A comment and question. .

[digonswine]

There are plenty of well-intentioned people on both sides of the CCW debate—this I believe. There does seem, however, to be a real pissing match on both sides of the debate—those posting stories of gun owners rightfully defending themselves, and those posting of folks being gunned down by accident or on purpose by a CCW permit-holder or the same doing something quite foolish. What I do not see is much civility. I , personally, am firmly on the fence on this issue(Brave!). I get the concept of having the personal right to protect one’s self. I also understand being uncomfortable with the person next to me being armed. Lets’ face it—no one, as far as I can tell, can say that, in general, I am more safe or less safe when standing next to an armed person. There is so much certainty and derision in this forum rather than a real discussion regarding why some support CCW or do not. From what I have seen here—which, perhaps, is little, this seems to be the least civil forum. I guess the idea is—it is OK to feel that gun ownership is an inalienable right and at the same time be uncomfortable with it.
OK-so—I was wondering—at the risk of pissing into a fan-- if anyone would like to share why they choose to carry a firearm where they live or why you feel you should not do so.

[NightWatcher]

1. for me, guns were a tool I used in a previous life

I used to work for the/in the ***********, After leaving the public sector, I ran my own private investigator/personal security business. So guns were a tool of both offense and defense. I still own several, but do not carry most of the time. I still carry a small .380 when I do carry, unless I'm expecting trouble.

I could never talk anyone into buying, carrying, or even being around a gun. If you dont want/need it, dont get it. I've even talked some people out of it when they sought my advice on what to purchase. If you are scared get professional help. Do not own a gun if you could not kill someone with it without a second thought. If you hesitate, you might be dead.

my two cents

[digonswine]

2. Thanks--

I live in an area where carrying-at least from my mental calculations--would be more dangerous than not carrying. I do have a shotgun in my bedroom in case of trouble--and no kids. I guess I am happy to live in a region where I do not feel the need to carry one around. Hell--we don't normally even lock our house or car!--No troubles-ever.

[lawodevolution]

6. It is never more dangerous to carry than not to carry.

If you are worried about an accident, get a semi auto load the magazine and don't chamber, and get a good holster. Don't ever chamber unless you are about to shoot. I know some here think it's better to chamber, but I think an unchambered gun is better than no gun when bubba is about to disable you and rape your wife/significant other or you. I have nothing against keeping a round chambered but if you want to reduce your chance of negligent discharge to zero, don't chamber a round.

[digonswine]

14. I am not worried about ME--

And I know the argument sucks--"Oh--it's fine for YOU but not for others!" It is also clearly not true that it is always safer to carry--many have been injured or killed that would not have been but for the fact that there was a gun present. This is quite plain. AGAIN--this does not mean I abhor the right, but it is not always so clear cut.

[lawodevolution]

33. I'm sure you will back that up with a link.

No, it is not more dangerous to carry. Never. As long as you practice gun safety

[digonswine]

45. I agree-as long as you practice PERFECT gun safety--

Whenever someone uses "never" or "always" in a sentence--it is usually not correct. There are certainly situations where the fact that a gun is present, even lawfully, adds to to the likelihood of someone coming to bodily harm. If you think this is not true--then you suffer from tunnel-vision. I WOULD agree, however, that if someone is carrying and follows firearm safety measures, MOST of the time, the safety is increased. BUT--you cannot say with a straight face that it is never NEVER more dangerous to carry. One can only say that, generally, or statistically it is safer to carry.

[MicaelS]

8. Truthfully....

I would never leave a gun unsecured, no matter how crime free your neighborhood. A steel lockbox is your friend.

http://magills.com/pgroup_descrip/37_Portable+Safes/7414_Long+Gun+Case/?return=%3ftpl%3Dindex%26category_id%3D37%26_Portable%2BSafes%2F

[MrDiaz]

10. you are very lucky

For being safe all the time. My only response would be that everywhere is not as safe as your place is. I live in a place where crime is always a problem, and I always expect it, although i have not ever been robbed or had a violent encounter other than a fist fight here and there, but the reason i always expect it is because i know plenty of people around my place, that have had serious encounters, and that is why they, and I carry a weapon, simply because i never had one of those experiences but I also never want one either.

[digonswine]

12. Thanks for a reasonable response--

I certainly can imagine living in places where I would feel safer carrying.

[MrDiaz]

16. no problem

I can understand because i used to live where it wasn't a worry but now that i have moved, i see how it can easily be a problem now.

[ileus]

3. I carry a 380 most of the time, I feel it's the most responsible thing to do for me and the family.

Sometimes I choose a 45 or 9...

My area you pretty much only have to worry about methheads stealing whatever isn't bolted down and selling it for scrap. That being said I believe in being prepared for the event we all hope never comes. My sidearm is just another piece of safety equipment I keep around...plus if you ride bikes and OC it keeps the rednecks as bay and they don't try and run you off the road.

[MicaelS]

9. What .380 do you carry?

Cheaper than Dirt keeps having sales on the black slide Walther PK380 for $299, and I'm thinking about getting one.

[ileus]

17. The walther is too classy for me....I carry a Ruger LCP

I love this little pistol, it's accurate and somewhat fun to shoot.

All the jams I've ever had with it were using Wolf steel cased ammo, it's never jammed on any brass stuff. I've put about 1k round through it in the past 10 months.

I'd probably buy the S&W bodyguard now, I really like the fit,finish and design with the laser built in.

I ride my bike 10 or 15 miles a day and don't even notice the LCP, the walther is a little too heavy for me.

[MicaelS]

18. Thanks for your advice n/t

[spin]

24. It's a great little gun. I bought one for my son in law for Christmas ...

He is very fond of it.

[MicaelS]

4. My POV

Since we're talking CCW (not Open Carry)

(a) Just how do you, or anyone for that matter, know who is carrying? Unless the guns "prints" under their clothing, or clothing rides up, coat blows open, exposing the gun, you can't know.

(b) If you can't know who is, or isn't carrying, how can you be uncomfortable with CCW?

(c) You see this is the point.. YOU CAN NOT KNOW. Therefore just precisely how do you know whom to be uncomfortable with?

The problem is the anti-gun side does not want ANY civilian carrying. They scream and rant despite the fact we now have CCW in 49 of the 50 states. None of their prior claims of "rivers of blood in the streets", "bodies stacked up like cordwood" "shootouts over parking places" have come to pass. So if there is incivility there's a very good reason. We keep giving them facts about the low rates of CCW committing crimes, and they only respond with "feelings" of being uncomfortable.

You don't like guns, don't own one. You don't like CCW, don't carry.

I, and most other gun owners do not want to force ANYONE who does not want to own a gun to own or carry one. But what we are going to vigorously oppose is people trying to tell us we can not own or not carry a gun because that makes THEM uncomfortable, or scared.

[digonswine]

7. OK-

I realize no one is being forced to carry. I also know that I will not know when someone is carrying. In my post, I was referring to the incivility and one-upsmanship on both sides of the argument. Here is the reality--at least in one sense. If one were to (somehow) factor in where one lives, the crime rate and/or the chances of needing a firearm for self-defense, and the potential dangers of simply having a gun present, then one would have an idea of the safety or lack thereof that a gun represents. Of course--this is not possible. In some circumstances--the presence of a gun could increase safety and in some cases decrease the same. If I lived somewhere other than I do--I might feel that carrying would increase my and others' safety. I don't live in a place like that, though. I can't help but think, that, given where I actually DO live, the presence of a gun would not increase safety. Thus-- now this is a personal FEELING only--I would not feel safer being next to someone with a gun. This does not necessarily mean that they should not be able to do so, but it could be true that the mere presence of the gun increases my chances of getting hurt. We make these subtle calculations every day in society. I do realize that these calculations extend way beyond guns--to cars, tools, etc. I am not going to say that a person should not carry a gun. BUT--the reality is that it could have consequences that COULD affect me. So--my expressing a concern should not be derided as insanity-not that you were doing that. This issue seems to really put some folks on the defensive where it seems people of reason can have different feelings on the issue.

[lawodevolution]

5. You don't get to decide when a criminal is carrying a gun

So imagine you are on a ship with 50 people and 5 are rapists/murderers/felons and when boarding the ship there was no searching passengers. When you ban law abiding from carrying, none of the good people will have a gun but it's still possible the bad guys will. Would you like to be stuck on a ship with 5 felons in which they are the only ones to potentially possess weapons or would you like for some of the dependable law abiding to potentially possess weapons as well.

Scale this to the real world. You do not get to decide which bad guys carry weapons because they do not obay laws, I prefer that good guys are able to carry as well even though one may feel slightly uncomfortable with more people carrying guns it makes me much more nervous to think that only criminals are carrying when I am out in public and being able to carry myself allows me to fulfill my obligation to take care of and protect my loved ones if necessary.

If someone decides to attack you, you will likely want to get a good guy with a gun to the scene as soon as possible. Some will call the police, and those guns will take more then 10 minutes to get to them. Others may be anti gun but as soon as an HIV infected rapist is about to stick it in them they'd be willing for anyone such as a ccw permit holder to show up and stop him. You don't get to decide which good guys carry guns and where they will be when you need a gun to come save you so some would rather have the life saving gun within seconds of the initiation of an attack.


But let's be clear about something. When someone is attacking you, taking you hostage or dropping his pants behind you, the thing you want to come save you is a gun possessed by a policeman, security guard or anyone willing to help you.

[digonswine]

11. I get what you are saying--

like, literally--don't take a knife to a gun fight AND you can't tell what will happen and who will do what. See my post #7--my two points were 1. There is much vitriol with this topic-a big pissing contest--posting about citizens effectively defending themselves, and then some posting about gun-ownership gone wrong. When the arguments become so black and white, or filled with derision, no ground is made by either side. That is why I wanted to know some feelings form real people about why they carry or decide not to.

[DWC]

13. Excellent Comment. Excellent Question.

As on any single issue, public forum there is a very small minority of extremists on both sides of the issue. The vast majority of participants are well intentioned; sincere in their positions; and open in some degree to new ideas and information. Tolerating those extremists is the price we must pay to have legitimate, intelligent discussion and debate.

Daniel Webster (1782-1852)stated it best when he wrote:
"The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions."

With that in mind, I find this to be the best site on the internet for an open exchange of ideas on 2nd amendment issues.

Semper Fi,

[digonswine]

15. You are correct-

this is a great place for open idea exchange. And now that I said that this(guns) was not a very civil forum--I read some of the others--with the idea of civility in mind---and I can say that incivility is all over the place here. And it's a good thing---we would not spend any time here if it was just a mutual masturbation-fest here!

[Glassunion]

19. I carry outside my home, because most violent crime occurs outside the home.

According to the National Crime Victimization Survey there were 4,581,260 Crimes of violence in the last year the report was published(2008).

Out of all of those violent crimes, only 18.4% occurred at or inside the victim's home.

If you look at what the victims of violent crime were doing at the time, the vast majority were going about their normal lives outside of the home either traveling to or from; work, school, shopping or errands. Or while at work, school our out enjoying leisure activities. Only 25.4% were doing other activities at home.

Also, if you look at the report the majority(66%) report that their preventative measures(fighting back) helped their situation, where only 5.7% stated that it hurt their situation. Overall 46% of those who fought back state they avoided injury, 18.6% stated they scared off the offender, 15.3% stated they were able to escape, 6.4% were able to protect their property and 6.9% protected other people.

[spin]

20. I lived in a neighborhood in Tampa that had went downhill over the 35 years ...

that I owned my home.

I worked on the graveyard shift and a number of bump and rob incidents had happened in the area I lived in. I started carrying a firearm in my car in the glove box which is legal in Florida.

One of my co-workers who had a carry permit suggested that I get one. He knew I was a professional speeder (one who knows where the cops hide and rarely gets caught). He mentioned that if I was ever caught and was asked if I had a firearm in the car, things would go much easier if I had a carry permit. It made sense to me so I applied and obtained one.

At first I had little interest in carrying and when I did, I tried to carry a Colt 45 auto, which is a big heavy firearm that is uncomfortable to carry. I rarely carried it when I was just going to the store, I had to take the time to put on a holster and the appropriate clothing to conceal the weapon. In short, it was a pain in the ass. Eventually I tried more compact firearms but still didn't carry regularly.

One day at the pistol range, the range master who was an ex-cop asked me if I carried on a regular basis. I explained to him that I did if I was going on a road trip but normally I left the weapon at home.

He chewed my ass. He told me, "The state of Florida, in all its wisdom, has granted you the right to carry a firearm concealed. They didn't do this for your ego so you can show it to your friends and brag. They don't want you to be a cop or a vigilante, but they have granted you the right to carry a concealed weapon and use it if you are attacked on the street by someone who intends to seriously injure or kill you. They also allow you the right to defend another victim who faces the same threat if you choose.


He also said, "I've watched you shoot your firearm and I believe you are fairly competent with it. I don't want to pick up the newspaper and read that you were shot and killed or seriously injured and were unarmed. Now start carrying your damned firearm."

To me what he said made sense. After all, I had invested the time and the money to get a carry permit and I did shoot on a regular basis and even spent time learning how to point shoot with either my left or right hand. I could shoot a tight group at 25 yards (which is target shooting) but could also hit a target at close range in the "kill zone" firing very rapidly. I, in no way, consider myself all that great a shooter but often some people would gather to watch me shoot at the range.

I thought about what he said and decided to buy one more firearm for concealed carry. I chose a .38 S&W model 642 snub nosed revolver. It is a good defensive weapon but not one that a person who intends to shoot a number of people would choose. (I should warn anyone considering buying this weapon that it is not a beginner's gun. It has a nasty recoil and the short sight radius due to the short barrel makes accuracy at a distance challenging.)



This little extremely light firearm is designed for pocket carry and has enough power to be effective. On my way out the door, I grab this revolver and its pocket holster, slip both in my front pants pocket and I'm off. It's hard to come up with an excuse to leave it behind.

Fortunately, I have never had to draw this weapon for self defense and I hope I never will.

I don't suffer from any anger management or mental problems nor do I abuse alcohol or drugs. (If I have more than two beers, I don't drive and I don't carry.) Since I have started to carry on a regular basis, I have become a much more polite individual and I will walk away from a fight even when it makes me look like a coward.

If you were standing next to me in public you would have nothing to be concerned about. Of course, you would have no idea that I was armed. My firearm is in a holster and is a modern design which would stop it from firing even if I dropped it. I never play with it and it will not fire by itself. I would never try a shot that I was not absolutely certain that I could make which means that I would only shoot at extremely close range.

I can't speak for all people who have a carry permit and I will admit that not all of us are angels. Still the statistics show that people who have passed all the requirements to carry concealed, which in many states requires a criminal background check and training including demonstrating proficiency on a range, present very little threat to others.

The people I know who carry on a regular basis are not thugs or criminals but instead are honest and extremely responsible people who often are well educated and hold jobs that require a great deal of responsibility or have retired from such jobs. I know teachers, lawyers, bankers, doctors, real estate agents, ministers, business owners, medical technicians, people who are police or ex-police, those who are on active military duty or retired from the military, electronic technicians, engineers, construction workers, factory workers and taxi cab drivers who carry concealed. I know people who are handicapped who carry. I also know people who are gay who carry. Many of the people I mention are members of a minority and are Black or Hispanic. In other words the people I know who have carry permits come from a very wide cross section of our society. They are no means all "Red Necks" or Tea Baggers. While the majority are conservatives, some are Democrats as I am. (More would vote for Democrats if our party stopped shooting itself in the foot over the gun control issue.)

When "shall issue" concealed carry passed in Florida in 1987, I would have never suspected that it would prove as successful as it has. I am not going to claim that concealed carry in Florida has solved the violent street crime problem but I suspect that it has led many experienced criminals to change the nature of their crimes and to more carefully choose their victims or to resort to non violent crimes.

[digonswine]

26. Thanks--

good info from a real person!

[Kolesar]

21. It's a wedge issue to help Republicans and you are on the Democratic Underground forum

There will always be another piece of gun legislation that the Republicans advance to wedge voters away from voting for the party that represents their interests. This issue will never die

[spin]

23. So perhaps our party should stop pushing for draconian gun laws ...

and shooting ourselves in the foot.

I know a number of gun owners who refuse to vote for ANY Democrat even those who get high ratings from the NRA. When I discuss politics with them, they agree on many of the issues that Democrats support. If not for the gun issue, they would vote for our party.

It's like the abortion issue that Republicans love. They loose piles of votes supporting laws that would take away a woman's right to choose.

We would win far more elections if we came out with support for enforcing and tweaking existing laws to make them more effective. Schemes such as requiring registration of all firearms, micro stamping ammo or requiring another useless assault weapons ban cost us close elections.

[digonswine]

27. It does not seem that Dems are really pushing for ridiculous gun laws, though-

there are exceptions, I realize. When Obama was elected, around here, you could not buy rounds for awhile for the simple reason that people thought that getting ammo would be impossible w/ Obama in charge. They are being sold a bill of goods by the NRA and other conservative groups. I think gun control was below the radar, but for many, it was a huge issue--even if in their heads. Just like it makes my head spin when I used to see a "Sportsmen for Bush" bumper sticker. That turd gave fuckall for the environment and sensible species management.

[eqfan592]

28. Dems don't help the situation by making legislation like the AWB...

...a part of the party platform. Part of why the Republicans were able to use the gun issue against Pres. Obama during the last election was because he had it listed right there on his website for everybody to see that he supported reinstating the AWB, which was one of the most useless bits of legislation the party has ever managed to produce.

[spin]

31. So far Obama has not pandered to the draconian gun control crowd...

in the Democratic Party. To be totally honest, if I would have suspected that he would, I would have never voted for him.

Obama is a lot smarter than many extremely liberal anti-gun Democrats and a hell of a lot more reasonable. While it is true that he had a history of opposing gun ownership before he became President, it is necessary to realize that a pro-gun Democrat from Chicago would have had a hard time getting elected to the office of dog catcher.

I suspect that his plans for future gun control involve improving the NICS background check system by requiring the states to more efficiently and quickly input the names of those who have a criminal record or have been legally adjudged as having severe mental issues that would prohibit firearm ownership.

There is a faint possibility that he might require that all private sales go through an NICS check.

I support both of those ideas.

[digonswine]

39. If he had-who would you have voted for?

It's not like we are given a heck of a lot of choices. I understand being uncomfortable with certain stances on the left--do you consider this single issue a deal-breaker--like abortion on the right?

[spin]

41. That's a good question ...

I might have not voted. McCain and Palin and a continuation of the Republicans being in the White House wouldn't have appealed to me.

If a Democrat ran and advocated truly draconian gun control such as banning and confiscation of all firearms then it would indeed be a deal breaker to me.

The chances of that are slim at this point.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

37. Daley and other have supported seriously repressive firearms laws

[one-eyed fat man]

38. Read the Party platform.

http://obama.3cdn.net/84b2062fc4a5114715_ftxamv9ot.pdf

Note especially the part about "As a long-time resident and elected official of Chicago, Barack Obama has seen the impact of fully automatic weapons in the hands of criminals. Thus, Senator Obama supports making permanent the expired federal Assault Weapon Ban."

Read that again, "FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS in the hands of criminals" are a problem he proposes to solve by banning guns that are not fully automatic and not in the hands of criminals.

No matter how you want to parse the 2008 platform, the gun plank is a direct lift from his stump speeches. He keeps saying, "He respects the 2nd Amendment," but sure is tough to square that with his voting record and his own website.

What is even more ironic, is the whole assault weapons ban was and is based on duplicity. The foundation is the confusion between REAL machine guns and guns that just look like machine guns. When Josh Sugarmann coined the term, "assault weapon" he outlined his strategy thus:

"The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons — anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun — can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.

To collectors of legal machine guns, the expired assault weapons ban had zero effect on them. All the supposed evil features, like pistol grips, folding stocks, large capacity magazines, absolutely NONE of the '94 restrictions applied to real machine guns.

Why, simple definition. The ban only applied to firearms which were SEMI-automatic, that is, firearms that fire one shot each time the trigger is pulled. Neither the AWB nor its expiration changed the legal status of fully automatic firearms, which fire more than one round with a single trigger-pull; these have been regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986.

The deliberate duplicity continues, like here, a girl reporter is unwittingly duped by an administration expert using machine guns as stunt doubles for semi-automatics

The "expert" who enabled and coordinated that deliberately deceptive demonstration is the Special Agent in Charge of the Chicago office of the ATF, and the President's nominee to head that agency, Andrew Traver. While the reporter is talking about semi-automatic weapons it is Traver who hands her a machine gun.

When you witness the reporter spray-firing wildly "off the hip," it should be painfully obvious with her technique she is not responsible for the technical inaccuracies of the clip. She is so unprepared that you will note at one point someone has to keep her from falling over backward from unanticipated recoil. Certainly, SHE did not direct the action. That brings us back to Agent Traver, a former Naval gunnery officer. How better to give 'credibility' to a lie than to have an expert carefully stage what you get to see? How better to convince a neophyte that the guns is wildly uncontrollable than to let her shoot with no more instruction than having watched an action movie or two?

Note the disparity in technique as the ATF agent shoulders the weapon properly, uses the sights, and good fire discipline as he fires controlled bursts on the targets. It is telling that the underpinnings of their argument is based on manipulating perception using propaganda and distortion.

[Hoopla Phil]

44. WOW! I had never seen that clip before. Talk about

misleading and outrageous lying!!! Thank you for posting that. The skinny guy at the rang was Traver?

[one-eyed fat man]

46. Yes the skinny guy showing the pimped out AK

He is the crew cut guy in the suit and blue shirt when he first appears. On the range he has the Black ball cap and the tacti-cool sage green under armor shirt.

This right up there with the CNN piece in two broadcasts CNN incorrectly reported that fully automatic weapons were banned under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The CNN broadcasts included firing demonstrations by the Broward County, Fla., Sheriff's Department that implied currently banned weapons are much more powerful than similar but legal ones, when in fact that is not the case.

During one of the demonstrations Broward County Sheriff Ken Jenne introduced a detective who fired an old Chinese AK-47.

"That is one of the 19 currently banned weapons," said John Zarella, CNN's Miami bureau chief. In fact, that firearm was not one of those banned under the 1994 act. The detective fired six shots, after which Zarella said, "OK. Now that was semiautomatic."

Jenne then responded, "Now this is automatic."

The detective fired a burst at a cinder-block target, after which Zarella declared: "Wow! That obliterated those blocks. ... Absolutely obliterated it. And you can tell the difference," according to the CNN video.

Machine guns, AK-47s and other fully automatic weapons are regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934. The 1994 law banned some semiautomatic, military-style rifles and expired in September 2004.

When first broadcast, the camera showed bullets hitting a cinder-block target as the Broward County detective fired an AK-47 in semiautomatic mode. When the detective fired a legal semiautomatic firearm, the camera showed an undamaged cinder-block target. Similarly it showed the detective engage a vast clad mannequin with similar results. Obvious destruction with one weapon and no effect with the legal version.

When challenged publicly and accused of faking the story, CNN reluctantly admitted the detective had not been firing at the cinder block and claimed they had been misled by the Sheriff's Department during the demonstration.

"In fact, if you fire the same caliber and type bullets from the two guns, you get the same impact," Zarella said in a follow up broadcast.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

36. It is only a wedge issue if we make it one

Supporting the free exercise of rights and liberties should be the hallmark of our party. Those who advocate repressions of those freedoms have no business in it.

[Ragnarok]

22. I carry a M1911 or Glock 30...

most of the time because I believe it is better to give myself options if there is trouble. I also believe in the saying "When seconds count, the Police are only minutes away." That said, guns are not for everyone and I know of no gun owners who want to force everyone to be armed. I know of many people who don't own guns who believe no one should own, let alone carry a gun. For that reason, I get vocal when I hear that sort of thing. I don't give a squirt about crime rates, x% chances of this, 1:6 ratios indicating the likelihood of that, etc... I'm responsible for my protection, not you or the Police.

[eqfan592]

25. I don't carry yet, but I will be soon.

For me I view it in the same light as I view the emergency kit I keep in my car that has saved my bacon numerous times driving in the winter weather in Wisconsin, I'd rather have it on me than not need and than need it and not have it on me. I am comfortable around firearms and know how to use and store them safely.

When somebody posts a viewpoint that I don't agree with, but does so in a respectful manner, I do my best to respond in kind, and I have had several good exchanges with such people in this forum. But when folks feel the need to question my sanity for making the choice to carry, as many do here, or are only able to bring forward ridiculously sarcastic remarks and hyperbole and little else, I find it difficult not to respond in kind, which is something I'm working on.

As for this being the least civil forum, I think the E&E forum can be just as bad at times when it comes to the issue of nuclear energy, but in general I think we could all stand to work on our civility a bit.

[ileus]

34. You do realize how impolite you're being? and that your gun may kill you or someone else.

LOL.....J/K

[RSillsbee]

29. I carry a firearm because

I started carrying because I lived in a bad part of town and I able to defend myself from a wannabe mugger because I was armed. I live in a better part of town now but I now realize that crime doesn't only happen in "bad" neighborhoods.

[X_Digger]

30. I carry a gun because..

I used to travel all over TX, OK, and LA servicing telecom equipment. I went into every kind of neighborhood, town, and city. After having my truck broken into twice, and being mugged at gun point then getting my head almost cracked by the junkie's buddy, I decided to carry a pistol. And I'm glad I did.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Ike, I was in Galveston trying to get phone service back up for residents. As I was ferrying ~$10k worth of network testing gear from the open bed of my truck to the switch around dusk, I was approached by a 20-25 year old guy asking for money. I offered him a bottle of water and an energy bar. He became agitated and again demanded money. He got close enough that I could see that he had a mouth full of mostly black stumps instead of teeth, and continued to follow me as I went around the front of my truck to the open driver's door to grab a bottle of water. As I reached into the center console of my truck, he pulled a knife from his overcoat (an overcoat in September in Texas- yah, nothing at all odd about that) and took a step toward me. I switched from a bottle of water to the holstered pistol in the console. I unholstered my pistol, put the open truck door between us, and told him to piss off. He took another step toward me, I raised my pistol and pointed it at his chest. He looked down, then turned and ran. I got on the company radio, and an hour later, a DPS officer came by to check on me. He took my statement and left.

You know what really pissed me off at the time? That I'd offered the guy a bottle of water and something to eat. I've been approached many times by some rather stinky characters (Texas heat and homelessness tends to mix into a rather odoriferous combination.) Most were just panhandlers- the kind that you see with cardboard signs (my favorite was one that read 'why lie? want beer') or a bouquet of flowers weaving in and out of traffic at stop lights. I usually have a dollar for them if they make it to my truck before the light changes. So yeah, I was pissed that I offered to help this guy and he turns around and pulls a knife on me.

Shit, if he'd waited, I would have gotten on the radio and asked for a pick-up from the Texas City FD / Galveston PD / TX natl guard who had a crisis response center about ten minutes away. I'd seen more than one .mil truck trundle by with residents in the back going to the center.

A couple of other things convinced me to carry every day: one was the abduction and murder of a soccer mom not five minutes from my house, in broad daylight; and another was the shooting of a convenience store customer in Dallas about 10 minutes from me after complying with the robbers.

I can't count on a cop to be nearby should I need to be protected; in any case, the cops have no legal obligation to do so. The person most responsible for my safety is me.

[spin]

32. Very interesting post. (n/t)

[Logical]

35. Great post Digger! n-t

[GreenStormCloud]

40. Much of the problem is that the anti-RKBA people don't want to discuss.

We are extremely willing, and happy to discuss civilly, RKBA issues with those who will be civil with us and who will use reason instead of insults and ridicule. We have often asked the antis to tell us what real world solutions they would have for real world problems of violent crime. But they tend to deny that violent crime is a problem.

To answer your question regarding why I carry. I am not able to know when trouble may come calling. If I could know I would arrange to be somewhere else. I am a senior citizen with a disability so I can not be expected to outrun a criminal nor to fist fight one. Criminals seem to be increasingly running in packs so even if I were the young fit man that I once was, I would not be able to handle several attackers at once. But with a gun on me, and by practicing situational awareness and proper tactics, I can defend myself if trouble comes.

My wife is alive because she was armed. She was about to be mugged and because she is a small frail woman and like myself, a senior citizen, it is unlikely she would have survived. But the mugger saw that she was armed and ready to shoot him so he ran away. No shots fired, wife unhurt - happy ending.

If the armed person next to you is legally armed then there is no logical reason to fear them. Our safety record is better than that of the police.

Welcome to the guns forum. We will be happy to answer any questions and to discuss with civility such issues as your may have.

[digonswine]

43. Thanks for the response!

[jeepnstein]

42. I choose to go armed some times.

I don't necessarily go out the door carrying every day. When I do I'm pretty sure I'm no threat to society. As long as I'm going about my business in a lawful and sane manner I see no reason for anyone to give it a second though. It's really nobody's business, to put it politely.

Ever run into someone you had to help scrub their hands clean of the blood of their victims? Have you ever been in a store and recognize the guy loitering around the cash register as a drug addict with a knack for armed robberies? An he knows you by name? Ever bump into someone who just got out of jail because you arrested them? I have.

Monsters are real. They are walking among us every day. Anyone who depends on the kindness of strangers for their safety will be right most of the time, but not all the time.

[east texas lib]

47. I carry because I like living...

And out here where there is no PD it's a lot easier to fit a .45 in your holster than a deputy sheriff. If someone does not want to own or carry a gun, then that is their choice to make. Pro 2A'ers merely ask that same right to choose for themselves, and further that our lawful options as to WHAT we choose to own or carry be not be restricted more than they already have been (I.E., semi-autos being called "automatic weapons").