Out of curiosity, I ask; Do the Gun Owners/Advocates on DU Believe..

[The Doctor.]

That a gun can provide protection under ANY circumstances where an assailant has a gun?

I just keep hearing from gun-haters that people who are okay with guns think guns are a panacea against gun crime.

Is this true?

[baldguy]

1. Just read their words. You'll know that's exactly what they believe.

[The Doctor.]

6. Which words are those?

Examples would be great. The only times I've seen people suggest a gun might have helped were situations where a gun might have helped.

If you have something else, post it.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[petronius]

2. I have never encountered anyone who believed that a firearm was a perfect

defense against all assaults, or even against most assaults. The most I've seen anyone honestly claim is that there are some circumstances in which a firearm is the appropriate tool, and even then it may fail, but they wish the option to have access to that tool in case those circumstances arise...

[AzWorker]

3. No more then a seat belt is protection against ALL auto accidents...

There are no absolutes

[enough]

4. I object to the phrase "gun-haters." As I have said before, I think these issues are

complicated enough that we should try to discuss them without phrases like that.

My personal approach is that I have known several people who have been killed by gun violence (and therefore have known the decades-long disruption and sometime destrution of lives of many family members who have to live through it afterward), but I also participate in a hunting culture that I value highly.

I get tired of telling this story over and over, but when I see people using a phrase like "gun-haters," I get riled up, which is perhaps the purpose of the phrase.

[petronius]

7. I agree: gun-hater, gun-lover, gun nut, anti... None of it helps.

I'd be happy if we all just agreed on some basic terms, perhaps 'pro-RKBA' and 'pro-gun-control'. But I also suspect that any resulting decrease in the local rancor would be infinitesimal at most...

[The Doctor.]

12. I'm not referring to 'gun control' advocates.

See post #10

[gejohnston]

30. even more terms perhaps

pro-RKBA and prohibitionists? Pro gun control is vague, it implies anything including the two extremes of prohibition vs none. The prohibition crowd is very small and the none crowd is nonexistent, unless you know someone who thinks a ten year-old should be able to buy. I don't see anyone wanting to repeal the NFA or FFA-38, for example. One of us posted a few time that he supports the amendment to GCA-68 barring domestic abusers or people with restraining orders.

In short, the issue is not really pro/anti control. The disagreement is the degree of regulation.

[The Doctor.]

31. That point alone was worth the whole thread.

I suppose we use the terms to mean the 'extremes', but apply them at our own risk otherwise.

[petronius]

33. I agree, that's a very good point. Even those that I would categorize as pro-RKBA are

in favor of a substantial degree of regulation. There really aren't universally appropriate terms; I suppose the best we can hope is that we all individually try and select more courteous options (when we feel like it)...

[NewMoonTherian]

63. To be fair...

I support repealing the NFA and the Hughes amendment to the 1986 FOPA. Haven't read enough about FFA-38 to form an opinion, but I do understand what you're saying. Certain controls are reasonable and positive. So how do we identify ourselves and others in the debate? Maybe a numerical system of some kind? Maybe "Anti's, Prohibitionists, Hater's" etc. could be 6 through 10, "Gun nuts, gun lovers, NRA types" etc. can be 1 through 5? A little silly, but we have to have some kind of descriptive term, and some of the folks here are awfully thin-skinned regarding the current nomenclature.

[Euromutt]

34. Problem is, every time we try to hash out that issue...

...various proponents of increased gun control object to absolutely every possible short, manageable term that's suggested. (I use italics not to indicate "them! they're the ones doing it, teacher!" but to indicate how long that term is to type every single fracking time.)

[petronius]

36. I suppose we could be 'Team A' and 'Team 1', but then we'd forget who is who

Really, it's a pointless discussion, and the truth is that some of us will choose to be disagreeable as often as possible, some of us are courteous as a matter of course, and most of us will be more or less disagreeable depending on our current mood. I guess all we can really hope for is a general awareness that we're all DUers with the same basic ideals; beyond that, this is not the sub-forum for group hugs...

[Euromutt]

39. And to be fair, I can understand not wanting to let the other side "frame" the debate...

...by accepting a label of your opponents' making, but in those circumstances, the least you can do is try to come up with some halfway objective counter-proposals. It seems to me that if you aren't willing to cooperate on what you do want to be called, you don't get to complain when as a result you end up getting referred by a term you don't like.

That said, for my part, as a "fallen" proponent of increased gun control, I do generally try to give current proponents of increased gun control the benefit of the doubt with regard to their intentions. We all want to see less violent crime, fewer deaths due to criminally malicious and criminally negligent behavior etc. Where we differ is in what we perceive to be the best approach toward that goal. But that said, I'm much inclined to give as I get, and I do not react with understanding and indulgence to being abused.

[Kennah]

77. How about shirts and skins?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

45. pretty much right.

[The Doctor.]

10. It's perfectly appropriate.

Personally, I hate guns. I despise what they are designed to do and the potential for harm that they represent.

But, I also have a healthy appreciation for what they do and how they change the power balance. I like the power to project force that they convey upon the wielder as well.

Which means that my real problem with guns is not the gun itself, it is the wielder.

That said, it is apparent that I'm not talking about you at all. I'm quite certain that you would not go out of your way to demonize every gun-owner/proponent in the nation. I'm also certain that you are rational enough not to suggest that everyone who appreciates guns would claim that guns are absolute protection against gun crime.

When I say 'gun hater', I am directly referring to those whose hatred for guns (and often the people that own them) overrides their ability to reason or see clearly.

So don't get too bent out of shape... the term likely does not apply to you. :hi:

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

57. yeah yeah yeah

When I say 'gun hater', I am directly referring to those whose hatred for guns (and often the people that own them) overrides their ability to reason or see clearly.

The great nameless faceless ... alleged ... masses of people who fit some bizarre, insulting, stupid representation you decide to apply to them.

If only you could tell us where to find them -- these people who suffer from such psychotic delusions that they hate inanimate objects and lose control of their mental processes.

Hey, I'll bet there's a name for this disease ...

[tortoise1956]

61. Really?

Is that the best you can do? I expected much more pointless snarkiness and personal attacks.

You're slipping.

Edited to add: I was being pretty snarky myself. I'll try to do better...sorry, iverglass. long day at work.

[SteveM]

53. Gun controller/banners want to "rile people up." It's all they have.nt

[rl6214]

66. Is gun haters any worse than

gun lovers, gun fetishts, gun extremists, saying someone can't walk down the street without a gun strapped to their leg, stuffed down their pants or any of the other terms/phrases those on the gun control side use to "rile up" the pro gun side?

[Kennah]

78. I think you forgot gun nuts.

[bluestateguy]

5. No, but your odds are a whole lot better

In the end it's a citizen's choice to own a gun or not, but I don't trust the government to make that decision for me.

Imagine for example some teabagger local government all of a sudden deciding that blacks, Hispanics, liberals and Muslims are not allowed to own guns and only white people can be armed.

[rl6214]

67. I thought, according to some here that the GOP/NRA

teabagger types want EVERYONE to have guns. Kinda shoots your situation down.

[ileus]

8. Untrue...way too many examples to list here....

You don't need all the planets to align to be successful in a defensive act, but you do need a lot of skill and some luck.

Ambushes, Out numbered, Out gunned...a whole host of ways a gun may or may not help you.

Joe Blow walks into Hardees and you're dinning with your two kids and wife you're not going to jump up and start blazing away to be a hero...the last thing you want to do is draw fire toward your family. You sit on your ass unless there's reason to believe you need to act to save your family. (at least that's my opinion)

3 thugs approach you, and even though you're aware of what may go down you still need lots of knowledge and luck. Are they just walking by? You can't draw you can only position yourself and get ready. If all three pull a gun of some sort you'd better be a good shot and lucky.

You're on your bike in the backwoods with your 380 and some redneck kid decides to make you peddle faster for fun from behind a tree.

Someone rings knocks on your door at night then runs and hides behind a tree in your yard. You answer the door, no one is there. You step out on the porch with the porch light on and the guy behind the tree shoots you in the chest with a shotgun. (happened to my Grand Father)

Some nutbag decides to rattle off 30 rounds of 7.62 into your car after you cut him off.

The list goes on and on....but I'll take my chances and limit my exposure to areas where trouble may be. I'll keep up my situational awareness and evaluate all persons around me as best I can, and I'll stay armed no matter what other people may think the odds of being successful at defending the lives of me and my family.



Bottom line is..... Carry or not it's the chance you gotta take. Choose wisely...

[DonP]

9. No, don't know that anyone here has ever claimed that

OTOH ... we have had a number of gun control fans use that phrase as if we had said it.

Kind of like "guns for everyone" or "Machine guns for sale at Wal Mart", "Guns for teenagers" etc. Never get said except for the gun control people trying to say something inflammatory and outrageous. But I'm sure someone will run a search to check.

[iverglas]

11. this is a dishonest call-out

and I will be reporting it as such.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=441366&mesg_id=441379

I have replied to your dishonest personal attack on me in that thread.

[The Doctor.]

14. Hardly. I really wanted to know if there are people here who believe what some suggest.

You know you're wrong, and don't want it proven so.

Run to the mods. I've broken no rules.

[The Doctor.]

16. Seriously ... I'd like DUers to have the chance to show they aren't as insane

as some people imply.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Doctor.]

23. Hey!

Insulting people on DU is against the rules!

:silly:

(JK)

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PavePusher]

49. She claims "dishonest callout"....

and then cites to where she does exactly what you are asking about.

With friends like these, the more-gun-control side needs no help sinking themselves.

Too funny....

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AzWorker]

24. hardly a call out thread

Some topics threads lead to sub topics that deserve a thread of their own.

I's a discussion board after all.

Great topic OP

[The Doctor.]

25. Yep, I really wanted to know. Though I wouldn't call it a 'great topic'.

Thanks anywho.

I hate the demonization of otherwise rational people. I wanted to know if there really were insane 'gun nuts' on DU that think everyone in the country should be armed at all times.

It turns out that there are barely any if at all.

That way I can also safely dismiss claims to the contrary.

Like here;

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/The%20Doctor./61

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Euromutt]

72. I'd like to note that I appreciate the effort on your part

Though I wouldn't be too surprised if your methodology is rejected, along the lines of "well, of course they wouldn't admit it when they have guards up, but they'll something slip in the course of other discussions."

Of course, perish the thought that the notion that "gun nuts/gunnutz/gun fetishists think everyone in the country should be armed at all times" is as persistent as it is is because it keeps getting repeated even though nobody who repeats it has ever actually observed a pro-RKBA poster claiming such (on this board, anyway).

[tortoise1956]

62. I've must have missed the post

Where he attacked you personally. Would you please link to it?

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rrneck]

13. A gun is not a panacea.

I don't advocate for guns any more than I advocate for socket wrenches. The only thing I'm four square against is people killing each other.

People have a right to defend themselves if the rest of us can't do it for them. They have a responsibility to do it right or pay the price if they don't.

[TheWraith]

17. Please define how you mean "ANY circumstances."

There's two ways to take this: "any" as in "any and all circumstances," i.e. the belief that firearms are always effective. This is obviously not true even in the most optimistic case, since there is nothing in the world that is ALWAYS effective. The police are a good example that being armed doesn't always guarantee safety.

The second is "any" as in "any possible scenario," where it's equally clear that yes, firearms can and are regularly effective against assailants with guns, even without having to be fired, depending on the circumstances.

[The Doctor.]

18. Err... pretty self-explanatory.

I tried to avoid ambiguity, I suppose I missed the target?

Yeah, I meant any situation where assailants were using guns. I suppose we can include knives and brute force as well though.

Really, I guess it's all just situational.

[MicaelS]

20. ANY Circumstances? Yes. ALL Circumstances, Absolutely not.

Guns aren't a panacea against gun crime. Guns are a tool for use in the gravest extreme, which is defending your life, or the life of your family. Note that... YOUR life, or the life of YOUR family.

Personally, I don't think I would get involved in a stranger on stranger shooting. Too many variables. I would PROBABLY come to the aid of a uniformed LEO being assaulted.

[Old Codger]

27. In any situation

That arises there are too many variables to make a judgement without knowing the exact situation. having said that I will add that when/if you need a gun nothing else will work. An analogy would be if you own a 4 wheel drive you may never have need of its capabilities, but if you get into a situation where four wheel drive is what it takes nothing else will do the job.

[DWC]

29. The answer to your question is an emphatic NO !!!

A firearm never assures a successful defense but it is the best, most powerful tool available to stop a life threatening situation.

A firearm does give the intended victim the best possible chance for a successful defense against what otherwise would be overwhelming force.

Great question. Thanks for the post.

Semper Fi,

[Ready4Change]

32. By 'ANY' do you mean 'every' or 'at least one'?

I do not believe that my having a firearm will provide protection in every single imaginable circumstance where an assailant has a firearm.

I do believe there are SOME circumstances where my having a firearm would provide protection vs an assailant with a firearm.

[Euromutt]

35. A firearm can be an effective means of self-defense in SOME circumstances...

...including some circumstances in which the assailant is wielding a firearm. But a firearm is not a magic talisman that wards off harm; it cannot and will not protect a person carrying it in every circumstance. The reason the Luby's masscre in Killeen, TX keeps getting brought up is because Suzanna Gratia Hupp (as she then was), in her testimony to Congress, said something to the effect of "I canot say with certainty that, if I'd had my gun I could have saved my parents from being murdered, but I do know it sure as hell would have changed the odds."

And that sums up the position of RKBA proponents very well: we cannot say for certain that having a firearm will enable you to escape harm, but it does at least radically improve your odds of being able to effectively defend yourself.

The miscommunication, I think, lies in phrases like "a legally armed faculty member or student could have stopped Cho." As used by proponents of CCW, it's intended to mean "might have been able to," i.e. the possibility would have existed, albeit not the certainty. Opponents of CCW (or "gun-haters," to use the term used in OP) choose to interpret it as "would definitely have been able to stop Cho," which is indeed an insupportable claim, but also a straw man. To illustrate, try Googling the phrase "would have stopped Cho"; what you're going to turn up is mostly questions like "do you seriously think a concealed carrier would have stopped Cho?"

[iverglas]

37. oh, bosh

The miscommunication, I think, lies in phrases like "a legally armed faculty member or student could have stopped Cho." As used by proponents of CCW, it's intended to mean "might have been able to," i.e. the possibility would have existed, albeit not the certainty.

It means what it says. Plain reading. Especially when said, in so many words, by so many people.

Oh, I see this is a hobbyhorse of yours.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=436477&mesg_id=436621

But again, to the best of my recollection, nobody on this forum has ever made such a claim, though here it does behoove me to point out that there is a possibility for misunderstanding due to the ambiguous nature of the word "could," as in, "if an armed CCW permit holder had been present in Norris Hall, that person could have stopped Cho from killing as many people as he did." This sentence can be interpreted to mean "the armed private citizen would have been able to successfully stop Cho"; such an assertion would insupportable, and it has to be noted, in the context of this elaboration, that anecdotal counter-examples of mass shootings where an armed private citizen was present (or at least nearby) but failed to put a stop to the shooting (e.g. Tacoma Mall or Tucson) are valid evidence against such a claim. ...

Now if you can just persuade your fellows to say what you mean ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=731936&mesg_id=732518

One student or professor with a gun could have also stopped Cho.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x371346

Not that CCW'ers have any obligation to prevent mass shootings, but if I was there and packing heat, I would have dropped Cho in a heart-beat.

Yikes.

Of course, it would help if you could get the victims on side too ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2738270

Survivors and families of the victims of the Virginia Tech shootings faced off Monday against gun-rights advocates over a bill that would prevent criminals and the mentally ill from buying firearms at gun shows.

About 100 supporters of the measure lay on the Capitol lawn to honor the victims of gun violence, as about 200 opponents stood nearby, holding signs that read, "Here Lie Disarmed Victims."

At one point, Jeff Knox, director of operations of the Manassas-based Firearms Coalition, approached survivor Colin Goddard and said students could have stopped student Seung-Hui Cho's rampage if they had been allowed to carry guns on campus.

"I would have stopped him," Knox said. "Because when I went to school, I carried a gun. It was legal; I did it."

Goddard, a Virginia Tech senior who was shot four times in the April 16 massacre, was taken aback, then said: "I feel sorry for you - the fact that you feel you need to protect yourself in every situation.

[Blown330]

38. What boorish...

...and nonsensical walls of words you spend such energy to create.

where an armed private citizen was present (or at least nearby) but failed to put a stop to the shooting (e.g. Tacoma Mall or Tucson) are valid evidence against such a claim. ...


Once again your ignorance in the concept of CCW lays waste to everything you post. That is not valid evidence as CCW is only a defensive measure. You are trying to spin it as an offensive measure as well. Fail on your part young girl.

[iverglas]

40. I'd say it must be like looking in a mirror for you

except it isn't. You must just just be looking through "boorish" prisms.

where an armed private citizen was present (or at least nearby) but failed to put a stop to the shooting (e.g. Tacoma Mall or Tucson) are valid evidence against such a claim. ...

Once again your ignorance in the concept of CCW lays waste to everything you post. That is not valid evidence as CCW is only a defensive measure. You are trying to spin it as an offensive measure as well. Fail on your part young girl.

Um ... are you attributing the bit you quoted to me?

Those prisms are plainly a source of more than one problem.

The bit you have quoted was written by one of the leading, um, gun fans in this forum. Try reading without the preconceived notions, hm?

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slackmaster]

42. No, of course not

Nobody who has had any training, or even put much thought into it, would believe that.

[The Doctor.]

55. Precisely.

I just wanted to have a compilation thread where it was made very clear that gun owners/advocates are realistic. Something to pull out the next time someone suggests that gun owners think giving everyone guns will keep them safe.

I just can't stand deliberate mischaracterizations.

[Atypical Liberal]

43. Of course not.

That a gun can provide protection under ANY circumstances where an assailant has a gun?

Guns are not a magical talisman. They are simply a tool that provides options.

Just like a seatbelt won't guarantee you will survive an accident, and smoke detectors won't guarantee you will get out of a burning building.

They simply provide another measure of protection and provide you with the option to resist an attacker without resorting to a physical contest of strength against your attacker.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

44. Of course not.

There are numerous sources, some from law enforcement including the FBI, that say your odds of surviving a violent assault are better if you resist with a weapon and best if the weapon is a firearm. There is, of course, in these situations the variables of opportunity to fire, skill at arms to hit the target and possibility of misfires or jams but on the other hand you cannot fire a gun you do not have.

Here are a few generalities that serve as good advice:
Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is cheap. Life is expensive.
Only hits count. Close doesn't count. The only thing worse than a miss is a slow miss.
Decide to be aggressive ENOUGH, quickly ENOUGH.
Your number one Option for Personal Security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.
Do not attend a gunfight with a handgun, the caliber of which does not start with a "4".

[ileus]

46. Of course not.

[gravity556]

47. Nothing can provide absolute safety in every circumstance.

Even the body armor our troops wear isn't 100% effective. It does give them an option and maybe a chance to get out of the kill zone (where everyone is trying to kill you). So while my gun offers me an additional choice other than panic, if I can get clear without having to even draw it, then I will be a happy man.

For the folks who say "What about everyone else?!? Aren't you going to try to save them?

Quite simply, no. My wife and myself are my only concerns. We both pay attention to our surroundings, and we are both armed and proficient with those arms. You are responsible for your own safety. The police are not responsible for your safety. They are not there to protect you, and even if they were, they may be 10 minutes to respond and another 10 to send in SWAT and their active shooter team.

There are things that folks should know how to do-change a tire, accurately fire a pistol and rifle and also maintain them, siphon gas, start a fire, make shelter and find forageable food when you can, trap or hunt meat at every opportunity.

[jeepnstein]

48. Nope, I seriously doubt anyone is that dumb.

There are no guarantees.

[Glassunion]

50. Only the Sith deal in absolutes.

[Euromutt]

71. And George Lucas

By having Obi-Wan assert that "only the Sith deal in absolutes." Aka the paradox of the Cretan who proclaims that all Cretans are liars.

[Glassunion]

73. When I first saw the movie, that one line had me laughing to myself.

Nothing like using an absolute to decry dealing in absolutes.

[SteveM]

51. My position, and I believe the position of most pro-2A folks, is this:

Firearms provide a better chance of protection in a confrontation with similarly-armed thugs. There is no assurance a citizen will "come out on top," but then that is not what 2A folks contend. The "panacea" which you reference is a classic straw man used by gun-controller/prohibitionists. And they keep re-building that straw man, over and over again. It's one thing to disagree over a survey or statistical abstract; it's quite another to create a position not shared by your "opposition. And to do so, day after day after day after...

Intellectual honesty is in short supply among controller/banners.

[ileus]

54. I just keep hearing from gun-haters....... ...........there's the problem.

[The Doctor.]

56. What problem?

Almost without exception, the only sort of people who make such ridiculous suggestions have some visceral despise for guns. They hate guns, and they make a point of demonizing gun owners.

I'm not talking about people who simply want more gun control here, I'm actually talking about the gun-haters.

It's not problematic to call a gun-hater a gun-hater.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

59. listening to a pure Hater of any one thing is like a listening through a filter . . .

in other words: consider the source.

I think this is the point that ileus is trying to make.
I could be wrong and do not mean to put words in anyone's mouth.

Just saying that is how I interpreted his comment is all.

[The Doctor.]

60. Oh, I got it.

Yep, that's my intention... aside from strictest curiosity.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

65. mea culpa. n/t

[krispos42]

64. Can? Yes. Will? No.

You as the armed intended victim still have to do your part: keep alert, keep your gun clean and ready to use, know how your gun operates, shoot your gun well, be aware of non-violent options to defuse the situation, have situational awareness, etc. You also have to be willing to use the gun if needed!

Obviously, each attack is different, and your emotional state changes constantly, so a gun cannot be a magic talisman. But violent criminals don't have the speed, stealth, and tactical sense of ninjas. Some of them, in fact, are fucking stupid, and are successful only because of surprise, intimidation, accomplices, speed, and/or policies that tell store clerks to "give them the money".

I was watching TruTV tonight, and a robber in a mask walks into a pharmacy to rob the register. He's completely oblivious to the fact that a cop walked in right behind him. The cop didn't see the mask, of course, (robber was wearing a hoodie) but was standing right behind the robber at the register (probably wanted smokes), realizes there's a robbery when the perp begins grabbing money from the register, and pressed the business end of his sidearm to the back of the robber's skull.

[rl6214]

68. It will only help level the playing field

What, when and how you use it are what makes the difference.

[GreenStormCloud]

69. No. Your statement is too absolute.

You said: That a gun can provide protection under ANY circumstances where an assailant has a gun?

There are obvously going to be some circumstances where the assailant has too strong an edge. However, there will also be many circunstances in which my gun, used with proper tactics, will be able to save me.

[Philippine expat]

76. Nope there are situations where a gun might be of little value

however over all its better to be armed

[Kennah]

79. There are no absolutes. Nothing is perfect.

In the aftermath of shootings where cops get killed, the incidents get discussed and written about, and the people who were there get interviewed again and again. Books, video re-enactments, and with the advent of the dashboard mounted camera, a cop's final moments are coldly captured.

SWAT teams adhere to a standard for their operations that if anyone dies--cop, bystander, victim, or even one of the criminals--then something, somewhere, on some level went wrong and perhaps a lesson can be learned for the future. However, there isn't always a lesson. Sometimes one can do everything right and still something goes wrong.

I don't expect that having a gun will keep me and mine absolutely, positively, 100% safe now and forever more. It's all about me having the opportunity to protect myself and those I love.

Almost 2 years ago, 4 Lakewood cops were murdered less than 10 miles from where I live. The 4 of them were in uniform sitting together at a coffee shop. I still see cops, in uniform, sitting together in coffee shops. Does it mean they are stupid or failed to learn the lesson? No, it's acceptance of reality that shit can go wrong and you could die, even if one has a gun, knows how to use it, is aware of their surroundings, and is prepared to use force if needed.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

80. I certainly don't.

Why do you ask?