What kind of horrible, dangerous places do these people live that hey have to go out armed?

[Ray From Cleveland]

I will answer the OP's question "What kind of horrible, dangerous places do these people live that they have to go out armed?"

I live in a rural are where my closest neighbor is over a thousand yards away. I live close to a main highway that goes to a city with a population of 254,000 sixty miles west of me, and and a city of 55,000 sixty miles to the east. The larger city is a pass-through point for the drug trade that comes out of Chicago.

There are many coyotes, wolves, even bears and wild hogs throughout the countryside. I also go to alot of auction and estate sales, so I tend to keep between $800-$1,000 in my wallet.

My County Sheriff is also a strong pro-Second Amendment guy and I've heard him say this more than once: He is happy that this state passed the concealed carry law back in 2011, and appreciates those citizens who carry every day. He also said that his officers are stretched pretty thin, have a lot of ground to cover, and people should carry because his officers can't be everywhere at the same time.

He's also good enough to call me when his officers are training or qualifying at the County gun range, so I can have all the brass afterward.

Those are my reasons. If they're not good enough for you, sorry: I don't know what else to tell you, except "get over it."

My neighborhood went to hell especially during the housing bubble. Lowlifes from the projects were moving into our suburbs. One year I had three murders all within a mile of my home. It got so bad I started to take my gun with me outside just to sit in the backyard by the fire. That's when I decided to get my carry license.

I used to belong to a dart league, and one time the Cleveland Police team came to play at our bar. I figured it was the best opportunity I had to ask officers how they felt about me getting my license. Surprisingly, they were behind it, although they warned me some of their coworkers really didn't like it at all; it was still pretty new at the time.

One officer admitted that they get to a crime scene some time after a crime is committed. When they look for somebody and have a hunch, they have to run through backyards at night, through alleys, he said you never know when it's going to be your last chase.

It would be so much easier he said if I went to a robbery scene and the victim took care of the problem. All he would have to do is write a report and let the detectives worry about the rest.

 

[JGalt]

Story Time is fun!

Dammit man! Now you made me have to dig through my gun safe.

A 1920's Belgian-made LePage in 7.65mm. Probably used by the Belgian police or military, but no markings on the holster. Quite rare and pretty danged accurate: Shoots 2" groups offhand at 25 yards...

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I don't think "flagging" is reasonable or legal.
You can't take guns from someone without creating a 2 tiered society, or those with full rights and those with less than that.
If someone is dangerous and can be proven to be dangerous in court, than a judge should issue a warrant for his arrest, not for his legal guns. All that is going to do is ensure he will obtain illegal guns and do what they were concerned with.
Confiscating legal guns does not at all reduce the ability to get illegal ones any more than the War on Drugs eliminated illegal drugs.
The only hope of society is to lock up bad people, not all the possible means by which they could do bad, because that obviously is impossible.

I don't mean flagging literally. I mean once it has been determined or discovered that a firearm owner has become a prohibited person. For example in the case that I cited, the workplace shooter WAS a prohibited person who apparently was not honest on one of the forms that he was required to fill out. However once the discrepency was discovered via a federal background check to my understanding, instead of confiscating his weapon or issuing a warrant for failure to comply with a surrender order, they instead relied on him to voluntarily surrender his weapons.

In my state, if person who owns firearms has a protection order taken out against them (also known as a no contact/restraining order in some jurisdiction), they're required to turn in their weapons but in many cases no one follows up to see if they actually do.

Here's a flowchart of the domestic violence circumstances under which a person can be required to surrender their firearms but apparently except in very few cases, no one is enforcing the requirement

https://wscadv.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/order-to-surrender-flowchart.pdf​

Ok, but my point is that it likely is not rational or legal to make second class citizens out of people who are not incarcerated or wards of the state.
It is not going to stop them from committing crimes, by making legal weapons access illegal. If they intend crimes more serious then the weapons violations, you can be they will then just get the arms illegally.
If a person is dangerous, then prove it in court and lock them up or put them under supervision.
Nothing else makes any sense and is just bound to increase the problem grseatly.

Maybe you can walk me through this?

We have laws that say that a prohibited person cannot lawfully possess firearms, yet we don't enforce them (utilizing the honor system is the same as not enforceing them for the most part) yet we have a certain faction of society that is constantly clamoring for additional and more restrictive laws surrounding the right to keep & bear arms.

There is a real problem with real people involved in violent criminal activity, yet instead of concentrating on them, they instead keep going after people who are lawful gun owners, essentially creating a new group of people who have never used their weapons to harm anyone, but were instead just suddenly legislatively made into criminals.

This makes no sense to me and I suspect that the people doing this know that it makes no sense but just don't care because they want someone to pay for the suffering that they've experienced even if the people they're going after are not responsible for their suffering.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't think "flagging" is reasonable or legal.
You can't take guns from someone without creating a 2 tiered society, or those with full rights and those with less than that.
If someone is dangerous and can be proven to be dangerous in court, than a judge should issue a warrant for his arrest, not for his legal guns. All that is going to do is ensure he will obtain illegal guns and do what they were concerned with.
Confiscating legal guns does not at all reduce the ability to get illegal ones any more than the War on Drugs eliminated illegal drugs.
The only hope of society is to lock up bad people, not all the possible means by which they could do bad, because that obviously is impossible.

I don't mean flagging literally. I mean once it has been determined or discovered that a firearm owner has become a prohibited person. For example in the case that I cited, the workplace shooter WAS a prohibited person who apparently was not honest on one of the forms that he was required to fill out. However once the discrepency was discovered via a federal background check to my understanding, instead of confiscating his weapon or issuing a warrant for failure to comply with a surrender order, they instead relied on him to voluntarily surrender his weapons.

In my state, if person who owns firearms has a protection order taken out against them (also known as a no contact/restraining order in some jurisdiction), they're required to turn in their weapons but in many cases no one follows up to see if they actually do.

Here's a flowchart of the domestic violence circumstances under which a person can be required to surrender their firearms but apparently except in very few cases, no one is enforcing the requirement

https://wscadv.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/order-to-surrender-flowchart.pdf​

Ok, but my point is that it likely is not rational or legal to make second class citizens out of people who are not incarcerated or wards of the state.
It is not going to stop them from committing crimes, by making legal weapons access illegal. If they intend crimes more serious then the weapons violations, you can be they will then just get the arms illegally.
If a person is dangerous, then prove it in court and lock them up or put them under supervision.
Nothing else makes any sense and is just bound to increase the problem grseatly.

Maybe you can walk me through this?

We have laws that say that a prohibited person cannot lawfully possess firearms, yet we don't enforce them (utilizing the honor system is the same as not enforceing them for the most part) yet we have a certain faction of society that is constantly clamoring for additional and more restrictive laws surrounding the right to keep & bear arms.

There is a real problem with real people involved in violent criminal activity, yet instead of concentrating on them, they instead keep going after people who are lawful gun owners, essentially creating a new group of people who have never used their weapons to harm anyone, but were instead just suddenly legislatively made into criminals.

This makes no sense to me and I suspect that the people doing this know that it makes no sense but just don't care because they want someone to pay for the suffering that they've experienced even if the people they're going after are not responsible for their suffering.

I and others have stated this earlier in the thread, but Democrats don't care about us owning guns. What bothers them is that we have the ability to defend ourselves with them.

Democrats rely on government dependents. If they were ever to strip our rights to gun ownership, that would leave us with a society where only the criminals and cops have firearms. That would make the rest of us victims since we couldn't defend ourselves.

We would have to rely on government for protection which as we all know, would be a complete failure. If we ever evolved into a society where people didn't "need" government, the only time you'd hear of the Democrat party is in history books.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Do not count Military nor Professional Security. Most of these people can relate to either no matter what they claim.

I am neither. I am a private citizen and have always been. I just was also a serious firearms competitor, and fencer, and that introduced me to many people in the Spec Ops community. Earnest Emerson, Bill Bagwell and i are on a first name basis, and have been for decades. It was through my friendship with Bagwell that I got the gig to train the Green Berets.

Stress training is different than weapons training. It doesn't matter how much time on a range you spend.

Not true. The more you train, the more muscle memory you develop, which in turn improves your performance when the chips are down. Stress training helps you make better DECISIONS, it doesn't help you implement those decisions.

I know how it's done with the Military. It's more than just hitting a target. You also have to be able to operate under stress with your metabolism running wild. Here is a civilian course. This instructor makes sense. Combat troops get this type of training and go into combat where they have a high degree of situational awareness. It's no different on the street.

Like I said, stress training helps you make better decisions, fast, firearms training, when done properly, your reactions are automatic. I trained a Marine who was being sent to FAST, after he got back from Somalia he rang me up and thanked me for the drills i had done with him. He was involved in a firefight, and after the fight was over he was amazed to see how many magazines he had gone through. He was so involved in the fight, that everything was completely automatic, even clearing a jam was done without conscious thought. He was only aware of the clearance when the team were debriefing and the XO wanted to know what caused the jam. The Marine I had trained said "what jam?"

I had made him do over 3,000 clearance drills, which at the time he HATED. Afterwards he was thankful as hell.

You gave him the weapon proficiency training. The Marines gave him the combat stress training. I would rather have a person that is less proficient with his weapon but 100% proficient in combat stress than the other way around. Only a combat Vet or maybe a swat team member would understand this. I can see you aren't going to undersand. This is probably a good thing. Sillyvillians should NEVER be in the situation to have to undersant it every day of their lives.

 

[Oldstyle]

I carry because the laws of my country and state say I have the right to.

Sorry, but if you think you need to be armed at a little girl's soft ball game, you're nuts.

If one of those little girls is yours and you feel responsible for her safety then why is it "nuts" to carry a concealed weapon? Let me guess, Bulldog...you're one of those naïve people who thinks that the Police will protect you from the crazies?

I'm one of those people who think the craziest among us shouldn't be allowed to have guns, and certainly shouldn't be allowed to prance around with one just to make a fashion statement.

What does that have to do with someone who's completely sane and completely law abiding having the right to carry a firearm to protect themselves and their loved ones?

Go back and read the posts by gun nuts here, especially that galt nut, and tell me they aren't too crazy and hoping for a confrontation to be armed

You don't have to be "crazy" to be concerned about what will happen if you DO have a confrontation with a violent person who wants to do you or your loved ones harm, Bulldog! I don't carry because I'm LOOKING for a confrontation...I carry because I want to be ready if one comes looking for me! I understand that the Police can't protect us from violent criminals. They might or might not bring them to justice after the fact but that's not much comfort if you've been killed or someone you love has been killed. It's my belief that I have a responsibility as an adult to be able to protect myself and those I love to the best of my abilities. And if I just so happen to be in a location that has an active mass shooter killing people then I might be the person who saves your life or the life of someone you love!

 

[Rigby5]

This video is instructive and entertaining.

 

[flacaltenn]

I carry because the laws of my country and state say I have the right to.

do you do everything that your country and state say you have the right to do?

No.. But I'd LIKE TO...


And that list of options should always be kept as long as possible.... AMIRITE?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I carry because the laws of my country and state say I have the right to.

do you do everything that your country and state say you have the right to do?

No.. But I'd LIKE TO...


And that list of options should always be kept as long as possible.... AMIRITE?

The problem, of course, is that conservatives aren’t consistent with that list.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I have lived nearly 70 years and not once ever have I thought that having a gun would have made my situation better or safer.

You men who are out shooting every week. How many times have you used that gun in self defence?

I have used my gun in self defense three times. Once with a rifle, and the other two times with my handgun. Both times with my handgun were when I was younger, and I didn't need to shoot the guys, they figured out that it would be real bad for them to continue, so they stopped.

Do not count Military nor Professional Security. Most of these people can relate to either no matter what they claim.

I am neither. I am a private citizen and have always been. I just was also a serious firearms competitor, and fencer, and that introduced me to many people in the Spec Ops community. Earnest Emerson, Bill Bagwell and i are on a first name basis, and have been for decades. It was through my friendship with Bagwell that I got the gig to train the Green Berets.

Stress training is different than weapons training. It doesn't matter how much time on a range you spend.

Not true. The more you train, the more muscle memory you develop, which in turn improves your performance when the chips are down. Stress training helps you make better DECISIONS, it doesn't help you implement those decisions.

Which applies to a tiny miniscule of gun owners – the vast majority of whom have no idea what to expect or how to use a gun for self-defense.

This doesn’t mean, of course, that citizens shouldn’t exercise their right to carry firearms; it does mean, however, that gun owners should be aware of their extensive limitations and use a firearm for self-defense only in response to an imminent and deadly threat, not to act as ‘law enforcement,’ or to otherwise ‘fight crime.’

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I carry because the laws of my country and state say I have the right to.

Sorry, but if you think you need to be armed at a little girl's soft ball game, you're nuts.

Well sure, but let's ask Steve Scalise.

This is one of the more tedious examples of rightwing stupidity and sophistry.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And they have a hand gun which is a real defense against an AR-15, huh? And so far, how many of those armed teachers have had to be in an actual shoot out with someone with an AR-15, which seems to be the weapon of choice for mass shooters.

ETA: Very few, if any would face that kind of gunman if the truth be known. And neither would any of you here either no matter how much you puff yourselves up and imagine yourselves as the hero who goes in and saves the day. You'd be as dead as a door nail when the shooter saw the gun in your hand.

Thanks for the advice. I'll start carrying an AR-15 from now on, instead.

Gonna need to get a longer coat though.

That won't make your dick get any bigger, so don't waste your money.

My dick is plenty big enough and I'm not "compensating" by carrying a firearm. If I could reach out to a hundred yards and smack some idiot criminal upside the head with my dick, I wouldn't need a gun. So I carry one because..

1. Because I can.

2. Because I do.

3. Because I will.

4 Because there isn't one single thing you have to say about it.

5. Because there isn't a single thing you can do about it.

6. Because GFY.

I don't give two shits if you carry a gun or not, trust me. Or, if you have pepper spray or a knife. What I do find funny is how you think you need to arm yourself so much in your paranoid mind. If you ever came up against a 6'4" black man who was hell bent on harming you, all of that would be useless because he would snap you in two before you even knew what was happening. and if you ever came up on an actual shooter, you'd probably pee in your pants while trying to find a place to hide. False bravado is just that...false here on the internet, and much different in real life. People like you fancy themselves as heroes and concoct all kinds of scenarios in their minds as to what they would do, but if the actual situation arose, would react so totally different. But keep up your fantasy if that's what gets you though the day and night.

People legally defend their lives with a firearm every day. Yet the media doesn't want you to know that.

NRA-ILA | Armed Citizen®

“the media”

lol

More rightwing ignorance, stupidity, and sophistry.

There is no ‘conspiracy’ by ‘the media’ to not report cases where citizens defend themselves with guns.

The fact is such cases are exceedingly rare, there’s simply very little to ‘report’:

“The latest data show that people use guns for self-defense only rarely. According to a Harvard University analysis of figures from the National Crime Victimization Survey, people defended themselves with a gun in nearly 0.9 percent of crimes from 2007 to 2011.”

How Often Do People Use Guns In Self-Defense?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And who's fault is that?

Yours.

I see you are still unable to admit to any responsibility. It's every citizens fault. So stand up here with me, shoulder to shoulder and accept the blame like a Man or a Woman.

No it's not my fault I haven't voted anything but 3rd party for 20 years

Doing a throwaway vote is worse than not voting at all.

So it's the old catch 22.

If I vote for incumbents or anyone from the two major established parties I'm not doing anything to change the system and if I vote for a third party I'm throwing away a vote and doing nothing to change the system

So tell me why I should vote at all

In more than 40 years of voting, voting at least once every two years, I’ve never voted ‘for’ anyone – only against.

Most Americans have made peace with the lesser of two evils nature of American politics.

 

[hadit]

I have used my gun in self defense three times. Once with a rifle, and the other two times with my handgun. Both times with my handgun were when I was younger, and I didn't need to shoot the guys, they figured out that it would be real bad for them to continue, so they stopped.

Do not count Military nor Professional Security. Most of these people can relate to either no matter what they claim.

I am neither. I am a private citizen and have always been. I just was also a serious firearms competitor, and fencer, and that introduced me to many people in the Spec Ops community. Earnest Emerson, Bill Bagwell and i are on a first name basis, and have been for decades. It was through my friendship with Bagwell that I got the gig to train the Green Berets.

Stress training is different than weapons training. It doesn't matter how much time on a range you spend.

Not true. The more you train, the more muscle memory you develop, which in turn improves your performance when the chips are down. Stress training helps you make better DECISIONS, it doesn't help you implement those decisions.

Which applies to a tiny miniscule of gun owners – the vast majority of whom have no idea what to expect or how to use a gun for self-defense.

This doesn’t mean, of course, that citizens shouldn’t exercise their right to carry firearms; it does mean, however, that gun owners should be aware of their extensive limitations and use a firearm for self-defense only in response to an imminent and deadly threat, not to act as ‘law enforcement,’ or to otherwise ‘fight crime.’

Which is exactly what they do. The vast majority of guns never harm a person, and the vast majority of gun owners never shoot another human being.

The vigilantes are very few and far between.

 

[Dragonlady]

Do not count Military nor Professional Security. Most of these people can relate to either no matter what they claim.

I am neither. I am a private citizen and have always been. I just was also a serious firearms competitor, and fencer, and that introduced me to many people in the Spec Ops community. Earnest Emerson, Bill Bagwell and i are on a first name basis, and have been for decades. It was through my friendship with Bagwell that I got the gig to train the Green Berets.

Stress training is different than weapons training. It doesn't matter how much time on a range you spend.

Not true. The more you train, the more muscle memory you develop, which in turn improves your performance when the chips are down. Stress training helps you make better DECISIONS, it doesn't help you implement those decisions.

Which applies to a tiny miniscule of gun owners – the vast majority of whom have no idea what to expect or how to use a gun for self-defense.

This doesn’t mean, of course, that citizens shouldn’t exercise their right to carry firearms; it does mean, however, that gun owners should be aware of their extensive limitations and use a firearm for self-defense only in response to an imminent and deadly threat, not to act as ‘law enforcement,’ or to otherwise ‘fight crime.’

Which is exactly what they do. The vast majority of guns never harm a person, and the vast majority of gun owners never shoot another human being.

The vigilantes are very few and far between.

Then why have guns at all, if you're not using them for hunting or because you live on a farm?

 

[Oldstyle]

Thanks for the advice. I'll start carrying an AR-15 from now on, instead.

Gonna need to get a longer coat though.

That won't make your dick get any bigger, so don't waste your money.

My dick is plenty big enough and I'm not "compensating" by carrying a firearm. If I could reach out to a hundred yards and smack some idiot criminal upside the head with my dick, I wouldn't need a gun. So I carry one because..

1. Because I can.

2. Because I do.

3. Because I will.

4 Because there isn't one single thing you have to say about it.

5. Because there isn't a single thing you can do about it.

6. Because GFY.

I don't give two shits if you carry a gun or not, trust me. Or, if you have pepper spray or a knife. What I do find funny is how you think you need to arm yourself so much in your paranoid mind. If you ever came up against a 6'4" black man who was hell bent on harming you, all of that would be useless because he would snap you in two before you even knew what was happening. and if you ever came up on an actual shooter, you'd probably pee in your pants while trying to find a place to hide. False bravado is just that...false here on the internet, and much different in real life. People like you fancy themselves as heroes and concoct all kinds of scenarios in their minds as to what they would do, but if the actual situation arose, would react so totally different. But keep up your fantasy if that's what gets you though the day and night.

People legally defend their lives with a firearm every day. Yet the media doesn't want you to know that.

NRA-ILA | Armed Citizen®

“the media”

lol

More rightwing ignorance, stupidity, and sophistry.

There is no ‘conspiracy’ by ‘the media’ to not report cases where citizens defend themselves with guns.

The fact is such cases are exceedingly rare, there’s simply very little to ‘report’:

“The latest data show that people use guns for self-defense only rarely. According to a Harvard University analysis of figures from the National Crime Victimization Survey, people defended themselves with a gun in nearly 0.9 percent of crimes from 2007 to 2011.”

How Often Do People Use Guns In Self-Defense?

With all due respect, Clayton...the Harvard study that NPR cites has a major flaw in it's basic premise and that's their belief that guns only prevent crimes if someone shoots at someone who's committing one! The fact of the matter is that the possibility that someone is carrying a weapon makes them less of a target for a criminal and if you were to make concealed carry illegal then criminals would be emboldened to target far more people than they already do! Home invasions are rare in areas where homeowners typically have firearms. Why? Because those committing the home invasion run the very real risk of being shot and killed and they know it!

 

[Pilot1]

The Media is controlled by the Far Left, as is social media ant tech,. Google admits that Silicon Valley is far left Democrat. The media omits anything that doesn't fit their leftists agenda, or the under report it. People legally use firearms all the time to defend their lives, and their families.

 

[Pilot1]

Also, many times when a criminal is confronted with a gun, they run away. No shots are fired so it doesn't get reported. That is a very common scenario that the left won't acknowledge because they are liars.

 

[Blues Man]

Yours.

I see you are still unable to admit to any responsibility. It's every citizens fault. So stand up here with me, shoulder to shoulder and accept the blame like a Man or a Woman.

No it's not my fault I haven't voted anything but 3rd party for 20 years

Doing a throwaway vote is worse than not voting at all.

So it's the old catch 22.

If I vote for incumbents or anyone from the two major established parties I'm not doing anything to change the system and if I vote for a third party I'm throwing away a vote and doing nothing to change the system

So tell me why I should vote at all

You vote on the local level in the party. You make changes at the local level which, if done enough, will change the national level. Too many people blindly follow, vote 3rd party which draws votes away from the other candidate or don't vote at all. So the small room full of white haired old guys gets to choose for you.

So you want me to vote the way you tell me to?

If you want to change the system you change it first at the local level where third party candidates have more of a chance you don't keep voting for the same two parties locally as you are only continuing the same old 2 party corruption we have now

 

[hadit]

I am neither. I am a private citizen and have always been. I just was also a serious firearms competitor, and fencer, and that introduced me to many people in the Spec Ops community. Earnest Emerson, Bill Bagwell and i are on a first name basis, and have been for decades. It was through my friendship with Bagwell that I got the gig to train the Green Berets.

Stress training is different than weapons training. It doesn't matter how much time on a range you spend.

Not true. The more you train, the more muscle memory you develop, which in turn improves your performance when the chips are down. Stress training helps you make better DECISIONS, it doesn't help you implement those decisions.

Which applies to a tiny miniscule of gun owners – the vast majority of whom have no idea what to expect or how to use a gun for self-defense.

This doesn’t mean, of course, that citizens shouldn’t exercise their right to carry firearms; it does mean, however, that gun owners should be aware of their extensive limitations and use a firearm for self-defense only in response to an imminent and deadly threat, not to act as ‘law enforcement,’ or to otherwise ‘fight crime.’

Which is exactly what they do. The vast majority of guns never harm a person, and the vast majority of gun owners never shoot another human being.

The vigilantes are very few and far between.

Then why have guns at all, if you're not using them for hunting or because you live on a farm?

Why buy life insurance when you're young? The vast majority will never use it.

Target shooting is fun. Skeet shooting is fun. Collecting is fun. There are a lot of reasons why people own guns. Self defense is an important, but far from the only, reason.