I walk around with my 9mm everywhere I am legally allowed to carry it.... I am not in the least bit paranoid. It has a freeing effect on me.... like Richy Havens sang at Woodstock...... Freedom, oh Freedom...... I hope I never have to pull it out, let alone use it. But if I need it some dark day, I will have it..... oiled, cleaned, loaded, and in working order. It is quite a heavy responsibility that I (and everyone else that carries) take upon myself when I tuck it in the holster at the beginning of each day, and one that I do not take lightly.

Kudo's to Sven for doing some research and actually seeing what the statistics say. Guns do produce lower crime rates and no "blood in the streets" as the anti-gun crowd claims.

I also agree, quite an interesting discussion we have had, and to all those who participated with out resorting to name calling and derogatory comments.

Not being satisfied with gun control, a Great Britain unwilling to confront violence and crime in an effective manner has moved on to knife control and finally soup spoon control. Yes, that's right. Tableware in Great Britain is regulated by the Offensive Weapons Act of 1996.

You ain't kidding I've been attacked by a rolling pin, spatula (plastic and metal), frying pan, a toaster, a set of 'Sabatier' knives (whilst still in the block), an egg-whisk, a garlic press, I'll tell ya the story behind the headlines is much worse.  I'm no walk over though I keep my secret weapon well-hidden......a left-handed can-opener.....what's more I'm informed as how to use it in an emergency.

We even changed the lyric of Elvis' "In the ghetto" to "In the kitchen".  There's only one person that goes in the kitchen in our home.....and it ain't me!

bdickens

SteveStrummerUK

 
It's refreshing to see how seriously you guys that do arm yourselves in public and in your homes take the associated responsibilities of doing so. 
 
Steve

  
  
  
 
That is why I posted the link to the Texas CHL Forum that I did.   Another good place to look is The High Road.   If you haven't already, I would highly recommend following those links and lurking for a bit so you can see for yourself from the horse's mouth what real gun owners have to say instead of  the Brady Campaign's false portrayal of "gun nuts."


Steve: your remarks about England's knife laws are a perfect example of how those types of laws only affect the law-abiding.



BTW: The "put the gun down" remark is a prime example of the prejudicial language I was talking about earlier; the clear implication being that I - or someone like me - would be willing to shoot you over a dispute over scholarship. I know you were trying to be funny, but language like that is quite frankly repugnant. I can't think of any reason for it except for prejudice or projection.

Hello B,
 
I perused the links.   Thanks.   It gave me a chill just reading the forum handles of the guys:"Bigbadgun, wankerjake, Storm, Deanimator, herkyguy, hogslazyer, Arrogant Bastard, The Dark Knight....."
 
I read the thread about 'when to shoot'.   THere were some knowledgeable gentlemen there who conveyed a definate sense of stability and poise.   They were definately the minority.   Most were very aggressive sounding males just itching for someone to make a wrong move.  
If someone comes into your home shoot them....fine by me....NOT the same thing as carrying a gun out into the world all day everyday.....misjudging someone is not an option with a gun.  I encourage anyone to read those forums and get the gist of the mentality there.  
 
Your points about carrying are all good.  They all presuppose a certain demeanor that i find missing from most people.   That is my point.

I was not there. :)

bdickens


Read past the handles or did you just stop there?
 
 

Your points about carrying are all good.  They all presuppose a certain demeanor that i find missing from most people.   That is my point.

 
Maybe that says more about the class of people you associate with than you'd like to admit.

If you'd read my post I said I perused the forum...and I even mentioned one of the threads I read.  READ.
 
I associate with lots of different people in my line of work.   All decent people, but people none the less.  I can safely say the people I associate with don't make me feel insecure enough to have to carry a  gun around them to feel confidant though, which is more than you can say.  Perhaps you should reconsider whom YOU associate with.

Not so insecure that I need to carry a gun.

In the US and other dangerous countries, like Haiti and Israel, a man or woman can usually avoid confrontation by avoiding confrontation ... when out on the streets.

In Israel, men and women-soldiers tote guns on the streets to protect their citizens, strangers, and enemies ... and these are the most-tender-eyed people I've personally encountered.  But they dwell amidst a contradiction of 'other' folks that are snide and dangerous.

In Port-au-prince, Haiti ... trusting only God ... as evening darkness commenced ... a wretched man 'suddenly' appeared and was dancing with a gun before a scared bunch of citizens.  Several persons ran for safety or such.

... a bullet wizzed by me ear (which was too close for comfort).

Several months before or after (I forget) ... another desperate (Haitian) young man pulled a gun on us (a native missionary and I) about mid-morning ... but became too afraid to threaten us with it.

In all countries ... there will always be areas to avoid, especially toward evening ... folks aren't quite so innocent at night, IMHO.

IIRC, GuitarHacker's incident occurred in the morning ... he didn't need his gun and probably would never have threatened to use it ... he is a guardian, trained in security.

Certain personalities (some on this thread) probably don't need to be 'bragging' about guns.  Its a shame for any person to brag about killing.  Marines joke about killing babies ... but, methinks 90%+ of Marines (the younger ones) are dreadfully ashamed to kill and destroy holy families in anywhere.

Other personalities ... the hyper-responsible protective-guardian-type ... need to soberly carry guns.  Many guardians feel they have an ethical responsibility to intercede for strangers and citizens against reprobate killers and beasts.

Such guardians help me sleep at night, in any country. 

IMHO, for the rest of personalities?: guns are not safe for us weird emos, divorcees, nor children, partiers, punk-stars, metal-stars, producers, Van-Gogh artists, rock-stars, country singers, etc. ...

Mike.... regarding the link to Sarah Palin sanctioning the killing of wolves and bears....

the story at that link is written in a heart wrenching manner..... talking about little pups whose only care in the world was when they would get to nurse again.....instead they get a bullet in the head.....

this is designed to envoke sympathy in the reader and swing opinion to the wolf's side. 

However, this is only the animal rights side..... there is another side that may (or may not) actually be more relevant.

We have to ask WHY is this being done? What are the reasons behind this? Have the wolf and bear populations become so overly large that the numbers are making  (A) The wolf's health as a species in danger due to over crowding, disease, food supply, in peril?  (B) The wolf is depleting other natural species and upsetting the balance?

A telling number there is the mention that only 14% of Alaskans hunt. That tells me that the hunting pressure has decreased, meaning more prey animals are living and reproducing..... more deer, elk, etc..... and when food becomes abundant..... more preditors are born as well..... it becomes unstable and the numbers crash in a natural event that takes a huge toll on both species.

With proper managment..... allowing increased hunting, and proper use of preditor control..... this balance can be achieved again.

Here in NC..... I don't hunt so I am not up on all the exact numbers..... however, I have heard some of my hunting buddies talk about the overpopulation of the whitetail deer. It seems they breed like rabbits, and when the numbers become to large, they will actually eat their available wild foods and then starve because there are to many of them for the given food supply. Biologists have studied this, know their numbers and change the "bag limits" as needed to allow the small group of hunters to cull the herds to a sustainable level. According to the things I have heard, the numbers in the deer herds are actually getting larger over time, so apparently, they are doing a good job managing the herds in the wild. What they are seeking to prevent is a deer population bubble where the situation becomes unsustainable and starvation and disease are the result.

edit: BTW... the biologists have recently introduced wolves back into eastern NC. They became extinct in this part of the state. Since their introduction, they are of course protected, and they seem to be doing well. It is hoped that the wolf will again become a factor also in controling the deer populations. we also have coyote's in this area. The large preditors will help to a small degree in the natural balance of the wild.

I have to wonder though.... what happens when the wolves start to impinge on man's turf?

I don't agree with any hunter who claims to kill for ecological reasons. If you're going to hunt, do it for food, for sport or because you just want to.

Land based mammals got along fine for 10 million years without any self-appointed zookeepers. If the wolves, bears & whales have retreated to Alaska as their last refuge, let them have it. We humans don't need to claim every square inch of the planet. What defines the boundaries of "man
's turf" anyway?

This thread no longer serves any purpose.