|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
April 2, 2009, 09:42 AM | #26 | ||||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Similarly, it is often the case that the mere presence of a firearm saves lives. I'm still not sure why one would rather encounter "an aggressor" than a law abiding citizen. That's beyond my capacity to comprehend. As has been put more succinctly, "good luck with that." |
||||
April 2, 2009, 09:45 AM | #27 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 11, 2009
Location: CT
Posts: 507
|
Scott,I think your concerns are well taken but of the 32 yrs with firearms and twenty five with a CCW permit.I have yet to point my weapon at anything not even a soda can that I had no intentions to shoot and never a AD.In all my yrs I have found CCW holders very responsable and law bidding.I rather be in the crowd of a hundred arrmed legal CCW holders,then in the company of one armed bad guy.
|
April 2, 2009, 10:24 AM | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 20, 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 606
|
+1 pax
|
April 2, 2009, 10:35 AM | #29 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 4, 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 21,063
|
Quote:
The first situation is up to you to choose not to do, and if you make the wrong choice you deserve the consequences. CCW is not about ensuring a safer work environment for muggers. The second makes him no more dangerous than any other armed mugger without a CCW permit. And even if a mugger somehow has a CCW permit, he is unlikely to show it to you before pulling the gun and asking for your money, so the level of surprise it affords him isn't going to be any greater. Statistically, the vast majority of criminals are people with a history of criminal acts who can't pass the background check to get CCW permits. Even though one may slip through the cracks from time to time, this is highly improbable, and it is not rational to feel threatened by extremely low probability situations. Crazy might not be the right term, but phobia fits. As to the third situation, passing by is passing by. No harm, no foul.
__________________
Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor NRA Certified Rifle Instructor NRA Benefactor Member and Golden Eagle |
|
April 3, 2009, 04:24 AM | #30 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 27, 2009
Location: Missouri
Posts: 392
|
OK, so maybe I was too quick to say that I would rather face an agressor than most CCW holders when that should be some CCW holders. Other than that correction, I still maintain that using a firearm for defensive purposes IS a moral decision. I most certainly agree that there are circumstances when society is best served by saving money on a lengthy trial, but I am still of the opinion that there are some CCW holders who have not given this adequate thought.
And you know what they say about opinions...! Scott |
April 3, 2009, 05:21 AM | #31 |
Member
Join Date: September 5, 2007
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 37
|
Hmn, you should all count yourselves lucky you all have the privelige to be able to obtain a CCW. Apparently, self defence is not a valid reason to possess a firearm in Australia. And to be caught with one on your person in public is an offence against the law. no second amendment will ever come in to play here and i am seriously considering the American dream as a reality, so eroded are our basic rights. I guess what im trying to say is "Dont look a gift horse in the mouth." so to speak. Because at least you still have the freedom to choose to carry or associate with those who do so. One day, that right may be gone. And i would hate to see my American brothers and sisters go the way of Australia and my native England
__________________
God bless America... but thank Christ for Australia |
April 3, 2009, 06:30 AM | #32 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2004
Posts: 3,150
|
Quote:
If it does, we'll all be standing in front of the same fan, defending our lives or those of our loved ones. No one will be moralizing. We can do that before and afterwards. I hope that none of us, including you, have to moralize about not having been able to defend someone we care about. Rather interesting that you'd use firearms for personal recreation you enjoy, but not for defending your own life so you can continue to enjoy it. How moral is it for someone to take that away from you? I guess it is a moral issue in more ways than one. Last edited by Nnobby45; April 3, 2009 at 06:43 AM. |
|
April 3, 2009, 06:36 AM | #33 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 25, 2009
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 220
|
He does kind of have a point. Some people may be so morally opposed to taking a life that they won't carry any tool to defend themselves at all.
|
April 3, 2009, 06:46 AM | #34 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2004
Posts: 3,150
|
Quote:
Why not just say so, rather than make those who CCW wrong to justify not being one of them--- when the real issue is what you've pointed out. |
|
April 3, 2009, 10:05 AM | #35 |
Member
Join Date: March 10, 2009
Location: ohio
Posts: 65
|
it all started with muzzle direction. i am assuming he has been covered once to many times.
i dont like to be covered any more than any one else. does it happen? yes did i ever do it ? yep and dad kicked my butt all the way to the barn. is it useally accidental? yes are there bilssfuly ignorant morons who will do it every time they handle a gun? absolutly. soooooo what i do is always respond with--hey watch where your pointing that! responce is usaly -- i'm sorry, and they [AREB]so enough said. most people are thinking -- crap i got careless and disreguarded basic rules and damn i look like a idot, in my case its holy s--t i hope dad didnt see that. for the morons, it's easy to tell, they always say -- its not loaded. i say-- well pointing a gun at someone is considered a act of intent of serious harm and is defendable buy leathal force so point it at the wrong, paronid guy and it would be a short gun fight cause his gun probly is loaded. then i keep looking over my sholder with my hand in my pocket. a bit of amusement for me and it might freek them out enough to start thinking about it, and no my cc is not in my pocket. the rest--- wow--- chill dude. if you dwell on all the things that could kill you out there every day your brain is gonna pop. morals has nothing to do with protecting me or my family its my right and duty plus its pure instinct and a gun makes it much easer and better odds of surviving. humans are very fallable and make mistakes. bet you have run a stop sign, if you play the what if game, what if a famly swerved to miss you and crashed, ect. ect a moral question would be -- you move to the wilderness to live. one day you are taking a bath in the river and mr. grizzley decides you would make a good breakfast. 1. you are a food product for meat eating animals. 2. you put yourself in his habitat. 3. he isnt comiting a crime he is just feeding to survive. 4. is it moraly right to shoot him? 5. while you decide you become bear scat! |
April 3, 2009, 11:44 PM | #36 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2004
Posts: 3,150
|
Maybe what Scottashultz hasn't grasped is that every day he goes about his personal business, he comes in contact with those who are legally armed and has no idea who they are.
The mere fact that this hasn't been an issue tends to disarm his argument that he should have more fear of the legally armed citizen than of an armed criminal. When he runs into one of those, he'll likely have no trouble knowing which one that is. Last edited by Nnobby45; April 4, 2009 at 07:19 PM. |
April 4, 2009, 06:42 AM | #37 |
Member
Join Date: April 4, 2009
Posts: 47
|
IMO the original intent of the post was to highlight the importance of a 'look before you leap' attitude. (could be totally way off)
that although we all can probably agree that we understand the 'don't point your weapon at it unless you are prepared to kill it' idea, the part that many of us do not fully grasp is how we are going to feel in the event that we do kill someone, on purpose or accident. something you can never take back and that will change you forever. and that it may be reckless of us to carry the attitude that we can accept the responsibilities of CCW/gun ownership w/o being fully able to comprehend the consequences of the actions that we are potentially exposing ourselves to. that being said, I know gun owners who I do not feel would make the 'right' decision, just as I know people who drive, who shouldn't be on the road be mindful, cautious and shoot straight (safe) -porrpk
__________________
"But I'm just a soul whose intentions are good, Oh lord please don't let me be misunderstood." - the animals |
April 4, 2009, 07:53 AM | #38 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 27, 2009
Location: Missouri
Posts: 392
|
Well, porrpk pretty well summed up what I was trying to say, but in a much simpler and straight forward way.
My thoughts on this are not just from reading posts on the Internet, although it was one of factors. I see too many threads that begin with something like, "My wife is afraid of guns. What kind should I buy her for SD/HD?" Even though the 2nd Amendment applies to every US citizen, it is a right, NOT a requirement. It is really OK to not own a gun. If you don't like guns (for whatever reason) or don't think you can mentally or emotionally deal with the consequences of shooting another living creature, animal or human being (and sometimes there is very little difference), then owning a gun is not for you. People should not be made to feel that they are somehow not being "patriotic" if they choose not to own a gun. The other reason for my views is because of recent experiences at local unmanned ranges. When I go to an outdoor range, I prefer the ones that are supervised. In Missouri, the Dept. of Conservation operates several supervised ranges. I know many people won't go there because they feel it is "too controlled". They call cease fire on the 1/4 hour. You unload your firearm and place it in a rack. You step out of your booth and place a chain across it. You do not go downrange until the range master announces that the line is safe and you do not begin shooting again until the range master calls the range clear. When you are allowed to fire, there is no rapid firing. They do supply targets, but if you supply your own, they can not be of a human or animal silhouette. On the other hand, I have been to unmanned ranges. The rules are the you are supposed to shoot only at paper targets, but I have seen people shoot at almost anything. Cease fires are by "gentlemen's agreement". I have been there when guys call cease fire after every magazine. That's stupid! While that is just an annoyance, there is nothing that will soil your Dr. Dentons faster than hearing a shot being fired when you are downrange and I simply will not tolerate this! Unfortunately the closest indoor range is about 45 miles away. There are people I do not trust with a firearm. I apologize for making unfair remarks directed towards CCW holders. And yes, I am sure I run across people all the time who are carrying and I never know about it. Even though our local Wal-Mart does not have a nacho stand, I do go to the sporting goods department almost every time I go since my store is apparently one of the few Wal-Marts in the known universe that does have some ammunition. I thank those who took the time to "read between the lines" of my posts and make some sense out of it. Scott Last edited by scottaschultz; April 4, 2009 at 05:34 PM. Reason: Grammar corrections! |
April 4, 2009, 08:02 AM | #39 | |||
Junior member
Join Date: April 8, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,769
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
April 4, 2009, 10:59 AM | #40 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 27, 2009
Location: Missouri
Posts: 392
|
Quote:
Scott |
|
April 4, 2009, 11:16 AM | #41 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Never mind.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
April 4, 2009, 11:43 AM | #42 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 4, 2008
Location: San Antonio, not San Antone...
Posts: 1,203
|
Quote:
And with that, my friends, I think we can shut this one doooooooooowwn.
__________________
Read this!: I collect .38 Special and .357 Mag cartridges and I will PAY CASH for the headstamps I don't already have! Please PM me. Please donate blood, plasma, and platelets - people's lives literally depend on it. |
|
April 4, 2009, 03:42 PM | #43 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 9, 2008
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
Posts: 958
|
Your nice little analogy of the controlled/uncontrolled firing range is exactly where you and I will disagree. I hold personal responsibly paramount, and will not tolerate anyone else telling me what I can and cannot do. I will take that uncontrolled or laid back range any day of the week, because you simply cannot regulate responsibility. Those people on the controlled range are not responsible, they are doing what they are told. Those people on the uncontrolled range are responsible because they have the option to not be responsible.
I bet you love the government telling you what you can and cannot do as well, because it will make you "safer." Many people here will probably echo this sentiment...
__________________
And it's Killer Angel... as in the book |
April 4, 2009, 04:51 PM | #44 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 27, 2009
Location: Missouri
Posts: 392
|
Quote:
Given a choice, I would rather come back alive from the supervised range than the alternative. Believe me, I did not feel this way about unsupervised ranges until I heard live fire while I was down range changing targets. These shooters can exercise their rights to be irresponsible all they want, but not while I am being covered by their muzzle! I don't wear OD any more, so one of the things that I absolutely will not tolerate being shot at in what is supposed to be a "safe" environment. Tell ya what, come to St. Charles County and let me fire one, just one, over your head. I am pretty good so I probably won't miss. You willing to take that chance? Scott Edit: And as far as the government telling me what do do, they may have to pry my gun from my cold dead hands, but will probably have to pry me out of my 1999 Jeep Cherokee SUV that gets less than 20 mpg (on a good day) with over 230,000 miles on it in order to do it. If I am not driving that, I will be in my 1991 V8 245hp Corvette. I can snub the government as well as the next guy! Last edited by scottaschultz; April 4, 2009 at 05:13 PM. |
|
April 4, 2009, 05:56 PM | #45 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
You need to find some different gun owners to hang around with. The hunters/shooters/collectors that I know are far more responsible than the folks you are apparently familiar with. I have, in fact, not know more than 1 or 2 gun owners in my life that was I not completely comfortable being around.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
April 4, 2009, 07:03 PM | #46 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2008
Location: gulf of mexico
Posts: 2,716
|
i am a member at an unsupervised range, at this range i have never seen the irresponsible/dangerous stuff people mentioned here.
i used to shoot at lots of unsupervised indoor ranges, they were kinda sketchy sometimes.
__________________
There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time." |
April 4, 2009, 07:20 PM | #47 |
Staff In Memoriam
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,069
|
And yet for others (me) the use of a firearm is purely a survival decision. Same as the use of a knife, brick, shovel handle or any other improvised survival weapon. Morals, legality ethics or any other such is out the window when the life of my loved ones or myself is truly at risk...
Brent |
April 4, 2009, 07:28 PM | #48 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2004
Posts: 3,150
|
I think your original mistake, Scottashultz, was lumping CCW holders in with the bozos we all run in to, from time to time, at the range.
As a group CCW permitees are among the most responsible gun owners. Even if you don't wish to carry, I think you'd benefit from the class a great deal. Where operation of the firearm and tactics are concerned, extra training from a good instructor would be the way to go. |
April 5, 2009, 07:03 PM | #49 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: September 9, 2008
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
Posts: 958
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
And it's Killer Angel... as in the book |
||||
April 5, 2009, 07:07 PM | #50 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: In a state of flux
Posts: 7,520
|
And that's about enough of that.
Closed ... pax |
|
|