RULE II of Firearm Safety

[OldMarksman]

As crazy as it sounds, I would rather face an aggressor in a proverbial dark alley than most people with a CCW permit

From Dictionary.com:

Crazy: Adjective

2. Senseless; impractical; totally unsound

Sure does sound crazy. Still haven't figured out why anyone would feel that way.

your actions could result in the death of a human being

That's why it's called "deadly force." It is justified under some unique circumstances and has been since the first laws of man were established--long before gunpowder was invented.

Firearms were designed to do only one thing; kill.

Well, one might opine that the highly destructive weapons carried by post-war American strategic bombers were "designed to do only one thing: destroy cities and other major targets", but in point of fact none of them ever did. It is likely, however, that their mere existence prevented an awful lot of killing.

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."

[djohn]

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.

[Housezealot]

+1 pax

[Unclenick]

As crazy as it sounds, I would rather face an aggressor in a proverbial dark alley than most people with a CCW permit

I think maybe this is the crux of the whole concept. For the thought to be complete, you would have to suggest why you are facing this CCW permit holder in that alley? Are you assaulting him? Is he assaulting you? Are you both simply strolling by?

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.

[scottaschultz]

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

[FNtastic!]

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

[Nnobby45]

Other than that correction, I still maintain that using a firearm for defensive purposes IS a moral decision.

For you it's moral, for someone else it may be legal, and for yet another it may be tactical. Some of us may figure it's all of those. That's before anything happens.

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.

[PoorSoulInJersey]

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.

[Nnobby45]

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.

I agree, since I've met such people.

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.

[taz1]

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!

[Nnobby45]

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.

[porrpk]

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

[scottaschultz]

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

[Creature]

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.

I think it should be a requirement and it should have been written into the Constitution as such.

There are people I do not trust with a firearm.

Would you trust them with government?

I thank those who took the time to "read between the lines" of my posts and make some sense out of it.

Next time perhaps you should write what you really meant in "a simpler and straight forward" way?

[scottaschultz]

Next time perhaps you should write what you really meant in "a simpler and straight forward" way?

I am a machinist, not an English major. Sorry if my way of communicating does not meet your standards. No wait, I am not sorry at all and will not apologize for it.

Scott

[Brian Pfleuger]

Never mind.

[Rich Miranda]

...since my store is apparently one of the few Wal-Marts in the known universe that does have some ammunition.

This alone made this whole thread worthwhile! Scott, English major or not, you're coming along!

And with that, my friends, I think we can shut this one doooooooooowwn.

[KLRANGL]

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...

[scottaschultz]

Those people on the uncontrolled range are responsible because they have the option to not be responsible.

OK, I know this will probably get deleted by the moderator for being a "personal attack" or I may even be booted off TFL for saying this, but that has got to be about the dumbest thing I have ever seen here!

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!

[Brian Pfleuger]

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.

Scott,

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.

[troy_mclure]

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.

[hogdogs]

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

[Nnobby45]

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.

[KLRANGL]

but that has got to be about the dumbest thing I have ever seen here!

Dumb? thats funny... Ive never had a single problem at a range before, because they are all responsible people...

Given a choice, I would rather come back alive from the supervised range than the alternative.

BAAAAAAA *sheep* :barf:

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?

Sure, if you'd like your life expectancy to drop to... zero...

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!

Im supposed to be impressed by this?

[pax]

And that's about enough of that.

Closed ...

pax