Feherty Packing Heat

[Web Junky]

As an American I am amused at the "guns are the problem" line of reasoning and that one person wanting to have a handgun creates all this dialogue.

My good friend who immigrated to the USA from Scotland last year is a perfect example of this kind of thinking. He's a 7 handicap (notice the golf connection), graduated from college and completed graduate school, but only brings to this discussion things with which he is familar. In his native homeland, people are stabbed routinely when they are robbed. Sadly, when the attacker is smaller in size than the person he is going to victimize, they will usually stab first and then take the wallet and other items of value. Handguns are almost non-existant, but the crimes motivated by greed and malice are common.

As a law-abiding Scottish citizen he is not allowed to carry a knife or even a flashlight to ward off would-be assailants.  He has the right to be victimized - stabbed, assaulted, or possibly killed.

If Ferherty was joking or being sincere I do not know. But, I do know that it sucks to be in the position of being victimized - when the law gives you no options to defend yourself except your fists. Sadly, one can try to wisely avoid all kinds of bad situations, but still be assaulted, robbed, raped, or murdered.

Anyone who knows history understands that people who have a shortage of good values and an abundance of aggressive tendencies tend to hurt and kill others to get what they want. It is a human thing...no study on evolution has born out the notion that we, humans, are getting better and better as a race. But, most people who live in relatively safe regions of the world could almost believe that this is true.

* Some of the data cited above that shows that Illinois is not among states who have the lowest gun deaths per capita even though they have the toughest gun laws in the country! Carrying handguns in that state is strictly prohibited!

* The US Supreme Court heard all of the evidence in the Washington D.C. case and concluded that the District of Columbia could not make it's case that it was in the best interest of it's citizens to ban handguns. The handgun ban was struck down by the court.

Where I live it takes up to 20 minutes for police officers to respond to a criminal complaint in an emergency situation...go figure. In many large cities it takes longer. If you are expecting them to show up wielding their clubs and guns to keep you from being victimized, well...I hope you will be the lucky one. But, it is a lousy plan.

* Finally for all you Martin/Zimmerman posters...my congrats to those of you who realize that we don't know all the facts.

What we do know is that people in the media formed snap judgments about what occured - several weeks after the incident found its way into the news cycle! Weeks!

One major news outlet edited 911 tapes when then aired them (accidentally, I must add) cutting out the question of the 911 operator who asked the race of the young man to add fuel to the theory that this was racially motivated. Another news outlet blurred video to obscure visible cuts on Zimmerman's head. And, yet, another outlet aired a doctored audio tape where the "n" word was put in it!  They wanted more drama attached to this shooting. And, they succeeded in creating it.  Now, they are much quieter as evidence is released and testimony is being taken.

I don't know what happened that night, but I trust that there are still enough value-driven people involved in this case on both sides to debate the charges, consider the evidence and make a reasoned decision. From my experience, the criminal courtroom (not civil) is about the only context where reason prevails the overwehelming majority of the time - not so much in blogs and internet forums.

* I know that in America everyone has a right to their opinion, but not everyone's opinion should carry the same weight in arriving at conclusions. Just imagine if this kind of half-witted reasoning was applied to other fields of study. Medicine, physics, or golf. In golf, we would have people teaching others how to play golf with the same kind of irrational, don't-confuse-me-with-the facts bullsh*t attitude.  Oh, that does happen. Nevermind.

Great first post!

Knowing Feherty only from his public tv persona, I might give the man a wide berth if I thought he had concealed weapon, though I am not opposed to people carrying weapons in general.

Disclaimer: I only read the first and last page of this thread.

[iacas]

Laws and restrictions placed upon our 'freedoms' are not meant to be mean to NM Golf. They are to protect society from people that do not have the self restraint that you claim to have. And, I think all of the pro-gun crowd would feel a little uncomfortable if it became a fact that everybody around them in public was armed. Let's don't think that deeply, though.

An armed society is a polite society. :)

I fully support the rights of gun owners to carry (within reason). I'm not even terribly supportive of the NRA. They're more than a bit nuts on many issues.

I own two guns, and though I used to carry in FL (launching a kayak at some seedy boat ramp at 5am isn't the safest activity in the world), I don't anymore. And one of them is a plinker (a nice slab sided Ruger .22 with an internal laser sight).

[Chris E]

An armed society is a polite society. :)

I fully support the rights of gun owners to carry (within reason). I'm not even terribly supportive of the NRA. They're more than a bit nuts on many issues.

I own two guns, and though I used to carry in FL (launching a kayak at some seedy boat ramp at 5am isn't the safest activity in the world), I don't anymore. And one of them is a plinker (a nice slab sided Ruger .22 with an internal laser sight).

Yes, you stated what guns you owned upthread. I did read this tired argument of a thread before I posted. I own way more than 2 guns, and even carry one on occasion when travelling in the state on trips at night or in desolate areas. I have them in the house for self defense of my family in case of an intruder.  I have no problem with circumstances like that.

The "within reason" is where I go off the tracks with the pro-gun crowd. "Within reason" for concealed carry is for remote circumstances and/or heavily qualified instances as NM Golf notes. The threat of an idiot legally carrying a gun and not acting right outweighs my need of carrying on my body a gun for self defense for these rare situations, which in many instances are situations one chooses to be in (like Zimmerman). Along with an aversion to being surrounded by an armed society of people of varying self constraint, ethics, etc., I fall on the side of being against concealed carry laws.

[iacas]

The "within reason" is where I go off the tracks with the pro-gun crowd. "Within reason" for concealed carry is for remote circumstances and/or heavily qualified instances as NM Golf notes. The threat of an idiot legally carrying a gun and not acting right outweighs my need of carrying on my body a gun for self defense for these rare situations, which in many instances are situations one chooses to be in (like Zimmerman). Along with an aversion to being surrounded by an armed society of people of varying self constraint, ethics, etc., I fall on the side of being against concealed carry laws.

Then I imagine I'll disagree with you on what qualifies as "remote circumstances" as well as the likelihood that we'd end up with a bunch of "idiots" carrying a gun.

[newtogolf]

Yes, you stated what guns you owned upthread. I did read this tired argument of a thread before I posted. I own way more than 2 guns, and even carry one on occasion when travelling in the state on trips at night or in desolate areas. I have them in the house for self defense of my family in case of an intruder.  I have no problem with circumstances like that.

The "within reason" is where I go off the tracks with the pro-gun crowd. "Within reason" for concealed carry is for remote circumstances and/or heavily qualified instances as NM Golf notes. The threat of an idiot legally carrying a gun and not acting right outweighs my need of carrying on my body a gun for self defense for these rare situations, which in many instances are situations one chooses to be in (like Zimmerman). Along with an aversion to being surrounded by an armed society of people of varying self constraint, ethics, etc., I fall on the side of being against concealed carry laws.

I think that depends on what your job is, where you work, where you live, etc.  The threat of an idiot carrying a gun illegally is higher than an idiot carrying a gun legally.   The number of Zimmerman's in the world is minimal compared to the number of criminals that carry guns illegally.

If you ban concealed carry you ensure that idiots and criminals will be the only ones that are carrying guns.

[Chris E]

Then I imagine I'll disagree with you on what qualifies as "remote circumstances" as well as the likelihood that we'd end up with a bunch of "idiots" carrying a gun.

I am 47 years old. I have family members that are close to 90. I have close friends, acquaintances, etc.. None of us have yet been in a situation that has required the use of a firearm on another human being. I would imagine that most people have similar experiences. Thus, I call circumstances that require the use of a gun remote, Also, the 'idiots' (that seemed to have touched a nerve, sorry) I am referring to are the people carrying guns that do not have the self restraint or psychological makeup that it requires, that in turn puts me or my family or people I care about in danger while in public.

Yes, there are circumstances like I believe the one you described above, car jacking's, etc. I don't let statistical minorities, that in most cases would not have been thwarted by a gun, outweigh the reality of the dangers of society being armed.

So tell me, would you feel ok in a society (except those that don't pass some token background check) where most citizens carry weapons? What about at an Oakland Raider football game? What about at a Lucicris concert? What about the audience for the president giving a speech? If we can carry guns in society, why isn't the safe responsible gun carrier allowed to carry them where they want?

Maybe if you can describe what you mean by "within reason" we can reach some type of common ground.

[Chris E]

I think that depends on what your job is, where you work, where you live, etc.  The threat of an idiot carrying a gun illegally is higher than an idiot carrying a gun legally.   The number of Zimmerman's in the world is minimal compared to the number of criminals that carry guns illegally.

If you ban concealed carry you ensure that idiots and criminals will be the only ones that are carrying guns.

Concealed carry has only gained traction in the last few years. How did good guys like you and me ever survive the gauntlet of armed thugs on every corner?

How does this showdown thing with armed thugs work, exactly? When that thug carrying a gun pulls it on the good guy carrying a gun, do they shake hands and then do the 10 pace thing back to back, and then have shoot-em-up? What if the thug has a more lethal weapon than you....do you get to call time out and go to Walmart and re-arm?

What are some situations where carrying a gun in public would be beneficial?

[iacas]

I am 47 years old. I have family members that are close to 90. I have close friends, acquaintances, etc.. None of us have yet been in a situation that has required the use of a firearm on another human being.

So? Your experience invalidates the experiences of others who could have used a firearm to defend themselves, their loved ones, or their property?

Those who want to take guns away often rely on emotional arguments. Are you headed down that path?

Also, the 'idiots' (that seemed to have touched a nerve, sorry) I am referring to are the people carrying guns that do not have the self restraint or psychological makeup that it requires, that in turn puts me or my family or people I care about in danger while in public.

Here's the problem, though: there are already many, many people carrying concealed weapons. You don't even know how many because they're concealed . You don't hear about random "idiots" with CCW permits shooting people at stoplights or whatever because it doesn't happen with any sort of frequency.

Concealed carry has only gained traction in the last few years. How did good guys like you and me ever survive the gauntlet of armed thugs on every corner?

How do you figure it's "only gained traction in the last few years"? That's not my recollection at all.

And nice hyperbole. Please come to the discussion with more than sophomoric catch phrases.

Yes, there are circumstances like I believe the one you described above, car jacking's, etc. I don't let statistical minorities, that in most cases would not have been thwarted by a gun, outweigh the reality of the dangers of society being armed.

See the blockquoted section below.

How does this showdown thing with armed thugs work, exactly?

It seems to me that you've never done any reading on the subject. One of the introductory books that I recommend reading to people is right here: Armed by Kleck and Kates . They begin fairly well against guns, and through their study, come to realize that they save far more lives than people imagine. Whether it's by fending off a home invader or preventing death, rape, etc. I can't cite all of the statistics off-hand, but you'd do yourself a favor by reading it.

Then you can begin talking about facts rather than conjuring up silly emotional stories and scenarios.

BTW, here's an older post, but the stats were what they were in 2005 when I posted this:

Calculations used in this widget are based on the now famous study by renowned criminologists Gary Kleck & Marc Gertz that was reported in the The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, (Fall 1995) titled, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self- Defense With a Gun." This is the most exhaustive and detailed study of how guns are used in self defense, to date. The study shows that guns are used in self defense about 2.5 million times a year or once every 13 seconds, on average. In other words, guns are used about 60 times more often to protect innocent life than to take a life. Over 1.9 million of those self defense cases involve handguns.

In a book titled "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America (Social Institutions and Social Change)" Kleck's research showed that armed citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals every year as do police (1,527 to 606). Most of those instances were while the innocent victim was waiting on the police to arrive and many were even waiting for the police to answer the phone. Meanwhile, in the November 15, 1993 issue of Newsweek Magazine, George Will reported that police are more than 5 times more likely than a civilian to shoot an innocent person by mistake.

It is important to note that before researching the subject for himself, Kleck was an outspoken supporter of gun control. As a result of his own research, he now opposes the gun control agenda that he used to support.

I'm just including that as a sort of eye-opener.

What are some situations where carrying a gun in public would be beneficial?

I can think of several. There are laws on the books in every state which outline when the use of deadly force is legitimate, and so if you lack the imagination to come up with your own scenarios, I suggest you start there.

P.S. Canada has gun ownership levels that top the U.S. Yet they don't have nearly the same number of gun deaths per year as we do. Why? First of all, we typically count suicides, while other countries do not. Second, minority-on-minority crime in the poor economic regions of cities accounts for the vast, vast majority of our gun deaths. Remove that and our gun deaths are on par with other countries - or better.

[Ernest Jones]

Canada has gun ownership levels that top the U.S.

Where did you get this stat? I'm not sure that is accurate even assuming it's a per capita stat.

Not that it invalidates your argument in anyway, just not sure about the accuracy of this one point.

[iacas]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ernest Jones

Where did you get this stat? I'm not sure that is accurate even assuming it's a per capita stat.

Not that it invalidates your argument in anyway, just not sure about the accuracy of this one point.

The per capita numbers grossly favor the U.S. for a few reasons (IIRC one of the bigger reasons among those is the number of illegal firearms in the U.S.), but I seem to recall that Canada owns more guns legally than the U.S. I believe it was even a point in Michael Moore's "documentary." - he went across the river in Detroit where people had roughly the same number of guns (really stretching the limits of my memory now, as I only watched that "documentary" once or twice) and found much lower crime levels, thus driving home the point that total gun ownership levels don't relate to crime levels.

Then again, one has to look no farther than NYC where regulations on getting a gun (let alone carrying one) are VERY strict, and yet, NYC sees a lot of gun violence for the reasons I've already stated: minority-on-minority crime in impoverished areas.

---

BTW, one of Feherty's quotes is this:

Quote:

As for me, my politics are somewhere in the middle—and then way outside both wings. I believe in the death penalty, especially for pro-lifers, child molesters, those opposed to gay marriage, and for stupid dancing in the end zone. I believe in the abolition of estate taxes and the Pickens Plan. I'd lower the legal drinking age and raise the driving age to 18 nationwide, make Kinky Friedman governor of Texas, and make all schools, public and private, start earlier with one hour of physical exercise.

I'd agree with most of that. Particularly the stance on end zone dancing…

---

Here's a good article on gun control .

Two quotes from the article:

Fantasists and zealots can be found on both sides of the debate over guns in America. On the one hand, many gun-rights advocates reject even the most sensible restrictions on the sale of weapons to the public. On the other, proponents of stricter gun laws often seem unable to understand why a good person would ever want ready access to a loaded firearm. Between these two extremes we must find grounds for a rational discussion about the problem of gun violence.

And

Of course, it is important to think about the problem of gun violence in the context of other risks. For instance, it is estimated that 100,000 Americans die each year because doctors and nurses fail to wash their hands properly. Measured in bodies, therefore, the problem of hand washing in hospitals is worse than the problem of guns, even if we include accidents and suicides.

Here's another: http://harpers.org/archive/2010/08/happiness-is-a-worn-gun/?single=1

Quote:

But shall-issue didn’t lead to more crime, as predicted by its critics. The portion of all killing done with a handgun—the weapon people carry concealed—hasn’t changed in decades; it’s still about half. Whereas the Violence Policy Center in Washington, D.C., can produce a list of 175 killings committed by carry-permit holders since 2007, the NRA can brandish a longer list of crimes prevented by armed citizens. I prefer to rely on the FBI’s data, which show that not only are bad-guy murders—those committed in the course of rape, robbery, and other felonies—way down but so are spur-of-the-moment murders involving alcohol, drugs, romantic entanglements, money disputes, and other arguments: the very types of murders that critics worried widespread concealed-carry would increase.

In the end, I feel I've come to my present opinion by reading a lot about gun control, by opposition, by supporters, etc. Your opinion, @Chris E , seems to be based on hypotheticals and your life experiences. I'm glad that you've never been in a situation that would have benefitted from a gun. I imagine you'd feel differently if the number of such instances ever became 1.

[Ernest Jones]

Yeah, I looked around and most sources have Canada pegged around third as far as gun ownership and I believe these are legally owned guns because how would they know the number of illegal ones?? I suspect, just guessing though, that the majority of the guns in Canada are hunting rifles. I would agree that pretty much every study I've seen on the relationship between guns and crime seem to indicate that more guns=less crime.

Here's one Canadian source that supports your argument but of course it's pretty clear that they have an inherent bias, they are a gun club after all.

http://www.cdnshootingsports.org/tenmyths.html

[newtogolf]

Concealed carry has only gained traction in the last few years. How did good guys like you and me ever survive the gauntlet of armed thugs on every corner?

How does this showdown thing with armed thugs work, exactly? When that thug carrying a gun pulls it on the good guy carrying a gun, do they shake hands and then do the 10 pace thing back to back, and then have shoot-em-up? What if the thug has a more lethal weapon than you....do you get to call time out and go to Walmart and re-arm?

What are some situations where carrying a gun in public would be beneficial?

Concealed carry is only part of the equation to personal safety, just as exercise is only part of the equation in living a healthy lifestyle.

Criminals would prefer to rob, murder, rape and assault in an areas where the odds are most in their favor of 1) getting away with the crime, 2) not getting shot in the process.  The average criminal doesn't hold up a police station or casino because the chances of getting shot are too great, instead they go to homes, gas stations and shops where nice law-abiding, unarmed citizens would hang out so it's an easy score.

I don't know where you live, but there aren't any showdowns in NY.  If you pull a gun on anyone that I know that has a concealed carry you better be prepared to use it because they will shoot you.

[Chris E]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

So? Your experience invalidates the experiences of others who could have used a firearm to defend themselves, their loved ones, or their property?

Those who want to take guns away often rely on emotional arguments. Are you headed down that path?

No, I claim my experience is the vast norm instead of the exception. How about you? Have you been in a situation where you needed to use a gun to survive? I doubt it since you are here posting. Also, I assume you did not read my post upthread; this is a discussion about concealed carry. I gave examples that I myself believe in when defending themselves, loved ones, or property with guns.

Quote:

Here's the problem, though: there are already many, many people carrying concealed weapons. You don't even know how many because they're concealed . You don't hear about random "idiots" with CCW permits shooting people at stoplights or whatever because it doesn't happen with any sort of frequency.

I read about one just the other day in a traffic altercation. You talk about "emotion"...I imagine you would be pretty emotional it you got hit by a stray bullet from a showdown between two clowns over a traffic accident.

Quote:

How do you figure it's "only gained traction in the last few years"? That's not my recollection at all.

Texas law for example went into affect in 1996, so yes more than a few. It has gained more media attention the last few. We are having this discussion still in 2013.

Quote:

It seems to me that you've never done any reading on the subject. One of the introductory books that I recommend reading to people is right here: Armed by Kleck and Kates . They begin fairly well against guns, and through their study, come to realize that they save far more lives than people imagine. Whether it's by fending off a home invader or preventing death, rape, etc. I can't cite all of the statistics off-hand, but you'd do yourself a favor by reading it.

I don't need to read any screed "eye opener" that twists statistics into an agenda, with multiple variables that cannot be borne out in a controlled setting. BTW, I don't believe the self defense every 13 seconds either, else that would be all over the news.

My point in this thread is clear, and it relies on common sense in how people would react in real world situations and my opinion is a reflection of the type of society I would like to live in. I see you refuse to give a real world example to try to persuade me otherwise, so let me throw you a bone that perhaps you can answer directly.

If an armed attacker held you up in public and you had a concealed weapon in a holster under your jacket, what would you do? Hand him your wallet, or go Josey Wales on him?

Which leads to my other questions that you did not answer: "So tell me, would you feel ok in a society (except those that don't pass some token background check) where most citizens carry weapons? What about at an Oakland Raider football game? What about at a Lucicris concert? What about the audience for the president giving a speech? If we can carry guns in society, why isn't the safe responsible gun carrier allowed to carry them where they want?"

Well?

Quote:

I can think of several. There are laws on the books in every state which outline when the use of deadly force is legitimate, and so if you lack the imagination to come up with your own scenarios, I suggest you start there

.

That's not what I asked, and I suggest you start by rereading what I wrote.

I did not ask for you to recite the law. I asked  to name the circumstance, in a real world situation. And, to be more specific, a circumstance when the desired outcome occurs even most of the time. You cannot, without citing some BS that tries to boil down human interaction to a math problem that cannot be proven.

I also asked you specifically to define your "within reason" statement, and extrapolated further in reply to newtogolf to define how being armed protects us from others that are armed.

I get it, I really do. Carrying a gun makes us feel safe, but my contention is that is BS because most situations they would do little good, and through my personal experience are rare. Again, I outweigh concealed carry by that and because of my aversion to having everybody around me in public armed. In a perfect world, no problem. But then in a perfect world there would be no crime, which leads us back to what laws are for that restrict our selfish 'rights'.

If you plan to reply with links to books (I can do the same thing and we can tit/tat all day long) and dance around my specific questions, perhaps we should just agree to disagree. We should probably do that because I will not budge on this and doubtful you will either, pending your "within reason" card.

Instead of this gun debate waltz, I would really just like you to answer the questions I asked in the earlier post and pasted/bolded above. Thanks.

[Ernest Jones]

If you pull a gun on anyone that I know that has a concealed carry you better be prepared to use it because they will shoot you.

The problem with that scenario is that reaching for your concealed weapon is a pretty good way to get shot.

[newtogolf]

The problem with that scenario is that reaching for your concealed weapon is a pretty good way to get shot.

The average criminal doesn't know how to shoot a gun, they just know how to carry one and intimidate unarmed people.  When you watch these thugs hold the gun sideways and try to be "gangsta" it's pretty obvious they have zero training so unless you stand there motionless they aren't likely going to hit you.

Yes, it's possible that reaching for your gun will get you shot, but then it's possible you'll be shot anyway.  I'd rather die reaching for my gun than putting my fate 100% in the hands of a strung out crack / heroin addict.

[iacas]

No, I claim my experience is the vast norm instead of the exception.

The problem with your experiences is that statistics - properly done - are the "experiences" of everyone. And I don't care if my odds of being struck by lightning are one in 10,000 - I'm not going to run around with holding up an iron bar in a thunderstorm.

Have you been in a situation where you needed to use a gun to survive? I doubt it since you are here posting.

No, thankfully. However, should I ever be, you'd rather I not have a gun on me, while I'd rather be prepared.

Also, I assume you did not read my post upthread; this is a discussion about concealed carry.

I did. And this is a discussion about David Feherty, and then briefly about that case in Florida, and generally about guns as a whole.

I read about one just the other day in a traffic altercation. You talk about "emotion"...I imagine you would be pretty emotional it you got hit by a stray bullet from a showdown between two clowns over a traffic accident.

Chris, enough with the made up scenarios, okay? They're easily countered by someone making up something of their own.

Texas law for example went into affect in 1996, so yes more than a few. It has gained more media attention the last few. We are having this discussion still in 2013.

Laws existed prior to 1996.

I don't need to read any screed "eye opener" that twists statistics into an agenda, with multiple variables that cannot be borne out in a controlled setting. BTW, I don't believe the self defense every 13 seconds either, else that would be all over the news.

If it's once an hour that's plenty reason for me. The point remains you have nothing to counter this except your own fictional "scenarios." You're speaking from a position of ignorance - you think that these types of things "twist statistics into an agenda" but you can't say for sure because you've avoided reading them because of what you think they're about.

Kleck and Kates were PRO gun-control until doing their research. The stats led them to switch their positions. They are not coming from an "agenda."

My point in this thread is clear, and it relies on common sense in how people would react in real world situations and my opinion is a reflection of the type of society I would like to live in. I see you refuse to give a real world example to try to persuade me otherwise, so let me throw you a bone that perhaps you can answer directly.

Millions of gun-owners don't shoot people every day. You likely have no clue how many guns are around you in daily life. You apparently have a very low opinion of anyone who carries a gun if you think that they'll fly off the handle and start shooting people because of incidents that happen in daily life. Clue: they don't, because we already have millions of gun owners encountering situations in daily life.

I don't need to give you a real-world example, I gave you laws that lay out various real-world scenarios in which our legal system gives an individual the right to use deadly force. So pick any of those if you want a "real-world" scenario. I prefer not to play the scenario game. It's pointless.

If an armed attacker held you up in public and you had a concealed weapon in a holster under your jacket, what would you do? Hand him your wallet, or go Josey Wales on him?

This is why scenarios are pointless. I don't know. I could see a hundred different things playing out, ranging from "running away" to "kicking him in the nuts" to emptying a clip into his chest if I felt that my own life or the lives of my family or anyone nearby was in danger.

I'd typed this up in response to @Ernest Jones below, but I'll quote myself here: "Victims who are carrying a firearm are far less likely to die or suffer serious injury than those who are unarmed." It's in those books you won't read because of your pre-conceived notions about their "agendas."

Discussing scenarios are pointless.

Which leads to my other questions that you did not answer: "So tell me, would you feel ok in a society (except those that don't pass some token background check) where most citizens carry weapons?

Yes, I would. How safe do you feel at a gun show? Ever heard of one of them being robbed?

Since the remainder of your post goes on and on about scenarios , I'm done.

I get it, I really do. Carrying a gun makes us feel safe, but my contention is that is BS because most situations they would do little good, and through my personal experience are rare.

Most != all.

Again, I outweigh concealed carry by that and because of my aversion to having everybody around me in public armed.

To be clear, since you seem to keep making this bizarre mistake, nobody's suggesting that it be a requirement that everybody have a CCW permit and carry a firearm. Many people who have CCWs don't carry guns most places. I haven't carried a gun in years. I carried it frequently when I was traveling at 4am to strange boat ramps alone, though. And I carried it on my kayak, too, since I never knew when a shark or croc or alligator would be more aggressive than I wanted.

We see it now, when CCW permits are obtainable - very few people get them. So enough with your weird doomsday "everybody around me has a gun" scenarios. Scenarios are stupid, especially when they rely on "everybody has a gun" types of nonsense.

But then in a perfect world there would be no crime, which leads us back to what laws are for that restrict our selfish 'rights'.

Oh my, you're one of those people? "In a perfect world, there'd be no crime"? Let's not talk about fiction, please. That's an even bigger waste of time than made up scenarios.

If you plan to reply with links to books (I can do the same thing and we can tit/tat all day long)

I honestly doubt that you can, since you've offered nothing of substance so far.

Instead of this gun debate waltz, I would really just like you to answer the questions I asked in the earlier post and pasted/bolded above. Thanks.

I've answered you twice now, and so long as you respond with silly scenarios, I'll ask that you respect my right to ignore you.

The problem with that scenario is that reaching for your concealed weapon is a pretty good way to get shot.

Victims who are carrying a firearm are far less likely to die or suffer serious injury than those who are unarmed. I don't recall the specifics of that stat but they're out there.

---

I used to care quite a bit about gun control laws, and the like. Then I moved back to Erie, had a family, and it's well outside of the top 100 or even 500 things I care about on a daily basis. I don't remember the last time I carried my handguns except to the shooting range (with ammo and handguns in separate cases, in the locked trunk of my car), and I stay out of the topic except when it's brought to national attention like with the Colorado or Sandy Hook stuff.

I generally avoid the political threads on this site, and as this is one of them, and as I've said enough, I'm likely done now. Though we'll never agree on this, we can agree that golf is great, and that's something I think about far, far, FAR more often and which is FAR more important than gun control in my daily life, and likely, yours as well. On that we can agree, Chris.

A few random thoughts…

- Guns don't kill people, people do. But guns make it easier to kill people than a knife.

- If you want to kill a bunch of people, bombs, poisons, etc. are effective too.

- The media sure makes mass killers famous, don't they?

- Guns save lives, too - and I don't just mean guns used by the police.

- Murder is illegal. Didn't seem to stop that jackass in Connecticut. Point being if guns are made illegal, I'm fairly certain criminals will still find them. Not as many, and maybe not guys like this one, but then again, he could have made a bomb too.

- No responsible gun owner I know of is opposed to rational, reasonable restrictions on guns.

- This country needs people to hunt. It controls the population and leads to healthier game populations.

- The NRA isn't as wealthy as a lot of people want to believe it to be. And the NRA is not supported 100% by all gun owners. Far from it. I was a member for one year a decade ago until I learned more about them.

- I own two guns. One's a "fun" 0.22 slab sided Ruger which is great for target shooting (and, if I wanted, perhaps some squirrel or rabbit hunting). The other is a 9mm that I hope to never use outside of occasional practice and maintenance at a shooting range.

- Instructing teachers how to use a gun and to have one in the classroom is about the stupidest "solution" I've heard proposed.

- School remains statistically the safest place for children.

- A .223 is not a "high powered assault rifle." It's a hunting rifle. I shot my first deer with one.

- Millions and millions and millions of gun owners did not kill anyone today.

- The media should really try to get its facts right before they release information. The amount of misinformation that's been spread today by news outlets has been astounding.

[cipher]

It is funny to me about how people use the phrase "when was last time you needed a gun?" It may never happen, but if that day does happen, I sure will be glad I am carrying. I generally only carry when I am going out to a place with the family that could be a potential target for shootings. Maybe once or twice a month. I also carry at work as I feel I have a duty to protect my employees. I really don't like to do it, but often feel guilty that I do not more often. If I have been trained and licensed to protect than one should do so. I have read dozens of stories of CCW holders stopping shootings, just by pulling. Funny that those stories don't make the national mainstream media.

[David in FL]

No, I claim my experience is the vast norm instead of the exception. How about you? Have you been in a situation where you needed to use a gun to survive?

Thankfully, I've never had a fire in my house, but I have smoke detectors and fire extinguishers nonetheless. Does that make me paranoid, or prudent?