My question on you being scared of people open carrying would be to read up on your gun laws out that way. Is open carry legal by anyone or only someone who is a police officer? If Open carry is illegal they they were most likely cops. However you can always ask for your knowledge/safety. (Most cops should not have a problem you can even ask your local precinct) Also you can always notify a manager to ask for credentials. (I was always taught if I have a question ask.) To get a CCW you have to go through an extensive Background check that will take a while. And you must go through a course that teaches you to better control your actions and teach you the laws. (I have yet to take the course but several friends are CC owners and have been talking to me about it) I agree you probably walk past several people a day who CC in your area.
Say what? I think you have it bass akward, either the criminal can move or the gun control advocate who is afraid of guns can move, law abiding citizens can stay where they are and defend what is theirs eh? Hehe move because of a criminal act on the part of ciminals....now that's rich. How many times have you moved? Just wondering, how is that ban on illegal narcotics working?
I live in Texas in a universe where not everyone says hi, santas make beleive and people go to war for the same god under different names. Where are you from?
I get a kick out of the spasm of irrational fear that hoplophobics exhibit when told that. With the millions of concealed carry licenses around the US, it is likely that the average person walks past a few people carrying concealed every day. You are in no more danger knowing that than you were before you knew, so if that thought frightens you, it is a purely irrational fear. You are in more danger from the car driving by than from the person with a concealed weapon walking past you.
Obtaining a CCW is easy in many states and virtually impossible in others. In Washington, where I live, it's both easy and unexpensive but California has much stricter laws. Personally, I'd like to see a federal law that ensures that any law abiding citizen can easily obtain a CCW without undue expense or time being involved and that the permit would be honored nationwide. Once agian though, patterned on the CCW laws, I believe this could be extended to cover "open carry" as well. The propose of our government, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, is to ensure our inalienable Rights and self-defense against acts of aggression is an inalienable Right of the Individual. The Constitution also requires that all states give full faith and credit to the records of other states and a CCW is a state issued document that should be respected by all other states IMO. It makes no sense to me that I can have a CCW issued by the State of Washington that isn't honored by the State of California. Open carry and concealed carry should NOT be limited to law enforcement in ANY state, period. The People have a Right of Self-Defense and, as the old expression goes, there's never a cop around when we need one. The licensing of a person and the registration of the firearm to be carried in public does not infringe upon the individual's Right of Self-Defense so long as the government doesn't place undue barriers to a lawful citizen in obtaining that license. Licensing of the individual and registration of a firearm for home protection are unnecessary because a gun in the home does not represent any potentional threat to society. Only if the person leaves the home with the firearm does a potential threat exist which would require the background check for the license as well as the registration of the firearm. BTW I'm not "scared" if I see a person openly carrying but I am concerned because I don't have any confidence that they've had a background check and are not a criminal or a crazy. When I carry a concealed weapon I do that so I don't make others "concerned" about whether I'm a criminal or a crazy. That is out of consideration for others. Open carry does cause reasonable concerns by others in society.
Only if that person has a CCW. We are also passed by individuals that are carrying firearms concealed for nefarious purposes that are criminals and "crazies" that are prohibited under the law from possessing a firearm as well. Should we not be concerned about then? When we see someone openly carrying they are probably not a threat either but we do know that the laws don't generally require any background check to determine if they're a criminal or a "crazy" and that raises the level of concern.
Hot dang Margot we agree on something!!! Lol good for you (and me). I am a lover not a fighter. A short off topic joke? A guy who is bald in the back is a good thinker. A guy that is bald in the front is a good lover. A guy that is bald all over just thinks he is a good lover : ) Well its was on topic to my reply ha ha ~ reva
Other worldly just because you might walk past a bunch of people that might have a conceal carry permit gun? Ha ha! to answer your question no we ain’t in the same universe cant be. I do believe we may have arrived in alternate parallel universes a metaverse if you will, transported here by the 0101001100101 binary wonder, a computer via the net. Well good buddy if you want a real out of this world experience, a bonafide hillbilly promenade, pile your junk in your pick truck and journey to Far East East Tennessee, you know you are close when you see mountains, at any little burg stop and watch some hillfolk walk by. Guess what? You will never have anyone walk past you strapped with a CCP weapon. We don’t believe in G man paperwork. note to mod; kill this 'reply' if you want to I am just trying to lighten up the mood... reva I didnt know you retired or whatever Shiva! Thanks for your unselfish service advice and for making me work when discussing an issue with you. God bless you and yours or just bless you if you have another (other) worldly veiw ~ lol
Almost 400,000 people have concealed carry permits in Washington. What world do you live in? Just because you don't do something doesn't mean it doesn't happen. http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/02/04/3216664/about-1-in-12-washington-state.html
While this was a tragety and I feel for the families and victims, it is quite a rare occurance for a murder to be commited with a legal firearm. There are hundreds of millions of legal guns out there under control of about 70+ million gun owners, if legal guns and gun owners were a problem, the murder rates would be MUCH higher. With what I said before, a gun does not possess the ability to make someone kill, if it did, we would have millions of murders. Blaming it on a gun is more or less giving the murderer an excuse that somehow he wasn't fully to blame, the gun was instead. I place the responsibality on the completely broken mental health care system that does not get the foundation it needs to stand.
One point that many gun control advocates miss is that firearms for personal protection is extensive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States Gun control advocates like to cite statistics related to when a firearm is used in self-defense but they only cite the number of times the victim actually fired the firearm. Those numbers are generally reported, but not all of the time if the perpetrator isn't wounded or killed, and the numbers of times that a firearm is used but not fired are rarely reported. As I noted in my OP my goal in having an "assault type firearm" is hopefully to avoid having to shoot someone that would break into my house. If I threaten them with my firearm and they leave I'll report the break-in but probably not mention that I scared them off with a firearm. It's only important to law enforcement that I scared the person off and not how I accomplished that. Even if we were to take the documented number of over 60,000 cases where a victim actually discharged a firearm to protect their life from a criminal that's over 60,000 lives were potentially saved. How many of these lives are the gun control freaks willing to sacrifice to impose illogical regulations on guns in America. Banning a firearm based solely on the fact that it looks scary is not a logical proposition.
bless you while I appreciate that you guys don't dig having this mentioned out loud, but in this instance it's so delightfully machismo it deserves a little mention. we do understand owning guns is all about fear. your own, and 'hopefully', that which your Big Guns will instill in others. that said, don't you ever feel put out about having to live in a place that is so apparently dangerous?
Its a healthy fear to know that someone out there is bigger and badder than you and could cause you great and possibly fatal harm, but it is not the only factor. It is reasons of sporting, collecting and hunting to name a few. It is not like I am cowering and sweating in the corner staring at the door with a gun in my hand. To put the blame of crimes on guns is like putting the blame of my common mispellings on my key board....
despite my firm position on the anti-gun side of things, I don't think farmers, and possibly collectors (of ANTIQUE firearms) should be compromised by legislation. farmers (in this country, at least) absolutely need guns. if you have livestock down and you're 5 hours from the nearest veterinarian, you'll be needing to put the animal out of it's misery toot sweet. not that any sensible farmer would call a vet for a terminal condition in the first place - too expensive. collectors are important as custodians of a significant part of our histories. I don't get the hunting thing, at all. but then I enjoy fishing and I suppose that's not much better :/ my issue is with the urban gun owner. no possible use for the guns, and a wholesale failure to justify them in terms appreciable by the rational and sane.
Well, the fact that I was brutally beaten and spent a month in recovery to only be threatened as soon as I came out is a perfectly good example that no matter how small a chance of being a victim is, it can still happen justifies the fact that self defense is one of the leading reasons one becomes a gun owner.
awful for you, but it must be said it does sound unusual. not so much the initial beating, but the post recovery threat. generally speaking, most of us don't mix with types (even indirectly, at great remove) with anyone capable of such behaviour. if our lives are lived in such a way or in such an area where this sort of thing might actually happen, then perhaps a lifestyle adjustment is called for. you may not court such people yourself, but even being in a situation where you're likely to cross paths with this element means something is not right with your neighbourhood.
The threat was to discontinue cooperation with the authorities against the three individuals in regards to the initial occurance, It happened in a safe neighborhood, and I have moved scince then. What happened was a small chance situation, but it still happened nontheless. So why is the position of self defence not justifiable when small safe neighborhoods still do get shaken up by violent crimes?
Is buying flood insurance all about fear? Does buying car insurance mean you are afraid your car will get into a wreck? Guns are insurance against the very real chance that you might be involved in a violent crime. Along with other reasonable safety measures such as staying in safer areas and locking your doors, guns just add one more layer of security. Most people who carry guns don't advertise that they are carrying. That is the point of the previous comment. Odds are that on a given day you have walked past several people who were carrying guns. Did they try to scare everyone with their gun? The fact is that guns aren't about fear, they are about insurance. Crime happens everywhere. If you think it can't happen where you live, you are just deluding yourself. I challenge you to find one type of neighborhood or area that has never had a violent crime. They happen in every kind of neighborhood in every place on the planet.
The statistical probability of being a victim of a violent crime is actually quite low for most people. I read somewhere that 75% of the victims of all murders are individuals with a criminal record and, while that is not a rationalization for their murder, they are probably people that hang around with a criminal element which makes them more prone to being a victim of a criminal act. With that said, even though the probability of being a victim of a criminal act of violence might be low the failure to be prepared for it is a risk of the person's life. A person can only be a murder victim once. As I noted in the OP I purchased a Mossberg Tactical Shotgun for home protection. It cost me $300 used and that is reasonable "insurance" against the remote possibility of having my home invaded where my life is placed in danger. At the same time I would say that those who own 20-30 firearms are being a bit absurd in making the argument that they are all for personal protection. I don't deny them the Right to own as many as they might want but they're not buying them for personal protection but instead they're buying them simply because they want to own them. I was amused with a recent thought I had. We have the "gun nuts" and the "gun control freaks" at the two ends of the spectrum so I just abbreviated this into the "nuts v freaks" and neither of them approach the issue from a rational standpoint. The "nuts" and "freaks" both need to get off the soapbox and allow reasonable discourse in the issue. As I noted in my OP I have a ligitimate reason for owning an "assault type firearm" based upon many definitions of what an "assault type weapon" is and not one person has provided any rational argument against why I should be denied ownership of this firearm. It is the best possible firearm for a ligitimate purpose and I looked at many firearms before selecting it.
Wait am I reading you clearly? If a person is in a declared war zone that have a right to defend themselves even if nobody has been killed or shots fired for months but if a person in their home has invaders come in armed they should let them rape, molest and kill? I mean the SCOTUS has made clear that it is not the job of the police well... http://gunssavelives.net/blog/supre...e-have-no-duty-to-protect-the-general-public/ So my choice in your view is be a victim or a thug. Want to live be a thug preying on the sheep.
Keep thinking that while you live in your little bubble. You're probably the type of person who thinks women who get raped are at fault for not dressing properly.
