That's It, I'm Carrying a Gun from Now On (Reston: how much, houses)

[bangorme]

Originally Posted by cdaq

Are we discussing whether teen girls should pack? And carrying a gun most certainly is not like wearing a seatbelt, unless you can accidentally kill a loved one with a seatbelt.

Well, to be honest, your initial question demonstrated that you have a very limited understanding of the types of situations where a weapon could be beneficial. But to answer this message, he was citing a situation were the presence of a weapon could have altered the outcome. Rule one, never be forced or coerced into a vehicle. Hundreds every year are and wouldn't be if they were armed. Many die.

BTW, seatbelts kill people every year. But just like with firearms, focusing on the exception proves a willingness to ignore the rule.

[cdaq]

I want to clarify one thing. I'm not against people carrying guns. If there is a need to go to that level to protect yourself then you definitely should. However, I think people need to realize that carrying a gun in and of itself brings it's own set of (very quantifiable) risks. People should weigh their options carefully. And if you do deem it necessary to carry a gun, then do us all a favor and learn to do it as safely as possible. Carrying a gun is NOT like strapping on a seatbelt!

[bangorme]

Originally Posted by cdaq

I want to clarify one thing. I'm not against people carrying guns. If there is a need to go to that level to protect yourself then you definitely should. However, I think people need to realize that carrying a gun in and of itself brings it's own set of (very quantifiable) risks. People should weigh their options carefully. And if you do deem it necessary to carry a gun, then do us all a favor and learn to do it as safely as possible. Carrying a gun is NOT like strapping on a seatbelt!

Very well said. Before you decide to carry one, really look at yourself. Are you willing to use it? Really? Are you willing to gain the proficiency necessary to use it safely? Really?

There is nothing more dangerous than being unarmed when you need one, except introducing a weapon you aren't willing or able to use.

[cdaq]

Originally Posted by bangorme

Well, to be honest, your initial question demonstrated that you have a very limited understanding of the types of situations where a weapon could be beneficial. But to answer this message, he was citing a situation were the presence of a weapon could have altered the outcome. Rule one, never be forced or coerced into a vehicle. Hundreds every year are and wouldn't be if they were armed. Many die.

BTW, seatbelts kill people every year. But just like with firearms, focusing on the exception proves a willingness to ignore the rule.

I will concede that I have a imited understanding of the types of situations where a weapon could be beneficial. I have no police training. Still I don't see how a parent carrying a gun would have helped those teen-aged girls unless the parent were actually at the scene (which would have probably led the perp to select different targets anyway gun or no gun). And how many men are coerced into a vehicle? I've never heard of any.

[themommy]

Originally Posted by bangorme

Very well said. Before you decide to carry one, really look at yourself. Are you willing to use it? Really? Are you willing to gain the proficiency necessary to use it safely? Really?

There is nothing more dangerous than being unarmed when you need one, except introducing a weapon you aren't willing or able to use.

This is huge. I did some research work when I was in school that involved going through police reports regarding handgun-related deaths. We were specifically looking at deaths of people who owned and carried handguns. The majority of the people who were killed, were killed with their own weapon by the criminal who was attacking them. Many of those criminals were not carrying firearms when the attack began. So it seems there were a lot of people in our sample set who acquired and carried guns for self-protection, but either lacked the skill to use them quickly or lacked the psychological fortitude to use them at all. The criminals who were threatening them did not have these issues, and both stole the guns and killed the gun carriers.

Carrying a gun is about so much more than just getting proper training. If you're not cut out to carry a gun, then you're just not. And please, if you're one of those who's just not, do us all a favor and don't get one.

Not directing that last statement at anyone here, BTW; I don't know you and would never presume to make that judgment about you anyway.

[novahousehunter]

Originally Posted by themommy

This is huge. I did some research work when I was in school that involved going through police reports regarding handgun-related deaths. We were specifically looking at deaths of people who owned and carried handguns. The majority of the people who were killed, were killed with their own weapon by the criminal who was attacking them. Many of those criminals were not carrying firearms when the attack began. So it seems there were a lot of people in our sample set who acquired and carried guns for self-protection, but either lacked the skill to use them quickly or lacked the psychological fortitude to use them at all. The criminals who were threatening them did not have these issues, and both stole the guns and killed the gun carriers.

Carrying a gun is about so much more than just getting proper training. If you're not cut out to carry a gun, then you're just not. And please, if you're one of those who's just not, do us all a favor and don't get one.

I wonder if part of the problem is that for us "regular folks" (not cops who have ongoing training and are frequently in these life or death, high-adrenaline situations), we really have no way of knowing how we will react until it happens. Risk assessment under pressure is something we've had no chance to develop. Sometimes cops even get it wrong and kill innocent people because under pressure they misread signs.

In this area criminals have the edge, because they have been there before, while the victims likely never have.

I dislike the idea of most people being armed, just because I fear that the masses' collective risk-assessment is probably doing more harm than good, not to even mention the risks of carrying/storing/kids, etc.

I know it's probably not possible, but I like the idea of ongoing training for hand gun owners--getting trained and then not using it for years probably is little help in an emergency.

Not directed toward anyone on this thread, just a general thought.

[Ellwood]

Originally Posted by normie

LOL, fair enough. Gotta admit it's true, I wouldn't even have bothered with this silly thread if I didn't have some time on my hands. Today I've got a lot going on, so not much time for this nonsense. Just as well, looks like this topic's run its course.

We all have those days! LOL

Most of my life I had an aversion to guns. In 1995 we were held up at gunpoint in Crystal City: my attitude changed dramatically.

[cdaq]

Originally Posted by Ellwood

In 1995 we were held up at gunpoint in Crystal City: my attitude changed dramatically.

How would a gun have helped you? If you were at gunpoint how are you going to get to your gun without getting anyone killed? This is a problem because the thief will always have the advantage of surprise and location. They get to pick were and when to rob someone. If I have a gun in my pocket, it doesn't do me any good when I have a drawn gun in my face. Unless of course I'm ready to shoot the thief in the back when he turns to run.

[bornindc]

Originally Posted by cdaq

How would a gun have helped you? If you were at gunpoint how are you going to get to your gun without getting anyone killed? This is a problem because the thief will always have the advantage of surprise and location. They get to pick were and when to rob someone. If I have a gun in my pocket, it doesn't do me any good when I have a drawn gun in my face. Unless of course I'm ready to shoot the thief in the back when he turns to run.

This is a valid point, the criminal is the aggressor and may get the jump on you. But as a person qualified to carry, you should be more trained and have given some forethought about what to do in this situation. A lot of people give their surroundings no thought at all. I know that in a lot of handgun training I've received, situational awareness is a key point of instruction.

In a situation such as this there are so many variables, you actually may have an opportunity to get your weapon out or you may not. You certainly should have a better grasp of what you COULD do as a person licensed to carry - before they get close present your weapon, get away to cover, try to disarm them if they're right on top of you, whatever. For example, just having a weapon can make someone more confident - and criminals know when to pick their spots, they are more likely to go after some nervous looking guy than someone who looks like he might beat their ass or have a gun. Most criminals are not actually very well trained with their firearms from my experience. And as noted earlier in the thread, the police are there to prosecute the criminal after the crime - which doesn't help the victim out much usually!

Bottom line is it is a personal decision to carry and if you are willing to take the responsibility for it that's on that individual.

[jeepejeep]

Good for you. As far as I'm concerned every law-abiding citizen of The US should get training and carry all they want to.