I just recently - a few days ago - drove through Arizona and

[xchrom]

Only ate in restaurants and motels that posted 'no fire arms
allowed' signs.

I 'voted' with my dollars.

[HelenWheels]

1. I'd do the same

I just don't get it. Why does a certain element of our society feel the need to carry? Have they been so threatened in the past?

[xchrom]

3. I honestly don't know.

I've benn held up on different occasions and I don't own a firearm.

[mike_c]

4. that is the crux of the matter, in my opinion....

They live in fear, and I suspect their worst fears have more to do with protecting themselves from loss of self-- self respect, self possession, personal pride-- than they do with real protection against violence.

I've been robbed several times during my life, including "home invasion" robberies, which seems to be the new buzzword for "burglaries." I've been mugged. My car has been broken into, including one occasion when the thieves threw a trailer hitch through the back window while I was standing just a few tens of meters away. I have NEVER felt the need to own a gun, nor would I ever consider shooting someone to protect "stuff." Yes, random violence does occur, and people are injured or killed unjustly, but I cannot imagine going through life obsessing over that possibility or "preparing" for it.

In open conflict, the situation is different. War, or civil war. Rioting, I suppose. But in civil society, people simply don't need guns and those who think they do are usually terrified for their own safety in a world they perceive as ready to fall on them at any time. That's a pretty sad way to live, IMO.

[tburnsten]

5. The difference between a burglary and a home invasion

is that a burglary involves an empty house, not one where the residents are home.

[mike_c]

6. well then, I've had it both ways....

It's all just petty crime anyway.

[Pavulon]

8. No actually it justifies deadly force in NC.

breaking into a home especially an occupied one is not a petty crime. How petty is rape, would you shoot to stop a rape? Where is the line?

[mike_c]

28. no, I would not....

Don't even go from that to "so, you condone rape, huh?" What I condone is NOT KILLING PEOPLE without the most compelling possible need, i.e. to preserve my own life if mortality was otherwise assured. But even in cases where death is possible, but not assured, no. If there is any chance both I and the "bad guy" can walk away to deal with the consequences another day, that chance is worth far more than anyone's death.

[tburnsten]

33. I don't think being beaten into a coma would be worth preserving my attacker's life

People forget, often, that we are large animals more than capable of killing each other without any weapons at all. Weapons just allow weaker people to have a chance in hell against a stronger opponent.

[mike_c]

36. which is an expression of fear...

...as I alluded to in my first response above. I'm just not afraid enough of that happening to justify arming myself.

[rrneck]

55. Fair enough. I feel pretty much the same way.

But the real issue in terms of firearms policy is whether or not you are willing to make that decision for somebody else, and offer them a remedy if you do.

[Saturday]

71. Oops, don't say fear.

A couple posters here take offense to that (see farther down this post)....it's being "prepared". I frankly don't think I need to be prepared by carrying a gun that could kill somone.

[Pavulon]

75. You drive a car that can kill, and can stroke out taking a dump

so you cool with the risk of killing a person with your car? Not the act, mind you , just the risk.

[Saturday]

77. A car is not made just to kill, a gun is. nt

[Pavulon]

81. They do a much better job killing americans than guns do..

so are you willing to take the risk? Hey you ever use a phone or change cd's in a car while driving? That would make you an actual threat to others, not implied or feared, but the real deal.

[Saturday]

83. That's only because there are many more cars and drivers.

Next you'll be telling me that bathtubs kill because someone once slipped in one and hit his head once.

[Pavulon]

86. Pools are more dangerous to kids than guns

you know there is a vast amount of information on firearms. More people are stabbed to death than shot with "assault rifles". Once you look into gun control it quickly becomes apparent as a bamboozle foisted on those to stupid to realize that fixing the root cause of violence is more complex and expensive than a gun law. Pretty much why it is a non viable political topic.

[Saturday]

87. Pools are not made to kill, guns are. nt

[Pavulon]

89. They sure do a good job killing kids.

just like cars.. So would you put a pool in knowing it is capable of killing children?

[jazzhound]

105. A pool is incapable of saving a life

Given the large number of defensive gun uses that occur every year, we know that guns are capable of saving (as well as taking) lives. Further, in most of those defensive gun uses (DGU's) the gun is not even fired.

[immoderate]

119. OMG, I haven't killed anyone yet! Am I mis-using my gun?

I bought my gun with the express intention of shooting at targets. I had no idea it was required to kill anything! What happens now? Is it something else? :shrug:

--imm

[SteveM]

124. Please explain (if you can) the significance of a gun's killing ability. nt

[SteveM]

123. You look at "fear" as a moral impediment. It is not...

but I guess that is the next moral condemnation (following closely behind sexual organ stuff) used by gun-controllers.

Read some of the gun-controller/prohibitionist posts if you want an example of unwarranted fears-on-parade. The difference between some of these prohis and most 2A-supporters is that the former seek useless and nonsensical bans, and the latter take reasonable precautions. And lessen their fears by doing so.

[SteveM]

122. Since you are such the psychologist, what is wrong with "fear?"...

You use it as moral bludgeon, as if only some people are free of it.

Are you truly free of fear? Are you most fearful of "expressing fear?"

I find it disturbing and wholly disingenuous when people use a common, natural, and (if properly dealt with) positive emotion as character smear. And that is what you are doing.

[Pavulon]

35. Your call. Just pay attention when you drive.

that is where you are most likely to kill someone. Those are just accidents, so they dont count. I consider people who fuck with phones or read the paper while driving with the same concern I would show the muzzle of a gun.

Having actually stopped a person climbing in my window at 2 or so in the morning, ignoring my dog parking, and chosen not to shoot him, I can say I appreciated having the choice.

He choose climb his ass right back out the window he came in, I was ok with that. Had he drawn a weapon, I had a light in his face so he probably could not see me or the gun pointed at him, i would have shot him.

My call, not his on who was going to get shot in my house. And sexual assault is on the list of things that justify lethal force. No one said condone, just curious on your stance.

[GreenStormCloud]

50. By that logic you can never know your life is in serious danger until you are dead. N/T

[mike_c]

103. AND I won't be living in fear all the time....

That seems like a pretty good bargain to me.

[PavePusher]

107. Why do you assume we do?

Got proof?

[mike_c]

112. just your perceived need to "protect" yourself from life's occasional bumps....

Look, there's nothing wrong with being prepared to deal with crap when it comes your way. I've done it all my life, just like you have. But I'm strongly opposed to killing people for most of the reasons that I hear supported in this forum, often in conversations with me. As I've said numerous times, it is entirely appropriate to defend ourselves, and to meet deadly force with deadly force, if that's the only alternative. But you and I both know that many who post in this forum regularly defend the notion of killing to avoid what comes down to inconvenience or minor discomfort. And the unwavering focus on serious violence-- rape, murder, comas, home invasions, whatever-- as justification reeks of cowardice, and I don't mean fearfulness about justifiably fearful probabilities, I mean deep personal fear of "bad guys" and "criminals" when most interactions with crime are just inconvenient or uncomfortable, not mortal.

Even then, I'm happy to let people deal with their fears however they want, until EVERYONE starts to suffer. Too many people die in America from gun violence because responsible gun owners use their political influence to prevent rational social control of weapons. And it's mostly based on their unreasonable cowardice. I just don't have much respect for that.

I also know that neither of us is going to change the other's mind. But let me ask, when you find you've forgotten your gun when you go out, aren't you a little afraid of what might happen just because you don't have it? Honestly?

That's one difference between us, I suspect. I am NEVER afraid of not being armed.

[PavePusher]

113. I still fail to see why I should have to suffer even "inconvenience or minor discomfort"...

to protect the physical well-being of a criminal. You haven't yet made a strong case for that.


Did you know that by far the majority of self-defense uses of firearms result in no shots being fired? And that when the gun is fired, the criminal usually lives? You make it sound like we're picking bodies off the streets every morning. And it just aint so.



"And the unwavering focus on serious violence-- rape, murder, comas, home invasions, whatever-- as justification reeks of cowardice..."

Ummm, those are exactly the kinds of crimes where lethal force, or threat of it, is entirely justified. What is "cowardly" about discussing the probability, methods, defenses and tactics involved? And why do you try to minimise it as a threat? Violent crime occurs some 2.5 million times per year. DOJ website. And those are only the reported incidents. I have a much better chance of being assaulted than I do of winning the lottery.

What is the level of "inconvenience or minor discomfort" you think I should be expected to endure before I can fight back?

[mike_c]

114. I'm afraid that we are indeed "picking the bodies off the streets...."

You're as familiar with the gun violence statistics as I am. It is your fear of crime that prevents rational gun control.

Why should you be concerned about protecting the physical well-being of "a criminal?" Well for starters, because you're better than someone who isn't. It's hard for me to articulate a better answer because that response seems so axiomatic. We cannot make a better world by emulating the worst aspects of the old one.

[PavePusher]

115. So, now you seem to be saying that the crime is the fault of the legal citizen.

And what do you propose I do when confronted by a criminal?

Again, what level of "inconvenience or minor discomfort" do you think I must endure before resisting?

[mike_c]

116. read it again, and stop being intentionally obtuse....

I thought we were having a conversation, not playing rhetorical games. I'm not interested tonight.

Do you honestly think that you could not respond to crime without a gun? I'm sure you can. Most of the rest of us do, just fine.

What level of violence should we endure? I'd prefer to not endure any violence, frankly, but I know that's not a reasonable expectation. My general belief is that it's appropriate to respond with equivalent violence, i.e. if someone shoves me, I'm likely to shove back unless I think about it first. When punched, I punch back enthusiastically. But that's the extent of most violence-- hell, that goes way beyond most of the worst violence most of us ever encounter. No deadly force needed.

Again, I think one of the fundamental differences between us is that you view killing or injuring criminals as a perfectly rational response to crime-- it's "self protection." I am deeply appalled by that notion. No ones life is worth taking unless my own is in genuine and imminent danger.

In a rational world, we might all live by that dictum, and go about armed to the teeth because we'd all be rational operators. But that isn't the world we live in, and humans are simply not rational operators, so the best solution seems to take guns out of the equation to whatever extent is possible. That way, most violence would be confined to bloody noses and occasionally broken bones. No one relishes the thought of that, but I'd MUCH rather duke it out with someone and both walk away bruised and painful than see so many folks kill one another over petty crime or violence.

[gorfle]

132. You also can't make a better world...

We cannot make a better world by emulating the worst aspects of the old one.

You also can't make a better world if you don't protect yourself against those who would stop you from making it better.

I find the whole "better world" argument to be bunk, in any case. Some things are simply permanent, such as the human condition. Throughout human history, man has been driven by his desires. There have always been those men who will use violence to satisfy their desires. Barring natural evolution changing this aspect of man, which we have seen no evidence of happening in all of recorded history, we can consider this to be part of the natural state of humanity. There will always be people who are willing to use violence to satisfy their desires. Now if your concept of "being better" than such people is to go through life relying on others to protect you from such people, that is your right. But I don't think that what you are doing is inherently better than people who choose to take personal responsibility for their safety from such people. In fact, I have more respect for people who take personal responsibility for their lives than those who rely on others, so in that sense, I would say that taking personal responsibility for your safety is "better". But I fully respect those people who's principles dictate not being involved with their own safety. I just feel that people who decide to take personal responsibility for their safety should be afforded the same respect.

[gorfle]

131. That's a great philosophy.

If there is any chance both I and the "bad guy" can walk away to deal with the consequences another day, that chance is worth far more than anyone's death.

That is an admirable philosophy. But if you ever find yourself in a situation where there is no chance of that happening, what will you do?

[tburnsten]

9. I think it's a forcible felony actually

In your case did they leave when they found out you were home?

[mike_c]

34. well yes, but only after cleaning out a storage closet full of tools....

I slept through it. Must have made a racket, too. Found out later that the thieves were friends of my younger brother, who had seen the tools during an earlier visit, then come back and broken in later. That was back in the 1980's. The last time I was burglarized was a few months ago-- that was the kid next door, and I was not home. He is a pretty hapless tweaker though, and left no doubt about his identity. Well, TECHNICALLY I suppose the last time was just a couple of weeks ago, although the perp didn't actually come inside-- he/she/they stole yard machinery off my front porch.

Don't get me wrong-- no one likes being robbed and it pisses me off to no end. But by the same token, no one deserves to lose their life over stuff, even stuff that has a lot of meaning for me.

[tburnsten]

37. It must have taken a long time to make enough to replace all those items

[mike_c]

43. now that you mention it...

...most of it was never replaced. And I certainly don't think about it much anymore. Most of my anger was not really because the tools were gone, or the other things that have been stolen over the years-- most of the anger is personal, about being violated, being treated like a chump, being pissed on by punks. It fades though.

[paulsby]

18. fear canard

i carry a gun.

i;m not in fear

i carry fire insurance

i'm not in fear my house will burn

but i'm prepared

i also have dry food storage and water. i'm not in "fear" of mt rainier (dormant btw, not extinct).

[GreenStormCloud]

49. A burglar attempts to enter and leave by stealth. Home invaders kick the door in.

The difference is that a burglar wants to avoid a confrontation while a home-invader desires a confrontation with the resident. Some people do us the terms interchangeably, but they are in error.

[GreenStormCloud]

57. You say that you have been a victim of violent crime several times.

So you are well aware that violent crime exists. You have chosen to be a good victim and not resist. I respect your right to that choice, but I do not respect the choice itself. I choose not to be a good victim and to resists with the best tools available for that task - guns. I have a concealed handgun license and I pack everywhere. I am not a threat to anybody, unless they choose to be a threat to me and mine.

I am not terrified. You greatly overstate the case. I am simply aware of the reality of violent crime and refuse to cooperate.

[gorfle]

133. "I am simply aware of the reality of violent crime and refuse to cooperate."

Perfectly put.

[PavePusher]

66. There is no moral or legel obligation or justification...

to force me to be dependent on the "good will" of a criminal. I don't know their intentions. They will quite possibly lie if asked, and even if they try to tell the truth, what reason do I have to believe them?

There is no moral or legal obligation to meet criminals in a "fair fight". I am not obligated to take any greater risk than absolutely neccesary while defending myself and my property. I have no obligation to risk being punched, kicked, stabbed, shot, or even suffer so much as a broken fingernail when dealing with a criminal.


Much of my life is bound up in my personal belongings. I worked hard for them. If someone takes them, I will never get full value back either monetarily, or emotionally (It's always about "feelings", isn't it...) or get back the time I invested in them.

I will always suffer some damage when my property is stolen.

If I can disuade a thief without harm to her/him, I will be most satisfied, but should it take force to stop them, I will still sleep very well afterwards.

Not to mention, in the words of one our more notorious posters, aquiescing to a criminal merely "emboldens" them to continue their poor choices. If I fail to resist a crime, and the criminal goes on to commit more crimes, I would have to wonder "What if I had stopped that individual...".

[Saturday]

69. Well said!!! nt

[SteveM]

121. Ah, the "paranoid" canard. Again.

I think you confuse reasonable fear with "obsessing" and "terrified." Reasonable fear is to assess the situation and take counter-measures. With regards firearms, I have done so. Am I "terrified?" No. Am I "obsessing?" No.

If you do not look at the threats to you and yours, and eschew "'preparing' for it," you are foolish.

"...in civil society, people simply don't need guns and those who think they do are usually terrified for their own safety in a world they perceive as ready to fall on them at any time."

This is the usual pop-psychology, slung about wildly as a stylistic weapon to condemn (in the instance of gun-owners) tens of millions of Americans. In reality, you don't have much more than the usual "my morals are more moral than your morals." That and stereotyping.

[gorfle]

130. You're just playing the odds differently.

They live in fear, and I suspect their worst fears have more to do with protecting themselves from loss of self-- self respect, self possession, personal pride-- than they do with real protection against violence.

I have smoke detectors in my home. Not because I live in fear of fire, but because the tools to use as a precaution against it are trivial to obtain and use. I have spare tires in my cars. Not because I live in fear of flat tires, but because the tools to use as a precaution against them are trivial to obtain and use.

People who choose to carry firearms are not necessarily living in fear of assault. It could be that it is simply because they feel that a firearm is trivial to obtain and use for that eventuality.

You have been a victim of robbery several times in your life, which makes you an example of a high-risk profile. Obviously, due to the number of times you have been a victim of crime, there is something about your lifestyle (where you live, where you work, etc.) that makes you have a high likelyhood of being the victim of crime.

Given that you are more likely to be a victim of crime than most people (I've only had my car broken into once in my entire life), I would say that a person in your situation would be entirely prudent in carrying a firearm. I don't carry one, but if I were a pizza delivery person, or a courier, or a lawyer, or police officer, or family protective services professional, or taxi cab driver, I certainly would carry one. If I had been the victim of crime the number of times that you have, I would carry one.

I don't fault you for not carrying one - that is your choice. But you are basically putting yourself at the mercy of your attackers, after it has been shown that you are in a high-risk lifestyle. I personally would shoot someone to protect "stuff", but more importantly, one can never be certain that it is only "stuff" at stake.

Bravery is one thing, but willfully going defenselessly into situations like you do, well, that's not for me.

[paulsby]

17. need canard

why do certain people feel the need to exercise their 1st amendment rights, 4th amendment rights?

in the latter case, they MUST be guilty, right? i mean, after all, they have no NEED to refuse a consent search if they have nothing to hide.

what ridiculous "logic"

there is no "NEED" to carry a gun

any more than there is a NEED for fire insurance (if you own the house) or to know CPR

[movonne]

2. I would do the same...people (especially the ones I see tea party types) running

around with guns make me very nervous...

[oneshooter]

101. What about those running around with guns that you can't see?

There are an estimated 6 MILLION people with concealed carry licenses. They could be behind you in line, sitting at the next table, or walking beside you down the street.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[spin]

7. Good for you. I would do just the opposite...

if I see a "no firearms" sign that means I don't spend money supporting that business.

Since most businesses are trying to make money most don't post signs that hurt their profit.

If the restaurants and motels that have these "no firearms" signs profit, the signs will stay up. If not they will come down or new ownership will take over. Time will tell.

But still, if I was a criminal I would target an establishment with a "no firearms" sign first. Still chances are that will never occur while you are inside.

If you like those signs so much, why not post one in front of your house or one your door.

[Saturday]

10. Buy yourself a can of pepper spray. It will keep you safer than a gun. nt

[cowman]

11. Show us

proof of that

I can pull my legally concealed handgun and shoot faster than I could pull a can of mace and spray. It may work for you but for me, no thanks

[Saturday]

19. Sorry, I've lived my 60 plus years

and never felt the need to own or carry a gun. I don't carry pepper spray either but if my mental state made me fearful of my fellow inhabitants on this planet I'd carry the pepper spray. Less likely to kill my kid or husband or friend with it IMO.

[tburnsten]

23. The best way to avoid killing your spouse or kids

Is to not shoot at them. It's a pretty simple precaution to take.

[Saturday]

25. You've never heard a news story of accidental

shooting of someone's kid, husband or friend?

[Pavulon]

27. Accidents are what stupid people call their fuckups. Criminal Negligence

is a better descriptor of 99% of firearms "accidents". Same with car accidents. Opps I was messing with my radio and ran a signal. Sorry I split you head open like a dropped egg. Hey it was just an accident.

It takes effort to shoot someone, even by "accident"

[tburnsten]

30. There was the time a guy accidentally shot his wife

He was using a .22 pistol to drill a hole in his wall. His wife was outside, on the other side of the wall. That isn't an accident, that is criminal negligence.

If a modern, or even almost any antique firearm discharges it is because someone pulled the trigger, not because it was an accident. That is negligence, not an accident.

[tburnsten]

31. Oh also "accidental" shootings have plummeted in number over the last thirty years

[cowman]

24. I never said

I was fearful of my fellow inhabitants, I carry because I refuse to become a victim and don't even think for a moment that I wont shoot to protect myself if some asshole of a criminal leaves me absolutly no choice

[Saturday]

26. Right, I get it.

In other words you're fearful of your fellow inhabitants or what they might do to you. You just said the same thing but in a different way.

[Pavulon]

29. I not afraid of a flat tire or getting stuck in the snow

so I carry the right tools. Carrying a jack, and a tow rope dont denote fear of an unlikely event. Carrying a pistol has not bearing on fear.

[Saturday]

51. OK fine, have it your way....

you don't "fear" your fellow inhabitants on this planet. You just want to be "prepared" to kill them in case they cross you. Got it.

[Pavulon]

Like the guy who climbed in my window at 2am

i prefer to be making the calls rather than be completely out of options. Cross, thats funny, never heard that term used that way by someone who was not from the UK or a colony.

[Saturday]

59. Speaking of calls.

Seriously, isn't a cell phone also a good weapon? Not for someone crawling in your window at 2AM, of course, but just as a general deterrent rather than a gun?

[Pavulon]

62. Sure. 20 years ago they were not common

In general paying attention to your surroundings is the best deterrent possible. A cell is a great communications tool although not a weapon.

[PavePusher]

70. 911.... Still not instantaneous.

What do you do while you wait for the police to arrive? Watch you belongings roll out the front door? Take your beating with pride? Watch the knife approach your throat?

What. Do. You. Do?

[Saturday]

74. Spray them with pepper spray and wait for the cops.

If he gets up, spray him again.

[Pavulon]

78. Video of guy sprayed. Note he is moving around and capable of continuing an attack..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqWE-kBpyiI&feature=related

It is a great tool but police carry handguns for a reason.

[Saturday]

82. They don't in England. nt

[PavePusher]

90. They also don't respond well in England...

I lived there for 7 1/2 years, had to call police several times and failed to get any response about 1/3 or more occasions.

This is to be expected when you can't send out individual officers due to the (strong) possibility they will be attacked because they carry few weapons. I don't recall ever seeing individual officers, always pairs at a minimum.

And this in a town where I could walk to the police station faster than they could respond to a call.

I once returned home to my house and after parking, realised my garage had been broken into. I called the police and waited. After half an hour, I armed myself (quite illegaly, there) and cleared my home myself. Police never did show up for that one. The same event occured again 3 days later (think I was being targeted...?). This time I explained to the call center what I was going to do. Had a car arrive in.... an hour. I had already checked things out again. I was never even able to get copies of the reports.

Unarmed police... highly effective, eh?

[Pavulon]

84. Sure they do. Video attached.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z319aVJqybE&feature=related

[Saturday]

91. Yea, during riots and such. Not handguns.

And I also wanted to say something regarding something you said earlier regarding accidental shootings. You just can't sluff that off as being nothing to be concerned about. Is it a "fuckup" when a father shoots his teenage daughter who comes home late and he shoots her because he thought she was spending the night at a friends? No, you can't just dismiss that as a "fuckup" by the father. I've got to get off this computer. Have a good night Pavulon. It's been nice "arguing" with you. LOL We'll have to agree to disagree.

[PavePusher]

94. Yes, it is a "fuck-up".

He didn't properly identify his target. That is negligence, not an accident.

An accident would be if somethinging the gun spontaneously broke, causing it to fire. Pulling the trigger while the barrel points at something you don't wish to shoot is not an "accident".

I hope that makes it clearer.

[Pavulon]

95. That is a glock 17, a handgun issued to some officers, and a met officer left one on the toilet.

it is a crime to shoot a person by "accident". Not an accident, the flashlight would prevent that. Have a good one.

[tburnsten]

100. Pepper spray is almost useless

Unless you happen to be attacked by someone who sees with his nose, or a pantywaist who is ok with attacking you but not if it means a little crying and a runny nose.

I've been through a gas chamber at Fort Knox, it isn't impossible to fight through CS, or to hold a short conversation while being inundated with the fog. I doubt a little Tabasco is worse.

[Euromutt]

120. Actually, OC (pepper spray) is pretty effective. but with caveats

I've been though the "gas chamber" myself at ISK Harskamp (Dutch army), and pepper spray really is a lot more effective than the amount of CS to which you're exposed in one of those. People who dismiss OC as "mere seasoning" should try being sprayed with some (keep at least a gallon of milk handy; capsaicin isn't water-soluble, so just water won't wash it off completely). To compare, Tabasco has a Scoville rating of 2,500 (half as hot as a jalapeño); most OC sprays have a Scoville rating of 2,000,000-5,000,000 (400-1,000 times as hot as a jalapeño).

But the stuff definitely has limitations.

My brother-in-law took a handgun class in which students could (voluntarily) let themselves be sprayed with OC and then attempt to shoot a short-range target, to better understand the limitations of the stuff. My B-i-L managed to force one eye open with his left hand, draw his Browning HP with his right, and put one shot into a target 21 feet away. He wasn't fast, or accurate, but it drove home the point that the stuff doesn't completely neutralize a threat, and you can't afford to stand around after you've sprayed your opponent.

The thing with OC spray is that it derives much its effect from the psychological shock caused by the physiological reaction. As a result, people who have experience being sprayed with OC (such as individuals who have been restrained by law enforcement and corrections personnel on multiple occasions) can steel themselves to some extent against what they know is coming, even though they can't actually resist the physiological effects of the stuff. So while it'll definitely impair their ability to do harm, it won't incapacitate them, so if you use the stuff on someone, you still need to get the hell out of the area (or have a few burly coppers standing by to put cuffs on the guy).

[tburnsten]

76. To throw at someone? Seems pretty optimistic to me.

Would a cellphone have helped Kitty Genovese?

Oh wait no she was brutally murdered in front of dozens of witnesses, not quickly either, and not one person lifted a finger to try to help her. Too bad for her I guess, can't win 'em all, after all.

[Saturday]

80. I was just talking in general as a tool.

There are lots of places cell phones would help.

[PavePusher]

92. I often take long hikes in National Parks...

well out of cell phone coverage and out of sight/hearing of Park rangers.

Guess I should trust the pepper spray, eh?

[Saturday]

96. I understand about being out of range.

But I've been in Natl Parks with no gun and I survived. Gotta get off the computer. Have a nice night PavePusher. We'll have to agree to disagree.

[PavePusher]

99. Yes, and most people do survive....

But your case, and theirs, are not all encompassing. People get attacked/killed in Parks by both animals and criminal people. Each person should get to make their own decisions about how to protect themselves.

Unless, of course, you are offering to guarantee other people's safety.

Oddly, no-one ever takes me up on that...



Good night, peace be unto you.

[mike_c]

104. me too-- and I've never carried a gun....

I'm 55 years old. What does that tell you about the real chances of needing to defend oneself in the woods or desert with deadly force? You walk in fear. I don't. :shrug:

[PavePusher]

108. You are a single data point.

It is the most egregious conceit to think that you are the entire bell curve.

[mike_c]

110. but not at all egregious to recognize that I'm congruent with the central tendency....

EVERYONE is the bell curve. I'm just not in the paranoid tail of the distribution.

[PavePusher]

111. But you continually insist...

that no-one has anything to worry about.

Cognitive dissonance, much?

And where is the proof that we are "living in fear"?

[cowman]

32. Apparently you like

to be an armchair psychatrist,

Once again, I don't fear my fellow inhabitants, I just refuse to become a victim of violence. I don't carry a gun because of fear, I carry to be able to protect myself in case some asshole of a criminal decides that I am an easy mark which they would learn very quickly that I'm not

Please don't try to analyze someone you don't know

[Saturday]

38. Actually I can analyze anyone I want including you.

Isn't it great to live in a country where I can have an opinion of someone who thinks he needs a gun for security. Yep, It's just great. I can analyze the teabaggers too. I can analyze Obama, Republicans and the list goes on and on. It's a great country.

[spin]

41. True, you can analyze all you want. You may look like a fool, ...

but enjoy yourself.

[Saturday]

48. Are you analyzing me? LOL nt

[spin]

53. No because if I were, I would not say ..

"You may look like a fool", I would say that "You are a fool."

[Saturday]

58. I really don't know why you need to insult me just

because my opinion of guns is different than yours. It makes you look childish.

[spin]

102. I'm not trying to insult you ...

if you notice in one of my posts you replied to, I said you had the right to analyze anyone you want even if it makes you look like a fool. That's your right. I wasn't analyzing you as that is impossible without knowing you and to do so would make me look like a fool.

You have your opinion on firearms and I have mine. I have known many people over the years who have owned firearms and the overwhelming majority owned them for a number of valid and rational reasons.

Some, including me, own firearms for the hobby of target shooting. I spent many hours at the range working to improve my shooting ability. I was never a competitive shooter, but merely an individual who enjoyed the sport and competed with myself. Some other shooters felt I was very good and tried to get me into competition, but I chose to enjoy my shooting and not turn it from a hobby into an obsession involving many hours of practice. I was like a good weekend golfer with a low par.

My shooting was largely on pistol ranges and many hunters would practice on the range to develop the skill and proficiency with their choice of a handgun necessary to take game without causing unnecessary suffering. Handguns are harder to master than rifles and often far less powerful.

A few shooters were collectors. I remember one fellow shooter who owned an old single action .45 cal Peacemaker which was valued at something like $20,000. He had an extensive collection with many interesting and valuable firearms. All were stored in an enormous safe.

Of course, living in Florida, many of the shooters had concealed weapons permits and a good percentage carried on a regular basis. Many of the ones that did were ex-police or military.

The range master asked me one time in a conversation if I carried regularly. I replied that sometimes I did, but often I left it at home.

He said, "You invested some time, effort and money to get your concealed permit. The state of Florida doesn't expect you or others to play police officer, but the state feels that licensed armed citizens on the street is a good idea. Now I don't want to read about you in the newspaper after you've been attacked and injured or killed. And I definitely don't want to hear you come in here and tell me how sorry you are that you weren't carrying and could have saved someone else from an attacker. Now I expect you to take your license seriously, carry your weapon and if absolutely necessary use it."

I took his advice and I carry.

Often people look foolish when they draw conclusions about other people's intentions and motivations. People engage in a number of activities for a variety of reasons, some good some not. To paint gun owners as "fearful" is painting with a broad brush and stereotyping. And that statement is insulting.

True, our opinions differ and in my opinion you lack knowledge and familiarity with gun owners which leads your conclusion that firearm owners fear others. That doesn't make you a fool any more than the fact that I own and carry firearms makes me fearful. You just lack significant knowledge and experience with gun owners.

Like you, I have lived sixty plus years. I have never been attacked or had to use my firearm or my martial arts training in self defense or to defend someone else. I don't really ever expect that I will. I don't live in fear of anyone as I have confidence in my ability to handle most situations without resorting to violence. I have had to do this on several occasions.

I also have confidence that if truly necessary and if all else fails, I can use my training and skill with my firearm to stop an attack.

[SteveM]

125. You are rather insulting by using "fear" as a moral bludgeon. nt

[cowman]

42. Yep it sure is

and thats why I can analyze you as a complete a****le. If you don't want to carry or own guns, that's your right just as it is my right to own and carry guns, and if you think I fear my fellow humanity, well thats your problem not mine, now why don't you go pour a glass of milk and get some cookies and go watch Nickleodeum for a while

[Saturday]

52. Owwww, I'm skeeered of you big guy, insults and all. nt

[SteveM]

126. Sho 'nuff, here come the usual insults. nt

[GreenStormCloud]

61. You can attempt to analyze, but you are likely to be incorrect....

...when you attempt psychoanalysis of an individual on an internet discussion forum.

[Euromutt]

118. Odd how that "analysis" always gets applied to only side

In other words you're fearful of your fellow inhabitants or what they might do to you.

In the OP, we have person who refuses to patronize a business that doesn't prohibit firearms. What's that, if not being "fearful of your fellow inhabitants or what they might do to you"? How come that's only a failing attributed to the people who disagree with you on the topic of private firearms ownership?

[PavePusher]

67. And you as an individual are representative of everyone else?

Pull the other one, it's got bells on...

[Pavulon]

13. Pepper spray deaths.. hmm

you cant pepper spray a person with out the risk of killing them.

http://www.seattleweekly.com/1999-02-17/news/death-by-pepper-spray/

[spin]

39. I do own pepper spray ...

and indeed in many circumstances it is an excellent self defense tool.

It does have some limitations. I remember reading one incident in which a bad guy opened the passenger door of a woman's car and climbed in with a firearm. She sprayed him and he shot her.

If the attacker is wearing glasses, the pepper spray might not be as effective and obviously spraying into the wind might incapacitate the user. Some pepper sprays have a streaming stray which can overcome the wind, but you have to aim for the face.

Not all pepper sprays are equal. I know the local police use Sabre Red which is my choice. It's available through Amazon.com.

http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&tag=mozilla-20&index=blended&link_code=qs&field-keywords=sabre%20red%20pepper%20spray&sourceid=Mozilla-search

For those who don't want to carry a lethal weapon or can't, pepper spray is a good alternative. If you do carry a firearm, the spray allows you a less lethal alternative. It all depends on the situation.

[TheCowsCameHome]

12. I'd do the same.

What in the world does a restaurant patron need a gun for?

[cowman]

15. Ummmmmm

for the protection of my family and self

[paulsby]

21. need canard

patrons of lubys needed them btw

[tburnsten]

22. Well, these retaurant patrons wish they had a gun at the time

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby's_massacre


http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/first100/1001214.html

[PavePusher]

72. Do you pay any attention to the postings here?

Seriously,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby%27s_massacre

Only been posted here a few dozen/hundred times. This is only one of hundreds of incidents (usually in fast-food places, popular targets for robbery) that have occured in restaurants around the nation.

Crime happens everywhere. Why do you seem to think there are "safe zones" where crimes do not occur?




Edit: Oops, beaten to the point. Oh well.

[TheCowsCameHome]

79. Yes, indeed I do.

Thanks for asking.

[PavePusher]

88. I need to apologize for my sharp tone.

Mea Cupla, sorry about that.

If you spend enough time here, you see the same points, questions, and misaprehensions come up over and over and over and.... well, you get the idea. Gets a bit frustrating sometimes.

The point is that crime happens everywhere and anywhere. My precognition sucks, and no-one else has every offered reliable advice on when or where crime might happen to me, so I take certain steps to be prepared for some reasonable, effective otions to "wait for the police (assuming I have time/opportunity to call them) and hope the criminal isn't violent". This should not be as complicated as some make it out to be.

Restaurants do get targeted by criminals, as do the immediate environment outside them (parking lots, sidewalks, transit systems, etc.) There is no moral obligation for me to give up my tools for self-defense merel because I want to enjoy a meal I didn't cook myself.

I hope that makes my point a bit clearer, and again, my apologies for being a bit of a jerk earlier.

[TheCowsCameHome]

93. Accepted, and most certainly you are entitled to your views and opinions.

:toast:

[PavePusher]

97. Thank you and you are certainly entitled to yours as well.

:fistbump:

[mike_c]

106. crime does not happen "everywhere and anywhere...."

Mostly it doesn't happen at all. You're just afraid that it'll happen to you, even though a rational appraisal will show that you're more likely to choke on your own tongue or some such utterly random accident than to be the victim of fatal violence. And yet, in the face of such a low likelihood of mortal violence, you feel the need to arm yourself against-- what? I think you're protecting yourself from your own fearfulness.

[PavePusher]

109. You are incorrect on all counts.

The DOJ website has the crime statistics you need to refer to.

[jazzhound]

14. self-editing due to repetition of another members post

[slackmaster]

16. I envy you having enough extra time in your life to be so picky

On my last trip to Arizona (Monday and Tuesday last week), I only had time to eat breakfast at the hotel where I checked in too late on Monday to eat dinner.

That breakfast was the only meal I had the whole time. I could have had a late dinner in Gila Bend, but the Space Age Lodge was closed by the time I got there, and I will not lower myself to eating at a Del Taco, Burger King, etc.

[cowman]

20. The last

time I was in AZ was to train with the Phoenix Fire Dept. and every one of those guys were avid gun owners and for the most part Dems

[virgogal]

40. Wow,snobbery on DU. Burger King is fine if you need a meal and

it certainly wouldn't be "lowering" yourself.

I never heard of Del Taco so can't comment on that.

[Pavulon]

44. That is the first time in may life I have ever heard

someone describe burger king as a "fine meal".

[virgogal]

45. Where did you see Burger King described as a "fine meal"?

[Pavulon]

46. misread. "is fine if you need a meal"

which is still pushing it. Burger King is pretty nasty, When I eat fast food I feel "lowered". Then sick from the cup of lard turning my blood to ragu..

[virgogal]

47. Lard was commonly used in households years ago. (Not defending BK here,

but defending lard) My grandmother and mother used it for pie crust.

All things in moderation and get plenty of exercise is the answer.

[Pavulon]

54. Agree on moderation

not lots of that around. Lard is probably better for you than whatever they use at fast food places.

[spin]

56. I remember my mother using lard for cooking ...

Lard is one of the few edible oils with a relatively high smoke point, attributable to its high saturated fatty acids content. Pure lard is especially useful for cooking since it produces little smoke when heated and has a distinct taste when combined with other foods. Many chefs and bakers deem lard a superior cooking fat over shortening because of lard's range of applications and taste.

Because of the relatively large fat crystals found in lard, it is extremely effective as a shortening in baking. Pie crusts made with lard tend to be more flaky than those made with butter. Many cooks employ both types of fat in their pastries to combine the shortening properties of lard with the flavor of butter.<4><18><19>

Lard was once widely used in the cuisines of Europe, China, and the New World and still plays a significant role in British, Central European, Mexican, and Chinese cuisines. In British cuisine, lard is used as a traditional ingredient in mince pies and Christmas puddings, lardy cake and for frying fish and chips, as well as many other uses.<16><17>
http://www.answers.com/topic/lard

Brings back fond memories.

[virgogal]

60. I'll be darned. I was just about to Google for more info about lard

and voila, here's your post.

Thanks.

[spin]

64. By the way, I remember how good it smelled when my mom ...

was cooking and using lard.

That was back in the fifties.

[virgogal]

85. You are making me hungry ! :-)

[slackmaster]

128. My grandmother and mother used a lot of lard too

I avoid it like a heart attack, except of course in pie crusts.

And Burger King doesn't cook anything in lard.

[slackmaster]

127. I think the OPs smugness far outweighs my desire to eat healthful food

:rofl:

Frankly I think avoiding fatty, high-cholesterol foods has a lot more survival value than eating only at restaurants that don't allow customers to carry firearms.

[benld74]

63. Am out there next week, I will have to do the same,,,

[GreenStormCloud]

65. I can't remember when I saw a no-guns sign in a restuarant here in Texas.

In fact, I don't think I have ever seen one.

[PavePusher]

68. That must have taken a bit of searching.

Are you sure you were actually safer, or did you just feel safer?

I'll note we haven't had much of a problem with people shooting up restaurants and hotels lately.

[shadowrider]

73. That's certainly your choice

I prefer to conceal carry in case I need it. See "Lubys" for more information.

[Hoopla Phil]

98. Why do you live in so much fear?

To be so afraid that you may see a gun must be very hard on ones emotional state.

[cherokeeprogressive]

117. If there are more people like you, maybe next time I won't have to wait so long

to get a seat in a really good restaurant.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

129. I ignore "no carry" signs, generally speaking, when carrying my firearm.

More accurately, I don't pay attention to signs posted on the doors of businesses.
They have every right to ask me to leave if they do not like the fact I'm carrying a concealed firearm. I will leave.
Likewise, if carrying somewhere si prohibited BY LAW (schools, state buildings, bars,...) then I do not carry there.

Odds are, you were around a few people with firearms and never knew any better. Oh the humanity!