Do you think active-duty military should be allowed to carry their guns everywhere (as LEO are allowed)? (polls, statistics)

[WhipperSnapper 88]

Originally Posted by Old Guard

I personally still do not think it will be better unless they are LE officers.

Of course I agree, but the reality is that that costs money and resources. To put a LEO in every school in America would be a multi-billion dollar proposition.

Why not let willing teachers, who are already there, and only with the same training as a LEO, take on that role?

I do not think that stats matter in this battle. I think public perception matters.

Sure, but perception needs to be kept honest by keeping things in perspective.

People going to Starbucks with assault rifles and trying to enter schools with assault rifles are eroding most people's tolerance to these childish outbursts.

I agree.

People also have the right to free speech. Are you selectively in favor of rights? Why is that?

Not when you use one Right to promote the circumvention of another outside of the guidelines that the Constitution provides, no, not a fan of that. Respect our legal process and our Demiocracy. You don't like gun rights? That's fine, change the Constitution the proper way, don't try and kill it with 1000 paper cuts. Me not liking you using your First Amendment Rights to try and take away someone elses 2A Rights would be about the same as how you would feel if someone used their 2A Rights to keep you from using your 1st. Would that be alright with you? I think you, or your survivors, would take issue with that.

I do notthink it has made crime go down.

Maybe not, but crime has took a sharp nose dive in the last 20 -30 years, about the same time as concealed carry started becoming popular and the laws more permissive in this country. Granted, correlation doesn't prove causation. However, the fact that crime has went down at the same time that many more Americans are carrying guns DOES prove that more guns being carried by citizens hasn't raised the crime rate.

So in other words, we have a situation where, best case scenario, permissive concealed carry laws lowers crime. Worst case scenario, the crime rates remain unaffected.

Not to mention that it's been shown conclusively that citizens with CCW's are the most law abiding people in the country. When Texas passed it's CC law, one of the conditions was that the Texas DPS had to come out with an anual report and keep records of things like how many permits get revoked and for what reason, etc. what they've found is that CCW's are 7x less likely to commit a crime than the average citizen, even less likely than police, albeit only by a tiny fraction.

I remember a few years ago that a pizza delivery guy used a gun to stop a robbery and was fired. There was a lot of outcry, and I will admit I thought it wrong, then one of my friends said that it just creates more problems when you know you can order a gun when you need it and get a free pizza.

So you'd rather that delivery guy, and the several others I've heard about defending themselves on the job, be defenseless and probably dead right now, just so you can feel better about the off chance that a criminal might order a pizza just so they can steal the delivery drivers gun? There are several problems with that logic, the main one being that only a small fraction of drivers would be carrying, so it'd be a pretty lousy way for a criminal to try and get a gun. ALL delivery drivers are however, carrying money, and that's most generally what makes them the prime target for criminals, so I'd rather they be afforded a means to protect themselves if they choose.

That's all besides the point, because the main purpose behind these no- carry policies by companies, is liability. Whether it's because they don't want to be sued by the surviving family of a criminal who got what he deserved, or just because insurance premiums would be higher without the no-gun policy, that's what it comes down to for companies ionstituting these policies.

[Old Guard]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88

Of course I agree, but the reality is that that costs money and resources. To put a LEO in every school in America would be a multi-billion dollar proposition.

Why not let willing teachers, who are already there, and only with the same training as a LEO, take on that role?

If they had the same training, understanding of the laws and powers I do not think I would have a problem. My problem is the gray area of I took a few courses and am certified.

If teachers go through all the training to be a police officer I wonder how many would remain teachers? I think, and I could be very wrong, the LEO's get paid better and have better benefits. Federal LEO's are eligible to retire after 25 years I believe.

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88

Sure, but perception needs to be kept honest by keeping things in perspective.

It is not going to happen. And honesty is just a perspective. I can say there are too many mass shootings and you could disagree but I would not be wrong. We would just be in disagreement.

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88

I agree.

Not when you use one Right to promote the circumvention of another outside of the guidelines that the Constitution provides, no, not a fan of that.

But freedom of speech is a Right.

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88

Respect our legal process and our Demiocracy. You don't like gun rights? That's fine, change the Constitution the proper way, don't try and kill it with 1000 paper cuts.

This is how it works. You start a dialogue, you gain support. Usually you do not get the help that the anti-gun lobby is getting from some remarkably stupid people (mass shooters and such).

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88

Me not liking you using your First Amendment Rights to try and take away someone elses 2A Rights would be about the same as how you would feel if someone used their 2A Rights to keep you from using your 1st. Would that be alright with you? I think you, or your survivors, would take issue with that.

You do not have the Constitutional Right to shoot someone for expressing their Freedom of Speech. People do have the Constitutional Right to discuss if we should continue to grant the Right for ever Joe Schmoe to bear arms.

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88

Maybe not, but crime has took a sharp nose dive in the last 20 -30 years, about the same time as concealed carry started becoming popular and the laws more permissive in this country. Granted, correlation doesn't prove causation. However, the fact that crime has went down at the same time that many more Americans are carrying guns DOES prove that more guns being carried by citizens hasn't raised the crime rate.

I think crime took a sharp nose dive because the economy got better. I think at least a few of these mass shootings are by losers who are not doing well financially right now. The guy who shot the guards at the holocaust museum comes to mind. He was in debt and saw no way out and then decided to go shoot up some people.

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88

So in other words, we have a situation where, best case scenario, permissive concealed carry laws lowers crime. Worst case scenario, the crime rates remain unaffected.

I am not really sure of that. I think George Zimmerman illustrates my point. Whether he was right or wrong I do not think there would have been a confrontation if he did not have a gun. He was a weak person who was carrying a pacifier and felt he needed to make up for a lot of years of feeling weak. There are a few others but I am not high on the details. There was a weird shooting in Las Vegas that seemed like it was similar though it may have ended up being a bad drug deal.

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88

Not to mention that it's been shown conclusively that citizens with CCW's are the most law abiding people in the country. When Texas passed it's CC law, one of the conditions was that the Texas DPS had to come out with an anual report and keep records of things like how many permits get revoked and for what reason, etc. what they've found is that CCW's are 7x less likely to commit a crime than the average citizen, even less likely than police, albeit only by a tiny fraction.

This statistic is not that strong to me. To get a CCW you have to meet requirements so that rules out a lot of criminals, in at least some areas you have to show a reason to carry (DC) and there are other stats I would be more interested in, like how many confrontations are instigated by a person who would avoid it but they do not since they have a gun.

I would also like to say I used to have a much better opinion of "gun people" 25 years ago than I do now.

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88

So you'd rather that delivery guy, and the several others I've heard about defending themselves on the job, be defenseless and probably dead right now, just so you can feel better about the off chance that a criminal might order a pizza just so they can steal the delivery drivers gun? There are several problems with that logic, the main one being that only a small fraction of drivers would be carrying, so it'd be a pretty lousy way for a criminal to try and get a gun. ALL delivery drivers are however, carrying money, and that's most generally what makes them the prime target for criminals, so I'd rather they be afforded a means to protect themselves if they choose.

The problem with your logic is that you are arguing a point I am not making. I do not care if they get robbed and lose money. I do care if they are assaulted or killed. If pizza delivery guys get a reputation of being a possible danger I think it increases their chance of being assaulted or killed in a robbery rather than decrease it. They are in a service industry and a particularity EZ target. I do not care how good you are, you are not going to be able to do much if you get hit in the back of the head with a brick.

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88

That's all besides the point, because the main purpose behind these no- carry policies by companies, is liability. Whether it's because they don't want to be sued by the surviving family of a criminal who got what he deserved, or just because insurance premiums would be higher without the no-gun policy, that's what it comes down to for companies ionstituting these policies.

I have no problem with that either. Carrying a gun does increase your liability.

[WhipperSnapper 88]

Originally Posted by Old Guard

It is not going to happen. And honesty is just a perspective. I can say
there are too many mass shootings and you could disagree but I would not be
wrong. We would just be in disagreement.

One mass shooting is too many, that is not the point. The point is, these mass shootings are exceedingly rare. They haven't even broken passed the barrier of being a statistical anomaly. People rant and rave about "assault rifles" and how they are too dangerous for civilians to own, but keeping things in perspective...... means realizing that rifles of any type, are used in less than 400 crimes according to FBI statistics. They are used so rarely that the FBI doesn't even give them their own category.

By comparison, handguns are used in the vast majority of gun related crime in this nation.

But freedom of speech is a Right.

Yes, it is.

This is how it works. You start a dialogue, you gain support. Usually you
do not get the help that the anti-gun lobby is getting from some remarkably
stupid people (mass shooters and such).

But you're not doing what I suggested. You're not trying to amend or repeal the 2A. You're looking for ways to circumvent it, without having to do it through the very difficult democratic process of a Constitutional repeal. It'd be like me opposing your Right to free speech, but instead of trying to do it the right way, I try to get laws passed that say you can only speak freely on Tuesdays, between the hours of 3-5am.

You do not have the Constitutional Right to shoot someone for expressing their
Freedom of Speech. People do have the Constitutional Right to
discuss if we should continue to grant the
Right for ever Joe Schmoe to bear arms.

Rights aren't "granted" by government. The government didn't give them to us, we already had them and told the government that they couldn't infringe upon them. In the view of the founders, and has been expressed in Supreme Court rulings, our Rights pre-existed the Constitution, and do not depend on that instrument for continued existence. The Constitution is not a document by government telling citizens what they can do, it's a document by the citizens telling the government what it can do.

I think crime took a sharp nose dive because the economy got better

Maybe, but it doesn't matter. The fact is, more and more citizens started carrying guns around 25 years ago. During that 25 year period, crime fell. Those two events took place at the same time, so while I cannot conclusively state that concealed carry is the reason crime fell, I can conclusively state that concealed carry didn't bring the crime rate up.

I am not really sure of that. I think George Zimmerman illustrates my point.
Whether he was right or wrong I do not think there would have been a
confrontation if he did not have a gun. He was a weak person who was carrying a
pacifier and felt he needed to make up for a lot of years of feeling weak.
There are a few others but I am not high on the details. There was a weird
shooting in Las Vegas that seemed like it was similar though it may have ended
up being a bad drug deal.

Policy decisions, especially those concerning Constitutional Rights, should not be made with consideration to anecdote, conjecture, and speculation.

This statistic is not that strong to me. To get a CCW you have to meet
requirements so that rules out a lot of criminals

And......? What's the issue? If I understand you correctly, you don't like the idea of people carrying guns at all, but if the statistics can show that people who carry guns are extremely law abiding, which they do, then what's the justification for saying they shouldn't be allowed to carry?

in at least some areas you have to show a reason to carry (DC)

That's currently being sussed out in the courts right now, and hopefully it comes down on the side of gun owners. You don't have to demonstrate "good cause" to exercise any other Right.

and there are other stats I would be more interested in, like how many
confrontations are instigated by a person who would avoid it but they do not
since they have a gun.

How do you expect to prove a negative? That would be like asking how many terrorists changed their mind when they saw the TSA at the airport, or how many criminals looked through the window of a donut shop and decided not to rob it when they saw two cops at the counter..... No way of knowing.

However, when you LISTEN to gun owners on forums like these and other places, you'll find that the vast majority seem to have the attitude that situational awareness and avoidance is the best self-defense tactic. Most will tell you that you should never go anywhere or do anything armed that you wouldn't do unarmed. The concealed carry Rambo is a rare occurrence, and they usually stick out in a big big way and are found out pretty quickly.

The problem with your logic is that you are arguing a point I am not making. I
do not care if they get robbed and lose money

Look, your whole point was that delivery drivers shouldn't carry guns because that might open them up to be targeted by criminals who are looking for a gun, and so they shouldn't carry them that way they won't be targeted. I said, they are already targets anyway, whether they have a gun or not, because they carry money. Now you're saying that if they get a rep for carrying guns, the criminal might just kill them and take the money instead of just robbing them. Here's the thing though, under your rational, the criminal is the one in charge no matter what. Under your rational, the delivery driver is completely at the mercy of the criminal, with no other option. Maybe he won't kill the driver, maybe he will. Personally, if I were a driver, I'd want to have a way to take my safety in to my own hands instead of just crossing my fingers and "hoping" that Mr. Thug is in a good mood and decides not to kill me.

If pizza delivery guys get a reputation of being a possible danger I think
it increases their chance of being assaulted or killed in a robbery rather than
decrease it.

I think you WAY over estimate the common street thug. They are looking for the softest, easiest target they can find, because they are cowards. If delivery drivers got a rep for being armed, I bet they wouldn't get robbed nearly as often.

[Old Guard]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88

One mass shooting is too many, that is not the point. The point is, these mass shootings are exceedingly rare. They haven't even broken passed the barrier of being a statistical anomaly.

They may be exceedingly rare but I can name at least 5 recent ones off the top of my head. Quoting statistics is not going to win this battle. Showing up at Starbucks and Schools with assault rifles will help win this battle, but not for the team the people doing this thing.

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88

People rant and rave about "assault rifles" and how they are too dangerous for civilians to own, but keeping things in perspective...... means realizing that rifles of any type, are used in less than 400 crimes according to FBI statistics. They are used so rarely that the FBI doesn't even give them their own category.

This means nothing in this battle. It is playing semantics in a war of feelings and propaganda. I would be surprised if any of what you just said would sway a single vote.

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88

By comparison, handguns are used in the vast majority of gun related crime in this nation.

Yes, it is.

But you're not doing what I suggested. You're not trying to amend or repeal the 2A. You're looking for ways to circumvent it, without having to do it through the very difficult democratic process of a Constitutional repeal. It'd be like me opposing your Right to free speech, but instead of trying to do it the right way, I try to get laws passed that say you can only speak freely on Tuesdays, between the hours of 3-5am.

I can circumvent it. I think there is a very easy way to do so. But I am not trying to do that. I think the repeal will happen. Not in the next 10 years, but it will.

BTW, there are already limits imposed on free speech.

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88

Rights aren't "granted" by government. The government didn't give them to us, we already had them and told the government that they couldn't infringe upon them. In the view of the founders, and has been expressed in Supreme Court rulings, our Rights pre-existed the Constitution, and do not depend on that instrument for continued existence. The Constitution is not a document by government telling citizens what they can do, it's a document by the citizens telling the government what it can do.

Free speech and the ability to amend the Constitution are also accounted for in the Constitution. So what happens when a Constitutional Amendment is passed repealing or giving a right? Does it change the very nature of space and time so that it always was or never was?

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88

Maybe, but it doesn't matter. The fact is, more and more citizens started carrying guns around 25 years ago. During that 25 year period, crime fell. Those two events took place at the same time, so while I cannot conclusively state that concealed carry is the reason crime fell, I can conclusively state that concealed carry didn't bring the crime rate up.

OK. But even though you do see crime used as a scare tactic by both parties it is not a major player in this discussion. The battle is over mass shootings and school shootings. Perception matters here and little people showing up at Starbucks and schools with assault rifles trying to act all big by hiding behind the police while insulting them does not help. Nor does the "It's my right!". Most people do not get or care about that argument because they see the people doing this and the intent.

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88

Policy decisions, especially those concerning Constitutional Rights, should not be made with consideration to anecdote, conjecture, and speculation.

Good luck with that.

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88

And......? What's the issue? If I understand you correctly, you don't like the idea of people carrying guns at all, but if the statistics can show that people who carry guns are extremely law abiding, which they do, then what's the justification for saying they shouldn't be allowed to carry?

A cherry picked stat means nothing to me, and I am sure it will mean little to those who oppose school shootings.

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88

That's currently being sussed out in the courts right now, and hopefully it comes down on the side of gun owners. You don't have to demonstrate "good cause" to exercise any other Right.

Marriage?

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88

How do you expect to prove a negative? That would be like asking how many terrorists changed their mind when they saw the TSA at the airport, or how many criminals looked through the window of a donut shop and decided not to rob it when they saw two cops at the counter..... No way of knowing.

However, when you LISTEN to gun owners on forums like these and other places, you'll find that the vast majority seem to have the attitude that situational awareness and avoidance is the best self-defense tactic. Most will tell you that you should never go anywhere or do anything armed that you wouldn't do unarmed. The concealed carry Rambo is a rare occurrence, and they usually stick out in a big big way and are found out pretty quickly.

Maybe forums are not a good indicator but I see the opposite of you.

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88

Look, your whole point was that delivery drivers shouldn't carry guns because that might open them up to be targeted by criminals who are looking for a gun, and so they shouldn't carry them that way they won't be targeted.

A subtle change but an important one. I never said they will not be targeted, I said that they will not be used by criminals to order a pizza and a gun. BTW, I have never carried a gun, other than at home, to, from and at a range, or in the United States Army. I have never been targeted like that or robbed. People have stolen things when I was not around or behind my back but a gun would not help there either. I walk some pretty rough areas and I am rarely scared. There are times I do think that it may not have been the best decision to walk through a particular neighborhood but I do not live in fear.

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88

I said, they are already targets anyway, whether they have a gun or not, because they carry money. Now you're saying that if they get a rep for carrying guns, the criminal might just kill them and take the money instead of just robbing them. Here's the thing though, under your rational, the criminal is the one in charge no matter what. Under your rational, the delivery driver is completely at the mercy of the criminal, with no other option. Maybe he won't kill the driver, maybe he will. Personally, if I were a driver, I'd want to have a way to take my safety in to my own hands instead of just crossing my fingers and "hoping" that Mr. Thug is in a good mood and decides not to kill me.

You assume just because a person has a gun they have their safety in their hands. I do not think that is the case at all. Just because you have a gun does not mean you are invincible. Many people who rob people look for targets of opportunity. They look for that moment when you are distracted, handing a few Pizza's to them with both hands, have your back turned, are not looking, are much smaller.

The problem is that whether you are armed or not it is not up to you to instigate the confrontation. That is the major problem with most of these what if's.

The notion of "bad guys" on this forum is fairly amusing. One guy can even tell if someone is a "good guy" or "bad guy" just by looking at them.

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88

I think you WAY over estimate the common street thug. They are looking for the softest, easiest target they can find, because they are cowards. If delivery drivers got a rep for being armed, I bet they wouldn't get robbed nearly as often.

Despite popular opinion being armed does not make a person tougher, it is like alcohol, it just makes them feel tougher.

[gentlearts]

Since I live in an army town, where there are shootings every week, I'd feel much better if every trained soldier carried a gun. I don't mean the guys who haven't touched one since basic, I mean the Rangers and others who are comfortable with guns.
Off duty police carry guns, I think, so why not soldiers?

[Old Guard]

Originally Posted by gentlearts

Since I live in an army town, where there are shootings every week, I'd feel much better if every trained soldier carried a gun. I don't mean the guys who haven't touched one since basic, I mean the Rangers and others who are comfortable with guns.
Off duty police carry guns, I think, so why not soldiers?

Rangers kill people, do it well, are not as worried about what is between them and their targets or behind the targets generally, and do not read Miranda rights.

Then you have infantry who kill, do it very well and are not as far as my training concerned at all about what is between their target and them or behind their target as long as it isn't a friendly.

Both rangers and infantry carry weapons made to go through things. Police weapons have taken that into consideration in the past though the line has been grayed with the integration of military weapons into police forces.

Also do Rangers and Infantry get to call in air support? Nothing like a little napalm to calm down a "bad guy". LOL

[Ralph_Kirk]

Originally Posted by gentlearts

Since I live in an army town, where there are shootings every week, I'd feel much better if every trained soldier carried a gun. I don't mean the guys who haven't touched one since basic, I mean the Rangers and others who are comfortable with guns.
Off duty police carry guns, I think, so why not soldiers?

Because you have shootings every week in your army town.

I spent my entire life in military towns, as an Army brat and as an career Airman. Soldiers--not even Special Forces need to be carrying off-duty and off-mission. Until you can stop your own shootings in your town, "You ain't ready for that."

[Ralph_Kirk]

-----Original Message-----
From: Swain, David M CSM USARMY 102 DIV (MS) (US)
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 12:49 PM
To: USARMY Reserve 102 Div (MS) List 2BDE S3; USARMY Reserve 102 Div (MS) List 1BDES3; Rodriguez, Yamil MSG USARMY 102 DIV (MS) (US); Paaloalo, Francis CIV USARMY 102 DIV (MS) (US); Favors, Karen L CIV USARMY 102 DIV
(MS) (US); Cordes, Julie L CPT USARMY 80 TNG CMD (US)
Cc: Gridley, Bethany A CPT USARMY 102 DIV (MS) (US); Starner, Robert B III CIV USARMY 102 DIV (MS) (US); Victor, Frank Scott (Scott) LTC USARMY 102 DIV
(MS) (US); Carpenter, Krista F MAJ USARMY 102 DIV (MS) (US); Gorenflo, William J (Bill) Jr CIV USARMY 102 DIV (MS) (US); Smith, Fred J II CIV USARMY 102 DIV (MS) (US); Johnson, Naomi E SSG USARMY 102 DIV (MS) (US); Fritz, Melissa E CIV USARMY 102 DIV (MS) (US); Harris, David III SFC USARMY
310 ESC (US); Thomas, Ashley N SSG USARMY 102 DIV (MS) (US); Edberg, Barry E LTC USARMY 80 TNG CMD (US); Norris, Stephen M CIV USARMY 80 TNG CMD (US)
Subject: FW: Commanding General, U.S. Army Reserve Command Message on Force Protection (UNCLASSIFIED)

All,

Please disseminate the message below from LTG Talley on facility force
protection:
Command Teams :

I am writing to provide you an update on our force protection status and our way ahead to ensure that we are properly protecting our Army Reserve
Soldiers and Civilians. As you know, on 20 July USNORTHCOM added FPCON
Charlie measures 8 and 10 to the elevated FPCON Bravo requirements that became effective in May 2015. These new measures require units to increase patrolling of their facilities and also work closely with local law enforcement on precautionary measures to enhance the security of Stand-Alone Army Reserve facilities.

Given the unique nature of our facilities being located in communities, I have directed the USAR staff to develop a range of options to consider to provide even better protection. We will work these options through NORTHCOM, DA, and FORSCOM to ensure that our force protection concerns are addressed and that we continue to follow all appropriate laws, regulations, policies and guidance.

While we look at future options, it is very important that we clearly communicate what we are doing with our Soldiers and Civilians. I am, therefore, directing that unit level commanders spend time at the next Battle Assembly reviewing the force protection measures that are in place with Soldiers and Civilians to ensure that they understand the focus that
the chain of command has on their safety. Use this time also to listen to
the concerns and suggestions that our Soldiers and Civilians have - and act on those suggestions where appropriate and where you have the authority.
For good suggestions that go beyond your authority to implement, I ask that you send them to your respective DCGs so that we can consider the input from the field as we look at potential new security measures. It is very important that we foster a command climate where our Soldiers and Civilians are comfortable bringing their concerns to the chain of command and have confidence that they will be considered and addressed.

Like all of you, I take my responsibility to protect our workforce very seriously. In the wake of recent incidents I want to ensure that we take a fresh look at all options. I am counting on your leadership to ensure that we are complying with the current force protection standards, and I look forward to your input on how we can improve in our most fundamental responsibility - the protection of our great Army Reserve Soldiers and Civilians.

Twice the Citizen - Army Strong!

Thank You!
LTG Jeffrey W. Talley
Commanding General, United States Army Reserve Command

CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED

[gentlearts]

Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk

Because you have shootings every week in your army town.

I spent my entire life in military towns, as an Army brat and as an career Airman. Soldiers--not even Special Forces need to be carrying off-duty and off-mission. Until you can stop your own shootings in your town, "You ain't ready for that."

What the hell are you talking about? The town in question is a big tourist town. Almost every weekend, some punks shoot and kill each other. Sometimes, if the tourists are in the wrong place at the right time, they get dead.
If I were someone who was trained and comfortable with a firearm, you better believe I would carry it and use it to protect myself.

[Ralph_Kirk]

Originally Posted by gentlearts

What the hell are you talking about? The town in question is a big tourist town. Almost every weekend, some punks shoot and kill each other. Sometimes, if the tourists are in the wrong place at the right time, they get dead.
If I were someone who was trained and comfortable with a firearm, you better believe I would carry it and use it to protect myself.

So why aren't you "trained and comfortable with a firearm?"

I am.