

Imagine if the said criminal was actually trained or was ex-military or ex-police her/himself... you have no way of telling what you are up against. Like the tragedies that the L.A.P.D. had to face when they had ex-Marines and soldiers joining gangs back in late 2004 and were killing cops with ease because they outgunned the police and everyone around the block because they were trained pretty well for war already.

"Yeah but I can take em out with my 38. special."

The instant you make it apparent that you have a weapon on you - the faster they are going to try and take you out.

There is also a successful carry example of a video on Youtube somewhere... a robber had walked into a clinic demanding money and the civilian who was carrying a pistol at the time started to act innocent like the other civilians. While the robber was distracted grabbing at what he was after, they guy had discreetly taken his Glock out and took the guy by surprise - AFTER HE HAD ACTED LIKE A VICTIM.

As I said before - if you are going to carry open or concealed, you better be vigilant and prepared to take on something - maybe even sacrifice.

Its cliche but you live by the gun, you tend to die by the gun.
Machine_Gun_Blues
Old Blue Collar Joe
Machine_Gun_Blues
Ive learned to balance two key points on my own opinion to gun control and conceal/open carry.


Sure, I'm all about self defense in dire situations - however in a realistic situation - a regular Joe with a firearm and carry permit on them is more of a threat to everyone around and himself, without proper or effective training you put yourself up as a primary target to the said criminal.

There is a video somewhere on Youtube (I'll find it) where they had taken a group of random people - all of their experiences with firearms ranging from little to no time spent on even operating one.

They put them all in a simulated situation with special Glock side arms that shot paint rounds - (realistic weight and all) where an intruder stormed into a room of people without warning at a random time and began to pop off rounds. Almost every one of the participants (even the ones with fire arm experience) had trouble being able to react and got shot before they were even able to pull their fire arm out.


"But, but I have a defense carry 38. that will ******** anybody up... and I practice on the range! I'll defend my family AT ALL COSTS HHNNGG."

Yeah, so? When that adrenaline is pumping and your hands are shaking and you get that tunnel vision as somebody aims at you, that awsome .38 gets hard to pull out of the holster doesn't it? You are the one who is gonna done ******** up.


So realistically aside from this test and seeing first hand - having a firearm on you without proper defensive training is kinda useless. The only people I know who would be effective with something like a carry permit would be either ex or active police officers and military or those with enough money to afford defensive and tactical fire arm training.

BUT EVEN THEN - the chances of coming into gun point and be able to take down a gun man in a situation without being shot yourself is very... slim.





Now with the other half - lets say somebody actually does effectively take down a gun man during a robbery or hold up. Unless somebody or yourself was already shot - you are going to be facing some questionable laws depending on the state you are in and dependent on what sort of fire arm you used.

Many times a carry permit can be a beacon for police to have reason to draw upon you and it has happened many many times.

So all in all, carry/conceal permits to me are a 50/50 since there is a huge gray area between the effectiveness and the laws regarding somebody actually defending their life.

Yes, if somebody is holding you up or is threatening your life either at home or in public - obviously you would want to do something about it. However, remember this.

Criminals have rights too. You blast a robber's head off with a shotgun or some high caliber BFG, you are more than likely going to go to jail or face manslaughter.


You're aware of the fact that video was staged, right? They purposely took people with no firearms experience, or who had never carried and concealed and stuck them in there.
They also violated one of the first rules of CC, which is dress style. I've seen the video. Don't tell me they had 'moderate range experience'. Those folks had no clue what to do in that situation, and ******** tried to draw their sidearm through the shirts.
It was actually hilarious to watch it, knowing that there was no experience in that room, nor training.
As for your comment about being 'more dangerous to everyone around them'? Proof please? While I strongly recommend everyone who chooses to CC attends at least one or two courses on CC and proper execution of it, I still like to know there are others out there.


That was my exact point to the video... so thanks for repeating. Even if it was staged, a lot of people have the misconception and they create fantasies that they could stop any situation if they were armed when in reality it depends on many different variables. You know how many Joe's I hear bragging or walking around about how they conceal/open carry? Shits stupid.

Dress style? I remember clearly that they were all wearing white overalls and protective gear - there was no distinction between anyone.

The fact that no one in the group was able to draw their pistol out accordingly only showed that they were not trained how to act effectively in a high-stress adrenaline boosted situation. The video to me was true to the realism a regular Joe with a carry permit would do. Fail.

Think about it, someone without proper training as to handling their own fire arm is a danger and liability since they could hurt themselves and others around. Its common sense. My point was not against open/conceal carry - since I myself have a permit. My point was that if you are going to carry, you better know what you are doing and what you are willing to take on.

Imagine if the said criminal was actually trained or was ex-military or ex-police her/himself... you have no way of telling what you are up against. Like the tragedies that the L.A.P.D. had to face when they had ex-Marines and soldiers joining gangs back in late 2004 and were killing cops with ease because they outgunned the police and everyone around the block because they were trained pretty well for war already.

"Yeah but I can take em out with my 38. special."

The instant you make it apparent that you have a weapon on you - the faster they are going to try and take you out.

There is also a successful carry example of a video on Youtube somewhere... a robber had walked into a clinic demanding money and the civilian who was carrying a pistol at the time started to act innocent like the other civilians. While the robber was distracted grabbing at what he was after, they guy had discreetly taken his Glock out and took the guy by surprise - AFTER HE HAD ACTED LIKE A VICTIM.

As I said before - if you are going to carry open or concealed, you better be vigilant and prepared to take on something - maybe even sacrifice.

Its cliche but you live by the gun, you tend to die by the gun.


We seem to be some form of agreement, as I am also a firm believer that one doesn't simply buy a firearm and are suddenly, magically the modern day equivalent of Wyatt Earp.
It takes muscle memory to develop the skills needed to properly, and safely, utilize their firearm. As well as, in your example, knowing hte the right time to make their move.
The issue, however, is knowing when, knowing HOW, and being WILLING to do it.
As I've told people before, if they aren't willing to use the firearm, then don't damn carry it.
GunsmithKitten
Old Blue Collar Joe
Samadhi23
Blind Guardian the 2nd

Please do excuse me if I think a citizens civic duty is to protect the vulnerable without the use of firearms. I don't expect people with disabilities to be able to defend themselves: I expect members of a community to do so on their behalf.


So... instead of taking personal responsibility, you think such people should be a burden on society? I'm sure if you were disabled, you would love having someone baby you 24/7 instead of taking strides toward taking care of yourself...

Blind Guardian the 2nd

We've already discussed that idea in other areas of this topic. It's far more likely that political pressure from any number of origins would dissuade the USA from taking action against its own citizens, to the point that the "governmental genocide" idea is non-sequitur.


Well this isn't happening now so....


Blind Guardian the 2nd

Please tell me why encouraging people to be armed is more personally responsible than encouraging people not to commit crimes?


Ok. So you are either retarded or trolling, since I said nothing remotely similar to this. For the sake of playing along, however -
Steve is a person. Steve cannot control what Bill does. Bill might be nice, or Bill might be a psychotic with no ability to control his actions. Steve shows personal responsibility by BOTH 1) being a reasonable individual who chooses not to commit crimes AND 2) arming himself in case Bill decides to attempt to eat his face. Since Steve does not have mind control powers, he understands that these are the limits of his personal responsibility, as he no matter how much education and encouragement he provides, Bill is the one that is ultimately going to determine what Bill does.

Blind Guardian the 2nd

By the same logic, I can say that it is up to the individual to decide whether purchasing drugs is responsible, whether abusing children is responsible, or obtaining military-grade hardware. Invoking a "free society" tends to imply that individuals will not make decisions that need regulating in order to preserve said free society: just as I would argue that firearms deprive many individuals of the freedom to live without illegal interference from others.


It is absolutely up to the individual to decide whether purchasing drugs is responsible or not. This is the essence of personal responsibility to decide what to consume and what not to consume (whether the substance in question is marsh mellows, alcohol, or heroin).

Abusing children is obviously not a choice of personal responsibility, because you are directly impacting someone else, and limiting their freedom as a result. However, if we lived in a rationale and well-armed society, hopefully that abused child would have the knowledge to defend themselves from their abuser, instead of being continually beaten and stuck hoping that someone else will arrive to help them.


Don't you love the 'buy military grade hardware' fallacy? We can't buy military graded hardware, and the very few full auto's out there? The people who can afford them are the people that don't rob people because if you can afford 5k and up, plus the ammo? You're not worried about how much money the QuikTrip has in it.


Not to mention that if you own a full auto, you become a screaming blip on every law enforcement agency in the country. They WILL know where that gun is and if it's used in a crime, your a** is grass. God forbid you use it in a crime yourself, and the SWAT team will be up your a** like gerbils in Rob Lowe.

As for other military ordinance, a lot of it is banned more by explosive and hazardous materials laws than firearm laws.


Hey, GSK, two quick questions for you:

Do you ever get the feeling the R. Neil Smith actually has his s**t straight with this quote:

"Gun control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound." — L. Neil Smith

And Question two: Is your store having a hard time keeping AR parts in stock? They're getting harder to find than an opened bottle of beer at one of my family reunions.
Glorious Leader Luna's avatar

Omnipresent Cultist

5,150 Points
  • Perfect Attendance 400
  • Partygoer 500
GunsmithKitten
Blind Guardian the 2nd
Old Blue Collar Joe
Blind Guardian the 2nd
GunsmithKitten
Blind Guardian the 2nd


Please do excuse me if I think a citizens civic duty is to protect the vulnerable without the use of firearms. I don't expect people with disabilities to be able to defend themselves: I expect members of a community to do so on their behalf.


So, my neighborhood should become uncompensated and unpaid bodyguards? Yea, they'll surely go for THAT. stare


They'd probably be more willing if it wasn't a certainty that aggressors would have guns.


And your proof of such?


I said probably, indicating that it is speculation based from the observation that someone is more likely to intervene in a dispute if they are less likely to be seriously injured by doing so.


Because again, you can't get seriously injured with a bat, a knife, a broken bottle, a rock...


You have to put a lot effort and thought in seriously injuring a person with said things

Unlike a Gun.
Comrade Texada Wolf
GunsmithKitten
Blind Guardian the 2nd
Old Blue Collar Joe
Blind Guardian the 2nd


They'd probably be more willing if it wasn't a certainty that aggressors would have guns.


And your proof of such?


I said probably, indicating that it is speculation based from the observation that someone is more likely to intervene in a dispute if they are less likely to be seriously injured by doing so.


Because again, you can't get seriously injured with a bat, a knife, a broken bottle, a rock...


You have to put a lot effort and thought in seriously injuring a person with said things

Unlike a Gun.


A knife or a bat are actually more efficient, quieter on average, and don't require you to 'aim' to the same degree.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games