# Concealed Carry Jacket Pocket



## cdavant (Aug 28, 2005)

Now that the second amendment means something again, were you to add a pocket to a jacket for a small, say 9mm, pocket pistol where would it go and how big should it be? I'd guess directly inside the pocket on the inside of the jacket would make it less noticeable, but a zippered pocket inside the pocket on the outside might be more accessible. I'm not talking a Glock here, and you need to be able to take your jacket off without revealing you wore a black leather holster with brown shoes.
Experts, where should it go to balance concealment with accessibility?


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

I assume that you are talking about a sport coat or suit coat? If so, I'm not sure that a pocket in such a jacket is the best place to carry a handgun. Even a lightweight, 9mm would be heavy enough to distort the jacket no matter where you put it. I would think it would also be very easy for the gun to show from the outside and if you live in a concealed carry State, as opposed to an open carry State, you know that "imprinting" your firearm can cost you your permit.

While it is relatively easy to carry a handgun (unless it's a 1911 or something like that) in a heavy coat or leather jacket pocket, for a lighter suit or sport coat I think it's best to carry the thing on your person rather than in a coat pocket. You could try an ankle holster. Although I don't routinely carry a handgun around with me, I have toted my snub nosed S&W .357 in an ankle holster with no problem.

If you aren't going to take off your jacket an inside the waist holster positioned in the small of the back will also work. Of course if you remove your jacket the gun grip will show and it's no longer "concealed".

I know I didn't answer your question but I just don't think it's a good idea to do as you are suggesting.

Cruiser


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

A small 9mm handgun is a contradiction unless talking the .380 family of Walther PP type pocket pistols. Even these might create a noticeable sag and bulge in an unreinforced pocket or be difficult to retrieve. I carried one ( Only in .32 my preferred caliber in this type) in my issue Peacoat. But it had relatively stiff material and my hands were expected to be in them. Everything else was a holster of some type, and never off the shoulder. You could track down the old High Standard O/U .22 mag Deringer. You need to replace the plastic firing pin bushing and throw away the grip panels. This was a favourite hideout piece with bikers. You make up a faux wallet with cutout for the trigger and use the grip screw to hold this sandwich together. Somebody demands your money, you give it to them ( it really doesn't work, that piece had the most gawdawfull trigger!) Get a holster, and I like mine in Merlot.


----------



## Aaron in Allentown (Oct 26, 2007)

You can have your suit jacket tailored so that one of the hip pockets is really just an opening that allows you to access a holster on a belt. It's not really a quick-draw option, but it can be done.


----------



## Bonhamesque (Sep 5, 2005)

Why do you need to carry a pocket pistol....?


----------



## a tailor (May 16, 2005)

cdavant said:


> Now that the second amendment means something again, were you to add a pocket to a jacket for a small, say 9mm, pocket pistol where would it go and how big should it be? I'd guess directly inside the pocket on the inside of the jacket would make it less noticeable, but a zippered pocket inside the pocket on the outside might be more accessible. I'm not talking a Glock here, and you need to be able to take your jacket off without revealing you wore a black leather holster with brown shoes.
> Experts, where should it go to balance concealment with accessibility?


naturally a gentleman's holster should match his shoes and belt. 
a pocket and especially with a zipper would limit accessibility.
the extra weight will pull down on one side of the jacket. and it will also create a bulge.

a local police chief came to me with a problem. he liked to carry his small frame under his belt wearing his civilian clothes. it ended up on the floor a few times. 
the solution was for me to make holsters of boat sail drill they weighed about 1/2 ounce each. these were fastened to the inside of each of his trousers at left side of the waist band. the grip protruded above the waist at an angle for a fast cross draw.


----------



## Grayson (Feb 29, 2008)

Echoing the others, one doesn't carry a handgun in a pocket.

A well-fitted shoulder holster can be accommodated by a good tailor. Today's automatics are blocky beasts, but the Walther P99 does come in a compact version that makes it concealable as long you're a man of overall substantial size.

Here's a link to a good holster rig in premium tan or black saddle leather (by Galco). 
It also accommodates backup clips via a magazine pouch on the opposite side) - https://www.copsplus.com/prodnum1686.php

My personal recommendation for clothing that stylishly conceals a holster rig is a heavy and generously-tailored Harris tweed coat. Think Steve McQueen in "Bullitt".


----------



## David V (Sep 19, 2005)

Bonhamesque said:


> Why do you need to carry a pocket pistol....?


Need? Who said need. He wants to.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Before this descends into it's ultimate move to the INTERCHANGE, answer a few questions; What is your firearms experience? This one Court ruling will not result in that anti firearms advocate, supreme shakespearian thespain Sean Connery reprising his role in Zardoz vomiting firearms to the masses. There is a time and place for a weapon, no less than a Tuxedo being out of place on a upland gamehunt. Knowing the when,where and why of packing a piece will make life a whole lot easier.


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*KAV!*

I love it. Tux out of place!!

I pack my SW 50cal handgun, very nicely. With my Ben Silver tux!!!
LOL
I dont have the smith and wesson 50 cal. Waste of money. I am a member of Team Glock and Team Sig though.
No reason to pack gentlemen, unless this is your business, or job. Police/FBI/CIA
or KAV and me!

Nice day gents


----------



## dwebber18 (Jun 5, 2008)

I personally have a full size P99 chambered in .40 that gets carried in a IWB holster. It works well under an untucked button down, jacket, suit coat or anything. What I like about a standard IWB holster is that you can get a shirt tuck model and have just a small clip on the outside of your belt. I have frequently carried mine under my coat and tucked under my shirt, noone expects that you are carrying so it wont be noticed, just don't wear a light colored shirt like I did one time.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

To those that say a 9mm cannot be pocket carry:

www.rohrbaughfirearms.com

That is all.


----------



## cdavant (Aug 28, 2005)

Don't need to now, but I screwed up a $14,000,000 Ponzi deal a few years ago and one of the guys commented "You're going to walk out of your house one day and I'll be waiting..." After he jumped bail and vanished for awhile I kept close company with my Glock 19. He's in the pokey until 2010 at least. Bag guy and I think he holds a grudge.

I have a CC permit and half-a-dozen handguns, but I've been looking at the baby Glock 26 and some of the even lighter guns that are showing up and wondering if something under 26oz would really distort the lines of a suit or sport jacket that much.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Oh my here it comes, My caliber, gunmaker can dance on the head of a pin playing bagpipes and this company offers the latest interpretation of old concepts that didn't work completely in the first five tries. Sticks my C 96 commercial back in it's wooden stock/holster and checks bid for 3 rounds of Gyrojet rockets on Gunbroker .comCome on Wayfarer, I'll buy you an Eddie's Hotdog for Dominion Day. I always wanted a tall, Vancouver licensed Dominion to beat me with a CANADIAN, not yours Salmon and make me acknowledge the Garand was designed by a canuck who ice skated in his living room. Best place to carry a gun is in your hand. It keeps you from looking silly or doing other unnatural acts with that hand.


----------



## cdavant (Aug 28, 2005)

The R9s would come in around 16oz loaded with no sharp edges to snag. At 5.2" you could put a flashlight in your other pocket and nobody would notice the gun. Still heavier than a cell phone.


----------



## Hoof (Feb 14, 2007)

I just applied for my concealed permit and am curious as to what you have found to be the best way to carry. I will be carrying a Colt .380 auto and am curious if any of you have any good places to look for a concealed carry holster.


----------



## Unregistered (Mar 13, 2008)

Milt Sparks produces a IWB holster that allows a shirt to be tucked over it.

Only will work with a slim firearm though, like a 1911 or better yet, an officer sized 1911.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

cdavant said:


> but I've been looking at the baby Glock 26 and some of the even lighter guns that are showing up and wondering if something under 26oz would really distort the lines of a suit or sport jacket that much.


Not just the weapon, but the weight of the ammo will make your jackets look as if you're trying to smuggle a bowling ball. You either need to stick it to your belt, or get a shoulder holster, and as Alex said, obtain some quality tailoring assistance. Outside of sticking a .25 in the pants pocket of some loose fitting slacks, nothing carried in tailored clothing will look right.

I assume all of this is just hypothetical, as concealed carry is *still* outlawed in almost all jurisdictions.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

If you contact them, you can learn about Edward Green's special products bureau. Among other specialty items, they will produce ankle holsters that exactly match the leathers and colors of bespoke and made-to-order Shannon boots. I do not know if this is an item they sell separately from your boot order, but you could ask. Holsters can be made to hold most popular American and German pistols.

Buzz


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

O.K. You have a future percieved threat. Another option are the weapon pouch take on fanny packs. You need to keep it discrete, but accessable. Pay attention to the strict guidlines of your lawfull carry. You don't need this guy as a futre bunkmate.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Flanderian said:


> I assume all of this is just hypothetical, as concealed carry is *still* outlawed in almost all jurisdictions.


Um, about 36 states are "shall issue" alone.

Bespoke holsters must be expensive items?


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

1. you probrably don't need and shouldn't carry a handgun

2. what is the problem with a belt holster? carrying a handgun in a pocket is never a really good idea, if you really do need a gun, you want to make sure that it is easy to get out when you do need it. I wore a handgun in the small of my back, butt towards my strong hand for years and it was never very noticable.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

"Bespoke" holsters are quite cheap, actually, especially if you have a common gun. Definitely not anywhere near the range of custom clothing or accessories.

BTW, there are a few weapons that are definitely capable of being carried in a pocket. I have a Kel-Tec .380 that weighs, I believe, about 13 ounces fully loaded with seven rounds. And I have the optional laser!


----------



## Douva (Mar 26, 2007)

Unregistered said:


> Milt Sparks produces a IWB holster that allows a shirt to be tucked over it.
> 
> Only will work with a slim firearm though, like a 1911 or better yet, an officer sized 1911.


When wearing a suit, I typically carry a Colt 1911 Combat Commander (4 1/4" barrel) in the small of back carry position, using a Comp-Tac Shirt Tucker holster. Because the Comp-Tac Shirt-Tucker allows me to tuck in my shirt over the butt of the gun, I maintain the ability to remove the suit jacket without revealing the gun.

Of course, I seldom remove my jacket when wearing a suit, so I'm considering purchasing a Galco outside-the-waistband leather holster with a butt-forward (FBI) cant. The Galco hip holster would be somewhat more comfortable and would make the firearm more accessible.

I have a good friend who uses a SmartCarry (crotch-carry) holster when wearing a suit. I can't speak to the comfort level, but it it keeps the gun nicely concealed.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Wayfarer said:


> Um, about 36 states are "shall issue" alone.
> 
> Bespoke holsters must be expensive items?


Thank you for correcting my misinformation. I'd not looked into this issue in any detail recently, and was responding based upon my home state's procedures and what I've been hearing in press. Haven't read all of this yet, but it's relevant -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry

While NJ issues concealed carry permits, they are notoriously difficult to get and appear to be discretionary, effectively making concealed carry illegal for most. From my understanding, they are limited to those who routinely carry items of great value, former law officers, and perhaps those who can demonstrate a serious threat.

From what I've heard in the press, it sounds as if individual municipalities can also enact concealed carry ordinances. It must be somewhat complex how these local ordinances might interact with state statute


----------



## videocrew (Jun 25, 2007)

Bonhamesque said:


> Why do you need to carry a pocket pistol....?


Perhaps he wishes to protect himself or his family. Perhaps he is employed in some profession which requires him to do so. Who cares why? It doesn't sound like you're going to talk him out of it on philosophical grounds.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Flanderian said:


> Thank you for correcting my misinformation. I'd not looked into this issue in any detail recently, and was responding based upon my home state's procedures and what I've been hearing in press. Haven't read all of this yet, but it's relevant -


You are most welcome good sir 

Goes to show we often look around us and figure what we see is the case everywhere. I know I have done similar things in the past!


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

cdavant said:


> ... were you to add a pocket to a jacket for a small, say 9mm, pocket pistol where would it go and how big should it be?
> Experts, where should it go to balance concealment with accessibility?


If you are determined to carry in a pocket of your jacket...

I second the vote for the Keltec. There are several pocket holsters available that will fill the bill. You can probably put them directly into an existing pocket, but you may want to consult with your tailor to get the best balance of access and "fit". Probably need to do this on a per jacket basis.

I would not recommend a zippered pocket.


----------



## Apthorpe (Apr 8, 2008)

cdavant said:


> Experts, where should it go to balance concealment with accessibility?


You should definitely discuss this issue with your tailor, but I wonder if for issues of balance if you should carry two guns. I have read of jackets containing small pieces of metal to weigh the lower edge of the jacket down a bit (although maybe the weights described were at the dual vents which would be a bit inaccessible).

Alternatively, maybe if a suit had sufficient drape and you were carrying a Walther or Sig 0.32 cal maybe you could clip the guns to a retractable strap (like a dog leash) hanging below your armpit and attached by a loop of fabric to the underside of the shoulder. That would be sweet.:aportnoy:


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

Forgive me, I know less than nothing about guns, but it seems dangerous to carry a gun in your waist or a pocket. Even with a safety I would be terrified of sitting wrong or farting hard and accidentally blowing off my man parts or discharging it into my chair at work. That would be an awkward explanation to the boss or the paramedics!


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Well, if you _did_ know anything about guns you'd know that guns, especially those designed with pocket carry in mind, don't just "go off."


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

When you carry a cigarette lighter in your pocket, do you worry about burning yourself?


----------



## Apthorpe (Apr 8, 2008)

Round these parts, Pard, we reckon that folk with man parts sizable enough to be worryin' 'bout blowin' 'em off, wouldn't be worryin' 'bout blowin' 'em off. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I hate to tell all the experts out there, but the only 100% safe firearm is one unloaded.I drop the magazine out of a 1911, pull the slide back and eject the chambered round. I manually engage the thumb lock and release pressure on the grip safety. I do all of this pointing the weapon in the safest possible direction. I do all of this in plain view of Jan Libourel and place the piece on the table. Jan picks up the firearm, again points to the safest possible direction, drops the safety and pulls the slide back. The weapon is now safe unless a third person walks in and asks to handle it. You boys need a refresher course. If not, I have a Nambu I'd love to sell you. Just grab it by the exposed sear when you first see it.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

Apthorpe said:


> Round these parts, Pard, we reckon that folk with man parts sizable enough to be worryin' 'bout blowin' 'em off, wouldn't be worryin' 'bout blowin' 'em off. :icon_smile_big:


LOL!!! :icon_smile_big:


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Kav said:


> I hate to tell all the experts out there, but the only 100% safe firearm is one unloaded.I drop the magazine out of a 1911, pull the slide back and eject the chambered round. I manually engage the thumb lock and release pressure on the grip safety. I do all of this pointing the weapon in the safest possible direction. I do all of this in plain view of Jan Libourel and place the piece on the table. Jan picks up the firearm, again points to the safest possible direction, drops the safety and pulls the slide back. The weapon is now safe unless a third person walks in and asks to handle it. You boys need a refresher course. If not, I have a Nambu I'd love to sell you. Just grab it by the exposed sear when you first see it.


Watch out for that unloaded firearm. You could drop it on your foot!

Are you going to teach a pen safety class next? "The only safe pen is one that's been disassembled and checked by a second person."


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

O.K. Johnny Ringo, print this exchange out and take it to any 10 random police officers, NRA instructors, gunsmiths,shooting range owners or hunting guides. Have them state their vote for you or me on the page with a verifiable email. Post it here next week. Put up, or shut up for once.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Lets make this interesting, you do like things interesting? Include queries to the National Rifleman, the Rifle and Reloading magazines, Shooting Times and Guns and Ammo. If I am wrong I will quit this forum for ever. I'm right, you quit. Again, lets see you walk the walk just for once.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

While I'm at it, would you e-mail Johnson & Johnson and ask them if it's safe to stick a q-tip in your ear? They'll say no, you know. According to them, the q-tip is made for cleaning the outer part of your ear.

They do that, because it's the only answer that's safe for really, really stupid people. The ones who call lawyers with catchy slogans they see on billboards every time they hurt themselves. But, really, who are they trying to protect? Not you, of course.

A gun is simply an inanimate object. It's a tool. When it's unloaded, it really is unloaded.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> While I'm at it, would you e-mail Johnson & Johnson and ask them if it's safe to stick a q-tip in your ear? They'll say no, you know. According to them, the q-tip is made for cleaning the outer part of your ear.
> 
> They do that, because it's the only answer that's safe for really, really stupid people. The ones who call lawyers with catchy slogans they see on billboards every time they hurt themselves. But, really, who are they trying to protect? Not you, of course.
> 
> A gun is simply an inanimate object. It's a tool. When it's unloaded, it really is unloaded.


You see, PT is a certifiable bona fide, true through and through expert on everything. He defers to no one. There is no greater source of information on any subject than PT. He has no questions because he has all of the answers. He sleeps in a Holiday Inn Express every night.

The police stop to question him on a regular basis just because they find him interesting.
His beard alone has experienced more than a regular man's entire body.
His blood smells like calogne.
His charm is so contagious scientists had to develop a vaccine for it.
Long ago, he built a city out of blocks. Today, over 6,000,000 people live and work there.
He is the only man to ever ace a Rorschach test.
Whenever he goes swimming, dolphins appear.
Alien abductors have asked him to probe them.
If he were to give you directions, you'd never get lost and you would arrive 5 minues early.
His legend preceeds him the way lightning preceeds thunder.

He is, the most knowledgable and informative man in the world!

Thank you Dos Equis.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Kav said:


> I hate to tell all the experts out there, but the only 100% safe firearm is one unloaded.


Really? So then why did Superman stand there and get shot at, but would duck when they threw the empty gun at him?


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Stringfellow said:


> You see, PT is a certifiable bona fide, true through and through expert on everything. He defers to no one. There is no greater source of information on any subject than PT. He has no questions because he has all of the answers. He sleeps in a Holiday Inn Express every night.


No. But I am the only one in this room professional enough to...*bang* my leg, my leg!

Remember that guy? Kav's rules are intended for him, children, and 17-year-olds in boot camp. The habits and procedures are intended to protect against the PERSON, not the gun.

As I said before, a gun really is unloaded when it is unloaded. An adult does not need someone to check his chamber for him. He knows that when the magazine is removed, the chambered round is ejected, and the chamber is checked, that the gun really is unloaded.


----------



## Unregistered (Mar 13, 2008)

Take a 1911 from a reputable manufacturer, ensure the magazine is unloaded and chamber is clear. Then cock the hammer, engage thumb safety, wear it in your holster and go about your day. I will bet you anything that unless you intended for it to, the hammer will remain cocked at the end of the day.

Or toss it in a backpack and let it rattle about.

I find the combination of 3 safeties (Thumb, beavertail and trigger) to be far superior to the "safer" DA pistols like the Glock or Sig P226 which have no safeties apart from the trigger.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I challenged you to present this to recognised peers in this field. You have scurried to your dark little corner and avoided the challenge hurling further argument. At this point you deserve nothing more than a cosmic pointed boot toe in your face.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

You "challenged" me to some irrelevancy that has no bearing on the discussion.

Honestly, I think the seven-pound trigger on the 13-ounce, quasi-DAO Kel-Tec is the most effective safety I have encountered (the 17-lb DA trigger on an old Walther notwithstanding).

It is simply impossible to discharge the gun in any realistic scenario, except by deliberately pulling the trigger.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Unregistered, Enlist for 6 years and qualify with the 1911. Use one in a shipboard shootout off the Alaska coast and during the last days of Vietnam. Buy a 4 digit 1911, a DCM Remington and a pre series 70 commercial in .38 Super. Take the combat course at Gunsite with Colonel Jeff Cooper, because nobody can ever learn enough about shooting. Sit down with Clarence Revelle, inventor of the DA squeeze cocking aftermarket device later used by H & K. and study the myriad aftermarket devises for this weapon that alone could occupy a collector for a lifetime. Settle finally on a Model 70 hand selected by Kevin McCullough of Gunsmiths Hardwick and McCullough and build a pure combat weapon virtually indistinguishable from it's gunsafe mates externally. Shoot regular combat courses weekly and load your own ammunition. Watch a retired USMC Gunny let one second of inattention in a lifetime of alertness put a 230 grain pumpkin ball into his own femoral artery and bleed half to death before it could be clamped shut with a pair of cheap needlenose pliers. And then listen to all the punk kids who know everything, have done nothing, will die old men, forever and always punks. And for this gun owners react in shock and horror that half the population doesn't like the things?


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Maybe Kav is right. I certainly was given the childish, structured instruction on how to operate firearms-when I was a child, at least. After that, the fact is, at the age of 12 I was given my first rifle, instructed to "be careful," and turned loose. I'd already graduated as it were, and since then I resent being lectured at like a child. I certainly don't need someone to tell me when my guns are unloaded. Maybe my path is not for everyone; some people need that kind of structure and supervision to avoid hurting themselves with an inanimate object. I don't, and I don't think I'm unusual.


----------



## tinytim (Jun 13, 2008)

Cruiser said:


> I assume that you are talking about a sport coat or suit coat? If so, I'm not sure that a pocket in such a jacket is the best place to carry a handgun. Even a lightweight, 9mm would be heavy enough to distort the jacket no matter where you put it. I would think it would also be very easy for the gun to show from the outside and if you live in a concealed carry State, as opposed to an open carry State, you know that "imprinting" your firearm can cost you your permit.
> 
> While it is relatively easy to carry a handgun (unless it's a 1911 or something like that) in a heavy coat or leather jacket pocket, for a lighter suit or sport coat I think it's best to carry the thing on your person rather than in a coat pocket. You could try an ankle holster. Although I don't routinely carry a handgun around with me, I have toted my snub nosed S&W .357 in an ankle holster with no problem.
> 
> ...


Sometimes people don't ask the correct questions. You actually answered it very well. Unless you're carrying on of those KelTec 32 cal minis, pocket carry isn't practical. The SOB, small of the back, you mentioned is really the best.


----------



## YYZ-LHR (Jul 2, 2007)

I sometimes think these threads are just created to provoke a reaction from the Europeans, the Canadians, the Asians, and the residents of those American states and districts where the idea of "gentlemen" slinging a machinegun over his shoulder, a grenade in his underwear, or a pistol in his pocket is bizarre and abhorrent.

It doesn't matter if your holster is in burgundy calfskin with brass studs and lace trim, this isn't a discussion for a clothing or fashion forum. Your question is about how to transport the device you contemplate killing someone with, and even if you're in the tiny minority of the civilised world's population that thinks that's an acceptable conversation to have, you should have the decency to have it in a specialised forum. Discussing it here trivialises the issue.


----------



## CPVS (Jul 17, 2005)

Kav said:


> Unregistered, Enlist for 6 years and qualify with the 1911. Use one in a shipboard shootout off the Alaska coast and during the last days of Vietnam. Buy a 4 digit 1911, a DCM Remington and a pre series 70 commercial in .38 Super. Take the combat course at Gunsite with Colonel Jeff Cooper, because nobody can ever learn enough about shooting. Sit down with Clarence Revelle, inventor of the DA squeeze cocking aftermarket device later used by H & K. and study the myriad aftermarket devises for this weapon that alone could occupy a collector for a lifetime. Settle finally on a Model 70 hand selected by Kevin McCullough of Gunsmiths Hardwick and McCullough and build a pure combat weapon virtually indistinguishable from it's gunsafe mates externally. Shoot regular combat courses weekly and load your own ammunition. Watch a retired USMC Gunny let one second of inattention in a lifetime of alertness put a 230 grain pumpkin ball into his own femoral artery and bleed half to death before it could be clamped shut with a pair of cheap needlenose pliers. And then listen to all the punk kids who know everything, have done nothing, will die old men, forever and always punks. And for this gun owners react in shock and horror that half the population doesn't like the things?


Well, I guess we have our own expert on firearms around here. I love Ask Andy, you can always find someone who should have been hired to write the Encyclopedia Britannica article on any given subject, and then brief George Bush, Barack Obama, Pope Benedict XVI, and the Dalai Lama on what they need to know on the same subject. Plus, other experts with similar specialized knowledge are on hand to debate the earlier expert.

:devil:


----------



## khetchup (Jun 30, 2008)

the key is not the jacket, but the pants. you'll need an elastic waist-band, then think thunderwear and a colt pocket nine


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

YYZ-LHR said:


> It doesn't matter if your holster is in burgundy calfskin with brass studs and lace trim, this isn't a discussion for a clothing or fashion forum. Your question is about how to transport the device you contemplate killing someone with, and even if you're in the tiny minority of the civilised world's population that thinks that's an acceptable conversation to have, you should have the decency to have it in a specialised forum. Discussing it here trivialises the issue.


While I agree that the discussion has evolved into one that has nothing to do with this forum, the original question was appropriate. I worked for over 30 years in a U.S Government office building and a casual visitor walking through that building would probably be shocked to know how many of those men, and women, wearing conservative business suits were also carrying firearms under their jackets and pant legs. I'm speaking of FBI agents, IRS agents, ATF agents, Army/Navy CID agents, DEA agents, various agencies Inspector General agents, Secret Service agents, etc. Heck, if you didn't know better you would think it was an armed camp of some sort. But few knew because all of this weaponry was carefully concealed, usually beneath tailored clothing.

There are many folks all over the U.S., and other countries I'm sure, who dress well AND are required to carry firearms in their daily routine. A couple of FBI agent friends have told me about the difficulties they often faced in getting tailored clothing to both fit and wear well over the tools of their trade. I know that one guy would routinely have all of his jackets tailored to accomodate his firearm. And I also know that there are many jackets out there, usually heavier weight than a suit or sport coat, that do have pockets in them specifically designed to carry a firearm.

My point is that even though this topic might be of interest to only a small segment of the membership, that small segment is probably no smaller than the segments who talk about sock suspenders and ascots, and I see no protest over those discussions. If the thread is of no interest to you, just don't even open it to begin with.

But again, I do agree that it has gone way off track from the original post.

Cruiser


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

YYZ-LHR said:


> I sometimes think these threads are just created to provoke a reaction from the Europeans, the Canadians, the Asians, and the residents of those American states and districts where the idea of "gentlemen" slinging a machinegun over his shoulder, a grenade in his underwear, or a pistol in his pocket is bizarre and abhorrent.
> 
> It doesn't matter if your holster is in burgundy calfskin with brass studs and lace trim, this isn't a discussion for a clothing or fashion forum. Your question is about how to transport the device you contemplate killing someone with, and even if you're in the tiny minority of the civilised world's population that thinks that's an acceptable conversation to have, you should have the decency to have it in a specialised forum. Discussing it here trivialises the issue.


Well, this is a men's forum, after all. Several million men in this country "transport [a] device [we] contemplate killing someone with" every day. Sure, we're a minority compared to the folks in red China who don't have to worry about such things. Heck, we're a minority in the world just for being men. So if you'd like to avoid us there are plenty of places on the internet you can go. Womens' forums, for example. Well, you can't get to most of them from a computer in China, but that's really a small price to pay for safety, isn't it?


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

as to the question of when a weapon is safe - last week a well trained french comando, involved in a demonstration of swat techniques, loaded his assult carbine with a magazine of live ammo when he thought he was loading a magazine of blanks, and shot 17 people by accident. **** like that happens. I might not agree with Kav on a lot of things, but I agree with him here. I think that the vast majority of gun owners and carriers don't take gun safety anywhere near seriously enough.


----------



## maxnharry (Dec 3, 2004)

I am not sure why you would use a pocket and not just wear a holster. There are plenty to chose from. 

As to globetrotter's comment. Unintended discharges happen all the time, to all sorts of people. If you need a weapon, bring one, but don't make the decision lightly.


----------



## BPH (Mar 19, 2007)

5.11 Tactical did a VIP blazer specifically designed to carry a handgun, spare ammo etc. with velcro accessories. 

Obviously aimed at the professional market and now I believe discontinued but now available at huge discount with a google or ebay search.

I have never seen or used this item but have used the same companies tactical vest and trousers (standard issue at the FBI academy I'm told and very fashionable with security contractors in Iraq) and have been delighted with them.


----------



## gng8 (Aug 5, 2005)

This entire thread and the need to carry these kinds of weapons by other than police and the military scares me--and I live in Chicago.


----------



## YYZ-LHR (Jul 2, 2007)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Well, this is a men's forum, after all. Several million men in this country "transport [a] device [we] contemplate killing someone with" every day. Sure, we're a minority compared to the folks in red China who don't have to worry about such things. Heck, we're a minority in the world just for being men. So if you'd like to avoid us there are plenty of places on the internet you can go. Womens' forums, for example. Well, you can't get to most of them from a computer in China, but that's really a small price to pay for safety, isn't it?


I can't begin to imagine what being a man has to do with this. Are you confusing one of your appendages with another?

I'm not sure why you mention China, either. Are you under the misapprehension that we're all communists outside of the American south? Or that carrying a weapon somehow makes you more free than the rest of us?


----------



## YYZ-LHR (Jul 2, 2007)

Cruiser said:


> While I agree that the discussion has evolved into one that has nothing to do with this forum, the original question was appropriate. I worked for over 30 years in a U.S Government office building and a casual visitor walking through that building would probably be shocked to know how many of those men, and women, wearing conservative business suits were also carrying firearms under their jackets and pant legs. I'm speaking of FBI agents, IRS agents, ATF agents, Army/Navy CID agents, DEA agents, various agencies Inspector General agents, Secret Service agents, etc. Heck, if you didn't know better you would think it was an armed camp of some sort. But few knew because all of this weaponry was carefully concealed, usually beneath tailored clothing.
> 
> There are many folks all over the U.S., and other countries I'm sure, who dress well AND are required to carry firearms in their daily routine. A couple of FBI agent friends have told me about the difficulties they often faced in getting tailored clothing to both fit and wear well over the tools of their trade. I know that one guy would routinely have all of his jackets tailored to accomodate his firearm. And I also know that there are many jackets out there, usually heavier weight than a suit or sport coat, that do have pockets in them specifically designed to carry a firearm.
> 
> ...


I'm amazed that all of these people need to be armed (the IRS?!). And I'm even more surprised that those that do would need to conceal their weapons. But I take your point that there is a group people in law enforcement who face this problem.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I'm always bemused when our english friend's custard tarts go bad when american firearm disscusions come up.Today's british society, whatever your view on it's merits has become progressively disarmed to the point knives are in your news as the weapon of violence. My friends in the UK BUSHCRAFT pastime devote no little amount of effort just explaining how one can carry a dedicated woodlore knife without gettting arrested. Every assault brings yet another ban, the last being crossbows and yet another pontification by THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING ( of Scotland ) Sean Connery, classic thespian who graces us with memorable performances shooting people and advocating slapping the french wife around now and then. It should be interesting to see how you butter your scones when knifes are outlawed. Are forks and spoons soon to follow? This all follows some deep cultural angst over using guns to create the world's largest empire so that a family from Germany can all dress better than anybody else.Blows up Union jack ballons to decorate this post and plays SIR paul singing Live and let die, asking only that the Uk let us do the same. I thought we had our independance sorted out once before after a civil, pre internet discussion?


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

Kav said:


> I'm always bemused when our english friend's custard tarts go bad when american firearm disscusions come up.Today's british society, whatever your view on it's merits has become progressively disarmed to the point knives are in your news as the weapon of violence. My friends in the UK BUSHCRAFT pastime devote no little amount of effort just explaining how one can carry a dedicated woodlore knife without gettting arrested. Every assault brings yet another ban, the last being crossbows and yet another pontification by THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING ( of Scotland ) Sean Connery, classic thespian who graces us with memorable performances shooting people and advocating slapping the french wife around now and then. It should be interesting to see how you butter your scones when knifes are outlawed. Are forks and spoons soon to follow? This all follows some deep cultural angst over using guns to create the world's largest empire so that a family from Germany can all dress better than anybody else.Blows up Union jack ballons to decorate this post and plays SIR paul singing Live and let die, asking only that the Uk let us do the same. I thought we had our independance sorted out once before after a civil, pre internet discussion?


Yep, spoons and knives are probably next. In America we banned dirty words on TV. What's next? No dirty words in print? Then what? No words at all? What will we use to communicate? This is indeed a slippery slope and I for one see the analogy.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

globetrotter said:


> as to the question of when a weapon is safe - last week a well trained french comando, involved in a demonstration of swat techniques, loaded his assult carbine with a magazine of live ammo when he thought he was loading a magazine of blanks, and shot 17 people by accident. **** like that happens. I might not agree with Kav on a lot of things, but I agree with him here. I think that the vast majority of gun owners and carriers don't take gun safety anywhere near seriously enough.


Sounds like that commando has forgotten the prime directive concerning guns. Never, ever, ever point a gun at a person you are not planning on shooting.

Ever.

Would the S.W.A.T. team be wearing bespoke kevlar? And the whole black on black clothes thing...


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

YYZ-LHR said:


> I'm amazed that all of these people need to be armed (the IRS?!). And I'm even more surprised that those that do would need to conceal their weapons.


Any Federal agent who has the power of arrest is armed. There are people in the world who don't take kindly to being arrested and sometimes they resist even to the point of using deadly force against the arresting agent. These government employees carry the title "Special Agent" regardless of which agency they work for. I hope I didn't give the impression that everyone who works for the IRS is armed. Only the Special Agents in the criminal division carry firearms.

As to concealing their weapons, it isn't that there is a "need" to do so; it's just that most of them wear business suits and it really isn't good PR to walk around with a firearm strapped to your hip when wearing business attire. I have one FBI agent friend who even when off duty in something like jeans and tee shirt in the summer wears a vest of some sort to cover the firearm inside the waistband of his pants. Most don't like to advertise that they are carrying a weapon.

Cruiser


----------



## cdavant (Aug 28, 2005)

I knew I should have framed the question somewhat differently to avoid ruffling feathers. How about:

From time to time I need to carry a 6"x6"x1.5" CLOCK weighting less than 24 oz. I would like to carry it in a suit or sport jacket. I would quite often take off the jacket and I would rather not have the CLOCK just sitting in the outside pocket where it could fall out or fall victim to a pick-pocket. I wouldn't need to carry the CLOCK very often but when I did I might suddenly realize I need to know what time it is. 

Would occasionally carrying a 24 oz. or lighter CLOCK lead to rapid deformation of a suit or sport jacket? Where would a CLOCK pocket be most easily reached and least noticeable? Would a tailor be able to run a couple of fabric bands from an interior CLOCK pocket over the shoulder to support the added weight?


----------



## Runfellow (Jun 9, 2008)

*Guys, I'm new at this, but...*

*A gentlemen never goes anywhere where he thinks he might need a gun. * *Thus, as a result, a gentlemen never needs a gun. *If you think you might need one, then consider it unsafe in the first place for family and/or friends, and no classes, experience, or exceptional testosterone levels will change this fact.

Barring you being an on-duty armed law enforcer, if you're going somewhere in a suit that requires a gun, perhaps you should find new stomping grounds.

This is coming from someone born and raised in Texas, right next to Dallas, one of the most dangerous cities in the country (with Houston of course taking first place.)

Because, believe it or not, you can't steal a cop car and press right analog stick to go into vigilante mode. I swear, I looked all over before I was pulled out to the ground.


----------



## Unregistered (Mar 13, 2008)

cdavant said:


> I knew I should have framed the question somewhat differently to avoid ruffling feathers. How about:
> 
> From time to time I need to carry a 6"x6"x1.5" CLOCK weighting less than 24 oz. I would like to carry it in a suit or sport jacket. I would quite often take off the jacket and I would rather not have the CLOCK just sitting in the outside pocket where it could fall out or fall victim to a pick-pocket. I wouldn't need to carry the CLOCK very often but when I did I might suddenly realize I need to know what time it is.
> 
> Would occasionally carrying a 24 oz. or lighter CLOCK lead to rapid deformation of a suit or sport jacket? Where would a CLOCK pocket be most easily reached and least noticeable? Would a tailor be able to run a couple of fabric bands from an interior CLOCK pocket over the shoulder to support the added weight?


If you carry your clock in any pocket on your jacket, I would say it will be quite apparently you are indeed carrying a clock even to casual observers due to the thickness of your clock and other "duty" timepieces. The thickness, and the weight, surely will accelerate any deformation of your jacket too.

Furthermore, carrying it in a pocket presents problems should you need to rapidly check on the time in stressful situations. Thus, as it has been said multiple times thus far in the thread, I strongly advice that you have some form of holster-like object to carry your clock in a better location.

Or, if possible, (and if I was in your situation), I would switch to a vintage timepiece from 1911, preferably in a 4.3" model or smaller.


----------



## jamgood (Feb 8, 2006)

Watched enough Inspector Morse documentaries to be familiar with the violent crime epidemic in Oxford. Mississippi, not.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Runfellow said:


> *A gentlemen never goes anywhere where he thinks he might need a gun.*


*

*The thing about it is that most "gentlemen" live in the real world, where one never knows when or where he will need to be armed.



> *Thus, as a result, a gentlemen never needs a gun. *If you think you might need one, then consider it unsafe in the first place for family and/or friends, and no classes, experience, or exceptional testosterone levels will change this fact.


So to be a "gentleman," one must live in a state of denial. This actually makes sense to me...



> Barring you being an on-duty armed law enforcer, if you're going somewhere in a suit that requires a gun, perhaps you should find new stomping grounds.
> 
> This is coming from someone born and raised in Texas, right next to Dallas, one of the most dangerous cities in the country (with Houston of course taking first place.)


Coming from someone born and raised (at least, for some years) in New Orleans, I respectfully disagree.



> Because, believe it or not, you can't steal a cop car and press right analog stick to go into vigilante mode. I swear, I looked all over before I was pulled out to the ground.


What?


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

jamgood said:


> Watched enough Inspector Morse documentaries to be familiar with the violent crime epidemic in Oxford. Mississippi, not.


Err? Been there lately? You need to keep a lookout for cop-killing frat boys and Katrinian drive-bys.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

gng8 said:


> This entire thread and the need to carry these kinds of weapons by other than police and the military scares me--and I live in Chicago.


Don't feel bad, I live in St. Louis and I don't carry a gun either.


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

I have found that the carry combination most compatible with wearing a suit is a Kel Tec P3AT in a DeSantis Nemesis pocket holster in the hip pocket. Vitrually invisible, no chance of accidental flashing, and, if absolutely necessary, you can remove your jacket and still be armed and it is still completely concealed.

Drawbacks: .380 is not an ideal caliber and I did notice a wear spot in the material of my trousers recently but I attribute that to the weave of the material. Only happened on one suit.

Since I always carry with one in the chamber, I am never inclined to carry any semi-auto without some kind of holster that covers the trigger.

And, by the way, a gentleman is _always_ armed -- mentally and to the extent legally possible, physically. Goes with the territory. For example, a real estate agent showing properties to a lady may have to escort her in to a series of vacant properties. No real option not to go there, even though it entails an increased level of risk. No telling what lurks in vacant and abandoned properties these days. Sure you have a cellular phone, but "when seconds count, the cops are minutes away."


----------



## fpatton (Apr 28, 2008)

a tailor said:


> naturally a gentleman's holster should match his shoes and belt.


Brilliant! Just about fell out of my chair...

:icon_smile_big:

Does a gentleman carry a gun if he's not hunting?


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Well, this is a men's forum, after all. Several million men in this country "transport [a] device [we] contemplate killing someone with" every day. Sure, we're a minority compared to the folks in red China who don't have to worry about such things. Heck, we're a minority in the world just for being men. So if you'd like to avoid us there are plenty of places on the internet you can go. Womens' forums, for example. Well, you can't get to most of them from a computer in China, but that's really a small price to pay for safety, isn't it?


It is curious that the only time I have been in the presence of someone getting shot...indeed, shot dead...the shooter was a woman who carried a pistol in her purse. That incident cured me permanently of any interest in carrying a firearm or being in the presence of anyone with a firearm. Believe me, there is nothing romantic about seeing someone shot dead at close range right before your eyes.

Buzz


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

I've seen people killed in car accidents, but it never made me want to renounce personal transportation.

Likewise with personal self-defense.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> I've seen people killed in car accidents, but it never made me want to renounce personal transportation.
> 
> Likewise with personal self-defense.


That's okay with me, Pedant. I was only expressing how I feel based on my own experience. I was not implying that anyone should feel the same as I do nor reach the same conclusion I have. My wife is a surgeon and has had people die in her hands. Yet she goes on performing surgery. Lots of people here seem to love guns for reasons far more compelling than why I abhor them.

Buzz


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Stringfellow said:


> Yep, spoons and knives are probably next. In America we banned dirty words on TV. What's next? No dirty words in print? Then what? No words at all? What will we use to communicate? This is indeed a slippery slope and I for one see the analogy.


Without making any judgement about weapons other than words, permit me an observation. As a student of both language and logic, I can conclude only that the analogy expressed in the quote, above, is really, really stupid.

Buzz


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

globetrotter said:


> as to the question of when a weapon is safe - last week a well trained french comando, involved in a demonstration of swat techniques, loaded his assult carbine with a magazine of live ammo when he thought he was loading a magazine of blanks, and shot 17 people by accident. **** like that happens. I might not agree with Kav on a lot of things, but I agree with him here. I think that the vast majority of gun owners and carriers don't take gun safety anywhere near seriously enough.


Reminds me of a story about this man who taught gun safety for hunters. 'Never point a gun toward anyone'. So here he is pointing his rifle at a number of people making them rather uncomfortable. Some people asked him not to, knowing he was breaking this rule. Then he said, "My gun is empty." and pointed it at his foot and pulled the triger. He would have been happier if he had aimed at the ground with his foot not in the line of fire.

If more of the right people carried guns it would be a lot safer in the world.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

M6Classic said:


> My wife is a surgeon and has had people die in her hands. Yet she goes on performing surgery. Lots of people here seem to love guns for reasons far more compelling than why I abhor them.


Please don't mistake my comments about owning a gun and having a carry permit as being the same as my having a love for guns. I don't. I take my handgun to the range about once a year and fire about a half a box of ammo just to keep familiar with it. Otherwise, I'm not a gun enthusiast at all nor are several of my friends who also own a gun or two and have carry permits. Of course I do know a few folks who are gun nuts.

As I posted in another thread just the other day, when I was an EMT in the Navy I had a 19 year old girl die in my ambulance from a gunshot wound only minutes after I promised her I wouldn't let her die. That was 37 years ago and I can still see her looking up at me just like it was yesterday. I have no particular love of guns.

I just wanted to clarify that not everyone who owns a gun is a gun enthusiast.

Cruiser


----------



## dbgrate (Dec 4, 2006)

Baseball,apple pie and guns...only in America,where homicide and paranoia are a way of life...and proud of it!


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

This thread started with a technical question concerning clothing. The poster has a recognised legal right and issued permit to carry. The following posts should have been limited to answering the question. I suppose if someone came online who is medicaly incontinent some of you responding posters would piss on him too for the sheer self gratification of showing off your own water canyon.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

dbgrate said:


> Baseball,apple pie and guns...only in America,where homicide and paranoia are a way of life...and proud of it!


America is the land of freedom and liberty. We trust our citizens with more rights and _more responsibilities_ than other countries do. It's been this way as long as we've been our own country. And sometimes it's dangerous, no doubt about it.

But what I find amazing is that people who are so concerned with the consequences of liberty direct their efforts in such a strange way-- the effeminate liberal is much more concerned with his Republican neighbor's guns than he is with the inner city drug dealers'.

Of course, if you were to remove a small subset of the American population, (or, really just a few thousand square miles) from the equation, America would be have one of the the lowest overall crime rates in the world (we already do, really), with a homicide rate squarely in the middle of other comparable countries, despite our unique position of having hundreds of millions of firearms in private hands.

But if someone suggested that we focus our attention on this small subset of the population that's abusing guns, the same liberals would get up in arms--so to speak. Apparently it's okay to deny everyone rights, but not to focus attention on the people who are abusing those rights. In other words, an extremely broad interpretation of the fourth amendment must be enforced, but the second amendment must be ignored.

I have a feeling, though, that this has less to do with principle and more to do with irrational fear and an inferiority complex. But go on talking about America's homicide rate while pretending that taking rights away from honest people will affect it one bit.


----------



## Preu Pummel (Feb 5, 2008)

Bonhamesque said:


> Why do you need to carry a pocket pistol....?


He might need some quick cash.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> -- the effeminate liberal is much more concerned with his Republican neighbor's guns than he is with the inner city drug dealers'.


Just when one thinks the debate has reached its climax, Pedantic Turkey reaches for soaring heights of idiocy. Can one assume from our dear Turkey's statement that Log Cabin Republicans are also more concerned with their neighbor's weapons than with those hung on inner city men? One might think that the Pedantic Turkey's name is both normative and descriptive, but I could never be so insulting to someone I have never met. Perhaps Turkey will share with us the empirical data upon which his assertion is based.

Buzz


----------



## YYZ-LHR (Jul 2, 2007)

Could a moderator please move this to the interchange -- or, better still, off these boards entirely.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

PedanticTurkey said:


> But what I find amazing is that people who are so concerned with the consequences of liberty direct their efforts in such a strange way-- the effeminate liberal is much more concerned with his Republican neighbor's guns than he is with the inner city drug dealers'.
> 
> .


actually, I am more concerned with my nieghbors guns than I am with inner city drug dealers guns. by an order of magnitude.

if an inner city drug dealer fires off his gun by accident, unless it happens to be a 175 mm howitzer, it won't hit my family. if my nieghbor happens to have a 45 or a 30 caliber rifle and fires it by accident, there is a good chance it will find its way through my space.

if an inner city drug dealer decides to store his laoder gun on his dresser, unlocked, there is pretty much no chance of one of my kids playing with it. if one of my nieghbors does, then there is a pretty good chance that my kids will have access to it.

so what should I worry about?


----------



## 27.9.82.8 (Nov 26, 2007)

Considering the number of smokewagons in this country............


----------



## Preu Pummel (Feb 5, 2008)

M6Classic said:


> Just when one thinks the debate has reached its climax, Pedantic Turkey reaches for soaring heights of idiocy. Can one assume from our dear Turkey's statement that Log Cabin Republicans are also more concerned with their neighbor's weapons than with those hung on inner city men? One might think that the Pedantic Turkey's name is both normative and descriptive, but I could never be so insulting to someone I have never met.


I like alcohol too, but I wouldn't drink enough to write a message like that.


----------



## cdavant (Aug 28, 2005)

Worry about teaching your kids about guns. If they see one lieing around, call an adult. Never pick up a gun if they find one. Always assume a gun is loaded. Never point a gun anywhere near someone unless you're prepared to pull the trigger. Wouldn't hurt if your neighbors learned a little too.
I started teaching my kid a little late. He was four. But I've always said I'd feel safer sending him out to play with a loaded gun than seeing him ride off on a motorcycle. You can easily teach firearm safety. Dodging drunks while you're on a bike is a different skill.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Man, this discussion has gotten so disjointed I'm not sure exactly who I agree with anymore. And I've got a gun with a permit to carry it. But I don't. I'm confused. Sounds like I shouldn't have a gun, doesn't it. :icon_smile_big:

Maybe I'll just forget about it for now and have another bourbon. Then clean my gun.

Cruiser


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

27.9 said:


> Considering the number of smokewagons in this country............


If I ever go to Swaziland I'm getting a tailor to put a gun pocket in my blazer - whether it makes it look funny or not. :icon_smile:


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

globetrotter said:


> if an inner city drug dealer decides to store his laoder gun on his dresser, unlocked, there is pretty much no chance of one of my kids playing with it. if one of my nieghbors does, then there is a pretty good chance that my kids will have access to it.
> 
> so what should I worry about?


Do any of your neighbors have a pool by chance? If they do-- it's 80 times more likely to drown one of your kids as their gun is to kill one accidentally. They're more likely to crash their car into your house or burn it down with fireworks than they are to injure you with a stray bullet.

But don't let stuff like this dissuade you from trying to take their rights away.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

In the US the great majority of gun violence is perpetrated by people in a few isolated communities (where gun ownership is relatively uncommon).


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

So you can get an idea of what I'm talking about:



> Firearm death rates for black males aged 15-19 in the United States in 1989 ranged from *15.5 per 100,000 for those residing in non-metropolitan areas to 143.9 per 100,000* for those residing in the central cities. Comparable rates for white males were 3.0 and 21.5 respectively. Non firearm rates for males showed a similar geographic and racial pattern, as did rates for females of both races.
> *Hispanic males between the ages of 15 and 24 were shown to have a homicide victimization rate of 97.3 per 100,000 as compared to 185.1 for African Americans and 10.0 for Anglo whites.*


But who is more likely to have access to a gun? White families are 2-3x more likely to have a gun than black families. Rural more likely than urban; two parents more likely than single mother. But guess which families are more likely to produce murderers?


----------



## 27.9.82.8 (Nov 26, 2007)

how dare you quote those racist statistics

HOW DARE YOU


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Sorry. More recent data:


----------



## dbgrate (Dec 4, 2006)

Pedantic....it's a hoot that you bring sexuality("effeminate liberals") into a rant about guns.....you might want to look into that....the first thing the charts you've shown suggest to me is that,as a group,blacks have more to be pissed off about than whites.....but that couldn't be,could it..cause we are all equal,right?


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Our benevolent government doesn't publish the statistics, but the homicide victimization rate for white, non-Hispanic Americans is apparently comparable with the European average; about 2-3 per 100,000.

This despite the fact that white Americans own the great majority of the hundreds of millions of guns in this country, that the Europeans don't have.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

dbgrate said:


> Pedantic....it's a hoot that you bring sexuality("effeminate liberals") into a rant about guns.....you might want to look into that....the first thing the charts you've shown suggest to me is that,as a group,blacks have more to be pissed off about than whites.....but that couldn't be,could it..cause we are all equal,right?


I think it's bizarre that you immediately think "sexuality" when someone calls you effeminate. I don't think you're a homosexual; I just think you have womanish sensibilities.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Well it is hard to argue statistics, that most airtight of sciences. And since putrescent factory farm bird posted his solution in ' the removal of a few thousand from society's subsets' the rational , not effeminite liberals of this forum really have no counter argument but to start an immediate thread in the primary forum. So, what do you guys think; silk or cotton (plain white or so there is no doubt, a revival of white on white.) Should the trads have the option of flour sacking? And what is the consensus on eyeholes; single needle enough?


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Gobble gobble. 

You know, I see thousands of young men dying every year and I think, gosh, why the heck isn't someone doing something about it? Instead, what I do I see--all these liberals who are, 1) trying to pretend like it's not a minority problem; and 2) trying to use these suffering and dying young men as an excuse to take guns away from their law-abiding neighbors. It really makes me sick.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Geez, you can't even keep your racist comments on the Interchange. This is the fashion forum, take that crap somewhere else.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Gosh, I'm sorry-- I didn't know numbers could be racist.

Edit: and do I even have to point out that I'm not the one who started this? The OP asked a legitimate question and immediately got attacked by gun grabbers.


----------



## dbgrate (Dec 4, 2006)

Pedantic....when was I called "effeminate"??? I completely missed that.If I were described as such,as having "womanish sensibilities",can I assume it's not a compliment,but, rather,... something to be avoided(or covered up) at all costs...certainly not a characteristic of a Manly Man.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Do any of your neighbors have a pool by chance? If they do-- it's 80 times more likely to drown one of your kids as their gun is to kill one accidentally. They're more likely to crash their car into your house or burn it down with fireworks than they are to injure you with a stray bullet.
> 
> But don't let stuff like this dissuade you from trying to take their rights away.


and I don't let my kids go to people's houses where they drink and use the pool.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

What, you mean the pool doesn't reach out and kill kids all by itself? Like guns do?


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Gobble gobble.
> 
> It really makes me sick.


To drag this thread back to fashion...

If it really makes you sick, my dear Turkey, have you considered having your tailor fashion an expandable rubber bladder into the breast pocket of your jacket so that you can have sort of a self-contained vomitorium for those moments when you are overcome while out in public? Just hold open the breast pocket, let loose into the bladder and be on your way. I should think this would be a simple mater for any good tailor. Also, mind what you gobble.

Buzz


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Fortunately, I was speaking figuratively, as people are known to do sometimes.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Hoof said:


> I just applied for my concealed permit and am curious as to what you have found to be the best way to carry. I will be carrying a Colt .380 auto and am curious if any of you have any good places to look for a concealed carry holster.


Sometimes I carry a Colt Pony Pocketlite in .380 in this holster

https://www.usgalco.com/HolsterPG3.asp?ProductID=2703&GunID=40

I actually carry a right hand strong side holster on my weak side butt forward just in front of my hip.


----------



## dbgrate (Dec 4, 2006)

Could some of the gun carriers give us updates of the last time they used their guns in self defense,real or imagined...any homicides? In my lifetime,I'd guess I've heard of or read about maybe 5 or 6 "successful" defenses with a gun,incredible ratio,considering the number of toters.


----------



## dbgrate (Dec 4, 2006)

The last one I read about was a kid that got fatally shot while stealing a car....you know,I can't think of one state where,being convicted of car theft,the penalty is execution....help me out with this...


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

You don't hear about it much because in the great majority of cases, no shots are fired.

I've used a gun to defend myself exactly once. Although the situation permitted the use of lethal force, I didn't have to shoot; I just asked the guy to drop his weapon and kindly stop breaking into my house. And he did, go figure. Then he ran away, but I didn't chase him.

If I hadn't been armed, it could have been very ugly-- I initially confronted the guy with the gun out of sight, and he just tried to break in faster...


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Am I the only one wondering why some of your children are in a neighbor's bedroom? 

I won't even let my dog out of the house unsupervised.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

dbgrate said:


> Could some of the gun carriers give us updates of the last time they used their guns in self defense,real or imagined...any homicides? In my lifetime,I'd guess I've heard of or read about maybe 5 or 6 "successful" defenses with a gun,incredible ratio,considering the number of toters.


Can you give us the ratio of "successful" defenses made *without* a gun? Or "unsuccessful" defenses with a gun?

HINT: the uniform crime report is made up of people that failed to mount a "successful" defense.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

ksinc said:


> Can you give us the ratio of "successful" defenses made *without* a gun? Or "unsuccessful" defenses with a gun?
> 
> HINT: the uniform crime report is made up of people that failed to mount a "successful" defense.


I think his point was that it's ironic that you might kill someone just because they're trying to take your car while you're still in it, because there's no death penalty for carjacking.

Likewise, there's no death penalty for burglary of an occupied dwelling, so I guess he's not for defense of the home, either.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> I think his point was that it's ironic that you might kill someone just because they're trying to take your car while you're still in it, because there's no death penalty for carjacking.
> 
> Likewise, there's no death penalty for burglary of an occupied dwelling, so I guess he's not for defense of the home, either.


That was his 2nd message; not the 1st one which I quoted and to which I responded.

Still ... lots of people get killed being car-jacked and I would say if they could hang you for stealing a horse back in the day, then car-jacking ought to get you the chair as well. I don't see any irony in it. People shouldn't screw with other people's cars and homes. I'm sure 99.9999% of the whiners want only evolution taught in the schools. Now *that* is ironic.

When I was in highschool a dude jerked open a van door on a guy right there at the intersection by our school and the driver just blew him away. The police didn't do anything other than write up a report. The Castle Doctrine we have here extends to your vehicle when you are in it.

I was down on South OBT late and had someone step out on me in my Cobra and try to stop me. I just down-shifted and stomped on it. He was too fast for me and got away ...


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Sorry-- when someone posts twice in rapid succession I tend to merge them together in my mind.

Plus, I wanted someone to follow his curious moral system to its logical conclusion-- what's the penalty for attempted murder? Certainly not death; so you'd have to wait until the bad guy kills you or a loved one before you can use deadly force.

And, to be pedantic, the bad guy would actually probably have to kill two loved ones, unless there's some other aggravating circumstance, assuming it's in a death-penalty state at all.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Sorry-- when someone posts twice in rapid succession I tend to merge them together in my mind.
> 
> Plus, I wanted someone to follow his curious moral system to its logical conclusion-- what's the penalty for attempted murder? Certainly not death; so you'd have to wait until the bad guy kills you or a loved one before you can use deadly force.
> 
> And, to be pedantic, the bad guy would actually probably have to kill two loved ones, unless there's some other aggravating circumstance, assuming it's in a death-penalty state at all.


Well he'd only have to kill one of mine, but as always YMMV :icon_smile_big:

"You toucha my truck, I toucha your face!"


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

ksinc said:


> Can you give us the ratio of "successful" defenses made *without* a gun? Or "unsuccessful" defenses with a gun?
> 
> HINT: the uniform crime report is made up of people that failed to mount a "successful" defense.


I have been on the recieving end of 3 attempted muggings, and something that fell pretty close to a mugging, but wasn't really. in one case, I simply ran away, in two cases I was able to beat the guy enough to convince him to change plans (I was much younger then). in the last case, I was able to negotiate an acceptable resolution (which is why I say it wasn't really a mugging, because I was able to negotiate with the guys).

in none of the above cases was I armed.

my brother, who has never fired a weapon in his life and partakes of no physical exersize and has no combat/martial arts, etc experience, once stopped a mugging with a large 7-11 coffee. he has also scared away 2 sets of burglers just by yelling from the upstairs "I'm calling the cops".

I don't know what happens outside of my family, but I don't think that we are all that outside of the normal curve.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

While firearm owners demand the right to possess firearms, We forget that people who wish not to, have an equal fundamental right to live without one. This is where the distortions of both gunshow knucklewalkers and their onerous doppleganger twin gun control advocates both fail miserably. All arguments aside, the fundamental raison d'etre of a firearm is the trauamtic tissue destruction of life . You may hold up a .22 short parlour pistol as counterpoint, but the user is merely honing his/her skills for other weaponry.True, more people are needlessly maimed or killed in automobiles daily. But the fundamental purpose of theat vehicle is transportation; racecars, mostertrucks being the equivelent to that parlour pistol. Obviously, both devices demand a degree of competence and responsibility, something SOCIETY has failed to instill on so many fronts of behavior. So we have this political dog called firearms cahsing it's own tail and barking.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

People have a "right" to live without guns? Let me guess-- you're not big on history, are you?


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Sorry-- when someone posts twice in rapid succession I tend to merge them together in my mind.
> 
> Plus, I wanted someone to follow his curious moral system to its logical conclusion-- what's the penalty for attempted murder? Certainly not death; so you'd have to wait until the bad guy kills you or a loved one before you can use deadly force.
> 
> And, to be pedantic, the bad guy would actually probably have to kill two loved ones, unless there's some other aggravating circumstance, assuming it's in a death-penalty state at all.


Oh, my dear, dear Turkey! It is indeed unfortunate that your grasp on logic is so tenuous, otherwise you would be absolutely marvelous company!

Buzz


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

History? oh yes, that ever so brief span of recorded human endeavor before all the activities my degree addresses.You are of course right, so go thump your chest and shout your # 1 while the Mormon Tabernacle Choir sings Queen's WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS. The Mohatma was a fool, those Amish girls murdered in a schoolhouse should have been packing Smith and Wesson ladysmith revolvers ( plain grips, no pridefull checkering) and Yeshua should have given a greater attention to the zealots so that the JDL would never have cause to exist.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

Kav said:


> While firearm owners demand the right to possess firearms, We forget that people who wish not to, have an equal fundamental right to live without one. This is where the distortions of both gunshow knucklewalkers and their onerous doppleganger twin gun control advocates both fail miserably. All arguments aside, the fundamental raison d'etre of a firearm is the trauamtic tissue destruction of life . You may hold up a .22 short parlour pistol as counterpoint, but the user is merely honing his/her skills for other weaponry.True, more people are needlessly maimed or killed in automobiles daily. But the fundamental purpose of theat vehicle is transportation; racecars, mostertrucks being the equivelent to that parlour pistol. Obviously, both devices demand a degree of competence and responsibility, something SOCIETY has failed to instill on so many fronts of behavior. So we have this political dog called firearms cahsing it's own tail and barking.


I think there are two fundamental differences between driving and gun ownership:

1) I choose to drive and I accept the risks before hand. The same isn't true for getting shot. Sometimes guns accidentally go off. Sometimes boneheads own guns and accidentally shoot people. Sometimes crazy people shoot people. If you are the victim you have no choice in the matter.

2) There is a huge benefit to society when people can easily be mobile. People can go to work and play and society benefits. There is no real benefit to society through gun ownership. You can't use your gun to prevent government tyranny - they have f-16's. And while some people think guns provide personal protection, even in the most extreme cases are they ever actually used for protection - most of the time people just tote their guns around and never use them. Thus, to the society, the cost/benefit of gun ownership is low. High cost - a person could die; low benefit - the vast majority of the time, there is no need to have a gun on you.


----------



## dbgrate (Dec 4, 2006)

What Stringfellow said,+1


----------



## Pulledpork (Jun 3, 2008)

There used to be a tailor in Limehouse in the east end of London who for a small additional fee would include a cosh pocket under the armpit of the jackets he made. I wonder if he is still around?


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

excellent post



Stringfellow said:


> I think there are two fundamental differences between driving and gun ownership:
> 
> 1) I choose to drive and I accept the risks before hand. The same isn't true for getting shot. Sometimes guns accidentally go off. Sometimes boneheads own guns and accidentally shoot people. Sometimes crazy people shoot people. If you are the victim you have no choice in the matter.
> 
> 2) There is a huge benefit to society when people can easily be mobile. People can go to work and play and society benefits. There is no real benefit to society through gun ownership. You can't use your gun to prevent government tyranny - they have f-16's. And while some people think guns provide personal protection, even in the most extreme cases are they ever actually used for protection - most of the time people just tote their guns around and never use them. Thus, to the society, the cost/benefit of gun ownership is low. High cost - a person could die; low benefit - the vast majority of the time, there is no need to have a gun on you.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

http:www.cyranos.ch/bavaud-e.htm Not mentioned in this most interesting article is the Reich's ban on any performance of the William Tell overture. In 1938 Germany possessed @ 196 total BF 109 D models marked Aero-Politzei. By war's end the BF 109 had been produced in greater numbers than any other aircraft in history.They never stopped one of the 42 known assassination plots and attempts on Hitler.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Stringfellow said:


> I think there are two fundamental differences between driving and gun ownership:
> 
> 1) I choose to drive and I accept the risks before hand. The same isn't true for getting shot. Sometimes guns accidentally go off. Sometimes boneheads own guns and accidentally shoot people. Sometimes crazy people shoot people. If you are the victim you have no choice in the matter.
> 
> 2) There is a huge benefit to society when people can easily be mobile. People can go to work and play and society benefits. There is no real benefit to society through gun ownership. You can't use your gun to prevent government tyranny - they have f-16's. And while some people think guns provide personal protection, even in the most extreme cases are they ever actually used for protection - most of the time people just tote their guns around and never use them. Thus, to the society, the cost/benefit of gun ownership is low. High cost - a person could die; low benefit - the vast majority of the time, there is no need to have a gun on you.





dbgrate said:


> What Stringfellow said,+1





globetrotter said:


> excellent post


I hope you three are kidding us and not just yourselves.

In response to #1 - is it really your claim that no one not driving a car and that therefore hasn't accepted the risks is ever accidentally killed by some "bonehead" with a car? Or by a crazy person? Or that they had a choice in the matter? Your logical proposition is only relevant from gunowners:non-gunowners as drivers:non-drivers.

In response to #2 - that's interesting ideologically, but when you use a word like cost-benefit you assume an intellectual liability to make like comparisons. Take the VT tragedy. It is pretty widely held that one person with a handgun could have prevented more than half of those deaths. Tell that half of the parents the lives of their children is a "low" occurence of benefit. Sure, you qualified it with "the vast majority of the time", but then you also said "most of the time people just tote their guns around and never use them." Oh really? So, there is both a low occurence of benefit and a low occurence of cost. Your point again was?

You other two are just chiming in on your bias. Shame. The basic point may or may not have merit, but the post is nonsense and the analysis is faulty - plain and simple.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

globetrotter said:


> I have been on the recieving end of 3 attempted muggings, and something that fell pretty close to a mugging, but wasn't really. in one case, I simply ran away, in two cases I was able to beat the guy enough to convince him to change plans (I was much younger then). in the last case, I was able to negotiate an acceptable resolution (which is why I say it wasn't really a mugging, because I was able to negotiate with the guys).
> 
> in none of the above cases was I armed.
> 
> ...


That is an interesting personal anecdote, but that was not at all the question I asked and that you quoted. I was asking about the Uniform Crime Report. I'm pretty sure the majority of those victims "lost." Many were attacked by repeat offenders, parolees, and gangbangers that are not scared of cops or 24oz coffees.

I am not the one trying to extrapolate a few irrelevant examples into an irrelevant point. That was the poster I responded too.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

ksinc said:


> In response to #2 - that's interesting ideologically, but when you use a word like cost-benefit you assume an intellectual liability to make like comparisons. Take the VT tragedy. It is pretty widely held that one person with a handgun could have prevented more than half of those deaths. Tell that half of the parents the lives of their children is a "low" occurence of benefit. Sure, you qualified it with "the vast majority of the time", but then you also said "most of the time people just tote their guns around and never use them." Oh really? So, there is both a low occurence of benefit and a low occurence of cost. Your point again was?
> 
> .


KSINC, we have had similar discussions before. I think that I have established that I don't want to take all the guns away, but I think that this post has exelent clarity in terms of my position - the cost/benifit analysis is poor on gun ownership.

my position has been, for years, that I don't believe that the majoirty of gun owners are in a position to successfully interviene to stop an event that is really life threatening. that most of the stories of people who do use a firearm to "Save" themselves could probrably have done the same thing without a firearm, and most of the really lethal attacks could not have been stoped by an average gun owner anyway.

VT tragedy is an intersting point - I really wonder how many VT students and staff are gun owners. and how many privatly owned guns were actually within a 2 km radious of the tragedy when it occurded. I am guessing that there were quite a few, given the statistics on gun ownership in America and Virginia.

but even it 10 lives could have been saved, which would have been fantastic, part of that analysis has to include that the cost of the policy of easy private gun ownership includes that the shooter was able to buy his weapons. so, perhaps half the lives could have been saved, but if the shooter hadn't been able to buy his weapon then all the lives could have been saved.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

globetrotter said:


> KSINC, we have had similar discussions before. I think that I have established that I don't want to take all the guns away, but I think that this post has exelent clarity in terms of my position - the cost/benifit analysis is poor on gun ownership.
> 
> my position has been, for years, that I don't believe that the majoirty of gun owners are in a position to successfully interviene to stop an event that is really life threatening. that most of the stories of people who do use a firearm to "Save" themselves could probrably have done the same thing without a firearm, and most of the really lethal attacks could not have been stoped by an average gun owner anyway.
> 
> ...


Yes, indeed we have. As I indicated the underlying point may have merit. It is moot IMHO because of the God-given right to self-preservation, but I digress. I don't discount your position. My only issue was that I thought you complimented it on it's conclusion and not on the weight of the argument which was weak. I realize you already agreed on the conclusion.

I'm fulling willing to accept for argument's sake that the net-net is the same. That would make the primary difference: selection. No matter what we do some people that do bad things are going to live and some innocent people are going to killed by the "bonehead" and the "thug."

That post simply does not make the case with clarity that can withstand an accuracy test. Is gun ownership a low cost-benefit issue. Again, perhaps. Your post does a somewhat better job of exploring the issue, but is not conclusive. However, the previous post was just not a reasonable argument for that case by any standard of debate IMHO. You are correct any cost-benefit analysis has to be balanced. That was my point - I think. 

I will note you only defended Part #2 which at least makes you "sane." 

Florida just passed a "VT Law" for lack of better term. There was obviously much debate. You can investigate it and we can discuss it if you would like. I agree it's an interesting and troubling issue involving many facets such as private/public property balances - my car on your property.

Cheers!


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

As a person who does a great deal of transportation the old fashioned way- upright and bipedal, I demand all drivers be removed for failing to observe my pedestrian right of way in a crosswalk. I also demand all bicyclists be arrested who ride on the sidewalks. I want them all removed permanently by society, the machinery crushed, melted or thrown into the ocean. Our laws, and the majority who observe the rules have failed. the lawlessness of a few can only be mitigated by a total ban. If I can defend myself with a Starbucks, you people can hoof it- in Allen Edmonds.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

This whole point will be moot once technology develops a pea shooter sized weapon that can easily be hidden in a tie.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

ksinc said:


> Yes, indeed we have. As I indicated the underlying point may have merit. It is moot IMHO because of the God-given right to self-preservation, but I digress. I don't discount your position. My only issue was that I thought you complimented it on it's conclusion and not on the weight of the argument which was weak. I realize you already agreed on the conclusion.


Assuming there is such a thing as a God given right to self-preservation why does that right include ownership of a gun? And if it does, why doesn't it include ownership of a bazooka? People could defend themselves and their property much better with a bazooka or a fighter jet. If the line has to be drawn somewhere, why can't it be drawn on the other side of gun ownership? Maybe you only have the God given right to defend yourself with a knife.



ksinc said:


> I'm fulling willing to accept for argument's sake that the net-net is the same. That would make the primary difference: selection. No matter what we do some people that do bad things are going to live and some innocent people are going to killed by the "bonehead" and the "thug."


Maybe, but this discounts the notion of choice. If I don't want to get into a car accident all I have to do is not drive a car. When I get into a car I accept the risk that I might die in an accident. I have no choice about accidentally getting shot. I could be accidentally shot in my own home or in my own yard. Thus, it is not "no matter what we do bad things may happen to innocent people." i.e. If I don't drive I will no get into a bad car accident.

The simple fact is that private gun ownership poses a huge cost on society. From legitimately bad people being wounded or killed all the way to innocent people accidentally being wounded or killed to the higher price paid for security measures all the way to the micro amount paid in higher transportation costs for gun owners (and I'm sure there are other costs I just can't think of). The only benefit derived from gun ownership is the remote chance that a gun owner will 1) have the need to use his gun to defend himself and 2) that when that time arrives he will be able to successfully defend himself.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Stringfellow, let me guess-you don't do a lot of walking? And I'm almost sure that you don't live in a house that's close to the road...


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

https://legalcatch.wordpress.com/2008/03/18/pedestrian-accident-statistics/



> Pedestrian/motor vehicle accidents are a serious problem throughout the world. The United States has a particular problem with pedestrian deaths and injuries. About 5,000 pedestrians are killed and another 64,000 are injured in motor vehicle accidents every year in this country. The following represents pedestrian accident statistics for the United States according to the National Highway Traffic Association and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
> - Pedestrian fatalities account for 11 percent of motor vehicle fatalities.
> - Over 180,000 pedestrians have been killed in motor vehicle accidents between 1975 and 2005.
> - Pedestrians comprise the second largest category of motor vehicle accident deaths following occupant deaths.
> ...


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

The 'bazooka, atomic bomb' in private hands argument is specious. How many drivers commute in a Formula 1 car? Should the local wineshop start marketing hashish? In fact, a drive out to Camarillo Airport will reveal a lovely scarlet red Mig 19 in private hands. the 23 MM would be problematic, but I know where a 37 MM cannon and ammunition are right now, legaly held in private hands. The installation is not that difficult, and ta-da our private pilot can take his anger out on Southwest Airlines over cheated frequent flier miles or a shortage of peanuts.But people in this country by and large aren't pursuing bazookas. Society has this emarkable self policing where the majority actually are content with a 12 guage or a Ruger .357


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

I wonder if anyone has the statistics for firearms murders committed by strangers, and/or firearms deaths resulting from accidents involving strangers.

I'd bet that both statistics are much, much, much lower than the pedestrian deaths in car accidents.

(Keep in mind that the usual gun accident involves someone pointing an "unloaded" gun at an acquaintance and pulling the trigger. As best I recall, the "kid shooting another kid or himself" thing happens about 10 times a year at the most.)


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Here's some data from 2005: https://www.progressiveu.org/025114-the-truth-about-gun-accidents

So the stranger-shoots-you-by-accident numbers are going to have to come out of 600 deaths total (keep in mind that almost all shooting deaths are, as I said, negligent shooting of an acquaintance).

According to the FBI, only 3% of small children murdered from 1976 to 2005 were killed by strangers...

https://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/children.htm#kids

And only 14% of all murders are known to be committed by strangers in the same period...

https://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/relationship.htm

So, yes, you are in fact much more likely to be run over by a stranger than you are to be shot accidentally or even deliberately by one.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

I wasn't saying that more people are killed by guns than by cars or vice versa. I was saying that I have a choice to be killed in a car on car accident. If I don't get into a car I won't be killed in a car on car accident. Same with walking on the street. If I choose not to walk on the street I won't be killed by a car driving on the street. Hence I get to decide if the risk is appropriate for me.

The same is not true for being shot.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

Kav said:


> The 'bazooka, atomic bomb' in private hands argument is specious. How many drivers commute in a Formula 1 car? Should the local wineshop start marketing hashish? In fact, a drive out to Camarillo Airport will reveal a lovely scarlet red Mig 19 in private hands. the 23 MM would be problematic, but I know where a 37 MM cannon and ammunition are right now, legaly held in private hands. The installation is not that difficult, and ta-da our private pilot can take his anger out on Southwest Airlines over cheated frequent flier miles or a shortage of peanuts.But people in this country by and large aren't pursuing bazookas. Society has this emarkable self policing where the majority actually are content with a 12 guage or a Ruger .357


In other words, a line has to be drawn somewhere (F1 cars on public streets are illegal but Toyotas are ok). Why can't the line be drawn on the other side of weapons (sabers and knives are ok but guns aren't)?


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

*NONE OF YOU...ON EITHER SIDE OF THIS ARGUMENT...KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. STOP THROWING SPURIOUS ARGUMENTS, QUESTIONABLE AND IRRELEVANT NUMBERS, OXYMORONS, HYSTERON PROTERON AND EVERY OTHER FORM OF LOGICAL FALLACY, & CETERA AT ONE ANOTHER.*

*GO BACK TO SCHOOL. STUDY STATISTICS. LEARN ABOUT LOGIC. DEVELOP ONE, SMALL PORTION OF INTELLECTUAL SOPHISTICATION AND THEN COME BACK AND REJOIN IN AN INFORMED AND SENSIBLE DISCUSSION.*

*IN THE MEAN TIME, JUST SHUT UP!*

Well, that's just my opinion.

Buzz


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

M6Classic said:


> *HYSTERON PROTERON*


Dang Buzz, I can't tell you how many years I've wanted to work that into a conversation, but never could seem to encounter the right situation. Now you've spoiled it for me so I guess I'll have to think of something else. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Stringfellow said:


> In other words, a line has to be drawn somewhere (F1 cars on public streets are illegal but Toyotas are ok). *Why can't the line be drawn on the other side of weapons (sabers and knives are ok but guns aren't)?*


Good idea. All firearms should be outlawed and destroyed. Bring back the sword. :icon_smile_big:

-En garde!


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Cruiser said:


> Dang Buzz, I can't tell you how many years I've wanted to work that into a conversation, but never could seem to encounter the right situation. Now you've spoiled it for me so I guess I'll have to think of something else. :icon_smile_big:
> 
> Cruiser


Regarding _*hysteron proteron*_...as Potter Stewart wrote in an entirely different context, "I know it when I see it!" :crazy:

Buzz


----------



## a tailor (May 16, 2005)

fpatton said:


> Brilliant! Just about fell out of my chair...
> 
> :icon_smile_big:
> 
> Does a gentleman carry a gun if he's not hunting?


naturally a gentlemans holster must match his belt and shoes. 
thats my professional opinion and i stand by it.


----------



## Douva (Mar 26, 2007)

This conversation seems to have gotten a bit off-topic, but since the new topic does fall within my area of expertise, I'll contribute.

It is commonly accepted that a free society only denies the people a right if and when there is sufficient evidence to show that granting that right will do more harm than good (as opposed to denying the people a right simply because one segment of society disapproves of it). That being the case, the burden of proof must be placed on those who oppose lawful concealed carry by trained, licensed adults to show that it does more harm than good. So far, there is absolutely no evidence supporting that notion. Though the issues of gun control and concealed carry are extremely controversial, there is one point on which the John Hopkins Center for Gun Policy, the Justice Department, the Centers for Disease Control, and the National Academy of Sciences agree—Concealed carry does not lead to more gun deaths. It does not make things any worse.

FACTS AND STATISTICS:


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

Douva said:


> This conversation seems to have gotten a bit off-topic, but since the new topic does fall within my area of expertise, I'll contribute.
> 
> It is commonly accepted that a free society only denies the people a right if and when there is sufficient evidence to show that granting that right will do more harm than good (as opposed to denying the people a right simply because one segment of society disapproves of it). That being the case, the burden of proof must be placed on those who oppose lawful concealed carry by trained, licensed adults to show that it does more harm than good. So far, there is absolutely no evidence supporting that notion. Though the issues of gun control and concealed carry are extremely controversial, there is one point on which the John Hopkins Center for Gun Policy, the Justice Department, the Centers for Disease Control, and the National Academy of Sciences agree-Concealed carry does not lead to more gun deaths. It does not make things any worse.
> 
> FACTS AND STATISTICS:


I am glad that you found a source as impartial as "concealed campus.org/right to carry. I can't imagine that they have any type of dog in this race.....


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Douva said:


> This conversation seems to have gotten a bit off-topic, but since the new topic does fall within my area of expertise, I'll contribute.
> 
> It is commonly accepted that a free society only denies the people a right if and when there is sufficient evidence to show that granting that right will do more harm than good (as opposed to denying the people a right simply because one segment of society disapproves of it). That being the case, the burden of proof must be placed on those who oppose lawful concealed carry by trained, licensed adults to show that it does more harm than good. So far, there is absolutely no evidence supporting that notion. Though the issues of gun control and concealed carry are extremely controversial, there is one point on which the John Hopkins Center for Gun Policy, the Justice Department, the Centers for Disease Control, and the National Academy of Sciences agree-Concealed carry does not lead to more gun deaths. It does not make things any worse.
> 
> FACTS AND STATISTICS:


YOU ARE AS BAD AS THE REST OF THEM. DO YOU THINK WE'RE STUPID? YOU WANT US TO ACCEPT STATISTICS VETTED AND PRESENTED BY THE ORGANIZATION *STUDENTS FOR CONCEALED CARRY ON CAMPUS*???? COME BACK WHEN YOU CAN CONTRIBUTE TO A BALLANCED AND REASONED DISCUSSION. 

THIS DISCUSSION IS GETTING EVER MORE ABSURD!!! EUGENE IONESCO SHOULD HAVE WRITTEN IT!!!

Well, at least that is how I feel.

Buzz


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Yeah, stop confusing him with facts. I mean-- the DOJ? Who the heck has ever heard of them, anyway?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Stringfellow said:


> Assuming there is such a thing as a God given right to self-preservation why does that right include ownership of a gun? And if it does, why doesn't it include ownership of a bazooka? People could defend themselves and their property much better with a bazooka or a fighter jet. If the line has to be drawn somewhere, why can't it be drawn on the other side of gun ownership? Maybe you only have the God given right to defend yourself with a knife.
> 
> Maybe, but this discounts the notion of choice. If I don't want to get into a car accident all I have to do is not drive a car. When I get into a car I accept the risk that I might die in an accident. I have no choice about accidentally getting shot. I could be accidentally shot in my own home or in my own yard. Thus, it is not "no matter what we do bad things may happen to innocent people." i.e. If I don't drive I will no get into a bad car accident.
> 
> The simple fact is that private gun ownership poses a huge cost on society. From legitimately bad people being wounded or killed all the way to innocent people accidentally being wounded or killed to the higher price paid for security measures all the way to the micro amount paid in higher transportation costs for gun owners (and I'm sure there are other costs I just can't think of). The only benefit derived from gun ownership is the remote chance that a gun owner will 1) have the need to use his gun to defend himself and 2) that when that time arrives he will be able to successfully defend himself.


You asked several questions or made several conclusions - I'll give the first few a run.

Yes, it would include the right to personal or small arms i.e. reasonable tools to promote self-preservation.

No, IMHO it would not include a bazooka, but some people would disagree.

The rest of your F16 slippery slope argument I will politely ignore. As to a knife yeah I got one of those too. In fact, that's mostly what I carry unless I am with my wife. It's a _switchblade_ too! OMG! OMG! EVIL!!! :devil:

No, that is incorrect IMHO. Choice *is* Selection. I am not discounting choice. I'm choosing choice. You are correct, in that it is not Natural Selection; nor are we animals. Choice is Intelligent Selection per se.

No, you have not established a "huge cost" on gun ownership. What you showed was that the cost and the benefit are both lives, and they both occur with low occurence due to guns.

No, it is only your proposition that is the only benefit of gun ownership. You are incorrect. As I stated your analysis is faulty/out-of-balance or at least incomplete.

If you were correct maybe that would justify the conclusion, but you are starting with the conclusion and working backwards.

As we all agree this is largely academic, surely we can expect you to at least meet academic standards - as low as they may be.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Kav said:


> The 'bazooka, atomic bomb' in private hands argument is specious. How many drivers commute in a Formula 1 car? Should the local wineshop start marketing hashish? In fact, a drive out to Camarillo Airport will reveal a lovely scarlet red Mig 19 in private hands. the 23 MM would be problematic, but I know where a 37 MM cannon and ammunition are right now, legaly held in private hands. The installation is not that difficult, and ta-da our private pilot can take his anger out on Southwest Airlines over cheated frequent flier miles or a shortage of peanuts.But people in this country by and large aren't pursuing bazookas. Society has this emarkable self policing where the majority actually are content with a 12 guage or a Ruger .357


^^^ This is what an excellent post looks like.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

ksinc said:


> You asked several questions or made several conclusions - I'll give the first few a run.
> 
> Yes, it would include the right to personal or small arms i.e. reasonable tools to promote self-preservation.
> 
> ...


KSINC,

I have to say that I agree with this point



> The only benefit derived from gun ownership is the remote chance that a gun owner will 1) have the need to use his gun to defend himself and 2) that when that time arrives he will be able to successfully defend himself.


what we disagree on would probrably be the value of 1), 2) and what the overall cost to society is of gun ownership.

I didn't study a hard science in University, I studied philosophy. so, the acedemic approach to this, from the way I was taught, would be to try and quantify the 3 things.

1. we will never be able to come up with a good number as to the the liklihood of a gun owner needing his gun that we would both agree with, but as resonable people, I think that we would all agree that it is pretty small. there are >100 million guns in private hands in the US, and how many instances per year of a person using them for self defence?

2. we will always disagree on the liklihood that a gun owner will use his gun well to intervine in a situation that he needs it. this may be the biggest point of disagreement. but, again, I think that you would agree that any training and support to make this liklihood bigger is a favorable thing

3. the cost - I think that we would agree, if we would both accept the same paramiters. I think that very very few firearms are smuggled into the US from oversees, and very few are stolen from factories. so the vast majoirty of guns in the hands of idiots and outlaws started out in the hands of legal owners. if there were less, there would be less gun deaths, simple as that. this number is very low, compared to deaths by smoking or by cars. but it is a number that is pretty much completly avoidable.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

You're of course forgetting two minor details: 1) that a ban on guns would be completely useless at taking guns out of the hands of criminals; and 2) that guns are simply tools.

Can you imagine if the VT shooter hadn't been able to get a gun? What do you think he would have done? "Oh, well, I can't get a gun, so I guess I'll give up my dream of killing people."

Or maybe he'd rent a u-haul and buy some fertilizer, and kill 300 people? Or get a samurai sword and just kill 10? Pipe bombs? Poison gas?

The fact is there ain't nothing you can do to stop someone who _really_ wants to kill other people. He could take the u-haul truck and run over people at a shopping mall...


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

globetrotter said:


> KSINC,
> 
> I have to say that I agree with this point
> 
> ...


Ok, so in philosophy they don't teach you about making categoric statements like "the only benefit" that you can't support with facts? I'm surprised.

I think you should quit launching from that fallacy. Frankly it makes the rest of your position irrelevant and I know you want to have a well thought out position on this issue.

No, you are wrong on what is the biggest point of disagreement. I don't disagree and I am not arguing the likelyhood, I asked what percentage of victims do you think had a gun and mounted an "unsuccessful" defense vs. the "few" that did mount a "successful" defense. I only asked because he made that the foundation of another argument. You picked it up and now you are here. You're making it up as you go along which is your right, philosophically, but you're not making a fact based argument of any kind.

I think you will find I graciously accepted a net-net. If you can make an argument that it is more than a net-net be my guest, but so far no one has. You have just repeated that it is. That isn't working.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> You're of course forgetting two minor details: 1) that a ban on guns would be completely useless at taking guns out of the hands of criminals; and 2) that guns are simply tools.
> 
> Can you imagine if the VT shooter hadn't been able to get a gun? What do you think he would have done? "Oh, well, I can't get a gun, so I guess I'll give up my dream of killing people."
> 
> ...


*The fact is there ain't nothing you can do to stop someone who really wants to* prove how stupid he is by offering over and over and over again the same lame-brained justifications for why he should be permitted by the rest of society to carry a concealed fire arm. I really mean this from the bottom of my heart, Turkey, and I hope you will not take this the wrong way, but you represent perhaps the dumbest, know-nothing faction of our society and I am greatly impressed by your bottomless capacity to parade your stupidity in public. You have really developed idiocy to an art form and my hat is off to you. If the moderators now wish to ban me, so be it.

Buzz


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

I'm using logic and facts to support my arguments. You're just insulting people. Think about that one for a minute.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> I'm using logic and facts to support my arguments. You're just insulting people. Think about that one for a minute.


Okay, I'm thinking about it.

Buzz
Buzz


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> I'm using logic and facts to support my arguments. You're just insulting people. Think about that one for a minute.


Yup, I thought about it and I am still right.

Buzz


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

M6Classic said:


> *The fact is there ain't nothing you can do to stop someone who really wants to* prove how stupid he is by offering over and over and over again the same lame-brained justifications for why he should be permitted by the rest of society to carry a concealed fire arm. *I really mean this from the bottom of my heart, Turkey, and I hope you will not take this the wrong way, but you represent perhaps the dumbest, know-nothing faction of our society and I am greatly impressed by your bottomless capacity to parade your stupidity in public. You have really developed idiocy to an art form and my hat is off to you. If the moderators now wish to ban me, so be it.*
> 
> Buzz


Excellent! :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Douva (Mar 26, 2007)

M6Classic said:


> YOU ARE AS BAD AS THE REST OF THEM. DO YOU THINK WE'RE STUPID? YOU WANT US TO ACCEPT STATISTICS VETTED AND PRESENTED BY THE ORGANIZATION *STUDENTS FOR CONCEALED CARRY ON CAMPUS*???? COME BACK WHEN YOU CAN CONTRIBUTE TO A BALLANCED AND REASONED DISCUSSION.
> 
> THIS DISCUSSION IS GETTING EVER MORE ABSURD!!! EUGENE IONESCO SHOULD HAVE WRITTEN IT!!!
> 
> ...


M6Classic, if either you or Globetrotter had taken the time to to read the pages to which I linked, you would see that they all cite sources--mostly government studies--for the facts and statistics presented.

Only the last two links, which also cite outside sources, come directly from Students for Concealed Carry on Campus. Had you looked at the documents in question, you would have seen that the first link is an excerpt from https://www.gunfacts.info and that the second link is a fact sheet prepared by the NRA.

I used links from Students for Concealed Carry on Campus because I am a former spokesperson for that organization. I've debated the president of The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (on Fox News), I've debated a survivor of the Virginia Tech Massacre (on CNN), I've had an op-ed on the topic published in _The Washington Times_, and I'd be happy to go head-to-head with you on the facts any time you please. Since I wrote 99% of the information on the Students for Concealed Carry on Campus website, I figured that the last two links I provided would suffice as my presentation of the facts, but if you'd like to attempt an argument in support of your position, I'll be happy to rebut it.

Ad hominem attacks are the tell-tale sign of someone who has no fact-based arguments to support his or her case. You attack the source of the facts I provided, rather than the facts I provided, because you have no rebuttal for the facts I provided.

I challenge you to provide a compilation of statistics on an issue like concealed carry that comes from an unbiased source. I doubt you'll find one.

For that matter, I challenge you to provide a compilation of statistics from a _*biased*_ source that suggests that concealed carry makes things worse. I doubt you'll find one.


----------



## dbgrate (Dec 4, 2006)

Pedantic...what the Leica Man from Massachusetts said,+1...there I go,pandering again...just curious,would you consider (and follow through)shooting a thief running down your street with your TV(whether a $3000. plasma or a $95. B&W)if you happened upon him after he had left your unoccupied home? If you were in your home and he'd just left and was halfway down your driveway en route to a very likely escape? I know it's one of those silly hypotheticals that those sissy liberals like to toss around at the twitchy fingered,but let's give it a shot(no pun intended).


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

As much as I enjoy seeing PT skewered for his crazy views, this thread should be moved to the Interchange. This really has nothing to do with clothing.


----------



## Pulledpork (Jun 3, 2008)

<opens lawn chair>

<makes popcorn>


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

dbgrate said:


> Pedantic...what the Leica Man from Massachusetts said,+1...there I go,pandering again...just curious,would you consider (and follow through)shooting a thief running down your street with your TV(whether a $3000. plasma or a $95. B&W)if you happened upon him after he had left your unoccupied home? If you were in your home and he'd just left and was halfway down your driveway en route to a very likely escape? I know it's one of those silly hypotheticals that those sissy liberals like to toss around at the twitchy fingered,but let's give it a shot(no pun intended).


Considering that I passed on shooting someone when he was trying to break _into_ my house, what makes you think I'd shoot him on his way out?


----------



## Preu Pummel (Feb 5, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> I'm using logic and facts to support my arguments. You're just insulting people. Think about that one for a minute.


They are.
That's the sign they are losing.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

D,

You raise a couple of questions:

1. Ok, so ccw doesn't mae things worse. Does it make things better?

2. Ok, it doesn't make things worse, than what? A place where nobody has guns? Or a place where there are a lot of guns but no ccw?

3. What kind of guy brags about debating the victem of a mass shooting about gun ownership?

I would probrably tend to agree that ccw isn't something that is worse that a place where it is easy to buy guns. I think that you should be able to have all the guns you need, are willing to train with to a high level of effictiveness and are willing to take responsibilty for (from factory to destruction or legal sale).



Douva said:


> M6Classic, if either you or Globetrotter had taken the time to to read the pages to which I linked, you would see that they all cite sources--mostly government studies--for the facts and statistics presented.
> 
> Only the last two links, which also cite outside sources, come directly from Students for Concealed Carry on Campus. Had you looked at the documents in question, you would have seen that the first link is an excerpt from https://www.gunfacts.info and that the second link is a fact sheet prepared by the NRA.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

By what measure do we judge winners and losers in an online debate over firearm ownership in a clothing thread? At best we can present viewpoints and references that have been put forward ad infinitum before. The only 'losers' here will be people taking insult who probably have an answer to some future query about clothing, which is theoretically why we are all here. On this thought I apologise to any person who I may have injured. Think maybe I'll pop into Sam Hober and look at ties lined up like the mauser hunting rifles I used to ferret out. Cycles the bolt on my mouth with the wingsafety straight up, ejecting any remaining arguments.


----------



## Preu Pummel (Feb 5, 2008)

Kav said:


> By what measure do we judge winners and losers in an online debate over firearm ownership in a clothing thread?


WE??

Who said WE do it? I do it.


----------



## Douva (Mar 26, 2007)

globetrotter said:


> D,
> 
> You raise a couple of questions:
> 
> 1. Ok, so ccw doesn't mae things worse. Does it make things better?


Those of us who carry think it makes things better. The people who've been saved by concealed carry know it made things better for them. As for the rest of you, it's clearly not making things worse, so what is the problem?

As I stated before, in a free society the burden of proof rests with those seeking the denial of a right, not those seeking the granting of a right.



> 2. Ok, it doesn't make things worse, than what? A place where nobody has guns? Or a place where there are a lot of guns but no ccw?


Name a place where nobody has guns.



> 3. What kind of guy brags about debating the victem of a mass shooting about gun ownership?


I was stating my credentials. The fact that CNN chose to have me argue the pro-concealed-carry-on-campus side of the debate speaks to my credibility. I didn't choose who I debated; that decision was made by CNN. If you don't like the choice, complain to Turner Broadcasting.



> I would probrably tend to agree that ccw isn't something that is worse that a place where it is easy to buy guns. I think that you should be able to have all the guns you need, are willing to train with to a high level of effictiveness and are willing to take responsibilty for (from factory to destruction or legal sale).




Proponents of gun control typically argue that gun owners should be required to undergo training, testing, expanded background checks, and licensing.

 Proponents of gun rights typically argue that gun owners should be allowed to carry handguns in public, for self-defense.

 Concealed carry laws allow gun owners who undergo training, testing, expanded background checks, and licensing to carry handguns in public, for self-defense.

 When both sides give a little and both sides get a little, that is the true definition of compromise.


----------



## dbgrate (Dec 4, 2006)

Pedantic...as I said..not just on the way out,but on the way ouy after a successful heist,your TV,or whatever, being carted away, in full view, and your pleas being ignored...I'm not guessing what you'd do..I'm guessing you don't know either.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

I know exactly what I would do--nothing at all; he can have it. I'm not going to shoot someone unless I have to. Shooting someone who is fleeing and poses no danger to you is illegal in every state in the country except Texas, and then only at night.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

dbgrate said:


> Pedantic...as I said..not just on the way out,but on the way ouy after a successful heist,your TV,or whatever, being carted away, in full view, and your pleas being ignored...I'm not guessing what you'd do..I'm guessing you don't know either.





PedanticTurkey said:


> I know exactly what I would do--nothing at all; he can have it. I'm not going to shoot someone unless I have to. Shooting someone who is fleeing and poses no danger to you is illegal in every state in the country except Texas, and then only at night.


https://www.gunlaws.com/FloridaCastleDoctrine.htm



> An act relating to the protection of persons and property;





> WHEREAS, the Legislature finds that it is necessary to restore absolute rights of law-abiding people to protect themselves, their families and others, and their property from intruders and attackers





> *SECTION 2. Basic rights.*--All natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before the law and have inalienable rights, among which are the right to enjoy and defend life and liberty, to pursue happiness, to be rewarded for industry, and to acquire, *possess and protect property*; except that the ownership, inheritance, disposition and possession of real property by aliens ineligible for citizenship may be regulated or prohibited by law.


In Florida we are no longer required to retreat or standby as long as we are not in danger. We are allowed to investigate and/or confront someone on our property. We are also allowed to get our gun FIRST as a precaution. There used to be big issues with "Why did you get your gun?" type questions. If you come home and they are carrying your TV through the yard you can calmly ask that person to put your TV down while you call the police and you hold a gun on them. If you actually come home and catch them inside the house ... well they were probably dead when you found them, right?  There's a lot of nuances such as your Castle extends to your property and not just the dwelling; and when you are in your car you have the same assumption of security as you do in your home. The worst part is it's all pretty foggy and it's been reported several different ways and people are confused about what they can and can't do.

There has also been a big difference historically between the written law and what the cops would charge you with and arrest you or what you may be prosecuted for and they were trying to clean it all up.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

ksinc, with all due respect, you're treading on very dangerous ground. It's terrible, awful, horrible, dangerous--I can't speak strongly enough against it--to try and rely on a layman's interpretation of the law in such serious matters as this.

Suffice to say that the burden would be on you to overcome this extremely well-established and ancient rule--and you ain't gonna do it quoting some vague statement of principle.

You have a right to protect your property, for sure, but your defense of it has to be proportional-- you can't shoot someone in the back who's making off with your television. Just don't do it, okay?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> ksinc, with all due respect, you're treading on very dangerous ground. It's terrible, awful, horrible, dangerous--I can't speak strongly enough against it--to try and rely on a layman's interpretation of the law in such serious matters as this.
> 
> Suffice to say that the burden would be on you to overcome this extremely well-established and ancient rule--and you ain't gonna do it quoting some vague statement of principle.
> 
> You have a right to protect your property, for sure, but your defense of it has to be proportional-- you can't shoot someone in the back who's making off with your television. Just don't do it, okay?


Please don't turn your stupidity on me. You're treading on dangerous ground. With *ALL DUE* respect. Just don't do it, okay?


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

I guess I wasn't exaggerating when I said I couldn't speak strongly enough against interpreting such a serious law yourself.

I'd recommend against such an asinine response when your defense attorney tries to explain this to you.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> I guess I wasn't exaggerating when I said I couldn't speak strongly enough against interpreting such a serious law yourself.
> 
> I'd recommend against such an asinine response when your defense attorney tries to explain this to you.


No part of my post was an attempt to give or receive legal advice or rely on anything. It was simply a response to your erroneous post that Texas was the only State with such expansive laws regarding use of force.

No part of my post said shoot the guy in the back while he flees. If you believe it did, then you're proving to be a bigger moron than that camera guy thinks you are.

You're not exaggerating? What you did you was either intentionally or negligently misconstrue my post and show your ass. I just handed it back to you.

I can't speak strongly enough against that and my having to explain this to you.

Have a great day!


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

ksinc said:


> No part of my post was an attempt to give or receive legal advice.


Well, that's good. You were just suggesting that someone could do something that would probably get them incarcerated for ten or twenty years. But it wasn't legal advice, great.



> It was simply a response to your erroneous post that Texas was the only State with such expansive laws regarding use of force.


"Such expansive laws regarding use of force"? Strange-- I know *I* was talking about a VERY specific situation-- the same one you QUOTED in your post, if you'd bothered to read it-- which is shooting a burglar in the back as he flees with your television.

Texas has a SPECIFIC, and famous, statute that allows you to use lethal force to stop someone from stealing your property AT NIGHT. This is unrelated to the "castle doctrine" laws, which are a completely different animal.

You really shouldn't believe everything you read in the NY Times or on a Brady Bunch billboard. It'll get you 20 years in the "pen."



> No part of my post said shoot the guy in the back while he flees. If you believe it did, then you're proving to be a bigger moron than that camera guy thinks you are.


Well, can't you read? You quoted the post. Here-- I'll quote it again, for good measure...



ksinc said:


> dbgrate said:
> 
> 
> > Pedantic...as I said..not just on the way out,but on the way ouy after a successful heist,your TV,or whatever, being carted away, in full view, and your pleas being ignored...I'm not guessing what you'd do..I'm guessing you don't know either.
> ...


And then you post some malarkey about castle doctrine laws. Well, guess what-- you're wrong. Castle doctrine laws don't let you shoot anyone in the back as they're running off with your stuff. If you do it, you'd better lie about what happened, because you'll do time otherwise.



> You're not exaggerating? What you did you was intentionally or negligently misconstrue my post and show your ass. I just handed it back to you.


Yeah, I really don't think so. You insulted me without grounds and made yourself look like a pretentious, foolish child.

Are you going to go on WebMD and argue with doctors next?



> Have a great day!


Right back at you.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Well, that's good. You were just suggesting that someone could do something that would probably get them incarcerated for ten or twenty years. But it wasn't legal advice, great.
> 
> "Such expansive laws regarding use of force"? Strange-- I know *I* was talking about a VERY specific situation-- the same one you QUOTED in your post, if you'd bothered to read it-- which is shooting a burglar in the back as he flees with your television.
> 
> ...


I VERY CLEARLY differentiated between finding them in your house and finding them fleeing your house because that was not clear.

No where did I say shoot them in the back as they run off. You did not previously say that and it is not in the quoted section. Apparently your very specific situation existed only in your mind. Maybe you should learn to read.

Yes, I insulted you. You earned it. Grow up. You've been earning it for eight pages ... I'm not the first and I certainly won't be the last.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Well, that's good. You were just suggesting that someone could do something that would probably get them incarcerated for ten or twenty years. But it wasn't legal advice, great.
> 
> "Such expansive laws regarding use of force"? Strange-- I know *I* was talking about a VERY specific situation-- the same one you QUOTED in your post, if you'd bothered to read it-- which is shooting a burglar in the back as he flees with your television.
> 
> ...


So, you are as knowledgeable about guns as physicians are about medicine? Hmmm, I think that is a stretch.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

What, are you illiterate, too?



dbgrate said:


> Pedantic...what the Leica Man from Massachusetts said,+1...there I go,pandering again...just curious,*would you consider (and follow through)shooting a thief running down your street with your TV*(whether a $3000. plasma or a $95. B&W)if you happened upon him after he had left your unoccupied home? If you were in your home and he'd just left and was halfway down your driveway en route to a very likely escape? I know it's one of those silly hypotheticals that those sissy liberals like to toss around at the twitchy fingered,but let's give it a shot(no pun intended).





dbgrate said:


> Pedantic..*.as I said..not just on the way out,but on the way ouy after a successful heist,your TV,or whatever, being carted away, in full view, and your pleas being ignored...I*'m not guessing what you'd do..I'm guessing you don't know either.





PedanticTurkey said:


> I know exactly what I would do--nothing at all; he can have it. I'm not going to shoot someone unless I have to. Shooting someone who is fleeing and poses no danger to you is illegal in every state in the country except Texas, and then only at night.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> What, are you illiterate, too?


You're clearly throwing crap against a wall since you can't find and highlight where I said "shoot them in the back?"

I do see why you made such an erroneous assumption, but that's exactly what it is.

Perhaps you need an English translation?


> If you come home and they are carrying your TV through the yard you can calmly ask that person to put your TV down while you call the police and you hold a gun on them.


The vaguery I was referring to is that we historically are not authorized to "brandish a gun" or "take people at gunpoint" like the Cops can. Now there is some understanding that we can get the gun FIRST to investigate because it's pretty stupid to get attacked and then try to get the gun. As I said, they tried to clear it up, but they didn't do a perfect job as people all have different interpretations including the Police. I know I've asked them.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Ridiculous. You QUOTED THE DANG POST. I don't know how I should react to this-- on one hand, I'm glad that you've at least realized that you were wrong. That's good.

But what's bad is that you continue to deny the obvious. You don't seriously think that _anyone_ buys your explanation, do you? But you continue to insult me, even though I was correct and you obviously know it now. Grow up, man up, and admit that you were wrong.

You don't have to admit that you were foolish, arrogant, and obnoxious about it.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Ridiculous. You QUOTED THE DANG POST. I don't know how I should react to this-- on one hand, I'm glad that you've at least realized that you were wrong. That's good.
> 
> But what's bad is that you continue to deny the obvious. You don't seriously think that _anyone_ buys your explanation, do you? But you continue to insult me, even though I was correct and you obviously know it now. Grow up, man up, and admit that you were wrong.
> 
> You don't have to admit that you were foolish, arrogant, and obnoxious about it.


It doesn't say shoot them in the back. You insulted me. I insulted you back. I admit I was wrong to think you were worth the discussion.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

As an aside, I find it very annoying that you keep editing your posts after I've replied. Not that it's much of an improvement, but it sure can be confusing.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Yeah, I see what happened. You edited your post _after_ I replied, and now you're trying to use the edited version to rebut my response _to your original post_.

Your post went from being obviously wrong to being pointless, nonsensical and irrelevant. But still you insult me.

How 'bout this-- explain to me what the castle doctrine has to do with chasing down and shooting someone who is running away with your property, and I'll back off.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> As an aside, I find it very annoying that you keep editing your posts after I've replied. Not that it's much of an improvement, but it sure can be confusing.


And you've been here how long? You're obviously not very observant.

It's easy to tell when I am editing and when I am done once I have begun editing.

I'm in a hotel on their crappy internet and the board drops my posts frequently so I post and then edit rather than preview.

I'm sorry you are confused.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Yeah, I see what happened. You edited your post _after_ I replied, and now you're trying to use the edited version to rebut my response _to your original post_.
> 
> Your post went from being obviously wrong to being pointless, nonsensical and irrelevant. But still you insult me.
> 
> How 'bout this-- explain to me what the castle doctrine has to do with chasing down and shooting someone who is running away with your property, and I'll back off.


NOOO! I never said shoot them in the back. Nice try though.

As I have explained three times now. We used to not be able to chase them or even investigate them. Now we can. They extended the definition of CASTLE. I never claimed we could shoot them in the back.

Can you not see the link to the SB-436 and read it for yourself? I provided more links than the one you conveniently bashed as written by a laymen at gunlaws.com


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wasn't your previous position that YOU were the one speaking SPECIFICALLY about shooting them in the back and you quoted yourself to prove it (except your post didn't say that?) 

Now you are claiming it was me and I edited my post?

Interesting ...

He had clarified and said "driveway" and I said "yard" and calmly confront them and call the police while holding a gun, not while shooting them.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Yeah, I see what happened. You edited your post _after_ I replied, and now you're trying to use the edited version to rebut my response _to your original post_.
> 
> Your post went from being obviously wrong to being pointless, nonsensical and irrelevant. But still you insult me.
> 
> How 'bout this-- explain to me what the castle doctrine has to do with chasing down and shooting someone who is running away with your property, and I'll back off.


ksinc does often edit his posts, however, he has never changed the original post to hide something. It is always to add something rather than remove a post. Nice try.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Let's see-- your original post basically did this:

You quoted the dialogue between me and the other gentleman about shooting people in the back.

You took issue with my statement that Texas was the only state with this rule. To support this, you cited the vague statement from that Florida statute about a right to protect property, and gave a link to a website with a brief overview of the castle doctrine law. You implied or argued that this permitted a shooting under the circumstances of the dialogue you quoted.

Your post was downright wrong. I replied, setting you straight, at 22:10 my time.

_Eight minutes later_ you changed your original post to its present version, which has been modified to basically say nothing in support of its premise, then promptly insulted me at 22:19, _one minute later_.

But this is somehow my fault. Care to paste your original post, if you have access to it? I don't, but I'm sure it's somewhere.

And let's go back to your _edited_ post, if you please--



> In Florida we are no longer required to retreat or standby as long as we are not in danger. We are allowed to investigate and/or confront someone on our property. We are also allowed to get our gun FIRST as a precaution. There used to be big issues with "Why did you get your gun?" type questions. If you come home and they are carrying your TV through the yard you can calmly ask that person to put your TV down while you call the police and you hold a gun on them. If you actually come home and catch them inside the house ... well they were probably dead when you found them, right?  There's a lot of nuances such as your Castle extends to your property and not just the dwelling; and when you are in your car you have the same assumption of security as you do in your home. The worst part is it's all pretty foggy and it's been reported several different ways and people are confused about what they can and can't do.


What exactly does that say about the Texas law or the scenario that was previously discussed and that _you quoted_ above that text? Nothing whatsoever! It's just some bizarre and dubious commentary that's completely off point. You later claimed that it was...



ksinc said:


> simply a response to your erroneous post that Texas was the only State with such expansive laws regarding use of force.


And, yet, you seem to have forgotten that your _edited_ post says nothing to refute my original post that you quoted. Nothing whatsoever! You still cannot shoot people to recovery property in any other state than Texas (and only at night). Period! You've said nothing to refute this--your original post purported to, but you edited it out, then apparently _forgot_, because you represented your edited post as proving the point you tried to make in the original. And you kept on insulting me, calling me a "moron."

Well, I'll give you another shot--what does the castle doctrine do to in any way compare with Texas' statute, which _permits you to use lethal force to recover stolen property at night_?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Dear Frank, er Pedantic Turkey, A word of wisdom, and I post this typos and grammatical errors extant so remonstrations of intellectual self forgery and revisionism canot be waved like a self appointed umpire's flag on this playing field. Frank, er again excuse me, Pedantic Turkey, Debating skills, moral force of argument, a silver or gold halo bestowed by the Archangel mean little to non here. You will alienate even those who may agree in principle with you.One day, alone, irrelevant, your participation will end like the final scene in Terminator 2 as your screen to this forum goes black. Get a clue Frank.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Kav said:


> Dear Frank, er Pedantic Turkey, A word of wisdom, and I post this typos and grammatical errors extant so remonstrations of intellectual self forgery and revisionism canot be waved like a self appointed umpire's flag on this playing field. Frank, er again excuse me, Pedantic Turkey, Debating skills, moral force of argument, a silver or gold halo bestowed by the Archangel mean little to non here. You will alienate even those who may agree in principle with you.One day, alone, irrelevant, your participation will end like the final scene in Terminator 2 as your screen to this forum goes black. Get a clue Frank.


Gee, "George," I don't care if I'm alienating someone who _insults me_ for giving sensible, honest, and factually-correct responses to his posts. And, George, I think it's very curious that you direct this at me, despite my restraint after having so many insults wrongfully directed at me.

Frankly, Georgie, I could do without such allies. I'd rather go it alone.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

And, just to show off, I'll reply to ksinc's modified post. I'll quote it, though, so it doesn't get changed later...



> In Florida we are no longer required to retreat or standby as long as we are not in danger.


"standby as long as we are not in danger"? What does that even mean? Certainly it's a positive change that it's been codified that you no longer have the "duty to retreat" that exists in some states, but you realize that this is merely a codification of a rule adopted by the courts of most states long ago?



> We are allowed to investigate and/or confront someone on our property.


Yup.



> We are also allowed to get our gun FIRST as a precaution. There used to be big issues with "Why did you get your gun?" type questions.


I'm not sure you understand the _reason_ why these "why did you get your gun" questions are so important. In the classic case, it's tied to the duty to retreat-- if you could go get your gun, you could stay in your home where you'd be safe, rather than going back outside to confront the baddies, where you would be labeled the "aggressor" and denied a self-defense defense.

This hadn't been the rule in most (any?) states since the 1970s (or ever).



> If you come home and they are carrying your TV through the yard you can calmly ask that person to put your TV down while you call the police and you hold a gun on them.


I suppose you can "hold a gun on them," but what can you do with it? You can't shoot them if they ignore you and walk away...

Except in Texas. You still haven't even _touched_ on a comparison with this rule, by the way.



> If you actually come home and catch them inside the house ... well they were probably dead when you found them, right?


Probably not.



> There's a lot of nuances such as your Castle extends to your property and not just the dwelling;


Is this actually the case? I imagine you mean to refer to the _curtilege_ of your home, which doesn't include driveways...



> and when you are in your car you have the same assumption of security as you do in your home.


Irrelevant.



> The worst part is it's all pretty foggy and it's been reported several different ways and people are confused about what they can and can't do.


That's true. Like your original post!



> There has also been a big difference historically between the written law and what the cops would charge you with and arrest you or what you may be prosecuted for and they were trying to clean it all up.


What's that got to do with anything?

Anyway, as you can see-- there's _nothing_ in his post that even remotely concerns the Texas statute, which allows you, in no uncertain terms, not framed as _any kind of self defense_, to shoot someone to prevent them from stealing your property, at night. Nothing whatsoever.

The castle doctrine laws create a few additional circumstances (or, really, codify pre-existing court-created rules) that create a _presumption_ of danger to the person that allows you to use deadly force inside the home (or to protect an _occupied_ vehicle).

The problem with ksinc's post is that it's just that-- a presumption of a threat to your person. You cannot shoot to protect property. Period!


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Dear FrankDC, I'll let someone with more mercy clue you in on this one. your's, George


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

It's telling that you're persisting with some in-joke that I could care less about, rather than addressing the substance of the discussion. But that's to be expected, as that anthropology masters that you're so fond of fallaciously using to support your distortions of history doesn't help you here. And I suppose I could point out that I "amjur'd" my criminal law class of more than 90 people in law school, but it's been a while, and at least _I_ know that'd provide no support to my arguments.


----------



## JAGMAJ (Feb 10, 2005)

Stringfellow said:


> The only benefit derived from gun ownership is the remote chance that a gun owner will 1) have the need to use his gun to defend himself and 2) that when that time arrives he will be able to successfully defend himself.


I think that you are forgetting the primary reason we have a Second Amendment in this country. As the Supreme Court noted in its recent opinion and the history surrounding the formation of our country demonstrates, our forefathers wanted the people to have the means to defend themselves against their own government. The founders viewed standing armies as a tool by which governments oppressed their people. Without having firearms in the hands of the citizenry, we are at the complete mercy of our government. Our country was formed on the Lockean view that government is meant to benefit the people and that the people, therefore, can overturn a government that does not support the people. Without guns, that would be pretty much impossible. Remember the first shots of the American Revolution were fired when the British tried to seize the guns from local militia. I think that we have gotten a little complacent and spoiled by having a good government for 200 years and forget that governments don't always behave when unchecked.

As for self-defense. I am all for gun ownership for this reason alone, although I do support regulations such as those requiring trigger locks.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

JAGMAJ said:


> I think that you are forgetting the primary reason we have a Second Amendment in this country. As the Supreme Court noted in its recent opinion and the history surrounding the formation of our country demonstrates, our forefathers wanted the people to have the means to defend themselves against their own government. The founders viewed standing armies as a tool by which governments oppressed their people. Without having firearms in the hands of the citizenry, we are at the complete mercy of our government. Our country was formed on the Lockean view that government is meant to benefit the people and that the people, therefore, can overturn a government that does not support the people. Without guns, that would be pretty much impossible. Remember the first shots of the American Revolution were fired when the British tried to seize the guns from local militia. I think that we have gotten a little complacent and spoiled by having a good government for 200 years and forget that governments don't always behave when unchecked.
> 
> As for self-defense. I am all for gun ownership for this reason alone, although I do support regulations such as those requiring trigger locks.


again - do you really think that having a bunch of handguns and shotgun in the hands of the people means anything in terms of protecting from the government and/or foreign invasion?

I would respect this argument if people who raised it showed any inclination to prepare to work as a militia, but almost none do.


----------



## JAGMAJ (Feb 10, 2005)

globetrotter said:


> again - do you really think that having a bunch of handguns and shotgun in the hands of the people means anything in terms of protecting from the government and/or foreign invasion?
> 
> I would respect this argument if people who raised it showed any inclination to prepare to work as a militia, but almost none do.


History tells us that a well-armed populace is difficult to overcome. The U.S. Army was able to cut through the Iraqi Army (one of the largest in the world) in a matter of weeks, but has been bogged down for years once the Iraqi Army dissolved into the population. If we're having this much trouble getting control of Iraq, how diifficult do you think it would be for the U.S. Army to control the American people, especially given how many Americans have prior military service? It might be possible in a more liberal state, but try controlling a state like Texas or Alabama where guns are commonplace. I'm a former infantry officer, and I can tell you that a small number of armed and determined people can give an army fits in an urban environment. I'm not saying that it would be impossible for the Army to suppress an armed citizenry, but the guns at least give the people a fighting chance. Take away guns and we are at the mercy of our government, which was exactly what our forefathers believed and why the 2nd Amendment is the second amendment.

By the way, the whole "militia" argument typically made by gun control advocates ignores our history. The reason our founders wanted militias, which were essentially just citizens informally getting together, is that they did not want us to even have a standing army due to the dangers it posed. Once it became necessary for us to have a standing army, the concerns about having an armed citizenry became even more important, not less so. Moreover, our current "militias," unlilke the colonial-era ones, are effectively controlled by the government and are part of the danger our founders were worried about.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> And, just to show off, I'll reply to ksinc's modified post. I'll quote it, though, so it doesn't get changed later...
> 
> "standby as long as we are not in danger"? What does that even mean? Certainly it's a positive change that it's been codified that you no longer have the "duty to retreat" that exists in some states, but you realize that this is merely a codification of a rule adopted by the courts of most states long ago?
> 
> ...


Stand by as in watch them flee your property with your TV. Duh!

An example of the CASTLE extension is say you are bed late at night and you hear someone in the barn on your property or stealing your car in the driveway. You grab a shotgun and a flashlight and go out to investigate you then end up shooting a robber/burglar.

Historically, you could be in a heap of trouble. You could end up in jail or sued. The reasoning used was that you are not a LEO and you have no right to arm yourself and go out and SEEK a confrontation. You were supposed to retreat to a safe room, call the Police and hope they got there in time or you could go investigate unarmed and then if you were attacked try to fight your way back to a gun (exception if you are CCW.)

This is clearly downright stupid and regardless of whether that was the intent of the previous legislatures it was how it was handled by LEO and DAs.

You made the point of the CASTLE being extended to an occupied vehicle and also claimed it was an irrelevant observation by me. 

You have yet in all your quoting of posts to actually find one where either YOU or ME were discussing shooting people in the back although you CLAIM that's what you meant. I guess we need to learn to read your mind. Nor have you found where I said to simply shoot anyone period that was fleeing. My post clearly said that we are allowed to get a gun and confront the person without fear of a brandishing charge, or other charge related to instigating the confrontation with a gun whether it evolved into a shooting or not.

As it relates to Texas and at night, our right to protect property as in the Florida Constitution was not explained by the Legislature. Now it is. Before if you ended up shooting someone over property or confronted them you would not be within the justified use of force. I apologize if your argument hinges on it being at night. I think we have the same laws 24 hours a day here.

I did say that if you found them in the house they were already dead with a wink. I'm sure you've heard the old wive's tale about dragging them in the house. It's a joke. Get a sense of humor and a life.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

I'm with ya, JAGMAJ!


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

JAGMAJ said:


> History tells us that a well-armed populace is difficult to overcome. The U.S. Army was able to cut through the Iraqi Army (one of the largest in the world) in a matter of weeks, but has been bogged down for years once the Iraqi Army dissolved into the population. If we're having this much trouble getting control of Iraq, how diifficult do you think it would be for the U.S. Army to control the American people, especially given how many Americans have prior military service? It might be possible in a more liberal state, but try controlling a state like Texas or Alabama where guns are commonplace. I'm a former infantry officer, and I can tell you that a small number of armed and determined people can give an army fits in an urban environment. I'm not saying that it would be impossible for the Army to suppress an armed citizenry, but the guns at least give the people a fighting chance. Take away guns and we are at the mercy of our government, which was exactly what our forefathers believed and why the 2nd Amendment is the second amendment.
> 
> By the way, the whole "militia" argument typically made by gun control advocates ignores our history. The reason our founders wanted militias, which were essentially just citizens informally getting together, is that they did not want us to even have a standing army due to the dangers it posed. Once it became necessary for us to have a standing army, the concerns about having an armed citizenry became even more important, not less so. Moreover, our current "militias," unlilke the colonial-era ones, are effectively controlled by the government and are part of the danger our founders were worried about.


I could almost buy this. Except that if the people are upset about a tyrannical government I think the idea would be for the people to attack the government and try to take it over. It doesn't make sense to me that the government would attack the people because the people feel oppressed.


----------



## dwebber18 (Jun 5, 2008)

That would be akin to the French Revolution. Also, governments are the largest murderers of their citizens, so hooray for personal ownership of guns


----------



## cdavant (Aug 28, 2005)

This has been very educational for me, the OP, who was just interested in the best place to stash one of the newer, smaller, lighter CC pistols in anticipation of the still distant release of a relatively bad actor. I have my home, office and car pretty well covered, but as a social animal I have no intention of modifying my lifestyle.
I qualified with a .45 abound 48 years ago, shoot almost equally well with either hand, and have had a CC permit since the first week NC offered them. I have quite a collection of pistols and long guns, mostly inheirited, haven't shot at anything alive for probably 35 years, but if the damn deer doesn't leave my hosta alone he may get a load of birdshot in his rear end.
I noted that MTM jackets now offer optional interior pockets for everything from eyeglasses to blackberries and wondered if a properly placed interior pocket might add some utility to the garmet. I now have several good ideas.
I doubt this has been a learning experience for some of the more "don't confuse me with the facts" members but CC is safe, doesn't lead to an increase in shootings and may actually reduce crime. 
My son, now 32, shot his first pistol at 4 and never touched another until he was 12. It was a very educational experience for him. The purpose of a pistol is to shoot someone who needs shooting up close and personal when getting out the shotgun is too much trouble. All my pistols are loaded as a matter of principle (no kids anywhere around) forcing me to unload them when I need to take them out for anything but a potential pulling of the trigger. There is no danger of assuming a gun is unloaded when you know that it is not. And almost no danger of accidental discharge given modern design.

I'm leaning away from the pocket, but finding something in "shell" cordovan that is easy to conceal may take a while.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

JAGMAJ said:


> I'm a former infantry officer, and I can tell you that a small number of armed and determined people can give an army fits in an urban environment.


which i why I asked you, I assumed a military background from your name. I am an ex-infantry NCO, and I have come to the opposite conclusion, or perhaps a similar conclusion with a different focus. my expereince has been that "militias" that aren't trained or supported by a standing army may as well be paper targets. I would be very comfortable taking a platoon of trained infantry against 3-4 battalions of militia that wasn't trained or supported by a standing army.

I think that in the founders day, the training and the arms that a civillian militia man could have were not that different from what an infantryman could have. today it is very different. I strongly believe that the core issue both of the legal aspect of the second amendment and the concept of a gentleman keeping and bearing arms is directly related to serving in a military organization.


----------



## JAGMAJ (Feb 10, 2005)

Stringfellow said:


> I could almost buy this. Except that if the people are upset about a tyrannical government I think the idea would be for the people to attack the government and try to take it over. It doesn't make sense to me that the government would attack the people because the people feel oppressed.


I'm not sure that I follow your logic. If the people wanted to overthrow the government, they would still need guns to do so. I never said that the government would spontaneously "attack" the people. By "oppress," I think the general idea is that the government forces its will on the people (without popular support) and the people are powerless to fight back if they don't have weapons. Regardless of how you characterize who is attacking whom, it doesn't change the fact that, without guns, the people are at the complete mercy of their government.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

JAGMAJ said:


> I'm not sure that I follow your logic. If the people wanted to overthrow the government, they would still need guns to do so. I never said that the government would spontaneously "attack" the people. By "oppress," I think the general idea is that the government forces its will on the people (without popular support) and the people are powerless to fight back if they don't have weapons. Regardless of how you characterize who is attacking whom, it doesn't change the fact that, without guns, the people are at the complete mercy of their government.


I should clarify. If the govt attacks the people then the people are in their houses and I think in that case guns would be helpful (to use your analogy, like it currently is in Iraq).

However, if the people attack the govt because it is tyrannical we will be attacking it in govt centers - say Washington. In that case, people with guns are useless. Us regular folks can have all the guns and training in the world and we won't be able to successfully attack a well trained, much better equipped military defending Washington. Us against the Generals = we all die. The Generals against Us = we may win.

My point was that if the govt is tyrannical we will have to fight them and they will win.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

JAGMAJ said:


> I'm not sure that I follow your logic. If the people wanted to overthrow the government, they would still need guns to do so. I never said that the government would spontaneously "attack" the people. By "oppress," I think the general idea is that the government forces its will on the people (without popular support) and the people are powerless to fight back if they don't have weapons. Regardless of how you characterize who is attacking whom, it doesn't change the fact that, without guns, the people are at the complete mercy of their government.


Gee, I thought that is why we have elections. Silly me.

Buzz


----------



## JAGMAJ (Feb 10, 2005)

M6Classic said:


> Gee, I thought that is why we have elections. Silly me.
> 
> Buzz


You'll note the "without popular support" parenthetical I had, indicating a situation where the government is no longer respecting democracy. Clearly, not an issue in the United States at present.


----------



## JAGMAJ (Feb 10, 2005)

globetrotter said:


> which i why I asked you, I assumed a military background from your name. I am an ex-infantry NCO, and I have come to the opposite conclusion, or perhaps a similar conclusion with a different focus. my expereince has been that "militias" that aren't trained or supported by a standing army may as well be paper targets. I would be very comfortable taking a platoon of trained infantry against 3-4 battalions of militia that wasn't trained or supported by a standing army.
> 
> I think that in the founders day, the training and the arms that a civillian militia man could have were not that different from what an infantryman could have. today it is very different. I strongly believe that the core issue both of the legal aspect of the second amendment and the concept of a gentleman keeping and bearing arms is directly related to serving in a military organization.


I think you're not taking into account the American situation. If we, theoretically, were going to have a civil uprising, with a large majority of the population resisting the government, a great many Americans (like yourself) have previous military experience. Throw in the possibility that some NG units, might "defect," and you at least would have a credible fighting force. If you've done any urban operations or MOUT training, you should know that many of the technological advantages go out the window. A former Marine with a hunting rifle or a former soldier with a shotgun would take their toll on an army. Of course, this is all speculation, but my point is that, without weapons, the chances of the civilians resisiting the army would drop to nothing. Some chance is better than nothing.


----------



## JAGMAJ (Feb 10, 2005)

Stringfellow said:


> Us regular folks can have all the guns and training in the world and we won't be able to successfully attack a well trained, much better equipped military defending Washington..


I think this is the same thing people were saying back in 1776.

You do, however, make a good point about the advantages of being on the defensive. I would point out that some civil uprisings have been successful. Like our founders, however, I would prefer to at least have the ability to try to resist, even if the odds were against me, rather than be completely helpless. Then again, some people don't care.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

ksinc said:


> Stand by as in watch them flee your property with your TV. Duh!
> 
> An example of the CASTLE extension is say you are bed late at night and you hear someone in the barn on your property or stealing your car in the driveway. You grab a shotgun and a flashlight and go out to investigate you then end up shooting a robber/burglar.
> 
> ...


That is just bizarre. You're not describing the state of the law; you're talking about a specific argument that may have been used to infer some improper intent of the homeowner.

This has almost nothing to do with the castle doctrine laws; it's not an "extension," but a peripheral addition (if such a rule even exists).

Why not be specific and say exactly what provision you think accomplishes this, so we can have a meaningful discussion?



> You made the point of the CASTLE being extended to an occupied vehicle and also claimed it was an irrelevant observation by me.


I didn't.



> You have yet in all your quoting of posts to actually find one where either YOU or ME were discussing shooting people in the back although you CLAIM that's what you meant.


First, the guy asked me TWICE about shooting someone who was fleeing with your property. I referred to this as "shooting him in the back" because the situations are analogous.

I'll say this in no uncertain terms, one more time-- the most potent castle doctrine laws _do not allow you to shoot if you know you are not in danger_. Period. It codifies a (pre-existing) _presumption_ that you are in danger under under certain circumstances.

But if KNOW the guy is no danger, you CANNOT shoot. Period!

Except in Texas.



> I guess we need to learn to read your mind. Nor have you found where I said to simply shoot anyone period that was fleeing. My post clearly said that we are allowed to get a gun and confront the person without fear of a brandishing charge, or other charge related to instigating the confrontation with a gun whether it evolved into a shooting or not.


So what does that have to do with anything. You posted this for a reason, but that's not relevant. It's not even peripheral; it's apples and oranges.



> As it relates to Texas and at night, our right to protect property as in the Florida Constitution was not explained by the Legislature. Now it is. Before if you ended up shooting someone over property or confronted them you would not be within the justified use of force. I apologize if your argument hinges on it being at night. I think we have the same laws 24 hours a day here.


And what laws are those? Do you _still_ think you can shoot to protect or recover property?

You can't. Period. Except in Texas. And only at night.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

JAGMAJ said:


> I think you're not taking into account the American situation. If we, theoretically, were going to have a civil uprising, with a large majority of the population resisting the government, a great many Americans (like yourself) have previous military experience. Throw in the possibility that some NG units, might "defect," and you at least would have a credible fighting force. If you've done any urban operations or MOUT training, you should know that many of the technological advantages go out the window. A former Marine with a hunting rifle or a former soldier with a shotgun would take their toll on an army. Of course, this is all speculation, but my point is that, without weapons, the chances of the civilians resisiting the army would drop to nothing. Some chance is better than nothing.


I'll tell you how I am looking at this - I honestly believe that this whole line of reasoning is false, I think that 99.9% of the people who say that they have guns or need guns to protect the rights of the citizens are using that as an excuse or cover for their real motives.

but, granted, yes, I think that the american situation is better than most, specifically because of the standing army, which comes back to the argument - people, like PT, argue that the founders didn't want a standing army (which I agree probrably wasn't in the plans in 1776) and that the standing army is a bad thing, but the only real strength that an american militia might have would be based on the fact that so many people would have been trained in the standing army.

on top of that - I think that, for instance, radios are probrably a lot more important that firearms at a certain point in an insurection. trucks, training in logistics, etc. I would believe a person a lot more if his motive for gun ownership was to protect his rights as a citizen if he said that he has one gun and a radio system, rather than multiple guns.

I was involved in a lot of fighting of guerillas, to use a politically nuetral term. the only ones that we didn't go through like a hot knife through butter were the ones that had officers and communications supplied by a standing army. and even those the kill ratio was 20 to one or so.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

Douva said:


> Those of us who carry think it makes things better. The people who've been saved by concealed carry know it made things better for them. As for the rest of you, it's clearly not making things worse, so what is the problem?


but here's the thing: I don't consider ccw the problem. the problem is too many guns. if that gun is in a persons holster or in his dresser, it doesn't matter to me very much. and, while you may have evidence that ccw doesn't make things worse, I think that you would have to agree that the number of guns in general in the US isn't a good thing. again, where are all the bad guys and the negligent getting guns from? from perfectly law abiding, but careless citizens and gun owners and dealers.



> As I stated before, in a free society the burden of proof rests with those seeking the denial of a right, not those seeking the granting of a right.


I, for one, have no intention of denying anybody any rights. I simply raise the issue that I thnk that the ownership of the wrong tools, or guns that are not needed, or too many guns, is a mistake, and a mistake that contributes to the misfortune of many people.



> Name a place where nobody has guns.


well, there are several countries in the world where it is virtually impossible to own a firearm. Japan comes to mind, India is very hard to posses a fiream and a tiny fraction of the population has one, Thailand, Singapore. several countries in europe. strangley enough, it is very difficult for a private citizen in israel to get a gun, and so guns are almost never used in crimes and ther eare almost no accidental gun deaths.



> Proponents of gun control typically argue that gun owners should be required to undergo training, testing, expanded background checks, and licensing.[/COLOR][/FONT]
> 
> Proponents of gun rights typically argue that gun owners should be allowed to carry handguns in public, for self-defense.
> 
> ...


[/quote]

well, for 200 years the country has pretty much given gun owners what ever they wanted. now it should be time for a little compromise. I have no problem with gun owners carrying guns for self defence. I think that anybody should have what ever gun they need - but a board of peers should evealuate their needs. let a person who wants to own 31 cold 1911 explain to his neighbors why he wants them.

I think that gun owners should have training - frankly, I would like to see any body who isn't an ex infantryman or LEO who wants to own a gun go through a 2 week (minimum) bootcamp. I think that actually would give them a good chance to actually be able to use their weapon if they need to

and, most importantly, a gun owner should be resposnible for his gun - you can own as many guns as you want. you are responsible, financialy and criminally, for those guns from the time you sign for it, until you legally sell it or have it destroyed. so if you want to have 31 1911's, you better have a good safe for them, because if they get stolen you are in trouble.

I don't think that any of that is unreasonable, and, frankly, if gun owners believed what they say, they wouldn't have a problem with any of it.


----------



## Douva (Mar 26, 2007)

globetrotter said:


> well, there are several countries in the world where it is virtually impossible to own a firearm. Japan comes to mind, India is very hard to posses a fiream and a tiny fraction of the population has one, Thailand, Singapore. several countries in europe. strangley enough, it is very difficult for a private citizen in israel to get a gun, and so guns are almost never used in crimes and ther eare almost no accidental gun deaths.


The fact that it is "virtually impossible" to own a gun legally in those countries does not mean that it is impossible to acquire a gun through illegal means. Also, your comment about "private citizens" in Israel is misleading because there are almost no private citizens in Israel. Because of conscription, almost every Israeli serves in the military, and many former Israeli soldiers legally carry firearms. You might have heard about the armed student who shot a terrorist gunman who opened fire in an Israeli seminary a few months ago.

When quoting gun crime statistics from other countries, gun control advocates like to point to nations that have very different governments and judicial systems and that lack the gun culture and open borders of the United States. It's easy to point to the low crime rates in Japan or England, two small island nations with easily controllable borders, no significant gun culture (in part because they lack the frontier past of the United States and because they offer very little big game hunting), and judicial systems which afford citizens fewer civil liberties than in the U.S. The British and Japanese definitions of "due process" are very different from the one Americans know. Actions such as government censorship and warrantless searches, which would never be tolerated in the U.S., are deemed acceptable, under certain circumstances, by the people and governments of Japan and England and, to a lesser degree, Canada.

England never had significant gun crime, even before the implementation of gun control. Gun control was first implemented in Great Britain not because of any great need to curb gun violence but because in the early 1920s the British government feared the possibility of a working class uprising, similar to the Bolshevik Revolution that had just occurred in Russia. Gun controls were strengthened in the mid-1960s, as a way of appeasing public outcry for a reinstatement of the death penalty, following an incident in which three police officers were murdered with illegal revolvers. Because the revolvers used to murder the officers were already heavily regulated, the British government chose to respond to this crime by implementing shotgun control (despite the fact that recent studies had indicated that gun crime in Great Britain was under control and that shotgun controls would have no practical effect). The current gun control laws now enforced in England--virtually banning civilian ownership of firearms--were implemented between 1987 and 1996, following a mass murder in which a licensed gun owner killed eighteen people with a handgun and a semiautomatic Kalashnikov (AK-47) rifle and a mass murder in which a gunman killed seventeen people and wounded fifteen others at a school in Scotland, using two 9mm pistols and two .357 pistols. Because England lacks the strong gun culture of the United States, a strong media outcry for stringent gun control was met with little resistance. Though the first massacre was the first and only time a centerfire, semiautomatic rifle was used to commit a murder in England, it led to the confiscation of every centerfire, semiautomatic rifle in the nation. The only protest from what passes for a gun lobby in Great Britain was an insistence that the government pay the owners of confiscated guns a small fee (a fraction of the actual value of most of the guns) for each firearm confiscated.

Gun control advocates tend to focus on the NUMBER of GUN crimes in countries with strict gun control, rather than focusing on the RATE of VIOLENT crimes in those countries, for two very simple reasons. First, focusing on crime numbers, rather than crime rates, allows gun control advocates to give the appearance that there is a much greater disparity than there actually is between the level of violent crime in America and the levels of violent crime in much smaller nations, such as England. Also, focusing on the low numbers of gun deaths in countries with strict gun control allows gun control advocates to avoid mentioning that many of these countries, such as England, have actually seen an increase in their overall homicide rates since the implementation of strict gun control laws. And most of the countries, like Australia, that have seen a decrease in their homicide rates since the implementation of strict gun control laws have not seen as sharp a decrease during that time period as the United States of America, where gun control laws have remained virtually unchanged.

In the 1960s, 1970s, and early 1980s, the homicide rate in England was 1/10th the homicide rate in the United States. In 1987 English citizens were shocked by a mass shooting at a public market. In 1989 American citizens were shocked by a mass shooting at a fast food restaurant. England responded by implementing the first half of the strict gun control laws currently in place. Americans chose not to implement stricter gun control. By the early '90s the homicide rate in England was 1/8th the homicide rate in America. Today the homicide rate in England is 1/4th the homicide rate in America. Since the implementation of England's strict gun control laws, England's homicide rate has increased by 36%; whereas, America's homicide rate has decreased by 44%.

In 1989 the _Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice_ published a report showing that the Canadian homicide rate remained, for the most part, stable in the decade following the passage of the 1977 law requiring citizens to receive a Firearms Acquisition Certificate from police before purchasing a firearm.

If you compare 1976 homicide statistics to 2006 homicide statistics, both the U.S. and Canadian homicide rates have declined by 33%. Strictly based on those numbers, there is no evidence that the Canadian gun controls implemented in 1977 have accomplished anything.

Gun control advocates never mention countries like Mexico and Russia, in which gun control laws are VERY strict and murder rates are three to four times higher than in the United States. In truth, you can no more compare the United States to England, where virtually nobody has a gun and the violent crime rate is very low, than you can compare the United States to Switzerland, where virtually everybody has a gun and the violent crime rate is very low.

In the end, regardless of all the facts, statistics, and analysis in the world, what people believe about this issue is determined by whether they want to believe there is a simple solution to a complex problem--"more guns equals more crime, and fewer guns equals less crime"--or whether they're willing to accept that violent crime in the U.S. is a complicated issue with roots that stretch all the way back to the first Europeans to set foot on American soil.

The truth is that "more guns" is not a bad thing if those guns are in the hands of upstanding citizens. Likewise, "fewer guns" is not a good thing if it's accomplished by taking guns away from upstanding citizens, thereby, ensuring that the bad guys (the criminals) have more guns than the good guys (the rest of us).

More than one out of four people living in the U.S. own at least one firearm. There are more than four guns for every five people living in the U.S. In the mid-1970s, when America had significantly fewer guns than it does now, the superintendent of Scotland Yard stated that it was his belief that there were already too many guns in America for gun control to ever be effective in the U.S.

Any attempt at implementing extensive gun controls in the U.S. would only result in a thriving firearms black market and a more violent society, as is currently found in Mexico (1/7 the gun density and 3 times the homicide rate of the U.S.) and Russia (1/10 the gun density and 4 times the homicide rate of the U.S), two countries that have seen little benefit from their stringent gun control laws.

There is little evidence that your suggestions for a peer review policy and two weeks of mandatory training would accomplish anything but a bureaucratic barrier between law abiding citizens and lawful gun ownership.

Since criminals typically don't pursue legal channels in acquiring firearms, subjective peer reviews would benefit nobody and would likely evolve into de facto gun bans for all but the wealthy and the powerful. Since very few gun deaths in the U.S. are the result of a lack of training on the part of lawful gun owners, gun owners would not gain anything from two weeks of mandatory training that they couldn't gain from a few voluntary visits to the range (as a former infantryman, you know as well as anybody how seldom most soldiers and law enforcement officers are required to practice with their firearms).

Red tape is not the solution.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Douva said:


> ... Since criminals typically don't pursue legal channels in acquiring firearms, subjective peer reviews would benefit nobody and would likely evolve into de facto gun bans for all but the wealthy and the powerful. Since very few gun deaths in the U.S. are the result of a lack of training on the part of lawful gun owners, gun owners would not gain anything from two weeks of mandatory training that they couldn't gain from a few voluntary visits to the range (as a former infantryman, you know as well as anybody how seldom most soldiers and law enforcement officers are required to practice with their firearms).
> 
> Red tape is not the solution.


Thanks. And well written. I wonder how many felons in USA don't have guns? 1 out of a million. There are thousands and thousands, or millions, of "hot guns" among felons, so what good is there of taking away guns from Decent Citizens? Decent Citizens are not the problem. Thousands of felons carry concealed weapons everyday in the USA, so why are Decent Citizens being falsely accused and victimized? Gun smuggling across borders is an every day thing that never ends. For government to prey upon Decent Citizens is a crime that some people are trying to decieve us with. Liberty is important, otherwise we are dumb animals shuttled around from coral to coral by those who are no smarter- where is the intelligents in that?

Globetrotter you really do amaze me. You said in one of these post that the military can train an army, but, that the same military trainers cannot train a militia. That makes zero since. Pushing faith in government, which really can't do its job, is criminal.


----------



## YYZ-LHR (Jul 2, 2007)

WA said:


> Gun smuggling across borders is an every day thing that never ends.


Which is why gun ownership by the "decent citizens" of gun-friendly states, with their burgundy cordovan holsters and quaint nostalgia for the frontier days, matters to the rest of the country and the rest of the world. We can't just write you off as slightly odd characters and leave you to scare one another into good behaviour. The toys you manufacture, trade legally, and then lose have a habit of migrating.

You mentioned the Mexican gun-crime rate. Would you like to speculate on where those guns originated? A recent and entertaining article here: https://www.portfolio.com/news-mark.../2008/06/16/Examining-the-US-Mexico-Gun-Trade


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

Douva said:


> The fact that it is "virtually impossible" to own a gun legally in those countries does not mean that it is impossible to acquire a gun through illegal means. Also, your comment about "private citizens" in Israel is misleading because there are almost no private citizens in Israel. Because of conscription, almost every Israeli serves in the military, and many former Israeli soldiers legally carry firearms. You might have heard about the armed student who shot a terrorist gunman who opened fire in an Israeli seminary a few months ago.


D, I spent more than 20 years of my life involved with the israeli military and security forces, I know a thing or two about gun onwership in israel.

there are plenty of private citizens in israel. remember, only a small franction of israelis serve in the military after their basic consctription, and only a tiny franction of those are combat troops. it is 100 times harder for an israeli citizen to get access to a handgun or firearm that for an american. as a matter of fact, I think that the system in israel is an excellent one - to buy a firarm, you have to go before a board and explain why you want it, and your choice of weapon. you can have one at a time, and if you decide to upgrade or change, you need to sell or return the first one. you need to be trained, and tested every few years. and you are reponsible for anything that happens with that gun in the future. there are almost no accidents with guns in israel - about 5 years ago a kid was shot while playing with his fathers gun, it made the front page of every newspaper, it was something that virtually never has happened.



> The truth is that "more guns" is not a bad thing if those guns are in the hands of upstanding citizens. Likewise, "fewer guns" is not a good thing if it's accomplished by taking guns away from upstanding citizens, thereby, ensuring that the bad guys (the criminals) have more guns than the good guys (the rest of us).


sorry - more guns is a bad thing, less guns is a good thing. no matter who has them. that doens't mean that zero guns is the best thing, but it means that if you can do what you have to do with one gun that is better than two, and if you need two then that is better than 3.

here is the thing, and, please, if I am wrong, show me some facts to prove me wrong. where do the bad guys and the irrosponsible get their guns? they get them form guns that were stolen from good citizens, or from dealers who use the laws that provide guns to good citizens to provide guns to idiots and bad guys. if I am wrong, please show me that I am wrong.

so, having more guns than you can secure and be reposnible for, no matter how good a citizen you are, is a mistake. that is all I am saying. if you need a gun, get one. if you need two, get one. I don't believe that most "good citizens" have thought through exactly what they need in terms of firerams, and I don't believe that they take the proper reponsibility for the firearms.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

WA said:


> Globetrotter you really do amaze me. You said in one of these post that the military can train an army, but, that the same military trainers cannot train a militia. That makes zero since. Pushing faith in government, which really can't do its job, is criminal.


let me clarify - I think that most people who use the ,"militia" excuse are using it as a false claim. I dont see them doing anythign that resembles a militia.

I do think that the military can train a militia. I think that the only body that can do it is the military. Let me be clear - I would be very happy if every US citizen could volenteer for an 8 week training course and would then be part of a "militia" in his area. any such trained citizen would then have the right to buy and carry arms. some members of the militia would then control some type of storage of heavy weapons and tools. that would work for me.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

Douva said:


> You might have heard about the armed student who shot a terrorist gunman who opened fire in an Israeli seminary a few months ago.


let me eleborate on the specific instance that you refer to, because I think that it is intersting, and, even more intersting is the case of the tractor attack last month. several terror attacks have been stopped by israeli citizens who were armed. they were all well trained, and their arms were well regulated. in the case of the seminary student, he was an infantry veteran. in the case of the tractor last month, it is even more intersting - about a dozen men were present with firearms. non of them were able to stop the tractor attacking and killing people. a soldier (from a unit very similar to the one I served in, by the way) who was home on leave from basic training, rushed to the site unarmed, borrowed a gun from somebody and killed the terrorist. here is what I found intersting abou this - there were a dozen men there armed, all of whom probrably (and I mean this with no disrespect to the US ccw community) were better trained that the average ccw in the US. and none of them were able to use their firearms in a way that infulenced the situation, until a proffetional came on the scene.

one other thing about israel - there are very very few guns in the hands of criminals. the criminals usually end up fighting with knives and building site exlosives, rather than firearms. the chance that a drug dealer will be armed is virtually nil, or that you could have somebody mug you or rob a bank with a gun. why? because those people who have guns have one, and have a very high level of reposnisbility.



> When quoting gun crime statistics from other countries, gun control advocates like to point to nations that have very different governments and judicial systems and that lack the gun culture and open borders of the United States. It's easy to point to the low crime rates in Japan or England, two small island nations with easily controllable borders, no significant gun culture (in part because they lack the frontier past of the United States and because they offer very little big game hunting), and judicial systems which afford citizens fewer civil liberties than in the U.S.
> 
> see, this is very significant - I am not talking about ccw - to me that is a very small issue. the gun culture is the issue.
> 
> ...


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

You have to admit that it's amusing when globetrotter uses modern definitions of words like "militia" and "well regulated."

I have a feeling if he knew what the words meant when they were written, he would be more reluctant to incorporate them into his arguments.

"militia" meaning the body of citizens physically capable of bearing arms, and

"well regulated" meaning working efficiently or properly

Examples:

https://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm



> 1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us *well-regulated* Appetites and worthy Inclinations."​1714: "The practice of all *well-regulated* courts of justice in the world."​1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a *well-regulated* clock and a true sun dial."​1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every *well-regulated* person will blame the Mayor."​1862: "It appeared to her *well-regulated* mind, like a clandestine proceeding."​1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every *well-regulated* American embryo city."​



And "militia": https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.shtml



> The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title , under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

And if you really believe that more guns = more crime, how is that:

1) white males aged 15-19 are 4-5x more likely to live in a home with a gun than black males of the same age; but

2) black males 15-19 are 17 times more likely to be murdered than white males of the same age?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

globetrotter said:


> I'll tell you how I am looking at this - I honestly believe that this whole line of reasoning is false, I think that 99.9% of the people who say that they have guns or need guns to protect the rights of the citizens are using that as an excuse or cover for their real motives.


So, you openly admit you think 99.9% of gunowners are being dishonest? That's a good place to start seeking common sense ground on safe and appropriate civilian gun ownership. Gee, Globetrotter, what if I said I think most ex-military, anti-gun types are just trying to rid themselves of the moral guilt of knee-capping children? Would that endear you to me?

You can't on one hand demand rational discussion of self-defense methodologies and then make statements like the above IMHO. That just undermines your credibility inspite of your experience.

Perhaps you should re-evaluate that position in the same manner you are expecting us to re-evaluate armed vs. un-armed defense strategies? Might help you.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

globetrotter said:


> let me clarify - I think that most people who use the ,"militia" excuse are using it as a false claim. I dont see them doing anythign that resembles a militia.
> 
> I do think that the military can train a militia. I think that the only body that can do it is the military. Let me be clear - I would be very happy if every US citizen *could volenteer* for an 8 week training course and would then be part of a "militia" in his area. any such trained citizen would then have the right to buy and carry arms. some members of the militia would then control some type of storage of heavy weapons and tools. that would work for me.


That's not unreasonable. It solves the mandatory service issue we all discussed before. I would go for that. I think we need a level below actual reserves that can respond to domestic emergencies, but not be called out to go fight in wars overseas per se.


----------



## Mute (Apr 3, 2005)

Criminals will always seek out the tools of their trade. Whether there are a thousand guns or a million guns in circulation, those same criminals will get their hands on them. It's a ridiculous notion that there can somehow be "less" guns available for criminals. Unless there's some miraculous way to uninvent firearms, they are out there and they will be had by those who want them bad enough.

It seems most people have forgotten what happened with Prohibition. Not only did it not stop the flow of liquor it help to create organized crime in this country. All we need is another repeat of this particular episode of U.S. history.

And I do disagree with the notion that more guns is bad. I've already shown before that guns are used far more to protect individuals than to harm them. Even in the most conservative estimates by those who support gun control, guns are used in self defense more than 3 times as much as they've been used to cause deaths, and this includes justifiable homicides.

This isn't to say I think anyone who buys a firearms and intends to use it for self defense should just by one and stuff it away in the closet. Any responsible gun owner should always seek out the best training they can find and afford. Howver, the facts are even the untrained gun owner has benefited from their firearms ownership in many instances.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

globetrotter said:


> sorry - more guns is a bad thing, less guns is a good thing. no matter who has them. that doens't mean that zero guns is the best thing, but it means that if you can do what you have to do with one gun that is better than two, and if you need two then that is better than 3.
> 
> here is the thing, and, please, if I am wrong, show me some facts to prove me wrong. where do the bad guys and the irrosponsible get their guns? they get them form guns that were stolen from good citizens, or from dealers who use the laws that provide guns to good citizens to provide guns to idiots and bad guys. if I am wrong, please show me that I am wrong.
> 
> so, having more guns than you can secure and be reposnible for, no matter how good a citizen you are, is a mistake. that is all I am saying. if you need a gun, get one. if you need two, get one. I don't believe that most "good citizens" have thought through exactly what they need in terms of firerams, and I don't believe that they take the proper reponsibility for the firearms.


How do you get to having more guns is automatically having more guns than you can secure and be responsible for? That doesn't make any sense in the real world among civilians. We are not speaking about a soldier that carries a gun around all the time and one is easier than two to keep up with.

Economies of scale; economics drive process. The reality is that people with one gun don't buy gun safes; people with many guns do. So, that diminishes your argument a bit.

Stolen and lost firearms usually come from people with one gun. Most so-called 'Gunnuts' all have safes and locked cabinets full of reloading supplies and ammunition. I have what we will call an unspecified number of guns and you couldn't steal any.

In addition, most people with one gun don't keep good records and can't find the serial number when the gun is stolen and therefore don't file a police report.

Anyone with a modest gun collection whether that is pre-lock smiths or three-screw rugers usually has a safe.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

The "guns protect us from criminals" argument has always felt odd to me. I have never really been afraid of criminals. All of my stuff is insured so I'm not afraid of it being stolen. Also, I don't see why a criminal would want to kill me if I freely gave up my property - say in a mugging (it seems like they want my stuff, not to kill me). I'm not saying it doesn't happen it just has to be really rare. I am however way more afraid of a crazy person shooting me because he is crazy or of being accidentally shot. 

Also, I have never been mugged or robbed or had anything stolen (that I know of) and I live in one of the most violent cities in America. If someone with a gun wants my car, I'm going to give it to them - even if I had a gun on me. My car is insured. So what if it's stolen. And if I did have a gun on me pulling it might instigate the thief to shoot me back. Just my $.02.


----------



## JAGMAJ (Feb 10, 2005)

globetrotter said:


> let me clarify - I think that most people who use the ,"militia" excuse are using it as a false claim. I dont see them doing anythign that resembles a militia.
> 
> I do think that the military can train a militia. I think that the only body that can do it is the military. Let me be clear - I would be very happy if every US citizen could volenteer for an 8 week training course and would then be part of a "militia" in his area. any such trained citizen would then have the right to buy and carry arms. some members of the militia would then control some type of storage of heavy weapons and tools. that would work for me.


I think you are setting up a straw man by making this argument about actually serving in a militia. The important thing is that the citzenry be armed, not that they necessarily have volunteered for a militia. Colonial-era militias were essentially just groups of farmers who got together with their weapons. With the exception of the fact that they had an appointed chain of command (usually the more prominent members of the community), they were really no different from other civilians. I agree with you that a mandatory training course would be great, but it's not essential to the ultimate goal of having a citzenry that has some means to resist its government. Incidentally, I also agree with you that very few people likely own guns for the primary purpose of protecting themselves against the government. I know that it's not my main reason. My original point, however, was in response to a comment that there was no other purpose in having guns except for self defense against a burglar. I pointed out that an additional benefit, and the driving reason behind the 2nd Amendment, was to have an armed populace. How effective that populace would actually be in resisting the armed forces is a matter of degree and does not change the fact that gun ownership was seen as a benefit by our founders.

As to your earlier points about the effectiveness of citizen militias, I would point out that, in this country, the number of combat troops (Army and Marines) in active service is probably outnumbered many times over by the number of former combat troops. Regardless, there's no doubt that having mandatory training or militia service would certainly add to the effectiveness of an armed citizenry.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

ksinc said:


> So, you openly admit you think 99.9% of gunowners are being dishonest? That's a good place to start seeking common sense ground on safe and appropriate civilian gun ownership. Gee, Globetrotter, what if I said I think most ex-military, anti-gun types are just trying to rid themselves of the moral guilt of knee-capping children? Would that endear you to me?
> 
> You can't on one hand demand rational discussion of self-defense methodologies and then make statements like the above IMHO. That just undermines your credibility inspite of your experience.
> 
> Perhaps you should re-evaluate that position in the same manner you are expecting us to re-evaluate armed vs. un-armed defense strategies? Might help you.


and I may be wrong. I only know a handful of americans that I know own guns. one of them is an ex-infantry officer and has a single 9mm handgun in a safe. one drinks when he hunts and keeps a 38 revolver on top of his bedroom dresser becuase that is too tall for his 6 year old to reach. one keep a handgun on the floor of his car, which he keeps unlocked. one has 300 long guns, and one has more than 20 long guns, and neither of the later have safes.

these may be totally out of the ordinary. that would make me very happy.

but, when I look at the type of discussions that happen here - a guy has 31 1911s so he can carry a different one every day? I think that that is not someoby who is looking for a good solution for a real problem.

but let me say this clearly - I have been impressed by several of the posters here, and it has made me adjust my opinions. I would be comfortable having my kids play in KSINCs house, in cruisers, liberty ship and others. and I admit freely that they have changed my opinion of a lot of gun owners.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

ksinc said:


> How do you get to having more guns is automatically having more guns than you can secure and be responsible for? That doesn't make any sense in the real world among civilians. We are not speaking about a soldier that carries a gun around all the time and one is easier than two to keep up with.
> 
> Economies of scale; economics drive process. The reality is that people with one gun don't buy gun safes; people with many guns do. So, that diminishes your argument a bit.
> 
> ...


fair enough. like I said, everyone should have all the guns he needs and can care for responsibly.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Stringfellow said:


> The "guns protect us from criminals" argument has always felt odd to me. I have never really been afraid of criminals. All of my stuff is insured so I'm not afraid of it being stolen. Also, I don't see why a criminal would want to kill me if I freely gave up my property - say in a mugging (it seems like they want my stuff, not to kill me). I'm not saying it doesn't happen it just has to be really rare. I am however way more afraid of a crazy person shooting me because he is crazy or of being accidentally shot.
> 
> Also, I have never been mugged or robbed or had anything stolen (that I know of) and I live in one of the most violent cities in America. If someone with a gun wants my car, I'm going to give it to them - even if I had a gun on me. My car is insured. So what if it's stolen. And if I did have a gun on me pulling it might instigate the thief to shoot me back. Just my $.02.


So what kind of stuff do you have?

Can we get an itemized list, pictures, and a general description of condition?

Right now I need a camera tripod. Got one of those?


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

JAGMAJ said:


> I think you are setting up a straw man by making this argument about actually serving in a militia. The important thing is that the citzenry be armed, not that they necessarily have volunteered for a militia. Colonial-era militias were essentially just groups of farmers who got together with their weapons.


but that was a day when the best armed and trained army wasn't better than a good armed farmer. let me put it this way - training a machine gunner, a sniper, a mortar team, all probrably cost as much as a year in harvard. training a tow team probrably costs as much as sending your kid to harvard law.

so, realistically, to say that a person has his guns to be a "militia" doesn;t make sense in todays world.



> How effective that populace would actually be in resisting the armed forces is a matter of degree and does not change the fact that gun ownership was seen as a benefit by our founders.


ok, but let me make my point very very specific and very clear - I think that people go out and buy stupid weapons that they don't need because they think that they are cool. and then they claim that they bought them either because of the militia issue, or for home defense. I think that if they were to be honest about it, they would be more likly to buy the gun they need, and no more than the gun they need.



> As to your earlier points about the effectiveness of citizen militias, I would point out that, in this country, the number of combat troops (Army and Marines) in active service is probably outnumbered many times over by the number of former combat troops. Regardless, there's no doubt that having mandatory training or militia service would certainly add to the effectiveness of an armed citizenry.


agreed - but the only reason I started talking about militias is because some people were saying how the US doens't need a standing army, just armed civillians.

I think that a US "militia" without a core of people actually trained by the standing army would be a worthless mob with guns.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Fills a PATHMARK cart with food,water and a change of clothing, a Walther PP stuffed in my Concealed Carry Jacket Pocket for my trip to FREEDY VANDECASTEELE. I figure by saving the gasoline I can afford an initial fitting.If anybody bothers me, I will keep one hand in my pocket, but probably start singing Sherry Lewis' THIS IS THE SONG THAT NEVER ENDS.... Postscript? Do you think some online forum dedicated to Ak 47s has a heated thread going about how to dress properly for the shooting range?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I agree that I think the militia argument is not relevant in the current context. I think I have previously explained the actual reason for the phrase and the debate transcripts are a public resource. 

It's fairly straightforward. Gen. Washington was arguing for collecting the guns to enable the Army (stuff like consistent arms, ammunition logistics) they basically told him to arm the army how he saw fit and let the civilians have their own arms. He later admitted he was wrong and that there were other benefits to civilian home possession and he was arguing strictly what was best for the Army in his view at the time.

IMHO "rights" come from God. Thankfully, my rights are recognized in my State Constitution and my Federal Government is precluded from infringing those rights. The exercise of my rights is a privilege. The State Legislature, my elected representatives, have in return for that privilege and as part of my bargain with civil society demanded I accept certain reasonable restrictions and responsibilities as negotiated in my local legislature. As it should be.

This is all really simple and I think both sides just wish to argue tangents that have no real truth in them. 

It's true we don't utilize militia anymore, it's untrue they were completely ineffective in history, it's also true that as recently as WW2 foreign generals realized they could never occupy the USA because of civilian gun ownership. It's also true we pay a cost for that in the form of crime and negligence. We do the same with planes, trains, automobiles, and even cell phones.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Ksinc, I think your take on the exercise of rights as a "privilege" that we should thank our _legislatures_ for allowing us to exercise is downright bizarre. Enummerated rights are protected by our _constitutions, _deliberately placed outside the discretion of the legislatures and executives.

As to the militia, you're still confusing "a . . . militia" with "militias." The militia referred to in the second amendment is _the_ militia, the entire body of citizens capable of bearing arms. If Russia knows it could never invade us because we have so many armed private citizens, that is _the militia_ protecting the country. If a criminal thinks twice about robbing you because he fears you may be armed, that's the militia protecting the country again. If a soldier takes to his training more readily because he's practiced by shooting squirrels, that's _the militia_ again.

But it's so vitally important that the _right_, not privilege, _protected_ by the amendment is not limited to the militia, or to "militias." It's protected as to _the people, _i.e., everybody.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Ksinc, I think your take on the exercise of rights as a "privilege" that we should thank our _legislatures_ for allowing us to exercise is downright bizarre. Enummerated rights are protected by our _constitutions, _deliberately placed outside the discretion of the legislatures and executives.
> 
> As to the militia, you're still confusing "a . . . militia" with "militias." The militia referred to in the second amendment is _the_ militia, the entire body of citizens capable of bearing arms. If Russia knows it could never invade us because we have so many armed private citizens, that is _the militia_ protecting the country. If a criminal thinks twice about robbing you because he fears you may be armed, that's the militia protecting the country again. If a soldier takes to his training more readily because he's practiced by shooting squirrels, that's _the militia_ again.
> 
> But it's so vitally important that the _right_, not privilege, _protected_ by the amendment is not limited to the militia, or to "militias." It's protected as to _the people, _i.e., everybody.


No, it's not bizarre. It's an inconvenient truth you don't want to accept.
And No, I'm not confusing anything regarding militia and militias.
Thanks for your attempt at assistance.

The 2nd Amendment right is recognized as belonging to the people, citizens of the states, and infringement by the Federal Government is precluded. PERIOD. That's all it does. To argue more on either side is a test in foolishness. It falls into the "rights" are negotiable trap.

You are the one confusing the rights of the individual with the benefits and privileges of the collective society called AMERICA.

I'm pretty sure we believe all people have the same inalienable rights that come from our Creator.

I linked you to my State Constitution previously. We are citizens of the states. It's a society. You can choose to leave and your "rights" remain the same. The benefit of citizenship is the privilege of a society where we can freely exercise our rights.

People in Russia have the same rights as Americans. They just do not live in a society that recognizes them nor do they have the privilege of exercising them without fear of imprisonment or death.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Ksinc, I think your take on the exercise of rights as a "privilege" that we should thank our _legislatures_ for allowing us to exercise is downright bizarre. Enummerated rights are protected by our _constitutions, _deliberately placed outside the discretion of the legislatures and executives.


If that were true, IMHO state gun laws would be Un-Consititional and all states would have to conform to uniform federal laws. That's not the case.

The recent SCOTUS decision agrees with me. Its basic finding was on the reasonable use and restriction. There is a huge difference between the right to self-preservation and the right to own a gun vs. the reasonable regulation of the privilege of exercising the right: buying, carrying, or using the gun. The SCOTUS delineated this difference IMHO somewhat properly.

It has nothing to do with The Militia or militias as JUSTICE SCALIA rightfully explained IMHO. To say it does falls into the relevance of the Militia "trap" and if not today, certainly someday the pro-gun side will lose. Even if only when armies are made up of conscripted aliens in space ships with light rays.

It's better to split the right from Militias as JUSTICE SCALIA did.


----------



## dbgrate (Dec 4, 2006)

KAV...Love that postscript!!!


----------



## JAGMAJ (Feb 10, 2005)

ksinc said:


> It's true we don't utilize militia anymore, it's untrue they were completely ineffective in history, it's also true that as recently as WW2 foreign generals realized they could never occupy the USA because of civilian gun ownership. It's also true we pay a cost for that in the form of crime and negligence. We do the same with planes, trains, automobiles, and even cell phones.


I think this is an apt summary of the issue. I would just add that our founders were just as worried about the "militia" being able to protect against oppression by the domestic government as preventing foreign invasions.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

I took a vow that I wouldn't, but I just can't help myself...

Is there anybody on this list who is either deranged or dumb enough to think that the Unite States hasn't suffered a mainland invasion by foreign forces since the early half of the nineteenth century because our antagonists fear all the Americans carrying concealed hand guns? Are you guys nuts?

Buzz


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

M6Classic said:


> I took a vow that I wouldn't, but I just can't help myself...
> 
> Is there anybody on this list who is either deranged or dumb enough to think that the Unite States hasn't suffered a mainland invasion by foreign forces since the early half of the nineteenth century because our antagonists fear all the Americans carrying concealed hand guns? Are you guys nuts?
> 
> Buzz


Well, "civilian gun ownership" not "carrying concealed hand guns."

Indeed, I can only think of one person "dumb enough" to think, say, and act on that in the last 100 years.

_"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." _Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

Please see the thread on the importance of keeping your vows.


----------



## Apthorpe (Apr 8, 2008)

M6Classic said:


> I took a vow that I wouldn't, but I just can't help myself...
> 
> Is there anybody on this list who is either deranged or dumb enough to think that the Unite States hasn't suffered a mainland invasion by foreign forces since the early half of the nineteenth century because our antagonists fear all the Americans carrying concealed hand guns? Are you guys nuts?
> 
> Buzz


That, and they saw Red Dawn.


----------



## Bob Loblaw (Mar 9, 2006)

https://imageshack.us
https://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=165&i=manmagazinewj7.jpg


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Ksinc, I think your take on the exercise of rights as a "privilege" that we should thank our _legislatures_ for allowing us to exercise is downright bizarre. Enummerated rights are protected by our _constitutions, _deliberately placed outside the discretion of the legislatures and executives.
> 
> As to the militia, you're still confusing "a . . . militia" with "militias." The militia referred to in the second amendment is _the_ militia, the entire body of citizens capable of bearing arms. If Russia knows it could never invade us because we have so many armed private citizens, that is _the militia_ protecting the country. If a criminal thinks twice about robbing you because he fears you may be armed, that's the militia protecting the country again. If a soldier takes to his training more readily because he's practiced by shooting squirrels, that's _the militia_ again.
> 
> But it's so vitally important that the _right_, not privilege, _protected_ by the amendment is not limited to the militia, or to "militias." It's protected as to _the people, _i.e., everybody.


The Militia is what gives a Jedi his power. It's an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

In the old days guns were probably mostly used for hunting and a side line for protection. In those days fathers taught their sons, and some, their daughers gun safety and shooting skills. Nowadays, how many fathers teach their children about guns? Some schools taught gun handeling in PE class, and I suppose a few still do. I think it is good idea that new gun owners take a class, though, not absolutely required. In the urban area not even a bee bee gun would be feasible for instilling gun safety with a child, because there is no place to carry and shoot it. 

In todays world militas don't seem to have much use. And there will always be the criminal mind and honest government can not always protect us from them, so guns need to be easily availble. Even criminals get into "law enforcement" and if they say you can't have a gun when you need one how is this faith in government that will "save you" help you? I have never gotten an answer from globetrotter about this. I believe with out a doubt that our forefathers knew that governments are untrustworthy, so wrote into law that the governments have no right to be able to stop anybody from buying guns. The only right the government has about you and guns is if they demand you be part of a milita that you have a gun, but can not know what other guns you have- that is true freedom.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

WA said:


> In the old days guns were probably mostly used for hunting and a side line for protection. In those days fathers taught their sons, and some, their daughers gun safety and shooting skills. Nowadays, how many fathers teach their children about guns? Some schools taught gun handeling in PE class, and I suppose a few still do. I think it is good idea that new gun owners take a class, though, not absolutely required. In the urban area not even a bee bee gun would be feasible for instilling gun safety with a child, because there is no place to carry and shoot it.
> 
> In todays world militas don't seem to have much use. And there will always be the criminal mind and honest government can not always protect us from them, so guns need to be easily availble. Even criminals get into "law enforcement" and if they say you can't have a gun when you need one how is this faith in government that will "save you" help you? I have never gotten an answer from globetrotter about this. I believe with out a doubt that our forefathers knew that governments are untrustworthy, so wrote into law that the governments have no right to be able to stop anybody from buying guns. The only right the government has about you and guns is if they demand you be part of a milita that you have a gun, but can not know what other guns you have- that is true freedom.


That's a good point about "bad" LEOs.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

WA said:


> In the old days guns were probably mostly used for hunting and a side line for protection. In those days fathers taught their sons, and some, their daughers gun safety and shooting skills. Nowadays, how many fathers teach their children about guns? Some schools taught gun handeling in PE class, and I suppose a few still do. I think it is good idea that new gun owners take a class, though, not absolutely required. In the urban area not even a bee bee gun would be feasible for instilling gun safety with a child, because there is no place to carry and shoot it.
> 
> In todays world militas don't seem to have much use. And there will always be the criminal mind and honest government can not always protect us from them, so guns need to be easily availble. Even criminals get into "law enforcement" and if they say you can't have a gun when you need one how is this faith in government that will "save you" help you? I have never gotten an answer from globetrotter about this. I believe with out a doubt that our forefathers knew that governments are untrustworthy, so wrote into law that the governments have no right to be able to stop anybody from buying guns. The only right the government has about you and guns is if they demand you be part of a milita that you have a gun, but can not know what other guns you have- that is true freedom.


Yep, true freedom is gun ownership. I think true true freedom is being able to drive at whatever speed you want to on the highway. The damn Germans have true true freedom while we just have regular true freedom. I wish our forefathers had more insight. I just hate feeling less free than the Germans. And I always want to do what our forefathers wanted me to - forget that notion of thinking for myself or changing with the passage of time. Nope, what the forefathers want the forefathers get! I just wish they had included a provision for highway speeds in the Constitution - then we all could really have true true freedom (I hate feeling oppressed like this).


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Laxplayer said:


> The Militia is what gives a Jedi his power. It's an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together. :icon_smile_big:


That part of the amendment is a lot easier to understand when you realize that membership in "A well regulated militia" is not contingent on being part of some "militia" as we think of it today. You're part of the militia whether you like it or not.

It's true, of course (and I've never said otherwise), that you do not have to even be part of "the" militia (historically, able-bodied male 18-45) to enjoy the right protected by the second amendment, which is afforded to _the people_, which is everybody.

But don't say that the militia clause is irrelevant today. It's not.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> That part of the amendment is a lot easier to understand when you realize that membership in "A well regulated militia" is not contingent on being part of some "militia" as we think of it today. You're part of the militia whether you like it or not.
> 
> It's true, of course (and I've never said otherwise), that you do not have to even be part of "the" militia (historically, able-bodied male 18-45) to enjoy the right protected by the second amendment, which is afforded to _the people_, which is everybody.
> 
> But don't say that the militia clause is irrelevant today. It's not.


Actually I was not meaning to argue anything. Your use of "that's the militia" several times just reminded me of The Force. Just a little joke.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

WA said:


> In the old days guns were probably mostly used for hunting and a side line for protection. *In those days fathers taught their sons, and some, their daughers gun safety and shooting skills. Nowadays, how many fathers teach their children about guns?* Some schools taught gun handeling in PE class, and I suppose a few still do. I think it is good idea that new gun owners take a class, though, not absolutely required. In the urban area not even a bee bee gun would be feasible for instilling gun safety with a child, because there is no place to carry and shoot it.
> 
> In todays world militas don't seem to have much use. *And there will always be the criminal mind and honest government can not always protect us from them, so guns need to be easily availble.* Even criminals get into "law enforcement" and if they say you can't have a gun when you need one how is this faith in government that will "save you" help you?


Yup, just ask the guy Dick Cheney shot in the head.

Buzz


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Laxplayer said:


> Actually I was not meaning to argue anything. Your use of "that's the militia" several times just reminded me of The Force. Just a little joke.


Wow, you've got the highest militiaclorian count we've ever seen!


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

Pedanticturkey, 


From what I've seen, the common definition of a militia, in colonial charters and early state constitutions was "All able-bodied men 16-60, excluding half-wits and ministers" not 18-45.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

M6Classic said:


> Yup, just ask the guy Dick Cheney shot in the head.
> 
> Buzz


Never been in a car accident caused by somebody else? Never smashed your thumb with a hammer? The list can go on and on. Some people play it so safe they die of a heart attach at an early age- big winners. Since our militaries sometime accidently kill some of our own, I guess, according to you, we should abolish all branchs. How many other people has Cheney accidently shot? Living in Wyoming I'm sure Cheney has been hunting for a long long time. If you compare hunting accidents with auto accidents would there not be more people dead on the freeway than hunting deaths with the same number of hunters and drivers? More people die of heart attachs and strokes because of laziness than anything else, probably. Why is it fine to die of a heart attach but terrible if you accidently get shot by a friends gun. I don't know of anybody being killed by Cheneys carelessness when hunting but there are a lot of deaths at work and roads and other methods, so why do people hit the roof with guns?

Cheneys carelessness certainly reminds us to pay attention at whatever we are doing- not just around guns. Isn't it amazing how cars and cel-phones don't mix, and yet many use cel-phones when driving.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Terpoxon said:


> Pedanticturkey,
> 
> From what I've seen, the common definition of a militia, in colonial charters and early state constitutions was "All able-bodied men 16-60, excluding half-wits and ministers" not 18-45.


You're probably right about that.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Terpoxon said:


> Pedanticturkey,
> 
> From what I've seen, the common definition of a militia, in colonial charters and early state constitutions was "All able-bodied men 16-60, *excluding half-wits* and ministers" not 18-45.


LOL, who determines this? Too bad we can't exclude half-wits from driving.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

WA said:


> Never been in a car accident caused by somebody else? Never smashed your thumb with a hammer?


My point exactly, Wa-Wa, thnak you for making it. I worry about the woman behind the wheel who in a momentary lapse runs over and kills my son. I worry greatly about the guy with a gun...a very honest and upright citizen, mind you...who accidentally shoots my daughter to death. I am sure he didn't mean to do it, but the dead child is still dead. Yet we accept a very thorough licensing and examination procedure for the privilege of driving an automobile. Also, I really doubt that either of my children will be killed by a concealed vehicle.

Wa-Wa, you do make my point but your analogy is utterly spurious and without merit. But that is just my opinion.

Buzz


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Well, your kid is much, much, much more likely to be killed by someone with a car than with a gun. We had this discussion a few pages up.

And one of the three million people who carries a concealed weapon every day negligently shooting a child ... has it *ever* happened? Can you prove ONE instance? I'd be surprised.


----------



## cdavant (Aug 28, 2005)

Slowly getting back to my OP, I'm leaning toward the Kahr PM9, around a pound loaded with 6 9mm.

I'm about talked out of the pocket carry idea. This Kramer Ankle Holster seems to make sense.

"An exquisitely molded horsehide holster, mated to an ankle band made of plush sheep's wool and supple, shell cordovan horsehide. The Rolls Royce of ankle holsters. From the double rows of stitching to the shell cordovan covered hook and loop closure, no attention to detail has been spared. Extremely comfortable and secure.
**Available in Mahogany only. 
Price: $230.00"

I'd rather have color #8 shell, so the Kramer is still open to debate. Only one color might be a blessing at that price, but what color pants would go best with mahogany socks?


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Well, your kid is much, much, much more likely to be killed by someone with a car than with a gun. We had this discussion a few pages up.
> 
> And one of the three million people who carries a concealed weapon every day negligently shooting a child ... has it *ever* happened? Can you prove ONE instance? I'd be surprised.


Uhm, it happened again yesterday.

The idea with the car on car accident is that you choose to accept the risk of being in a car accident when you decide to drive. In other words, people have _freedom _to make a choice for themselves. But when you accidentally get shot, you have no choice. In fact, you are less _free_.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

You really do have trouble with those distinctions, don't you? Again, it's been _well_ established that gun accidents are rare, and when they do happen, it almost always involves a family member or hunting. Do you have a choice who to live with or whether to go hunting--? I think you do. Certainly, it's as much of a choice as you'd have with who you go driving with, unless you think kids are free to tell their parents that they won't go out. Free, my butt.

Again, where is your example of a stranger being shot accidentally by a person legally carrying a concealed weapon in public?


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> You really do have trouble with those distinctions, don't you? Again, it's been _well_ established that gun accidents are rare, and when they do happen, it almost always involves a family member or hunting. Do you have a choice who to live with or whether to go hunting--? I think you do. Certainly, it's as much of a choice as you'd have with who you go driving with, unless you think kids are free to tell their parents that they won't go out. Free, my butt.
> 
> Again, where is your example of a stranger being shot accidentally by a person legally carrying a concealed weapon in public?


Isn't the whole idea of caring a gun to shoot a stranger? Do you plan on shooting your friends and acquaintances?


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Now you're missing the accident/deliberate shooting distinction. This really isn't hard-- where's your example of someone being shot in public, accidentially, by a concealed carry license holder? Here! I'll break it down, black-letter style, so you couldn't possibly misunderstand:

1) a person dying
2) as a result of being shot accidentally
3) by a concealed carry licensee
4) in public

Well?


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

I'm not saying it's never happened. It is possible that it has. I don't know-- but it's definitely much, much more uncommon than car accidents, or, heck, even less likely than being struck by lightning. This, despite the fact that there are more than 3 million concealed carry license holders running around out there, starting almost 20 years ago.

So is it reasonable to say, "I'm not afraid of my kid being killed by a driver; I just don't want him to get shot!"? No way.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Now you're missing the accident/deliberate shooting distinction. This really isn't hard-- where's your example of someone being shot in public, accidentially, by a concealed carry license holder? Here! I'll break it down, black-letter style, so you couldn't possibly misunderstand:
> 
> 1) a person dying
> 2) as a result of being shot accidentally
> ...


I'm sorry. I think you have me confused with someone else. Your child maybe or maybe someone who takes directions from you. Even if your premise that no one or virtually no one has ever been accidentally shot by someone with a concealed carry permit, that doesn't remove all of the people who are accidentally shot. I'm not for making concealed carry permits illegal - I'm for taking all of the private guns away (except for law enforcement, military, etc.) - making them all illegal.

In my own mind and in my own thoughtful way I understand that guns don't protect anyone, that they are a burden on society, and that if I was not able to own one I would be no less free or less American (after all, governments restrict the ownership of lots of stuff, but it is stuff I don't really want. Like a gun).

Furthermore, I think it is disingenuous for pro-gun people to act as though guns are good for protection or by owning them they are more American. You really want your guns because they are fun. They're fun to play with and clean and shoot and they make weak people feel strong. Of course, gun people can't come out and say that's why they like to own them - it would be a selfish argument. So you make up reasons like they keep me safe or its American or we have a history of guns here in the south. In my mind it has been established that your regular Joe will never have a need to use his gun and if that need ever were to arise there are plenty of ways of dealing with the situation besides shooting the other guy (plus, if the bad guy has a gun and it's pointed at you, say to rob you, isn't he in a better position to shoot you than you are to shoot him?).

Maybe in a few dozen years people in this country will grow up and realize that maybe there is a better way to do business (like how cars are better than horses and how email is better than the postal service). Things change. I'm pretty sure our forefathers weren't omnipotent and maybe it is better if we don't live by the rules and necessities of their time, but live by the realities of ours.

And with that, I am done with this thread :icon_smile:


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Your argument that you can "choose" not to go outside or drive in a car, but you can't "choose" not to be shot is... utterly preposterous.

So, you're for taking away peoples' guns. There are people out there who are for taking away all sorts of rights--some folks don't think black people should be allowed to vote. Does these respective positions make you or them less American? I think so.


----------



## cdavant (Aug 28, 2005)

"Do you plan on shooting your friends and acquaintances?"

Well, yes, at least in my case some acquaintances. Small town doctors make some interesting acquaintances. Besides the guys doing 10-14 for the Ponzi scheme there's the guy brought into the ER handcuffed to two policemen. He lives down the road from me. Between banging them together he was pretty graphic about what he was going to do to me when he got out of the funny farm. Then there was the alcoholic who's pretty sure I violated his HIPPA rights after he walked out of the ER with a blood alcohol of 0.38, got into his truck and drove away. Someone called the law and he was pulled over before he hit a school bus. Called me from jail the next day to say he'd be looking me up later on. The list goes on. Probably only five or six real threats in 30 years and all documented with the Police Dept. But if I'm walking my dogs at 6AM or enjoying an adult beverage after work and an old acquaintance shows up and wants to renew our relationship at a higher level I really do plan on shooting them if they are threatening to lay a hand on me.

Forgot to mention handcuff guy's girlfriend showed up ringing my doorbell one morning at 5 AM. I called 911 before I went down, fiddled with the dog for a minute before the police arrived. She just wanted some "help." She also had an 8" butcher knife in her sock and two previous assault convictions. She's out on bail for probation violation charges now. Guess she's on my list, too. Fortunately, there was a door between us but an hour later I might have been walking to my car.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

*This makes me smile...*

_A small but startling sign welcomed the gun lovers who arrived at the National Rifle Association's annual gathering Friday._
_"Firearms WILL NOT be allowed in Hall A during the Celebration of American Values Leadership Forum." _
_Beyond this sign at the Kentucky Exposition Center was a row of 10 metal detectors. They were manned by uniformed Secret Service officers deployed because the scheduled speakers included presumptive Republican nominee John McCain. _
_The Secret Service sets the rules in such circumstances, and even NRA big shots had to go through the screening. Thousands found themselves standing in a long, slow, feeder line before they even reached one of the lines that stretched in front of each metal detector. _

It kind of makes you wonder if NRA members are so fearful of being without a handgun, why would they not stand by their principles and boycott any event where they had to go gunless?
​


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

It's a bit impractical, since in most states you aren't allowed to carry your concealed weapon into a polling place, a courthouse, or the post office.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Now you're missing the accident/deliberate shooting distinction. This really isn't hard-- where's your example of someone being shot in public, accidentially, by a concealed carry license holder? Here! I'll break it down, black-letter style, so you couldn't possibly misunderstand:
> 
> 1) a person dying
> 2) as a result of being shot accidentally
> ...


I'm not saying this is a regular occurrence, but you asked for one example.

_A man accused of killing his two small children, their mother and himself Monday night in southern Stafford was heavily armed, police said._
_Aaron Poseidon Jackson, 24, was wearing a bulletproof vest and was surrounded by guns and scads of ammunition when police found him dead from an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound Monday night in the Walt Lou Trailer Park off U.S. 1._
_Before ending his own life, police said, Jackson took the lives of 23-year-old Lastasha Nicole Thomas and their two children-1½-year-old Aaron Neptune Jackson and 2½-year-old Nicole Aaron Jackson._
_All four victims were shot in the head._

_Jett said police at this point can only speculate as to why Jackson, who had a concealed handgun permit, had so much weaponry and what spurred his actions._

Edit: oops, you wanted a public killing. My mistake.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Well, your kid is much, much, much more likely to be killed by someone with a car than with a gun. We had this discussion a few pages up.
> 
> And one of the three million people who carries a concealed weapon every day negligently shooting a child ... has it *ever* happened? Can you prove ONE instance? I'd be surprised.


Can you prove that you were not kidnapped by aliens from outer space who replaced your brains with some sort of high fat, high salt meat by-product?

My guess is that you can't.

Buzz


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Reading comprehension not your strong suite, I take it?

Let's see-- murderous (not accidental) shooting of family members (not strangers) in the home (not in public)?

You did get the concealed carry licensee thing, though.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

M6Classic said:


> Can you prove that you were not kidnapped by aliens from outer space who replaced your brains with some sort of high fat, high salt meat by-product?
> 
> My guess is that you can't.
> 
> Buzz


Oh, I think I could. Just because you can't prove it didn't happen to you doesn't mean anything.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> It's a bit impractical, since in most states you aren't allowed to carry your concealed weapon into a polling place, a courthouse, or the post office.


Or Disney. https://www.orlandosentinel.com/bus...orl-disneyguns0308jul03,0,4970870,print.story

I've also noticed a lot of businesses in Missouri with concealed weapons bans on their property.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Reading comprehension not your strong *suite*, I take it?
> 
> Let's see-- murderous (not accidental) shooting of family members (not strangers) in the home (not in public)?
> 
> You did get the concealed carry licensee thing, though.


LOL, or spelling yours? Scroll back up, I edited my post.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> So is it reasonable to say, "I'm not afraid of my kid being killed by a driver; I just don't want him to get shot!"? No way.


No it is not. I am equally afraid that my child will be killed by a car as killed by a gun. However, cars don't kill kids, drivers do. Guns don't kill kids, gun owners do. Nuclear power plants don't kill children,nuclear power plant operators do.

Buzz


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Laxplayer said:


> LOL, or spelling yours? Scroll back up, I edited my post.


Arggh! You got me on the spelling thing. Not on the point at issue, of course, but on the word. For some reason, I've always confused a "suit" of cards was spelled suite. I have no idea why; I've been away of the correct use for a long time now.

I guess you should take any victory you can get it!


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

M6Classic said:


> No it is not. I am equally afraid that my child will be killed by a car as killed by a gun. However, cars don't kill kids, drivers do. Guns don't kill kids, gun owners do. Nuclear power plants don't kill children,nuclear power plant operators do.
> 
> Buzz


You're equally afraid of something that happens thousands of times every year versus something that you can't show has ever happened before?


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Oh, I think I could. Just because you can't prove it didn't happen to you doesn't mean anything.


No, Turkey, I for one have never been shot to death by someone carrying a concealed weapon. Have you?

However, I for one have been just a few feet from someone shot to death by another person carrying a concealed weapon. Let me tell, you, Turkey, this crap your spinning about the necessity of gun ownership is absolute crap. Go watch the life bleed out of someone and then come back and tell us how great it is to carry concealed weapons. Until you have some first hand experience, just shut the crap up. Or don't shut the crap up, its a free country.

Buzz


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> You're equally afraid of something that happens thousands of times every year versus something that you can't show has ever happened before?


I am also afraid of an accident at a nuclear power plant that releases serious amounts of radiation, but that has only ever happened once. I am afraid of an armed militia that wants to decide for the general population whjat is good for it. Seen that...its ugly. I am afraid of gun nuts.

Buzz


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> You're equally afraid of something that happens thousands of times every year versus something that you can't show has ever happened before?


Okay, let's go through this one more time for the guy whose brains were replaced with a meat by-product by the aliens who kidnapped him in their space ship.

Dick Cheney shot his friend in the face and chest.

Buzz


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

M6Classic said:


> No, Turkey, I for one have never been shot to death by someone carrying a concealed weapon. Have you?
> 
> However, I for one have been just a few feet from someone shot to death by another person carrying a concealed weapon. Let me tell, you, Turkey, this crap your spinning about the necessity of gun ownership is absolute crap. Go watch the life bleed out of someone and then come back and tell us how great it is to carry concealed weapons. Until you have some first hand experience, just shut the crap up. Or don't shut the crap up, its a free country.
> 
> Buzz


You still can't cite a single example of someone legally carrying a concealed weapon shooting another person accidentally, can you?

Laws should be based on logical reasoning and cold hard facts, not on personal experiences or feelings. If you can't separate your prejudices from reality, you shouldn't consider yourself competent to tell other people what freedoms they should and should not be allowed to enjoy.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> You still can't cite a single example of someone legally carrying a concealed weapon shooting another person accidentally, can you?
> 
> Laws should be based on logical reasoning and cold hard facts, not on personal experiences or feelings. If you can't separate your prejudices from reality, you shouldn't consider yourself competent to tell other people what freedoms they should and should not be allowed to enjoy.


Like I said, until you can prove that you are a sapient being and not feed stock for a fast food joint, you shouldn't be allowed out in public. IMHO.

Buzz


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Arggh! You got me on the spelling thing. *Not on the point at issue*, of course, but on the word. For some reason, I've always confused a "suit" of cards was spelled suite. I have no idea why; I've been away of the correct use for a long time now.
> 
> I guess you should take any victory you can get it!


Missouri has concealed carry laws. Does that bother me? Not really. Except for the few times it pops up as a thread here, I really don't put much thought into the issue. I own 3 guns: 2 shotguns and a .30-06. I use them for goose, deer and turkey hunting. I guess if someone happened to break into my home, I'd use one of the shotguns for self defense. That will probably never happen, as we live on a small secluded street in a neighborhood with very little crime. St. Louis is one of the "most dangerous cities in the U.S.", but I have rarely felt unsafe when we go to the city. I'm not really against guns, I just don't feel the need to carry one.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

I don't dispute that you said it, I just don't see any relevancy whatsoever.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> I don't dispute that you said it, I just don't see any relevancy whatsoever.


It is relevant because you keep asking me over and over and over to prove that concealed hand guns are dangerous. Fair is fair, I simply want you to prove that your brains haven't been replaced by aliens from outer space with a hideous food-like substance. Seems simple and fair to me.

Buzz


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

No, it's not fair; it's nonsensical. You're trying to justify taking away peoples' freedoms based on a fear of concealed carry licensees accidentally killing people while carrying in public, a harm that you can't show is substantial--hell, you can't even show that during the 20+ years of concealed carry it's _ever_ happened.

Why don't you just admit that you have no basis for your fear, that you have no good argument to support it, and call it done, rather than persist in this nonsense?


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> No, it's not fair; it's nonsensical. You're trying to justify taking away peoples' freedoms based on a fear of concealed carry licensees accidentally killing people while carrying in public, a harm that you can't show is substantial--hell, you can't even show that during the 20+ years of concealed carry it's _ever_ happened.
> 
> Why don't you just admit that you have no basis for your fear, that you have no good argument to support it, and call it done, rather than persist in this nonsense?


...and you have yet to prove that your derangement isn't the result of alien abduction and vivisection.

Buzz


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

In other words--your prejudice is an ignorant one, and you're happy to let it stay that way. I suppose I could follow that up with an insult, but as I've just won the argument, I don't feel a need to.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> In other words--your prejudice is an ignorant one, and you're happy to let it stay that way. I suppose I could follow that up with an insult, but as I've just won the argument, I don't feel a need to.


No, but you are showing that you are subject to delusions, paranoia and mad outbursts which might disqualify you from being permitted to carry a dangerous weapon. But, that is just my opinion.

Buzz


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Yes, but your opinion is based on your emotional response to past trauma, rather than facts or logic; so it's not worth much.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Yes, but your opinion is based on your emotional response to past trauma, rather than facts or logic; so it's not worth much.


...and until you prove otherwise, I maintain that your opinions are based upon having alien abductors replace your brains with a commercially processed food-like product.

Buzz


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Well FrankDC, er Putrescent factory farm bird, your 'victory' is certainly phyrric. First and foremost, an apology to Cdvant. You posted a legitimate question in the clothing forum and now 15 pages later Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum, who 'agreed to have a fight' are still at it. Were I to bring in a neutral PR firm and a nationaly recognised debating coach. I'm not sure who would look poorer for our efforts. IS a concealed pocket carried handgun dangerous? Of course it is. One can equaly carry a very poorly made and patently unsafe firearm. The history of firearms is legion with their infamy. Is a finely made handgun with multiple passive and active safety features unsafe? Again, yes. Possession by said firearm is subject to the competence of the bearer. Do people have good cause to carrry concealed weapons? Again, I would say yes. Do people have cause for concern when they do? Again, of course they do. The gulf between a McGivern, Cooper, Skelton,Askins and your weekend gunshow Joe Bob the slo* and his " I love animals, they are delicious' and 'John Wayne, true american hero' bumpersticker festooned command vehicle is full of enough spent brass to give a recycling center the shakes. It's this sillyness that reminds me of that greatest nimrod of all admonition to his audience " SHHHHH! Be wewy wewy quiet!" a sentiment I am beginning to practise about my own possible fiream possession at any given time.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

M6Classic said:


> ...and until you prove otherwise, I maintain that your opinions are based upon having alien abductors replace your brains with a commercially processed food-like product.
> 
> Buzz


Yes, yes, and you maintain that concealed carry is dangerous to the general public as well.

You're an illustration of the fact that ad hominems, although fallacious, sometimes make persuasive arguments.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Yes, yes, and you maintain that concealed carry is dangerous to the general public as well.
> 
> You're an illustration of the fact that ad hominems, although fallacious, sometimes make persuasive arguments.


...and you are an illustration of just why the gun control laws and regulations should be made stronger rather than weaker. One can only wish. Sigh.

Buzz


----------



## dbgrate (Dec 4, 2006)

I have a question about what a gentleman should wear to an abortion...should I start a separate thread? D'ya think we can get over 243 responses? It's about fashoin,mind you,right?


----------



## dbgrate (Dec 4, 2006)

correction...it's "fashIOn"...and 297 posts!!


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

dbgrate said:


> I have a question about what a gentleman should wear to an abortion...


Probably two piece scrubs in surgical green. Women surgeons tend to wear their shirts backwards, and many operating suite staff choose to express their individuality through his or her choice of cap. A word of caution; the lighting on the actual operative field tends to substantially de-saturate colors in odd ways, depending upon the fabric composition. It can be tricky.

Buzz


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

M6Classic said:


> Probably two piece scrubs in surgical green.


The only problem with scrubs is that there is no good place to carry your gun unless you are wearing a shoulder holster; and then if you are in a State that requires "concealed" carry, it isn't concealed. You could wear an ankle holster but that isn't convenient to get at, plus in a sterile field they really don't like for you to be bending over to the floor, do they?

There just seems to be no good solution for packing heat in the operating room. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Yes, it's one of those great legal absurdities that you could shoot the abortionist if the mother asks him to kill the baby 1 second after it's born, but if she asks him to kill the baby 1 second before, you can't.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Cruiser said:


> The only problem with scrubs is that there is no good place to carry your gun unless you are wearing a shoulder holster; and then if you are in a State that requires "concealed" carry, it isn't concealed. :icon_smile_big:
> 
> Cruiser


Which is exactly why the women surgeons wear their scrub shirts backwards! Good catch, Cruiser, my man!

Buzz


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Yes, it's one of those great legal absurdities that you could shoot the abortionist if the mother asks him to kill the baby 1 second after it's born, but if she asks him to kill the baby 1 second before, you can't.


Whooo boy! Now, tell me I am wrong about alien abductors from outer space having replaced his brains with something edible but unhealthy and uninviting.

Here we were, having a perfectly civil conversation about fashion in the operating suite of a hospital, and _somebody_ has to go throw a metaphorical bomb into the crowd in a desperate scream for attention.

Buzz


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Yes, it's one of those great legal absurdities that you could shoot the abortionist if the mother *asks him to kill the baby* 1 second after it's born, but if *she asks him to kill the baby* 1 second before, you can't.


Oh, yes, I forgot something. Since you decided once again to strut your enlightened views in public, let me clue you in to the fact that in 2008, the doctor is more likely to be referred to as "her" than "him."

Buzz


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

This is even worse the the Freddy Vandercasteele thread. Why didn't the mods shut this down when it stopped having anything to do with fashion, about 250 posts ago?


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

M6Classic said:


> Oh, yes, I forgot something. Since you decided once again to strut your enlightened views in public, let me clue you in to the fact that in 2008, the doctor is more likely to be referred to as "her" than "him."
> 
> Buzz


Well, Buzz, let me clue you in to a simple rule regarding gender-specific pronouns. When you know the sex of one actor, and the other could be either, it's much easier to write coherently if you assign the second actor the opposite sex. It's not social commentary, but don't let that stop you from some undertaking some obnoxious political correctness rant.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Terpoxon said:


> This is even worse the the Freddy Vandercasteele thread. Why didn't the mods shut this down when it stopped having anything to do with fashion, about 250 posts ago?


I don't know that it has-- discussions about whether you should or shouldn't wear something (like, I dunno, a pocket square or a gun) and what circumstances it's permissible or appropriate to wear said accessory, are certainly on-topic for the forum. As is the proper use of such an accessory.

Like, say, for example, an assailant is striking a pregnant woman in the stomach. Can she use a gun to defend the life of her unborn child? The answer is no, if you follow the Supreme Court's reasoning, since one can only use lethal force to protect one's own life or the life of another, and a "potential life" doesn't count.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I think it would be appropriate if moderator Mr Kabbatz took one of his Pantherella socks and used it online.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Interesting that abortion would come up as part of this thread. Pedantic Turkey states that the number of deaths caused by someone with a concealed carry permit are low. The number of 3rd term abortions performed is also low, .04% to be exact. Also most states ban 3rd term abortions except in cases where a woman whose health, whose future fertility, or whose life is placed in jeopardy by the pregnancy, (by a fetus that is incompatible with life). 

It's fine if you are pro-life, but don't distort the facts. It's not like a woman suddenly decides she does not want the baby just minutes before delivery. 

Personally, I would rather see other options such as adoption pursued, but I realize that this is not always possible. As much as I am horrified by the procedure of abortions, I also would not want to see an unwanted child grow up in an environment of abuse and neglect. I'm just glad that I have never had to be a part of such a difficult decision.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

As much as I'd hate to see this "discussion" continue, since no one will be persuaded on either side, I had to point this out.

Saying that something only happens in "small numbers" is relative. Cases of people who have concealed carry permits accidentally shooting family members is so low that nobody has yet to find an example.

The number of late term abortions accounts for only .04% of all abortions. Well, since 1973 there have been 1-1.5 million abortions a year. So, .04% still amounts to thousands per year. I looked up the number of abortions performed after the point of viability, 24 weeks seems to be the commonly used point, in 1992 there were 1200, in 2000 there were 2200. Also, in most cases, the exception for a woman's "health" is worded so broadly that if I woman seems likely to suffer post partem depression after the birth of the baby, that can be used as a basis for the medical exemption for the abortion. 

Not defending either parties point of view. As I said, I see no point in continuing this thread, since it ceased to be productive (or focused on clothing) long ago, but I don't think Pedantic Turkey is the only one distorting facts.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Laxplayer said:


> Interesting that abortion would come up as part of this thread. Pedantic Turkey states that the number of deaths caused by someone with a concealed carry permit are low. The number of 3rd term abortions performed is also low, .04% to be exact.


A late-term abortion is one that happens after viability, that is, when the "fetus" could survive outside the mother, approximately after 20 weeks.

According to the internet, this is 1.4% of abortions in the US, with the great many being completely voluntary and not based on "health" as we usually understand it.



> Also most states ban 3rd term abortions except in cases where a woman whose health, whose future fertility, or whose life is placed in jeopardy by the pregnancy, (by a fetus that is incompatible with life).
> 
> It's fine if you are pro-life, but don't distort the facts. It's not like a woman suddenly decides she does not want the baby just minutes before delivery.


Oh yeah? Talk about distorting the facts! The woman's "health being in danger" has been defined by the Supreme Court as when any doctor says that any aspect of her health may be threatened, including her psychiatric "health" (having to carry a baby she doesn't want being harmful per se) and "familial" health, which basically means that if she doesn't think she can support the kid, that affects her health and she can kill it instead, other options notwithstanding.

Any restriction on abortion, at any time, is as a practical matter entirely illusory. It's there so that stupid people can believe that healthy, viable babies aren't being killed. They are. So don't tell me about misrepresenting facts. Something like 85+% of late-term abortions are done for convenience rather than "health" as the layman understands it.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Oh, and by the way-- abortion statistics are not collected in any regulated manner. If the abortionists choose not to report late-term abortions, they're not counted.

They undoubtedly do under report late term abortions, by the way.


----------



## Preu Pummel (Feb 5, 2008)

I always delight in the thinking that 'guns are evil in the hands of regular citizens' as if hands of people in government are the hands of exonerated gods.

The logic is a breakdown of faith in everyday people, and a vague belief that mysterious, divorced systems of law and order are above human and perfect.

It's a cliche, but 'guns don't kill, people do' applies. If the courts and laws were thorough we would be dealing with responsibility instead of trying to limit people's personal empowerment.

The gun is the ultimate equalizer. The law is not ubiquitous or perfect. People should be allowed to take care of themselves, especially in times of immediate danger.


----------



## dbgrate (Dec 4, 2006)

My post was an attempt (apparently an utterly failed one) at being facetious,considering the the incredible length of the detour this post has taken from the OP because of the oh-so-flammable word ,"GUN". In what turned out to be a weak attempt at humor,I thought the very word,"ABORTION",remind us of the insane number of replies the mention of guns generated. Oh well...


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

JAGMAJ said:


> I think this is an apt summary of the issue. I would just add that our founders were just as worried about the "militia" being able to protect against oppression by the domestic government as preventing foreign invasions.


but in this context, doens't it make a lot more sense that the founders meant that the army would not be a mercenary army, but an army of citizens, itself a revolutionany concept at the time?

what constantly amazes me in america is how so many people soncider themselves good americans because they can buy stupid weapons that they have not good use for, but how many of those were willing to actually go and serve in the armed or security forces?

the best way to prevent foreign or domestic take over of the US? to have quality people serve in the military and security forces.

how many of the posters here, who have guns, have served in some capacity? the "militia" signified the men who would actually serve to protect the country.

if you are concerned about bad cops, or bad leos. or corrupt military, there is an excellent way to avoid that - insure that quality people spent time in those forces.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

M6Classic said:


> My point exactly, Wa-Wa, thnak you for making it. I worry about the woman behind the wheel who in a momentary lapse runs over and kills my son. I worry greatly about the guy with a gun...a very honest and upright citizen, mind you...who accidentally shoots my daughter to death. I am sure he didn't mean to do it, but the dead child is still dead. Yet we accept a very thorough licensing and examination procedure for the privilege of driving an automobile. Also, I really doubt that either of my children will be killed by a concealed vehicle.
> 
> Wa-Wa, you do make my point but your analogy is utterly spurious and without merit. But that is just my opinion.
> 
> Buzz


exactly +1


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

So, globetrotter, do you have an example of anyone with a concealed carry license shooting and killing a stranger in public by accident?

Whereas it seems that about 5000 strangers are run over _while walking around_ by people who are driving, and tens of thousands more while driving, every year.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

PedanticTurkey said:


> And one of the three million people who carries a concealed weapon every day negligently shooting a child ... has it *ever* happened? Can you prove ONE instance? I'd be surprised.


Turkey, you are asking a very specific question. and the anwer may very well be no.

but I don't see concealed weapons as significantly more problomatic than unconcealed weapons. I see the whole concept that a weapon is a toy or an accessory as a problem.

there are a number of results to this

1. people end up using their weapons when they realy didn't need to, and people end up dieing when they didn't really need to. in the past 24 months, which is just as long as I care to remember, there have been a half dozen instances that were reported in the national press (and so there could have been 10 times as many that didn't come to my attention) about people who used their perfectly legal weapons to kill somebody they shouldn't have, and that they wouldn't have done if they had to use a knife or hammer. and I would say that these were all perfectly normal, nice people who thought that they were in the right. a black man who felt his son was being threated by racists, a man who had been told by his teenage daugthers that a man followed them home from the mall - it turns out they had hit his viehicle and run away and he followed them. the father was waiting for him with a gun outside the house and when the victim turned to ride away the father shot him in the back, joe horn, of course, and several others. having a gun in hand makes it easier to kill people.

2. where do you think all of the guns come from in the hands of bad guys? negligent good guys let them get stolen. how many of the school shootings have been done with illigal guns? they were done with perfectly legal guns, in most cases the parents were simply negligent.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

We've got 20 years of concealed carry and not even one example of this scenario playing out.

Whereas over the course of just 15 years, *one thousand, three hundred and eighteen*-- 1,318--people in this country were killed after being _struck by lightning_.

https://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/PrevGuid/m0052833/m0052833.asp


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> We've got 20 years of concealed carry and not even one example of this scenario playing out.
> 
> Whereas over the course of just 15 years, *one thousand, three hundred and eighteen*-- 1,318--people in this country were killed after being _struck by lightning_.
> 
> https://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/PrevGuid/m0052833/m0052833.asp


See, Globetrotter, you just can't win against our friend the alien abductee. He's just going to keep throwing irrelevant figures at you and daring you to disprove them. Its like saying that just because no civilian has ever been killed in a plutonium accident...*NOT EVEN ONE!!!*...that every good citizen who wants one should be given an atom bomb becuase the bad guys have 'em. Hey, if we want to protect ourselves from the incideous "THEM," what good are handguns when the next battle is going to be fought with thermo-nuclear devices. I mean, the gummint has how many nuclear warheads while _*We The People*_ got nada???!!! Ya see, Globetrotter, we should just let him live with his addled delusions and hope that one of us never crosses his path when he is in a storm of paranoia.

Buzz


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

From the same expert source cited above by the Pedantic Turkey...

https://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/prevguid/m0023655/m0023655.asp

"_Although the number of deaths from motor-vehicle crashes has exceeded those from firearms, since 1968, differences in the number of deaths have declined: from 1968 through 1991, motor-vehicle- related deaths decreased by 21% (from 54,862 to 43,536) while firearm-related deaths increased by 60% (from 23,875 to 38,317) (1). Based on these trends, by the year 2003, the number of firearm-related deaths will surpass the number of motor-vehicle crashes, and firearms will become the leading cause of injury-related death_."

Read 'em and weep my friends.

Buzz


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Three million people, twenty years, and not one accident of the sort you're afraid of. This makes you the one with the irrational fear.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

M6Classic said:


> From the same expert source cited above by the Pedantic Turkey...
> 
> https://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/prevguid/m0023655/m0023655.asp
> 
> ...


How amazingly dishonest--do you think anyone is dumb enough to not realize that you're comparing _accidental_ car deaths to _suicides and homicides_?

In fact, if you will recall, the actual number of accidental deaths by gun accidents has been in steady decline, less than half of what it was 30 years ago... this despite the fact that there are *hundreds of millions more guns* in the country than there were 30 years ago.

It's very telling that you have to be so dishonest in your attempts to talk your prejudices around the real facts.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

> Between 1968-1991, the years cited by the anti-gunners, the motor vehicle accident death rate dropped only 37% with vehicle registration and driver licensing, while the firearm accident death rate dropped 50% without gun registration and gun owner licensing.


Inconvenient facts, again...


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

And just to twist the knife a little, most sources say that the number of guns in this country has _tripled_ in the last 40 years or so.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> How amazingly dishonest--do you think anyone is dumb enough to not realize that you're comparing _accidental_ car deaths to _suicides and homicides_?
> 
> In fact, if you will recall, the actual number of accidental deaths by gun accidents has been in steady decline, less than half of what it was 30 years ago... this despite the fact that there are *hundreds of millions more guns* in the country than there were 30 years ago.
> 
> It's very telling that you have to be so dishonest in your attempts to talk your prejudices around the real facts.


No, you are simply wrong. The report to which I refer from the CDC accounts for all deaths by firearms, including accidents, suicides and homicides. You should read the entire arrticle before pulling the trigger. If you read the article, the number opf gun deaths is now actually increasing! Curiously, the CDC in other articles cites the influence of gun control laws and regulations in reducing gun deaths. Hmmmm.

Hey, Turkey, you're the one who cited the CDC for its expertise in accidental death.

Buzz


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Inconvenient facts, again...


Oh, please, you have suddenly slipped from an independent source of data, the CDC, to the entirely neutral and disinterested NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION for youer expert statistical analysis.

Please, Turkey, I am not nearly as stupid as you appear to be.

Buzz


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> And just to twist the knife a little, most sources say that the number of guns in this country has _tripled_ in the last 40 years or so.


So, now you're interested in twisting knives. Gee, Turkey, you do have a violent mind. You really should speak to a professional about your underlying psychopathology. I offer that advice with all good will and concern for your mental health.

Buzz


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Oh, so you can conveniently ignore FACTS because you don't like the source? Congratulations, you've mastered the ad hominem fallacy! Too bad the original source the NRA relies on is exactly the same as yours, huh!?

You're continuously trying to change the subject of the discussion because the facts aren't on your side. Now you want to compare accidents to "total deaths" as if the two had any relevant connection whatsoever. They don't. You lose.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

M6Classic said:


> So, now you're interested in twisting knives. Gee, Turkey, you do have a violent mind. You really should speak to a professional about your underlying psychopathology. I offer that advice with all good will and concern for your mental health.
> 
> Buzz


Gee, yet another insult supported by some goofy objection to a figure of speech. Maybe you need to seek the advice of a competent... grammar textbook.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Oh, so you can conveniently ignore FACTS because you don't like the source? Congratulations, you've mastered the ad hominem fallacy! Too bad the original source the NRA relies on is exactly the same as yours, huh!?
> 
> You're continuously trying to change the subject of the discussion because the facts aren't on your side. Now you want to compare accidents to "total deaths" as if the two had any relevant connection whatsoever. They don't. You lose.


No, I can ignore information filtered by an organization known to be supremely biased in a matter, such as the National Rifle Association addressing gun violence.

Hey, if I lose, I lose, big deal. But how do you get to declare winners and losers? You are entitled, of course, to declare yourself the winner.

Buzz


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Gee, yet another insult supported by some goofy objection to a figure of speech. Maybe you need to seek the advice of a competent... grammar textbook.


My source authority on grammar is the two volume edition of the Curme Grammar, the 1977 reprint of the famous 1935 revision. What's yours?

I know, insulting you is sooooo unrewarding, such an easy target, sort of like shooting (pick your metaphor!).

Buzz


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Well, you've basically conceded every issue you've tried to argue. I don't know what else to call that besides losing. You're reduced to trying to deceive with blatantly misleading data, and to attacking an organization rather than the information it presents. These ain't the strategies employed by winners.

Your intellect has really done your passions a disservice in this thread. I think that makes you a loser.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> I really do plan on shooting them if they are threatening to lay a hand on me.
> 
> .


see, this is what I find interesting - if they threaten to lay a hand on you, you plan on shooting them.

this is an excellent reason to have a gun.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Well, you've basically conceded every issue you've tried to argue. I don't know what else to call that besides losing. *You're reduced to trying to deceive with blatantly misleading data, and to attacking an organization rather than the information it presents.* These ain't the strategies employed by winners.
> 
> Your intellect has really done your passions a disservice in this thread. I think that makes you a loser.


Oh. My. God!!! This is absolutely hilarious! The guy who tries to make his argument about gun violence citing data supplied by the NRA is accusing me...ME...of using blatantly misleading data, data from the Centers for Disease Control. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I leave the verdict up to you; which source of data is more likely to be biased?

Turkey, you are just too, too good. I love it!

Buzz


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Laws should be based on logical reasoning and cold hard facts, not on personal experiences or feelings. If you can't separate your prejudices from reality, you shouldn't consider yourself competent to tell other people what freedoms they should and should not be allowed to enjoy.


I agree with you completly. carrying a firearm, for the vast, vast majority of people has no rational reason what so ever. it is simply a desire to play cowboy. so the rules should reflect that, anybody who needs a gun should have one. if you want to carry a gun to compensate for a small pecker, you shouldn't.

there are a couple of hundred million guns in the states, how many are used by a hobbyist every year to save a life that would otherwise have been lost? probrably 10 or less. and, believe me, I read about all of the dozens of accounts of people using firearms - 99% of those instance don't justify the drawing of a a weapon. so, 10 do, 5 do, maybe. and for that, we make guns available to anybody with a pulse, which is just as though we give them right into the hands of gangsters and school shooters.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

cdavant said:


> Slowly getting back to my OP, I'm leaning toward the Kahr PM9, around a pound loaded with 6 9mm.
> 
> I'm about talked out of the pocket carry idea. This Kramer Ankle Holster seems to make sense.
> 
> ...


I'll get back to your origional issue - but why aren't you looking at a waiste holster, anyway? are you comfortable that you will be able to get to your weapon in an ankle holster when you need it? if you are so sure that you will use a gun to save your life, are you sure that this is the best way to carry it, from a practical sense?


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

globetrotter said:


> I agree with you completly. carrying a firearm, for the vast, vast majority of people has no rational reason what so ever. it is simply a desire to play cowboy. so the rules should reflect that, anybody who needs a gun should have one. if you want to carry a gun to compensate for a small pecker, you shouldn't.
> 
> there are a couple of hundred million guns in the states, how many are used by a hobbyist every year to save a life that would otherwise have been lost? probrably 10 or less. and, believe me, I read about all of the dozens of accounts of people using firearms - 99% of those instance don't justify the drawing of a a weapon. so, 10 do, 5 do, maybe. and for that, we make guns available to anybody with a pulse, which is just as though we give them right into the hands of gangsters and school shooters.


Well, even if we accepted your premise (that one should have to prove life-and-death necessity to exercise a right, which is, frankly, bunk. Do freedom of speech next, please!), your intuition is not actually based on anything even resembling facts. Various people and institutions have conducted research on the use of guns for defense, and the numbers range from *two and a half million defensive uses per year* to a bare minimum of 108,000--per year.

https://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Well, even if we accepted your premise (that one should have to prove life-and-death necessity to exercise a right, which is, frankly, bunk. Do freedom of speech next, please!), your intuition is not actually based on anything even resembling facts. Various people and institutions have conducted research on the use of guns for defense, and the numbers range from *two and a half million defensive uses per year* to a bare minimum of 108,000--per year.
> 
> https://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html


sorry - bullshit. that survey suggests that 7% have said that they used a gun to "scare sombody" and 0.9% fireared a gun at somebody in self defense. I dont believe either number, but the fact that 7% of people thought that they had a reason to use a gun to scare somebody makes me think even more strongly that less people should have weapons.

this is a survey that has asked people if they have used guns. I have no disagreement, I think that many, many people have used guns when they shouldn't have and didn't need to. this doesn't change what I posted - I am guessing that there are less than 10 uses of a gun by a civilian in the US every year that save a persons life that would have been lost if he hadn't used a gun.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Well, fortunately for the rest of us, your bizarre, uninformed guesses aren't evidence of anything.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

M6Classic said:


> From the same expert source cited above by the Pedantic Turkey...
> 
> https://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/prevguid/m0023655/m0023655.asp
> 
> ...


The anticipated trend apparently did not bear out. Actually, the number of firearm deaths appears not only to not outnumber motor vehicle deaths (in the latest numbers available), but seems to have headed in the opposite direction than that predicted in the old report you cited.

(There are a lot of numbers on this page so someone please correct any errors that I may have made.)

https://www.disastercenter.com/cdc/Number of Deaths 113 Causes 2005.html

CDC statistics for causes of death in 2005 (Report released in 2008)

Firearms-
All deaths by; suicide, assault, undetermined, accidental discharge = *30,364*

Motor vehicle accidents-
Deaths = *45,343*


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

from the new scientist :



Douglas Wiebe of the Firearm Injury Center at Penn (FICAP) at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia agrees. Last month, Wiebe and colleagues found that people who keep guns at home have a 72 per cent greater chance of being killed by firearms compared with those who do not, and are 3.44 times as likely to commit suicide (Annals of Emergency Medicine, vol 41, p 771). A 1997 survey by the CDC that compared the US with 25 other industrialised countries, including the UK and Australia, showed that the number of gun-related homicides in the US per 100,00 children below the age of 15 was 16 times that of all the other countries combined. The proportion of children below 15 who use guns to kill themselves was 11 times higher.

Many people in the US legitimately own firearms, and with no realistic prospect of gun ownership being banned that is unlikely to change. Around half a million guns are stolen from people's homes every year, many of which go on to be used in a crime. 




half a million guns stolen a year in the US......


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Well, even if we accepted your premise (that one should have to prove life-and-death necessity to exercise a right, which is, frankly, bunk. Do freedom of speech next, please!), your intuition is not actually based on anything even resembling facts. Various people and institutions have conducted research on the use of guns for defense, and the numbers range from *two and a half million defensive uses per year* to a bare minimum of 108,000--per year.
> 
> https://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html


Sigh! There you go again, Turkey, citing another so-called...and so-called by you..._FACT_ presented by a gun nut organization. I do wonder what those aliens did with your actual brain. Hmmm. I hope they put it to good use. Hors d'oeuvres?

Buzz


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

Relayer said:


> The anticipated trend apparently did not bear out. Actually, the number of firearm deaths appears not only to not outnumber motor vehicle deaths (in the latest numbers available), but seems to have headed in the opposite direction than that predicted in the old report you cited.
> 
> (There are a lot of numbers on this page so someone please correct any errors that I may have made.)
> 
> ...


ok, fair enough, there are 1.5 times as many viehicle related deaths in the US as there are firearm deaths.

most people in the US get to work in a motor viehicle. most kids get to school in a motor viehicle. almost every once of consumer goods in the US gets transported most of the way in a motor viehicle. everything that is manufactured in the US gets transported in a motor viehicle.

so obviously, motor viehicles serve a purpose, and have a cost replected in that.

guns do pretty much nothing but make men feel that their penises are bigger.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Relayer said:


> The anticipated trend apparently did not bear out. Actually, the number of firearm deaths appears not only to not outnumber motor vehicle deaths (in the latest numbers available), but seems to have headed in the opposite direction than that predicted in the old report you cited.
> 
> (There are a lot of numbers on this page so someone please correct any errors that I may have made.)
> 
> ...


Yes, but as I read the report, and thank you for bringing it to my attention, it isn't that the number of firearm deaths was less than anticipated, just that the number of automotive deaths exceeded the expected number. I also hope that Turkey takes note that the CDC cites all vectors for firearm deaths including *accidental discharge*, the existence of which he denies.

Buzz


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

globetrotter said:


> sorry - bullshit. that survey suggests that 7% have said that they used a gun to "scare sombody" and 0.9% fireared a gun at somebody in self defense. I dont believe either number, but the fact that 7% of people thought that they had a reason to use a gun to scare somebody makes me think even more strongly that less people should have weapons.
> 
> this is a survey that has asked people if they have used guns. I have no disagreement, I think that many, many people have used guns when they shouldn't have and didn't need to. this doesn't change what I posted - I am guessing that there are less than 10 uses of a gun by a civilian in the US every year that save a persons life that would have been lost if he hadn't used a gun.


Speaking of uninformed guesses--

That's more than 200, sometimes 500, _documented cases_ per year where citizens have _killed_ attackers under circumstances determined to be justified-- i.e., where the attacker posed a threat of death or great bodily harm to the citizen. And of course this doesn't include _all_ self-defense shootings, just those that were actually categorized as justified by some bureaucrat.

https://ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/justify.htm

That's of course not including woundings (the great majority of shots which land do not kill), missed shots (the great majority of shots fired do not hit the target), and didn't have to shoot (the great, great majority of self-defense situations do not require that the gun actually be fired to diffuse the situation.

So what does that tell you about your guesses?


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Speaking of uninformed guesses--
> 
> That's more than 200, sometimes 500, _documented cases_ per year where citizens have _killed_ attackers under circumstances determined to be justified-- i.e., where the attacker posed a threat of death or great bodily harm to the citizen. And of course this doesn't include _all_ self-defense shootings, just those that were actually categorized as justified by some bureaucrat.
> 
> ...


This tells me that since 1976, the number of justifiable homicides has been cut in half, which could quite well mean that there is a decreasing need for concealed carry gun ownership. It doesn't tell us a darn thing about concealed gun-toting citizens who shot people who did not deserve to be shot. In other words, we don't know anything more based on the data you present than we did before. Keep searching, though, exercising the mind is good for you.

Buzz


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Speaking of uninformed guesses--
> 
> That's more than 200, sometimes 500, _documented cases_ per year where citizens have _killed_ attackers under circumstances determined to be justified-- i.e., where the attacker posed a threat of death or great bodily harm to the citizen. And of course this doesn't include _all_ self-defense shootings, just those that were actually categorized as justified by some bureaucrat.
> 
> ...


well, first of all, it tells me that your survey estimated more than 1 million shootings, and this lists a few hundred. so, before anything else, it tells me your survey is bullshit.

secondly, again, there are plenty of cases where the courts will judge something legal that I would suggest could have been handled differently. for instance, the recent cold blooded murder of two scumbags in texas was found to be justifiable.

I would suggest that of those 200 shootings, 190 were legal but could have been avoided.

but, let me also suggest that I am wrong - lets say that there were 200 instances that a person would have been killed if he didn't kill another person with a firearm. there are half a million firearms in private hands in the US, it would seem that the vast vast majority of them aren't needed.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

It says nothing at all about the number of shootings, or the number of defensive firearms useages-- it says how many bad guys were KILLED. It's annoying that neither of you even seem to understand the numbers as presented.

To get an idea of what the implications are consider, for example-- in New York City in 2005, the police fired 472 shots and killed *nine people*. https://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2007/12/police-hit-rates-on-shootings-as-low-as.html

How many times do you imagine the cops drew their weapons on someone, thus "using" them, in New York City? Certainly more than nine times...


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

A reasonable extrapolation would look something like this, considering only those 200 justifiable homicides the government has actually counted:

200 bad guys dead, but only 1 in 7 bad guys who is shot is killed (from hospital statistics):

1400 bad guys are shot, but only 1 in 5 bad guys who is shot at is hit (from police-involved shooting statistics),

7000 bad guys are shot at, but only 1 in 100 defensive uses of a firearm results in shots being fired (from surveys); so

700,000 defensive uses of a firearm, extrapolated with very reasonable estimates.


----------



## cdavant (Aug 28, 2005)

How we going to score one of my immediate concerns? It could happen any morning. 

Handcuff guy (250+ pound 6'3" paranoid schizophrenic) is released from friendly psychiatric facility. Remember he has already promised to beat my face into mush. He's driving back home at 6AM with butcher knife (2 previous assault convictions) carrying girlfriend while I'm out walking two golden retrievers. They live in his mother's house less than half-a-mile down the road. They stop and get out presume ably to tell me how much they have missed seeing me. Remember they can simply drive on by.

I have in my jacket pocket a Colt .38 detective special with police loads.

Anybody out there really believe I should let either of them get closer than 6' after showing them the gun? I don't think trying to dial 911 will be much of a deterrent and I've walked the same route--my only route--for 30 odd years.

I'm fond of my face, such as it is, and I'd prefer my appendix be removed in an operating room. My local police chief assures me deadly force is justified if you feel your life is threatened, restraining orders don't work, and one shot probably won't be enough to slow this guy down. On the last point I think he's just trying to avoid having to handcuff him to two deputies in an ER again.

I hope it won't come up but in a small town I can't hide. I can be prepared.


----------



## cdavant (Aug 28, 2005)

globetrotter said:


> I'll get back to your origional issue - but why aren't you looking at a waiste holster, anyway? are you comfortable that you will be able to get to your weapon in an ankle holster when you need it? if you are so sure that you will use a gun to save your life, are you sure that this is the best way to carry it, from a practical sense?


I've got my home, my office and my car covered. But I go to a lot of meetings and social events in a jacket and tie. When it gets hot guys take their jackets off and some would think it strange to see their doctor was packing heat. Could be bad for business. The few individuals that concern me are more likely either to run into me by happenstance or meet me in a parking lot and invite me to take a ride.

Damn shame I'm too old to go to parties where folks take their pants off, anymore...


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

cdavant said:


> I've got my home, my office and my car covered. But I go to a lot of meetings and social events in a jacket and tie. When it gets hot guys take their jackets off and some would think it strange to see their doctor was packing heat. Could be bad for business. The few individuals that concern me are more likely either to run into me by happenstance or meet me in a parking lot and invite me to take a ride.
> 
> Damn shame I'm too old to go to parties where folks take their pants off, anymore...


fair enough - like I said, people should have the guns they need and can store responsibly.

do you have a place where you can practice drawing a gun from an ankle holster and fiing it? I understand that a lot of firing ranges in the US freak out about that.


----------



## Lieutenant (May 17, 2007)

I apologize...I did not read all the posts and this may have been covered...as a police officer I have tried various means to secure my firearm while in a suit. Galco offers up beautiful and functional leather goods; while I am fond of my shoulder rig I have been getting great use out of their S.O.B. (small of back) holsters.

https://www.usgalco.com/HolsterPG3.asp?ProductID=1061&GunID=153

The Alden of holsters)


----------

