Open Carry sighting

[Beebs52]

I think we just had a "jinx!" in the thread.

[Bob Juch]

SSS, guns are dangerous. I'll agree. Cars are dangerous. Skateboards are dangerous. ATVs are dangerous. Downhill skiing is dangerous. So is sky diving.

Skateboards may be dangerous, but they pose a danger almost exclusively to those who use them. I have no worries about being injured by a skateboard.

Cars are dangerous, and I'm concerned about being injured in a car accident. However, the utility that cars provide significantly to me personally and to society as a whole outweigh the danger. Further, I make the decision to drive and subject myself to that risk.

However, guns pose a danger to anyone within shooting distance of the gun, so there's nothing I can do, other than barricade myself in my home and hope for the best, to avoid that risk. If the idiots who misused guns only put themselves at risk, as do skateboarders and skydivers, I could accept that. However, the parents of that 12-year-old boy in my earlier post didn't just put themselves at risk, they caused the death of an innocent child. And, since that child might well have been playing with someone else's child when the gun went off, they could have caused the death of a complete stranger.

We're increasingly making a decision in our society to prevent smokers from putting others at risk by indulging their habit in public places. Unfortunately, we're going in the other direction with gun owners, allowing them to put more people at risk in more situations in the name of the Second Amendment.

”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” Benjamin Franklin. But what did he know....

Nothing. That's not the proper quote and Franklin didn't say it:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" was on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania that Franklin published in 1759 but it was written by Richard Jackson and others.

[Beebs52]

Here's the key question, do you want to disarm the entire population? I think some of you do. And, I repeat, I personally don't own a gun.

[Bob Juch]

Here's the key question, do you want to disarm the entire population? I think some of you do. And, I repeat, I personally don't own a gun.

We'd be a lot better off if we did but it's not going to happen; that's why I do own guns. You won't see me carrying any in shopping malls or Target parking lots though.

[BackInTex]

Here's the key question, do you want to disarm the entire population? I think some of you do. And, I repeat, I personally don't own a gun.

That would be a great thing. But it will never happen. And by never I mean never.

So we need to move on. Is there a gun problem in the US?

No. There is a crime problem. There is a problem of relative morals. Gun violence is a symptom.

[Beebs52]

Wow! Two responses I didn't expect. Very interesting.

[Beebs52]

Here's a hypothetical, with the strange lawsuits by criminals suing their victims, barring boobytrapping, etc, when do you think the first lawsuit against a company, customer or govtl entity will come from someone who is pissed because someone didn't try to defend said customer or whatever while carrying, concealed or otherwise?

[elwoodblues]

When Ann Richards was governor of Texas I saw a bumper sticker that said, "Don't let Annie get your gun," which was simultaneously clever (because of the reference to the musical) and stupid (because nobody, at least nobody in power, actually wants to take away anybody's guns. That is something that gets spread around to get people to buy more guns. It happened when Obama was elected for example.)

[silverscreenselect]

No. There is a crime problem. There is a problem of relative morals. Gun violence is a symptom.

Yes; there is a gun problem. And it's not just crime or whatever you mean by relative morals. When people have guns, people get shot. That's the purpose of a gun.

Four of ten ER shootings are accidental

[Bob Juch]

Here's a hypothetical, with the strange lawsuits by criminals suing their victims, barring boobytrapping, etc, when do you think the first lawsuit against a company, customer or govtl entity will come from someone who is pissed because someone didn't try to defend said customer or whatever while carrying, concealed or otherwise?

That would be tough to prove. I'd say more likely would be a suit against someone who shot an innocent bystander while trying to shoot a "bad guy".

[Flybrick]

You won't see me carrying any in shopping malls or Target parking lots though.

You won't see me carrying either.

But I will be.

[BackInTex]

Four of ten ER shootings are accidental

Poorly crafted stats.

Should read 6 of 10 ER shootings were were almost successful.

What is not included in the stats are the successful shots as well as the successful deterrents.

[silverscreenselect]

What is not included in the stats are the successful shots as well as the successful deterrents.

I've posted these stats before and I'm not going to chase them down again for people who choose to ignore them because they don't fit in with their fantasy visions. But the gist is simple.

Having a gun in the house increases the chance of someone in the house being a victim of gun violence.

Having a gun in the workplace increases the chance of someone in the workplace being a victim of gun violence.

[Bob Juch]

Four of ten ER shootings are accidental

Poorly crafted stats.

Should read 6 of 10 ER shootings were were almost successful.

What is not included in the stats are the successful shots as well as the successful deterrents.

You made a bad assumption: That everyone who made it to the ER survived.

[BackInTex]

Four of ten ER shootings are accidental

Poorly crafted stats.

Should read 6 of 10 ER shootings were were almost successful.

What is not included in the stats are the successful shots as well as the successful deterrents.

You made a bad assumption: That everyone who made it to the ER survived.

A valid point, but even if the ultimate result is the same, the death of a perp, I wouldn't call a shot a complete success if he/she were not dropped on site and we/society have to fund an ambulance ride and services at an emergency room in an attempt to save him/her.

[Bob Juch]

Poorly crafted stats.

Should read 6 of 10 ER shootings were were almost successful.

What is not included in the stats are the successful shots as well as the successful deterrents.

You made a bad assumption: That everyone who made it to the ER survived.

A valid point, but even if the ultimate result is the same, the death of a perp, I wouldn't call a shot a complete success if he/she were not dropped on site and we/society have to fund an ambulance ride and services at an emergency room in an attempt to save him/her.

Wow, another bad assumption: That everyone who was shot intentionally deserved to be.

[flockofseagulls104]

Skateboards may be dangerous, but they pose a danger almost exclusively to those who use them. I have no worries about being injured by a skateboard.

Cars are dangerous, and I'm concerned about being injured in a car accident. However, the utility that cars provide significantly to me personally and to society as a whole outweigh the danger. Further, I make the decision to drive and subject myself to that risk.

However, guns pose a danger to anyone within shooting distance of the gun, so there's nothing I can do, other than barricade myself in my home and hope for the best, to avoid that risk. If the idiots who misused guns only put themselves at risk, as do skateboarders and skydivers, I could accept that. However, the parents of that 12-year-old boy in my earlier post didn't just put themselves at risk, they caused the death of an innocent child. And, since that child might well have been playing with someone else's child when the gun went off, they could have caused the death of a complete stranger.

We're increasingly making a decision in our society to prevent smokers from putting others at risk by indulging their habit in public places. Unfortunately, we're going in the other direction with gun owners, allowing them to put more people at risk in more situations in the name of the Second Amendment.

”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” Benjamin Franklin. But what did he know....

Nothing. That's not the proper quote and Franklin didn't say it:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" was on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania that Franklin published in 1759 but it was written by Richard Jackson and others.

You know what. I made a personal bet to myself that you, or someone like you, would post a stupid response like this. What the hell does it matter who said it or when. It's true, and we are trading away our liberties for transparent and vague security. And you are just an argumentative fool.

[Bob Juch]

”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” Benjamin Franklin. But what did he know....

Nothing. That's not the proper quote and Franklin didn't say it:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" was on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania that Franklin published in 1759 but it was written by Richard Jackson and others.

You know what. I made a personal bet to myself that you, or someone like you, would post a stupid response like this. What the hell does it matter who said it or when. It's true, and we are trading away our liberties for transparent and vague security. And you are just an argumentative fool.

You and I have different views of what "liberty" is.

[silverscreenselect]

And the logic you use is that because some people will speed or drive drunk no matter what laws we have, we shouldn't place any meaningful restrictions on the right to drive.

I dont believe I've ever said or hinted as such nonsense. We do have meaningful restrictions on both he right to drive and gun ownership.

Our National Blind Spot about Guns

When I read this, I immediately thought about BiT.

[BackInTex]

Our National Blind Spot about Guns

When I read this, I immediately thought about BiT.

You're thinking. That's a start.

The article has several bad analogies and errors in logical thought.

One is this. The improvements made in automobiles were specifically made to prevent people from getting hurt by a device that is not intended to hurt.

The primary functionality of a gun is to hurt. Note, I said functionality, not purpose. I purchased a couple handguns, not to hurt, but to defend. And I can defend with a gun without hurting. I can prevent someone from attempting to harm me if that person knows or suspects I am armed. If a perp is smart, when I have him dead to right with my gun pointed at him, I will be successfully defending myself without hurting him if he stays still and waits for the police to come arrest him. But if I have to hurt him, I will, and should be able.

To modify guns to prevent or minimize the hurt will make it less effective for its purpose.

How many times have you tried to unlock your Iphone with your thumb but you've got a glove on, you thumb is dirty, etc. A thumbprint device also won't work if someone else needs to use your gun. So that suggestion is illadvised.

[Bob Juch]

Our National Blind Spot about Guns

When I read this, I immediately thought about BiT.

You're thinking. That's a start.

The article has several bad analogies and errors in logical thought.

One is this. The improvements made in automobiles were specifically made to prevent people from getting hurt by a device that is not intended to hurt.

The primary functionality of a gun is to hurt. Note, I said functionality, not purpose. I purchased a couple handguns, not to hurt, but to defend. And I can defend with a gun without hurting. I can prevent someone from attempting to harm me if that person knows or suspects I am armed. If a perp is smart, when I have him dead to right with my gun pointed at him, I will be successfully defending myself without hurting him if he stays still and waits for the police to come arrest him. But if I have to hurt him, I will, and should be able.

To modify guns to prevent or minimize the hurt will make it less effective for its purpose.

How many times have you tried to unlock your Iphone with your thumb but you've got a glove on, you thumb is dirty, etc. A thumbprint device also won't work if someone else needs to use your gun. So that suggestion is ill advised.

It's not the guns that need to be modified, just the gun owners.

[silverscreenselect]

Our National Blind Spot about Guns

When I read this, I immediately thought about BiT.

I purchased a couple handguns, not to hurt, but to defend. And I can defend with a gun without hurting. I can prevent someone from attempting to harm me if that person knows or suspects I am armed. If a perp is smart, when I have him dead to right with my gun pointed at him, I will be successfully defending myself without hurting him if he stays still and waits for the police to come arrest him. But if I have to hurt him, I will, and should be able.

Keith Ratliff

This man thought the same way you did, but he went out and bought himself a whole lot more guns than you did. Sure did him a lot of good.

[BackInTex]

When I saw this I thought of SSS



The guy could be at the door with a gun (as in the ad), a baseball bat, an ax (as in The Shinning), or any number of things, maybe even just his bare hands.

However, if the woman only had a gun, regardless of what the guy had, she could defend herself. But SSS want's to prevent her from being able to defend herself from baseball bats, axes, whatever.

[BackInTex]

It's not the guns that need to be modified, just the gun owners.

I really wish you would quit saying stuff I agree with. I makes me think something is wrong with me.

[silverscreenselect]

However, if the woman only had a gun, regardless of what the guy had, she could defend herself. But SSS want's to prevent her from being able to defend herself from baseball bats, axes, whatever.

You're right; she might have been able to defend herself. Or her son might have found a neat new toy to play with. Or the husband might have gotten the gun away from her and done far more damage than he originally intended.

People like you choose to dwell on the least likely situation (an intruder intent on causing bodily harm) and then ignore the far more likely probabilities of the consequences of putting a gun into a house with a young child. I'm sure the parents of that 12-year-old thought they were making themselves more secure against people intent on doing them harm.

This is the same flawed reasoning that causes people to cancel plane flights whenever a plane crashes while they continue to sit at home smoking.