Packing at home.

[ATex7239]

Originally Posted By: TinyVoices
I guess I just don't see it that way. So many stats say that if you own a gun you are far more likely to be involved in violence using a gun. Not willing to needlessly add my name to that list when I absolutely don't need a gun.

I'd rather live in a world where people don't need guns than one where people do. I've never needed one or even wished I had one, and I don't see that changing.

Thank you for your concern, but it is not necessary.


I’d rather live in world where we don’t need guns, too. But we live in this world, not the one we want...

Otherwise, I’d be living in world where I’m a 6 foot, 6 inch tall, multi-billionaire, currently in three way relationship with Kate Upton and Selma Hayek.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: TinyVoices
I'd rather live in a world where people don't need guns than one where people do.


We all would. But world history has proven such places are nothing more than non existent, ideological fantasylands.

Originally Posted By: TinyVoices
I've never needed one or even wished I had one, and I don't see that changing.


hopefully it won't...... Assuming your luck holds out.

Originally Posted By: TinyVoices
Thank you for your concern, but it is not necessary.


I'm not the least bit concerned over your welfare. That's up to you.

 

[KJSmith]

Originally Posted By: ATex7239
Otherwise, I’d be living in world where I’m a 6 foot, 6 inch tall, multi-billionaire, currently in three way relationship with Kate Upton and Selma Hayek.


To much hassle buying clothes when your that tall.
You need 3, that way two will gang up on the other.
If you have 2 they will gang up on you.

Upton would not be allowed to speak.

 

[gman2304]

Originally Posted By: ATex7239
Originally Posted By: TinyVoices
I guess I just don't see it that way. So many stats say that if you own a gun you are far more likely to be involved in violence using a gun. Not willing to needlessly add my name to that list when I absolutely don't need a gun.

I'd rather live in a world where people don't need guns than one where people do. I've never needed one or even wished I had one, and I don't see that changing.

Thank you for your concern, but it is not necessary.


I’d rather live in world where we don’t need guns, too. But we live in this world, not the one we want... X2

Otherwise, I’d be living in world where I’m a 6 foot, 6 inch tall, multi-billionaire, currently in three way relationship with Kate Upton and Selma Hayek.

 

[DuckRyder]

Originally Posted By: ATex7239
...currently in three way relationship with Kate Upton and Selma Hayek.


That sounds exhausting...

Probably even more exhausting than arguing with an anti...

 

[ATex7239]

Originally Posted By: DuckRyder
Originally Posted By: ATex7239
...currently in three way relationship with Kate Upton and Selma Hayek.


That sounds exhausting...

Probably even more exhausting than arguing with an anti...


I’d still give it a whirl.

 

[Al]

Quote:
I guess I just don't see it that way. So many stats say that if you own a gun you are far more likely to be involved in violence using a gun. Not willing to needlessly add my name to that list when I absolutely don't need a gun.

I'd rather live in a world where people don't need guns than one where people do. I've never needed one or even wished I had one, and I don't see that changing.

Thank you for your concern, but it is not necessary.

You are absolutely right. It doesn't statistically make sense for a person to own a firearm.

But there is one thing that CAN change that picture:
Training:
95% of folks that carry are not "really" qualified to do so. I have been shooting for 60+ years and am a (non SD) firearms instructor. I didn't realize how much and in how many ways I was inadequate until I took SD training. And I still do one a month training at a Law Enforcement Center with a well qualified instructor. I will do this for the rest of my life. I practice 3 times a week and shoot around 800 rounds/month. The Firearm I carry (and it is the only one i train with) is now an extension of me. And I am the lower end in skill of the 5% of folks that are really (in my mind) "qualified" to carry.

The other reason I carry is "group safety". I believe if more folks were really "qualified" to carry. Crime would really take a huge dip.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: Al
You are absolutely right. It doesn't statistically make sense for a person to own a firearm.

But there is one thing that CAN change that picture:
Training:
95% of folks that carry are not "really" qualified to do so. I have been shooting for 60+ years and am a (non SD) firearms instructor. I didn't realize how much and in how many ways I was inadequate until I took SD training. And I still do one a month training at a Law Enforcement Center with a well qualified instructor. I will do this for the rest of my life. I practice 3 times a week and shoot around 800 rounds/month. The Firearm I carry (and it is the only one i train with) is now an extension of me. And I am the lower end in skill of the 5% of folks that are really (in my mind) "qualified" to carry.

The other reason I carry is "group safety". I believe if more folks were really "qualified" to carry. Crime would really take a huge dip.


You are leaving out the most important part of the equation. Knowing When you can shoot is every bit as, if not more important than How. I've found through the years most of these so called, "firearm instructors" spend little, if any time on the subject of the legalities involved of when you can shoot. Because when it comes to the law, most don't know what they are talking about. None of them have law degrees.

Most all of them simply throw in 5 minutes of blather about, "Be careful of what you say". Or else, "Don't talk to anyone without consulting a good attorney". None of that means a thing if you're involved in what law enforcement determines to be a questionable shooting. And that varies considerably from location to location. Out west in a gun friendly state like Texas or Arizona, you most likely will not be scrutinized as much in your use of a firearm to defend yourself. Compared to how you would be in a politically unfriendly firearm state like Illinois or Washington D.C. In those states guns are well hated by both politicians and District Attorney's. As are the people who own and use them. And they have the ability to destroy your life with the stroke of a pen, if they choose to do so for whatever reason.

To be honest about it, I've found most any type of legal information on this subject from firearm instructors to be all but worthless. And some of it even downright dangerous. It takes someone with a degree in firearms law to give proper advice in this field. And few if any firearms instructors are qualified in that department. You wouldn't go to car mechanic for medical advice. By the same token getting legal advice from a "firearms instructor" is just about as worthless.

 

[AZjeff]

^ Yeah that. When I took my CCW course at Gunsite it was a 1 day class and most of the time was spent on legalities. They didn't give legal advice, just laid out what you were in for afterward.

Bill, the Yavapai county attorney is not gun friendly. Something to keep in mind.

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: billt460

You are leaving out the most important part of the equation. Knowing When you can shoot is every bit as, if not more important than How. I've found through the years most of these so called, "firearm instructors" spend little, if any time on the subject of the legalities involved of when you can shoot. Because when it comes to the law, most don't know what they are talking about. None of them have law degrees.

Most all of them simply throw in 5 minutes of blather about, "Be careful of what you say". Or else, "Don't talk to anyone without consulting a good attorney". None of that means a thing if you're involved in what law enforcement determines to be a questionable shooting. And that varies considerably from location to location. Out west in a gun friendly state like Texas or Arizona, you most likely will not be scrutinized as much in your use of a firearm to defend yourself. Compared to how you would be in a politically unfriendly firearm state like Illinois or Washington D.C. In those states guns are well hated by both politicians and District Attorney's. As are the people who own and use them. And they have the ability to destroy your life with the stroke of a pen, if they choose to do so for whatever reason.

To be honest about it, I've found most any type of legal information on this subject from firearm instructors to be all but worthless. And some of it even downright dangerous. It takes someone with a degree in firearms law to give proper advice in this field. And few if any firearms instructors are qualified in that department. You wouldn't go to car mechanic for medical advice. By the same token getting legal advice from a "firearms instructor" is just about as worthless.

I am not leaving. it out.its part of what you should know.
So I certainly agree with you. And you are right the law and legalistics is not included in training all of the time bc of liability reasons.

But when to shoot is in SD courses...and there is a subtle difference and it can get "sticky". ie. You are having coffee at your favorite coffee shop and you like and know the barista. Someone comes in, pulls a pistol (quickly) you are 15 feet away and are not threatened at the time and are in a position to get away. I would pull my firearm out, stay put and if he doesn't shoot and walks out with cash all the better. Now I could take him out easily but he might shoot the girl. If he shoots her I would run toward him with my fiream on him all the time (trained to do that) I might get shot and its an iffy legal situation. But hopefully what I would do. I have discussed it with my instructor.

I have taken 3 seminars on the law sponsored by our State Senator . So I am 100% agreeing with you.

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: Donald
One huge dog and one medium dog that is a real [censored]. My guess is the [censored] one would tear any intruder apart.


Or be the first shooting victim.

Good luck with your plan. I mean that sincerely, not snarky.

 

[Win]

Quote:
..... that varies considerably from location to location. Out west in a gun friendly state like Texas or Arizona, ..... And they have the ability to destroy your life with the stroke of a pen, if they choose to do so for whatever reason.


Having practiced a bit, I would suggest that interpretation of state laws can vary widely county to county. Last week I got a weapons charge dismissed in my county, where, even though the law is quite clear in my opinion, the opinion of our attorney general, and most prosecutors, it likely would have gone to trial in some counties.

Know your local prosecutor.

Quote:
..... a degree in firearms law .


Never heard of any law school offering such a post graduate degree, and I shudder to think what kind of indoctrination might be inflicted on students at some schools. Mr. Obama was a Harvard law graduate and allowed to teach constitutional law, that says a lot right there. Best left to individual scholars ....

 

[billt460]

The best modern example you have of this is the George Zimmerman / Travon Martin shooting. He was found to be just in shooting Martin. But proving that in a court of law destroyed his life. Financially, socially, as well as in most every other way. It never should have gone to trial. But because of racial pressure brought on the District Attorney, charges were eventually filed much later. Weeks later I believe it was.

Zimmerman was eventually acquitted. But he is in legal debt to his attorney's to the tune of over $2.5 MILLION dollars.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/george-zimmerman-2-5m-debt-legal-fees-article-1.1532347

His life is in financial ruin. That can happen to anyone. And it really makes one think before stepping out armed with a weapon. And it should. And remember, today it is worse, much worse. With groups like, "Black Lives Matter" screaming bloody murder every time a white shoots a black, it doesn't matter if it's justifiable self defense or not. You're going to be destroyed financially, with a mountain of legal debt. Just like Zimmerman was. Whatever your personal opinion of Zimmerman was, or is now, he didn't deserve that.

 

[Al]

Zimmerman was an idiot. He deserved what he got.

 

[gman2304]

Originally Posted By: billt460
The best modern example you have of this is the George Zimmerman / Travon Martin shooting. He was found to be just in shooting Martin. But proving that in a court of law destroyed his life. Financially, socially, as well as in most every other way. It never should have gone to trial. But because of racial pressure brought on the District Attorney, charges were eventually filed much later. Weeks later I believe it was.

Zimmerman was eventually acquitted. But he is in legal debt to his attorney's to the tune of over $2.5 MILLION dollars.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/george-zimmerman-2-5m-debt-legal-fees-article-1.1532347

His life is in financial ruin. That can happen to anyone. And it really makes one think before stepping out armed with a weapon. And it should. And remember, today it is worse, much worse. With groups like, "Black Lives Matter" screaming bloody murder every time a white shoots a black, it doesn't matter if it's justifiable self defense or not. You're going to be destroyed financially, with a mountain of legal debt. Just like Zimmerman was. Whatever your personal opinion of Zimmerman was, or is now, he didn't deserve that.
. ^ x2 ^