|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
April 25, 2008, 04:42 PM | #101 |
Registration in progress
Join Date: November 2, 2007
Posts: 110
|
TSR,
you are looking at it from a different view point than the average joe. First, you are almost ridiculing the average citizen for carrying a gun because they have never been in a true combat scenario. You need to bear in mind that there are many kinds of danger. Yes, the odds of something happening to average joe is slim to none. Yes, being strapped 100% of the time is probably a bit much from the POV of the person who has been in military combat looking at the white collar worker. However, you need to bear in mind that not everyone in this country live in the same conditions as yourself. Im not saying your wrong. Im saying your being too extreme on the paranoid white collar worker thing and are actually doing the RKBA people a disservice. I am a white collar worker. I have never been in a gun fight. I keep a gun close by always. I have been burglarized, dogs killed, and guns stolen from my home when younger. I have befriended bad guys in my younger and more reckless days. I do not underestimate the capacity of the average neighborhood thug to do evil. I have had someone attempt to invade my home on several occasions in the recent past, some while i was there and some not. I can think of at least 2 occasions where being too paranoid, as you put it, saved myself, my girlfriend, and my belongings. Am I paranoid? to you...yes. To me... in a neighborhood where my race and social class is a minority i do stand out as a target. This is not unfounded paranoia talking, it is experience. your set of experiences and your situation in life differ from many other people on earth thus so does your ideology. |
April 25, 2008, 04:45 PM | #102 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: April 26, 2002
Posts: 2,676
|
Quote:
Once again, if you want to carry because you like it, thats great. However using these stats as evidence that carry in the home is warranted or necessary just doesn't pan out. Quote:
Lifes to short to wear clothes all the time.
__________________
Attorneys use a specific analytical framework beaten into the spot that used to house our common sense... |
||
April 25, 2008, 05:15 PM | #103 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: February 27, 2008
Location: midwest
Posts: 4,209
|
Quote:
and for the record all my guns ar either locked in reloading room or in my bedroom.each of the 18 year olds have a gun in their rooms with trigger locks only me, mom and them know. My kids were raised with the rule they can look at any gun they want just ask first,it worked for us.
__________________
rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6 Quote:
|
||
April 25, 2008, 06:58 PM | #104 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 15, 2007
Posts: 311
|
I think many, not all, that make a living from firearms and training have a ditorted view of what the average person really needs to defend themselves. No doubt they have a personal and financial interest in their agenda but regardless of statistics skewed to their point of view, the average citizen doesn't need to carry 24/7, or keep a gun in every room, or subject themselves to a training regimen that they will seldom use and soon forget.
Life is too short to spend time obsessing about percieved threats. while a little self research and common sense will do just fine. Thank you. |
April 25, 2008, 07:04 PM | #105 |
Member
Join Date: October 28, 2005
Location: OKC
Posts: 30
|
I carry at home because you never know if anyone might kick in your door.
|
April 25, 2008, 09:04 PM | #106 |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,928
|
This is always an interesting topic.
The people against carrying at home typically have the following main points: Assertion 1: People who carry at home are paranoid. Assertion 2: It's pointless (or it's an over-reaction) because the chance of being attacked at home is small. Assertion 3: It's pointless because even if you carry you might be unable to ward off an attack. The first assertion (people who carry are paranoid) is an example of a logical fallacy called an ad hominem. Rather than discussing the benefits/disadvantages of the opposing premise, it seeks to dismiss the opposing argument by attempting to discredit those who espouse it. It is not only a logical fallacy, it is an offensive tactic and not one that lends itself to polite discussion for obvious reasons. The second assertion is irrelevant. In spite of the fact that attacks are rare, they do happen. To imply that there's no need to prepare for rare occurrences ignores the fact that rare is not the same as never. Furthermore, the fact that an event is rare is no comfort for those unlucky enough to be affected. "They kicked in my door, raped my wife, beat up grampa, shot me and the kids will be in therapy for life--but hey, we don't mind because this hardly ever happens." RIGHT. The final assertion is also irrelevant. One prepares with the understanding that not every event can be overcome with preparation. Having fire extinguishers in your home won't do you any good if you're away from home when the fire starts or if you can't get to one for some reason. So if we follow the "logic", we shouldn't bother to buy fire extinguishers because in some instances they will be useless. Monitored alarms are pointless if the phone lines are cut--should we get rid of the alarm system because it won't work if the phones are out? The point is that having a gun very readily available increases one's chances of being able to effectively resist. Will everyone who carries a gun at home be able to prevail in every case? Clearly not, but that doesn't mean that the practice is useless, it just means that it's not universally effective. Not surprising since nothing is.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
April 25, 2008, 10:09 PM | #107 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 30, 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,430
|
yes
in a SmartCarry why? I'm not privilege to the bad guys' schedule. |
April 25, 2008, 10:17 PM | #108 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 30, 2005
Location: NWFL
Posts: 3,031
|
Quote:
My point is that just because I know someone doesn't mean that I won't defend myself against them. I would hate to hurt someone I know, but if they for whatever reason decide that they wish to do me harm, I have no problem defending myself with an appropriate amount of force. Quote:
|
||
April 25, 2008, 10:48 PM | #109 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: April 26, 2002
Posts: 2,676
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Attorneys use a specific analytical framework beaten into the spot that used to house our common sense... |
||
April 25, 2008, 10:52 PM | #110 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 30, 2005
Location: NWFL
Posts: 3,031
|
Quote:
It's also not required in FL for motorcycles without a lien. I fall into that category, but still carry full coverage insurance. |
|
April 25, 2008, 10:54 PM | #111 | |
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
Quote:
My thoughts...again..... I repeat my question earlier? Anybody run around naked in their home? Ya put a gun on? Y'all do the horizontal rhumba with SWMBO and have your gun belt on? Tape a derringer between your cheeks. Its 6am and you have to take a leak...your can is right across the bedroom...strap on your Wilson Combat over your jammies? Christmas party time.....you keep your Glock strong side under your Santa Suit?..you dont' have a drink or two, in fact you NEVER have a drink or two in yOur own home CUZ YOU ARE ALWAYS CARRYING A GUN.....24/7 365... How about In the public gym? In the sauna? You go to them dont ya? Belly gun under the spandex? Answer no to that bunch of questions and home carriers are blowing smoke.....and if you answer yes then I honestly and truly beleive you need to examine your life...for if you feel you have to be in condition red with a gun on at all times, if you feel that you need to make your own home into an armed camp then you have no life at all..or at least not a happy one. And I assume that if you are carrying a gun at all times you go NOWHERE where you can't...ever.... WilditrytobebluntAlaska TM |
|
April 25, 2008, 11:09 PM | #112 | |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,928
|
I don't have a place to carry a pocket knife when I'm wearing clothes without pockets, but that doesn't make a pocket knife any less useful. Nor does it mean that I've never needed a pocket knife while wearing clothes without pockets. NOR does the fact that I'm occasionally without a pocket knife mean that pocket knives aren't practical. NOR does the fact that I'm occasionally without a pocket knife prove that the value of having a pocket knife on one's person is overrated. It just means that it's not always possible to have a pocket knife on one's person without resorting to ridiculous strategies.
Similarly, proving that it's impossible to be unwaveringly vigilant and that it's foolishly impractical to always carry a gun doesn't prove anything other than it's impossible to be unwaveringly vigilant and that it's foolishly impractical to always carry a gun. Which makes this... Quote:
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
|
April 25, 2008, 11:43 PM | #113 | |
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
John your gettin' as bad as Applesanity
Quote:
"It just means that it's not always possible to have a pocket knife on one's person without resorting to ridiculous strategies." WildfromthetacticaltothephilosophicalAlaska TM |
|
April 26, 2008, 12:03 AM | #114 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 26, 2002
Posts: 2,676
|
Quote:
__________________
Attorneys use a specific analytical framework beaten into the spot that used to house our common sense... |
|
April 26, 2008, 12:23 AM | #115 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 11, 2006
Posts: 2,519
|
No, but then I know where ...
to reach!
|
April 26, 2008, 12:31 AM | #116 | ||
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,928
|
Quote:
Accepting that there are situations when it's ridiculous to carry doesn't mean that it follows that there's no value in carrying when it IS "non-ridiculous". Nor does it imply that carrying at home must include even the times that it's wildly impractical to be of value. And it doesn't follow that a person who doesn't carry when it's wildly impractical is being hypocritical. The false dilemma you posed gives a person the choice between admitting they're not serious about being prepared (because they don't carry when it would be ridiculous to do so) or that they're crazy (because they do). Those aren't the only two options. I don't carry when it's wildly impractical BECAUSE it's wildly impractical, but I do carry at home when it is "non-ridiculous" because it's very easy to do and because I find it simpler and more practical than caching guns around the house. Not that I EXPECT home carry (or cached guns) to pay off tonight, or even in my lifetime, but rather because there's a very tiny chance it COULD pay off at any time. I don't have to remember where the closest gun is in this room and how to get to it. I don't have to remember where all the guns are when someone brings kids over. I don't have to spend time collecting guns or redistributing them before & after trips out of town. I always (ok, ALMOST always ) know exactly where the closest gun is so I don't have to think about it at all. When I take it off and put it in the safe (or when I leave the house) the house is already child-proofed or ready to be vacated for an extended period. I think that this is part of the disconnect. I (and I'm sure others) find that carrying a gun at home is the simplest and most practical way to have ready access to one. In fact it's so simple and practical that I can't find a reason not to carry at home. I suppose that if I equated carrying a gun with servitude I might have a different attitude--fortunately I don't. Quote:
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
||
April 26, 2008, 12:32 AM | #117 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 30, 2005
Location: NWFL
Posts: 3,031
|
Quote:
Pax is the one with the stats But I'd have to say that for me personally, based on previous experience the probability is about the same. I've never had either one happen. I had also never had anyone try to hold me up either until 1989 in RiverFront Park, but I'm glad I didn't play the odds and applied for my CCW permit the day I was eligible in 88 while living in Spokane. No shots fired, but it definitely reinforced to me a need to be prepared for the unlikely. Hold ups weren't common place in the park back then, I don't know what it's like there now. It also drove home the need for additional training since I didn't feel I handled it as well as I should have even though no one was hurt and I kept my stuff. I'm just thankful that he decided he didn't want to test his skills with a screwdriver against mine with a 1911; we both would have been hurt IMHO. The need for additional training based on the probability of me needing it ever again is low, but I'll continue to train just the same. To make WA happy I won't say I have a gun 24/7, but I do have a firearm on me as much as feasibly and legally possible and adjust appropriately for times when a gun/knife/club is just not legal or feasible. I never could keep the derringer from rubbing my butt cheeks raw |
|
April 26, 2008, 12:46 AM | #118 | ||
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
Quote:
Its not an issue of practicality, its a worldview I can't relate to, nor quite frankly, understand.... Even the soldier puts down his weapon. Wildhelpicantwalkwiththis629stuffedintomyfeetiepajamasAlaska TM PS Quote:
Hmmmm....think I'll go lock the door |
||
April 26, 2008, 12:54 AM | #119 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 30, 2005
Location: NWFL
Posts: 3,031
|
Quote:
WA, You always make me laugh dude. On the worldview, I grew up in small town MI and we didn't lock the doors, even when we went on vacation. I guess I've just become jaded |
|
April 26, 2008, 12:55 AM | #120 | |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,928
|
Quote:
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
|
April 26, 2008, 01:03 AM | #121 | |
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
Quote:
WildminehavelittleS&WsalloverquitecuteAlaska TM |
|
April 26, 2008, 01:06 AM | #122 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 26, 2002
Posts: 2,676
|
Quote:
And like I said, the people who use the stats as a justification likely don't take the same precautions with things that are much more likely to happen. For example, if someone is going to tell me that they wear at home because there is a XYZ% chance of a home invasion, but then drive everywhere without jumper cables then it makes me wonder. In fact I'm inclined to believe that in most cases (barring those who live in really bad neighborhoods), folks aren't really being honest when they say they carry at home for "protection". They, for some inexplicable reason, aren't comfortable with just saying they do it cause they like it. My guess is because most people would look that them funny if they did because you really don't need to carry at home.
__________________
Attorneys use a specific analytical framework beaten into the spot that used to house our common sense... |
|
April 26, 2008, 01:08 AM | #123 |
Junior member
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,515
|
I will agree with some that this discussion has gotten boring but I will add this one last thing. Like I said before, I do not carry at home. Mainly because it is just too inconvenient and a bit uncomfortable. When I get home the gun goes on it's pillow and stays there until I am sure I am not going back out or go to bed and then it goes into the safe.
However, I am not sure calling someone paranoid just because they decide to be prepared for a home invasion is a good idea when I carry a gun every day. It is only ever so slightly more likely I will ever need the gun out of the house than in it but I still carry it. |
April 26, 2008, 01:15 AM | #124 | ||
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,928
|
Quote:
Yes because if a person knows that two events are equally likely and feels that they are equally unpleasant and yet prepares much more carefully for one than the other there's a contradiction. No because rational people find a fender-bender much less unpleasant than having someone hold them and their family prisoners in their own homes, torturing, raping, robbing and murdering on a whim. So even though the car wreck is a lot more probable than a home invasion, it's not contradictory for a person to be somewhat less alarmed at the relatively likely prospect of having a careless driver put his car in the shop than he is about the admittedly far less likely chance of having a home invader rape a family member in front of him. This same behavior can be seen in reverse in lotteries. There are people who are willing to pay good money to play the lottery in the face of astronomical odds because the potential payoff is so huge and yet who wouldn't stoop to pick up a penny. We all know that the odds of seeing a penny on the ground are pretty good while the odds of winning the lottery are really bad. So if the object of the game is free money, a person should spend his time looking for pennies on the ground rather than buying lottery tickets--right? WHY would someone pick the FAR less likely event (lottery win) to focus on instead of the much more likely one (free pennies)? I don't really think it's necessary to spend a lot of time explaining this "phenomenon". Quote:
A gun is just one more useful tool that I carry when it's practical. One that's come in handy--although (and this is sort of important to note for the purposes of the argument) not for self-defense in my case. In other words, it's not JUST about criminals and home invasions, guns have other useful purposes. Ok, turn about is fair play, right? My guess is that the people who oppose home carry, (particularly those who do so ardently) do so out of a misguided sense (probably partially rooted in the subconscious) that carrying at home will be an admission of vulnerability that could somehow actually increase their odds of being invaded. The same kind of reasoning that a small child uses to keep the "monster" under his bed by not looking to see if it's there and by not thinking about it. Then again, maybe you just don't see it as a practical option and I do... I think the biggest problem with this topic is that people on both sides of the issue are unwilling to take either side's comments at face value for various reasons. Which naturally leads to a good bit of angst on both sides.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
||
April 26, 2008, 01:51 AM | #125 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 19, 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 810
|
Quote:
What I'm illustrating is that there are thousands upon thousands of law enforcement types who go to work every day in "plain clothes" undercover type work. In this type of work, you are dead smack in the middle of whatever criminal enterprise you're investigating. Rarely does the undercover cop need his weapon. Many undercover assignments call for you to be unarmed, believe it or not. What I'm trying to point out is that these folks are walking into the tiger's lair in the middle of the jungle, and while most (undercover agents/cops) are armed while on the assignment or "at work," I knew very few who, when off-duty and at home, felt the need to carry a weapon at their side everywhere they went in the house. They knew when and where the liklihood of real and imminent danger existed--and it wasn't in their homes. Likewise, I see and read the comments of white-collar workers who tuck their CCW in their waistband, climb into the car, drive to the office, park in the secured lot or garage, take the elevator to the office while waving at the security guard--then reverse the scenario on their way home. No problem with that. You're outside of your home and in an environment that has many factors that are well beyond your ability to control so far as safety and your well-being is concerned. But then that same white-collar worker gets home and isn't comfortable walking from the kitchen to the kids' room without packing a piece--in an environment in which you have complete and total control as far as safety and well-being are concerned, even without the concealed carry weapon. The folks I raise an eyebrow at are the ones who justify their packing with statistics like "40% of all assaults occur at home." Is that a national statistic? Is it based upon NCIC reports or is it based upon sampling? What are the same statistics for MY neighborhood? What if in MY city, only 2% of all assaults occur at home and I live in a city of over 200,000? That comes back to your odds--based upon the "inarguable" statistics--of being assaulted in your home are only one in one-hundred thousand. I'm not ridiculing anyone except those who suffer from a bad-case of self-induced paranoia because some people simply LIKE being scared all of the time, or "being that one in one-hundred-thousand." We used to call those people "Professional Victims" and carrying a gun never seemed to help them out. On the other hand, I have zero problems with those who carry ANYWHERE under the personal guise of being prepared. And no problems whatsoever with the honest folks who carry around the house "because they can and/or they enjoy having a sidearm strapped on." Jeff
__________________
If every single gun owner belonged to the NRA as well as their respective state rifle/gun association, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in today. So to those of you who are members of neither, thanks for nothing. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|