Are We All Equiped To Carry, And...

[MatieA]

Most people will never know if they can pull the trigger until it comes down to it. But the will to live generally overcomes all other obstacles, I have never killed anyone in my life, but I have had to shoot someone once before, and hope to never need to do it again. I never though that a friend of mine could ever hurt a fly, but when his daughters life was in danger he was able to pull the trigger and the Perp died. It took him a while to get over it, but every time he started to get depressed thinking about it, his daughter would walk over to him and say "Thank You" and hug him. Until the time comes I don't believe ANY of us will really truly know.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Most people will never know if they can pull the trigger until it comes down to it. But the will to live generally overcomes all other obstacles, I have never killed anyone in my life, but I have had to shoot someone once before, and hope to never need to do it again. I never though that a friend of mine could ever hurt a fly, but when his daughters life was in danger he was able to pull the trigger and the Perp died. It took him a while to get over it, but every time he started to get depressed thinking about it, his daughter would walk over to him and say "Thank You" and hug him. Until the time comes I don't believe ANY of us will really truly know.

+1

 

[MikeTheGreek]

I'm sure many people don't actually believe they'd be able to kill another human being.

Watch how fast almost every one of them changes their minds when it's their life that is about to be ended.

I know I could easily end another humans life, if mine or my families was threatened. I surely wouldn't want to, but it's sometimes necessary.

 

[ron73440]

Are you really a gun owner?

I'm sure there are other possible reasons why you carry a firearm, other than self-defense. Maybe you dig the phallic nature of it...I don't know.

We aren't talking about carrying a firearm to hunt, stick to the context, we are talking about self-defense.

What's most evident in my posts is that I have an uncontrollable urge to bounce posts off someone that would argue with a possum.

The only people I've ever heard talk about the phallic nature of guns or say that gun owners are compensating for something are anti's who have no idea why we own guns or why we are so strongly commited to keeping them.

 

[Aknazer]

So if guns are somehow proportional to a man's junk, does that mean that the man who carries a single-shot .22LR derringer is the man with the biggest package out there

 

[eye95]

The only people I've ever heard talk about the phallic nature of guns or say that gun owners are compensating for something are anti's who have no idea why we own guns or why we are so strongly commited to keeping them.

As usual, an anti, when running out of logic, resorts to irrational insults. And make no mistake, this poster does not believe in the RKBA. She believes in a privilege for a select few people carrying a select few firearms, of which she happens to be one and carries one.

 

[eye95]

So if guns are somehow proportional to a man's junk, does that mean that the man who carries a single-shot .22LR derringer is the man with the biggest package out there

Sometimes I carry a Dan Wesson 5" 1911. Sometimes I carry a subcompact Glock 26. Does this mean that a certain something is changing from time to time?

Her point is to denigrate those putting forth an opposing opinion, not to further discussion. Not surprising.

 

[ron73440]

So I need a longer barrel for when it's cold?

 

[OC for ME]

I'm sure there are other possible reasons why you carry a firearm, other than self-defense. Maybe you dig the phallic nature of it...I don't know.

We aren't talking about carrying a firearm to hunt, stick to the context, we are talking about self-defense.

What's most evident in my posts is that I have an uncontrollable urge to bounce posts off someone that would argue with a possum.

You are talking about self-defense because you frame this discussion from a singular perspective, your perspective. This is typical of liberals. "If you carry a handgun you must be able/willing to shoot someone." Another liberal tactic to limit liberty and to infringe upon our enumerated rights.

Liberals, such as yourself, can not afford to allow discussions re the carry of a handgun by a citizen to anything beyond self-defense. If such were to occur the "gun debate" would be lost for liberals. Liberals are on the record as not desiring to restrict a citizen's right to keep and bear arms for sporting purposes.

I hold conversations with possums and liberals, the former far more infrequently than the later, and find that the possum routinely provides a far more stimulating conversation when compared to a liberal.

 

[OC for ME]

So I need a longer barrel for when it's cold?

Does the barrel shrink when it gets cold?

 

[arentol]

I never stated it is my call. I have had a number of individuals tell me they wanted to get their CC, and buy a firearm, and have asked me, for example, what type of handgun they ought to purchase. The first question out of my mouth is, "Are you willing to shoot another human being if the situation arose?" If they say "no," or seem to have to think about it, I tell them to think about whether or not they will be willing to, then I will help them look over the vast options available for carry and home defense. If they say "no," then I recommend they get a taser, spray, etc.

My main problem I have with this line of thinking is that you don't know what THEY are thinking of when you ask them.

Here are a few things they could be, and likely are, thinking of: The horrible bloody mess and screams of pain. The other persons life and loved ones who will miss them. The legal trouble they might get in. And probably a host of other similar things I can't think of right now.

What you should be doing is asking the people who say yes quickly if they have thought of the above things. Conversely, you should ask the people who say no or hesitate if they have thought of these things:

Watching their loved ones being injured/raped/killed. A stranger entering their home and doing whatever he/she likes. Having a gun pointed at their face. Having to walk away from a stranger who is being beaten or killed because you are powerless to stop it. And again, lots more things I can't think of right now.

And that isn't all they should think about. They should also think about whether they have the self control to NEVER do the wrong thing with a gun. Can they walk away from a fight, an argument, a provocation? If someone says their wife is a worthless low-life c#$&, can they just look at that person, say "you aren't worth it", and walk away? If their daughter comes home from a date and says she was raped by the kid down the block can they contain that rage?

The real way to be sure is for each gun owner to think about all these sorts of things, the good and the bad. THEN decide whether they have what it takes to be a responsible gun owner. Asking only whether someone is willing to shoot someone is asking too incomplete of a question.... This all assuming the person is someone who want's you this involved in the process this deeply. If they are just an acquaintance and ask a simple question then you should stay out of it and answer the question.

 

[OC for ME]

<snip> The real way to be sure is for each gun owner to think about all these sorts of things, the good and the bad. THEN decide whether they have what it takes to be a responsible gun owner. Asking only whether someone is willing to shoot someone is asking too incomplete of a question.... This all assuming the person is someone who want's you this involved in the process this deeply. If they are just an acquaintance and ask a simple question then you should stay out of it and answer the question.

There is a hazard involved with the question posed by the OP.



You may very well run afoul of the "law." There was, not too long ago, a incident where a citizen checked herself into a hospital for a psychiatric evaluation. No judge, no due process. She was visited by LE and her and her husband's firearms were confiscated because she was alleged to have mental health issues.

The question posed in the OP:

Does anyone else here think it's a bad idea for someone to carry if they aren't willing, but most importantly ABLE to use their sidearm for it's intended purpose: To shoot another human being.--or an animal, if necessary?

This question is based on a false premise. The "willingness to shoot someone" be the metric by which the exercise of our enumerated 2A right be measured.

B92FSL and her liberals brethren constantly seek ways to further restrict our 2A right. B92FSL desires a metric for a citizen's willingness to shoot someone. She considers herself qualified to ask the question and then to advise a course of action based on a the answer.

The real question is; who gets to determine a citizen's willingness? The citizen or the "state." B92FSL and her liberal brethren desire the state to be the arbiter of the "willingness" metric.

Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so. - Ronaldus Magnus

 

[Red Dawg]

Does the barrel shrink when it gets cold?

Nah, to compensate for the cold to the human body, the snubnose bug becomes a 454 casull..

 

[ron73440]

As usual, an anti, when running out of logic, resorts to irrational insults. And make no mistake, this poster does not believe in the RKBA. She believes in a privilege for a select few people carrying a select few firearms, of which she happens to be one and carries one.

It makes my brain hurt trying to reconcile how someone who carries can have that thought process.

Honest question Beretta92FSLady, is the only reason you carry the phallic nature or just because you know you are willing to shoot someone? I'm really not following your logic here.

 

[WalkingWolf]

It makes my brain hurt trying to reconcile how someone who carries can have that thought process.

Honest question Beretta92FSLady, is the only reason you carry the phallic nature or just because you know you are willing to shoot someone? I'm really not following your logic here.

As far as I know BL has only shot a man~~Go Figure:uhoh:

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

When I was young, I was taught to treat others as if they were ladies and gentlemen - - at least until they proved otherwise.

Beretta92FSLady may be a "nom de plume" or "she" is flying under "false colors". Whichever it is I feel it is safe to say that "she" is no lady!

If "she" is female, perhaps she is the opposite of a misogynist.

Oh dear, I'm being accused of not being a Lady. Of course I'm not a lady, I'm a dyke, and have mentioned that numerous times. Do you have an issue with dykes?....get over it, it's not your business if I act masculine or feminine. If your up to the challenge of dictating how I'm supposed to act, feel free to give it a try.

If you don't like my political views, the way I OC my sidearm, the way I conduct myself, either do something about it, or mind your own business.

There's no requirement that any person be treated as a lady or Gentlemen. I wouldn't let a subjective line of reasoning dictate how I operate...an neither should you.

Walk, yes, I shot a man...go figure, it was statistically likely that I was going to be attacked by a man...mind you, it was statistically unlikely he was going to run into a female that carried a sidearm...and we both ended up having a bad day. I went to jail for the three days, and was cleared of charges, and he went to surgery, and the ICU because he decided to exercise his history of attacking women, and attacked myself, my wife, and my children....go figure, cause and effect.

Just because I dig women, it has nothing to do with hating men...don't take it so personal. It figures though, a man would take a womans attraction to other women as an affront...as if men own women or something. I have zero pity for any man that attempt to take ownership of me; or any person for that matter...they will get the proper response they deserve.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

It makes my brain hurt trying to reconcile how someone who carries can have that thought process.

Honest question Beretta92FSLady, is the only reason you carry the phallic nature or just because you know you are willing to shoot someone? I'm really not following your logic here.

I know for a fact I'm willing to shoot someone in self-defense.

I didn't claim there was some line of logic to be followed here. Just making an observation, and working through it in my mind, openly.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

*snippers* The "willingness to shoot someone" be the metric by which the exercise of our enumerated 2A right be measured.

*snippers*.

I stated ZERO about the Government regulating, and determining who should carry based on whether they are willing to shoot or not.

Thank you though, for pointing out that one--of the many--metric ought not include that of self-defense. I disagree, but respect your view. Of course, the Second Amendment has nothing to do with self-defense

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

My main problem I have with this line of thinking is that you don't know what THEY are thinking of when you ask them.

*snippers*

Actually, if you made even the crudest attempt at reading what I've posted, I do know what the person who comes to me is thinking, they tell me what they're thinking, duh, get a clue.

When a person comes to me, and asks me what type of sidearm I recommend for carry, I have a pretty good idea that they are interested in carrying a sidearm--one of many reasons--for self defense.

Any person on here that claims the reasons they carry a sidearm does not include self-defense, well, they're full of BS.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Oh dear, I'm being accused of not being a Lady. Of course I'm not a lady, I'm a dyke, and have mentioned that numerous times. Do you have an issue with dykes?....get over it, it's not your business if I act masculine or feminine. If your up to the challenge of dictating how I'm supposed to act, feel free to give it a try.

If you don't like my political views, the way I OC my sidearm, the way I conduct myself, either do something about it, or mind your own business.

There's no requirement that any person be treated as a lady or Gentlemen. I wouldn't let a subjective line of reasoning dictate how I operate...an neither should you.

Walk, yes, I shot a man...go figure, it was statistically likely that I was going to be attacked by a man...mind you, it was statistically unlikely he was going to run into a female that carried a sidearm...and we both ended up having a bad day. I went to jail for the three days, and was cleared of charges, and he went to surgery, and the ICU because he decided to exercise his history of attacking women, and attacked myself, my wife, and my children....go figure, cause and effect.

Just because I dig women, it has nothing to do with hating men...don't take it so personal. It figures though, a man would take a womans attraction to other women as an affront...as if men own women or something. I have zero pity for any man that attempt to take ownership of me; or any person for that matter...they will get the proper response they deserve.

+1 now take that reasoning and apply it to every individual and the right not to be owned or have their actions dictated by others......, ................individual rights.......