Are We All Equiped To Carry, And...

[Beretta92FSLady]

+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.......

I get what you're stating. As I stated, though, it sounds good on paper. In application, it's not practical, efficient, realistic, unfortunately. I don't like all Government, hell, most Government I hate...but I would rather work within the oppressive confines of Government than the swift whim of a group of people that mobilize to agress toward me.

Not all actions are the same, and so ought not be treated the same. Your aggressive action ought to be brought under some degree of control by the coercive presence of Government.--not that that's the only coercive presence. That's not the same as your wanting to grow a vegetable garden in your front yard, and the Government telling you you can't.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I get what you're stating. As I stated, though, it sounds good on paper. In application, it's not practical, efficient, realistic, unfortunately. I don't like all Government, hell, most Government I hate...but I would rather work within the oppressive confines of Government than the swift whim of a group of people that mobilize to agress toward me.

Not all actions are the same, and so ought not be treated the same. Your aggressive action ought to be brought under some degree of control by the coercive presence of Government.--not that that's the only coercive presence. That's not the same as your wanting to grow a vegetable garden in your front yard, and the Government telling you you can't.

I beg to differ, it's your front yard, just like your body and your family are yours you had the right to ride the bus and not be threatened, you had the right to walk on the sidewalk and not be threatened.

You should have the right not to be killed because you want to plant a garden in your front yard. They say you can't, you refuse; they fine you; you don't pay, they issue a summons; you don't go; they come with guns to get you; you resist, they kill you.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

I beg to differ,

You?...noooooo

it's your front yard, just like your body and your family are yours you had the right to ride the bus and not be threatened, you had the right to walk on the sidewalk and not be threatened.

You should have the right not to be killed because you want to plant a garden in your front yard. They say you can't, you refuse; they fine you; you don't pay, they issue a summons; you don't go; they come with guns to get you; you resist, they kill you.

No. Your front yard is not like your body...your family is not like your body. There is your consciousness, then all things that extend outside of it.

You have zero Rights, in application. I don't agree with your Idealism. I don't agree that fundamental views extend beyond paper, necessarily.

You ought to have a right not to be killed, but you don't.

Let go of this undying need you have for control...even the sense of control. You have little control. I like you, seriously, and I'm telling you that you have very little control. Take the little control you do have, and do something constructive with it.

 

[compmanio365]

Only a liberal could talk so much and say so very little, yet elicit so much contempt from such little substance.

Anyways, I've had this discussion before, as the OP's question is worth talking about, even if from them it is a thinly veiled attempt to troll.....I would never tell someone they MUST do anything before buying a firearm and carrying it, but I would ENCOURAGE them to at least sit down and think about that question before beginning to carry. Buy the firearm, practice with it, keep it at home for self defense. But until you know you are willing to put the sights on center mass and pull the trigger on another living, breathing human being with a soul, for better or worse, it is a liability to carry it when you aren't sure if you will do what is necessary when the time comes, and by being out and about in public, you raise your chances of having to use that weapon in self defense.

If you do not pull that trigger when the time comes, there is a chance that the BG will not run away, but will instead take your gun from you and use it on you instead. If you aren't willing to kill, the criminal will probably pick up on this lack of conviction in your body language and your assertiveness. Your gun is not to scare or intimidate. Your gun is to protect life and limb by taking the same from the person who attempts to take it from you. You must believe, and make your attacker believe, that you WILL pull that trigger if forced to do so.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Only a liberal could talk so much and say so very little, yet elicit so much contempt from such little substance.

Anyways, I've had this discussion before, as the OP's question is worth talking about, even if from them it is a thinly veiled attempt to troll.....I would never tell someone they MUST do anything before buying a firearm and carrying it, but I would ENCOURAGE them to at least sit down and think about that question before beginning to carry. Buy the firearm, practice with it, keep it at home for self defense. But until you know you are willing to put the sights on center mass and pull the trigger on another living, breathing human being with a soul, for better or worse, it is a liability to carry it when you aren't sure if you will do what is necessary when the time comes, and by being out and about in public, you raise your chances of having to use that weapon in self defense.

If you do not pull that trigger when the time comes, there is a chance that the BG will not run away, but will instead take your gun from you and use it on you instead. If you aren't willing to kill, the criminal will probably pick up on this lack of conviction in your body language and your assertiveness. Your gun is not to scare or intimidate. Your gun is to protect life and limb by taking the same from the person who attempts to take it from you. You must believe, and make your attacker believe, that you WILL pull that trigger if forced to do so.

Thank you for the post. Apparently, you're the only one who agrees with me, that it's a liability to carry a firearm and not use it when the time necessitates it.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

I realize I'm coming into the discussion late, but I pretty much agree with where the OP was originally headed.

I believe that if you do not sincerely believe and consciously decide every time you strap on your firearm that you are willing to, without hesitation, pull the trigger of that firearm with the intent of stopping an attacker, knowing full well that it will likely end the attacker's life, then you should probably take that firearm right back off.

That does NOT mean that I believe anyone has the right to keep you from carrying that firearm, regardless of your willingness to use it. I believe it's bad for you, but I'm not your momma.

As far as the idea that some people are naturally passive, well, that's absolutely true. Some people are pacifists. I knew someone that flat out told me that they wouldn't take another person's life to defend their own, and they might not want me to either (take another person's life to defend theirs). Do I believe that person should carry a gun? No. Obviously they probably aren't going to, but, that's beside the point. On the flip side, I would most definitely consider myself a naturally passive person, but I don't believe I would hesitate to defend myself. However, I will go on to say that I believe the only reason I wouldn't have that hesitation is forethought. I've already decided ahead of time how to react. If it weren't for that, I probably would hesitate to pull the trigger. I must train myself to defend myself, whereas for another person it may be their natural reaction. Course, I think that anyone carrying should train, regardless of what their natural reaction would be.

Sorry for rambling. Hopefully that's coherent enough to extract my points

 

[OC for ME]

We "all" project upon others what we believe should be the normal thought process that should accompany the exercise of our 2A right. The posts in this thread attest to this. I too used to project but I now understand that the right to carry is not limited to self-defense and thus I must remind myself to wait for the relevant question to be asked. If it is not asked I do not answer the question not asked.

The OP raises a very important issue for any citizen who decides to carry. Unfortunately the OP answered a question that was not asked.

On a side note, we do have a right to not be killed, the problem arises when another attempts to infringe upon that right.

And, your property is just like your body, just cuz da government don't think that it is does not make the statement untrue.

This is the fundamental problem with liberals, they believe that rights are a illusion and thus our rights are, and should be, subject to government oversight.

 

[arentol]

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.

You COMPLETELY missed my point. I mean 100% missed it. Your response has absolutely nothing at all to do with what I said, and is in fact just a reiteration of your prior statement that I quoted and was saying was insufficient to the claimed task.

If you can't understand my response then I seriously doubt you have what it takes to understand others who come to you with questions about firearms.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

You COMPLETELY missed my point. I mean 100% missed it. Your response has absolutely nothing at all to do with what I said, and is in fact just a reiteration of your prior statement that I quoted and was saying was insufficient to the claimed task.

If you can't understand my response then I seriously doubt you have what it takes to understand others who come to you with questions about firearms.

I got my scroll on. Nope, didn't miss your point.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

We "all" project upon others what we believe should be the normal thought process that should accompany the exercise of our 2A right. The posts in this thread attest to this. I too used to project but I now understand that the right to carry is not limited to self-defense and thus I must remind myself to wait for the relevant question to be asked. If it is not asked I do not answer the question not asked.

The OP raises a very important issue for any citizen who decides to carry. Unfortunately the OP answered a question that was not asked.

On a side note, we do have a right to not be killed, the problem arises when another attempts to infringe upon that right.

And, your property is just like your body, just cuz da government don't think that it is does not make the statement untrue.

This is the fundamental problem with liberals, they believe that rights are a illusion and thus our rights are, and should be, subject to government oversight.

I won't speak for other gun-toting Progressive Liberals, other than myself: Rights are actually Privileges; Notions of non tangible Fundamental Truths are a construct of the human mind...and do not extend beyond it in application.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

I realize I'm coming into the discussion late, but I pretty much agree with where the OP was originally headed.

I believe that if you do not sincerely believe and consciously decide every time you strap on your firearm that you are willing to, without hesitation, pull the trigger of that firearm with the intent of stopping an attacker, knowing full well that it will likely end the attacker's life, then you should probably take that firearm right back off.

That does NOT mean that I believe anyone has the right to keep you from carrying that firearm, regardless of your willingness to use it. I believe it's bad for you, but I'm not your momma.

As far as the idea that some people are naturally passive, well, that's absolutely true. Some people are pacifists. I knew someone that flat out told me that they wouldn't take another person's life to defend their own, and they might not want me to either (take another person's life to defend theirs). Do I believe that person should carry a gun? No. Obviously they probably aren't going to, but, that's beside the point. On the flip side, I would most definitely consider myself a naturally passive person, but I don't believe I would hesitate to defend myself. However, I will go on to say that I believe the only reason I wouldn't have that hesitation is forethought. I've already decided ahead of time how to react. If it weren't for that, I probably would hesitate to pull the trigger. I must train myself to defend myself, whereas for another person it may be their natural reaction. Course, I think that anyone carrying should train, regardless of what their natural reaction would be.

Sorry for rambling. Hopefully that's coherent enough to extract my points

I agree with your response. Be careful with that sort of processing of ideas on here, it can get you in trouble.

 

[Polynikes]

Here's a good, quick read on self-defense and the "combat mindset" that I think is relevant here:

http://modernserviceweapons.com/?p=2330

It's all a matter of preparation. Am I more convinced today that I am willing and able to defend me and my family than I was when I first started carrying years ago? Absolutely.

 

[Gil223]

I won't speak for other gun-toting Progressive Liberals, other than myself: Rights are actually Privileges; Notions of non tangible Fundamental Truths are a construct of the human mind...and do not extend beyond it in application.

Laws and civilization itself are "constructs of the human mind." There's nothing particularly profound about your observation. But the right to protect one's life - or to stop someone else from the unlawful taking of a human life - is a "fundamental truth". "Privileges" are bestowed by one's master, and free people have no master. Apparently, in your world there are "masters", and from the liberal noises that you make, you have acquiesced to have one.

 

[MyWifeSaidYes]

When I was single, I was certain I would defend myself adequately if and when needed. I did believe I could take another's life if I had to. I did not carry frequently, let alone daily.

After I was married, I became much more protective of what I had. I would not hesitate to defend my wife or myself. She was not 'into' guns, but I carried much more often.

After we had children, I found a certain zeal to my protectiveness, but now the wife didn't want guns around the kids. My guns stayed in the safe, a lot. I did start acquiring more and more sharp-edged objects to carry around, a lot.

After some issues with a neighbor and being chased out of our community by his actions, well, I carry every day, including in the home. I open carry because I don't want to have to guess which roll of fat my gun is hiding under. Not only am I able, I am willing.

I do NOT want to shoot anybody (although certain political...nevermind ), but if anybody comes to do harm to me or mine, they will be shot, stabbed, perforated, sliced, diced, set on fire, have a dog sicced on them, kicked in the shins, bitten on the nose (possibly by the dog, not really sure), and they MIGHT even have 911 called on them.

Willing. Able. Committed.

 

[OC for ME]

The results of the discharge of my firearm for the purposes of self-defense are irrelevant to me. that thought does not cross my mind from a moral perspective or as a intellectual exercise.

The only issue for me is that I am convinced that I will act to defend me and mine regardless of the tool available, or no tool available at all.

 

[DamonK]

The results of the discharge of my firearm for the purposes of self-defense are irrelevant to me. that thought does not cross my mind from a moral perspective or as a intellectual exercise.

The only issue for me is that I am convinced that I will act to defend me and mine regardless of the tool available, or no tool available at all.

Exactly! When I work with new carriers I always coach them to focus on stopping the attack by any means nessicary. If that means resorting to your fire arm then there is no hesitation or moral qualms. There is simple a mechanical function being put into place by the human instinct to survive. You don't think about killing someone. You focus(very different from thinking) on stopping the attack. While I do agree that there are folks out there that may not possess a survival instinct or have repressed it, I believe that that can be trained away. However, that does take a lot of time.

Should everyone carry? Probably not. Do I have a problem with them carrying without the ability to use their firearm when needed? Not at all. Same as the knucklehead driving down the road in his lifted jeep that will never ever go off road. It's not affecting me, so it's none of my business.

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk 2

 

[WalkingWolf]

Exactly! When I work with new carriers I always coach them to focus on stopping the attack by any means nessicary. If that means resorting to your fire arm then there is no hesitation or moral qualms. There is simple a mechanical function being put into place by the human instinct to survive. You don't think about killing someone. You focus(very different from thinking) on stopping the attack. While I do agree that there are folks out there that may not possess a survival instinct or have repressed it, I believe that that can be trained away. However, that does take a lot of time.

Should everyone carry? Probably not. Do I have a problem with them carrying without the ability to use their firearm when needed? Not at all. Same as the knucklehead driving down the road in his lifted jeep that will never ever go off road. It's not affecting me, so it's none of my business.

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk 2

Absolutely, if a person can avoid using deadly force, and still survive they will be much, much better off than if they use it. Anybody who has used such force and is all giddy, or wishes to, has a serious mental defect. Deadly force is a there is no other choice option, it has nothing to do with the desire to kill another person. Purely the need to survive, and that is it.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Laws and civilization itself are "constructs of the human mind." There's nothing particularly profound about your observation. But the right to protect one's life - or to stop someone else from the unlawful taking of a human life - is a "fundamental truth". "Privileges" are bestowed by one's master, and free people have no master. Apparently, in your world there are "masters", and from the liberal noises that you make, you have acquiesced to have one.

Sorry if it seemed I was packaging my response as if it were an enlightening revelation; it wasn't my intent.


No, it's not a Fundamental Truth...do you get it now? You're stating a subjective Truth. I agree with your view; but it's a subjective Truth none-the-less.

The presumption is that free people exist; I reject the premise; and would say: People ought to be as free as they can be; no person ought to have a Master.

Yes, there are Masters...of our own making. My Liberalness has zero to do with this; get over yourself. You blaming my being Liberal, for my views, is about you, not me; own it, move on from it.

 

[Gil223]

Sorry if it seemed I was packaging my response as if it were an enlightening revelation; it wasn't my intent.


No, it's not a Fundamental Truth...do you get it now? You're stating a subjective Truth. I agree with your view; but it's a subjective Truth none-the-less.

The presumption is that free people exist; I reject the premise; and would say: People ought to be as free as they can be; no person ought to have a Master.

Yes, there are Masters...of our own making. My Liberalness has zero to do with this; get over yourself. You blaming my being Liberal, for my views, is about you, not me; own it, move on from it.

I'm so glad I don't live in your dark little world. :lol: Pax...

 

[OC for ME]

Exactly! When I work with new carriers I always coach them to focus on stopping the attack by any means nessicary. If that means resorting to your fire arm then there is no hesitation or moral qualms. There is simple a mechanical function being put into place by the human instinct to survive. You don't think about killing someone. You focus(very different from thinking) on stopping the attack. While I do agree that there are folks out there that may not possess a survival instinct or have repressed it, I believe that that can be trained away. However, that does take a lot of time.

Should everyone carry? Probably not. Do I have a problem with them carrying without the ability to use their firearm when needed? Not at all. Same as the knucklehead driving down the road in his lifted jeep that will never ever go off road. It's not affecting me, so it's none of my business.

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk 2

I agree. I also think that the OP is focused on the motivation to carry vs. responding to a event while carrying. Though, I could be off the mark a wee bit. As I stated, I have zero empathy for a attacker and their fate. They are nothing to me if I am compelled to use lethal force in the defense of myself or my loved ones. The attacker chose his path not I.