Latest Breaking News

spin

(17,493 posts)

124. Those who carry a firearm for self defense often have the attitude that ...

Sun Dec 25, 2011, 07:05 PM

Dec 2011

their firearm is only to be used in those situations where there is no other reasonable alternative.

My first line of self defense is called "situational awareness" and is a tactic widely taught in martial arts classes. It simply means that you do not walk around with a cell phone glued to your ear but instead are alert to your surroundings. Using this tactic will avoid almost all bad encounters.

If I find myself in a heated argument with someone, I will walk away even if it makes me look like a coward. Since I have started to carry a firearm I have become a far more polite individual and others who regularly carry have told me they have noticed the same change in their personality.

I also carry pepper spray which can work well in some situations. Years ago I took some martial arts classes and still retain some of the techniques that I was taught.

But if there is no other choice and I find myself attacked by some individual who has every intention of putting me in a hospital or six feet under and is much larger and stronger than I am or is armed with a weapon such as a firearm, I will use my concealed handgun as a last option.

You are fantasizing about the nature of those who legally carry firearms and I doubt if you actually know many people who do. Statistics show that those who have carry permits commit far fewer acts of violence than the average citizen.

The reality is that violent crime has been decreasing in our nation for years. While there is no way to directly attribute this to the spread of "shall issue" concealed carry across our nation, it could be pointed out that the two trends happened in the same time frame.

source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Violent_Crime_Rates_in_the_United_States.svg

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

152 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

LAT: Man kills 2 Edison co-workers before turning gun on self [View all] ellisonz Dec 2011 OP

more gun-related tragedy - yet we will have those who believe the answer is not less guns, DrDan Dec 2011 #1

We have many of those who believe the answer is more guns period. ellisonz Dec 2011 #2

Since gun violence has plummeted while gun ownership has skyrocketed hack89 Dec 2011 #3

are you claiming more guns lower crime? DrDan Dec 2011 #5

No - more guns do not mean more crime hack89 Dec 2011 #6

With a main correlative... ellisonz Dec 2011 #10

So your challenge is to reduce criminal access to guns hack89 Dec 2011 #11

"Infringing" leaves a lot of space to work with. ellisonz Dec 2011 #12

But strict scrutiny is still the governing legal principle. hack89 Dec 2011 #13

That's your opinion. ellisonz Dec 2011 #15

Restricting the rights of 99.99 % of lawful gun owners is not "least" or "narrow" hack89 Dec 2011 #16

Wrong. ellisonz Dec 2011 #17

Why do you think the AWB was an effective gun law? hack89 Dec 2011 #18

I think the loopholes were ridiculous. ellisonz Dec 2011 #24

But what is the point of the AWB? hack89 Dec 2011 #27

Tides change. It is their nature. Just as pendulums swing. Starboard Tack Dec 2011 #127

So why are you so firmly against the move towards more civil rights hack89 Dec 2011 #128

Me against civil rights? You must be kidding Starboard Tack Dec 2011 #133

You are in that stream of history that supports restricting civil rights for "safety" hack89 Dec 2011 #135

To perceive the indiscriminate toting of handguns as a civil right is disingenuous at the least. Starboard Tack Dec 2011 #139

Fortunately you are in the minority for the present and the foreseeable future hack89 Dec 2011 #141

I have no idea who Nancy Grace is and I feel as safe as ever, thank you Starboard Tack Dec 2011 #142

Nancy Grace has a crime based TV show hack89 Dec 2011 #143

Sorry, I don't watch much TV Starboard Tack Dec 2011 #145

Another non-absolute is the division between "law-abiding citizens" and violent criminals saras Dec 2011 #21

So everyone is to be viewed as a potential criminal? hack89 Dec 2011 #29

How do you know that? If we had a 100 million less guns, crime might be even less. Hoyt Dec 2011 #19

The past 20 years tell us that hack89 Dec 2011 #20

Yes, steady decrease in violent crime because of tougher enforcement, aging population, better Hoyt Dec 2011 #22

I don't talk to people that feel compelled to insult me instead of debating facts. nt hack89 Dec 2011 #23

I don't see a single insult. ellisonz Dec 2011 #25

Coming from someone who supports the Patriot Act - well my irony meter just blew up. nt hack89 Dec 2011 #28

Do I need to post the list of Senate Democrats voting for the extension? n/t ellisonz Dec 2011 #82

Let's start with warrantless wiretapping - for or against? nt hack89 Dec 2011 #90

Ok. ellisonz Dec 2011 #93

So you trust the government and police to not abuse this power? hack89 Dec 2011 #94

I think present laws are adequate hack89 Dec 2011 #95

They are actually FBI and DOJ talking points. nt hack89 Dec 2011 #30

crime is down as gang membership increases. DrDan Dec 2011 #37

I have never said that more guns lead to lower crime hack89 Dec 2011 #38

so then gang membership also does not create more crime . . . correct? DrDan Dec 2011 #39

Incarceration rates for gang members are also up hack89 Dec 2011 #40

you didn't address my earlier comparison DrDan Dec 2011 #41

No - more violent gang members in jail = less violent crime. hack89 Dec 2011 #42

And if we had fewer guns, the violent crime rate might be even less. Hoyt Dec 2011 #46

But since we are on the right track and every year you are safer hack89 Dec 2011 #47

"simplistic" is eactly the word I use for your false conclusion re more guns DrDan Dec 2011 #50

That's the point - there is no correlation between guns and crime. hack89 Dec 2011 #51

and exactly how do you know that more guns did not produce more crime DrDan Dec 2011 #53

Didn't I just say that there is no correlation - we can't say that? hack89 Dec 2011 #55

you are the one making the statement that more guns do not lead to more crime. The burden of proof DrDan Dec 2011 #58

I said the facts show no increase in crime despite an increase in guns hack89 Dec 2011 #61

that is correct - and is my conclusion also DrDan Dec 2011 #64

So there are not more guns? Or is there really more crime? hack89 Dec 2011 #65

but they cannot be linked DrDan Dec 2011 #67

So there is no real justification for more stringent gun laws to further reduce crime hack89 Dec 2011 #69

"99.99 % of gun owners will never commit violent crime" boppers Dec 2011 #81

So give a me a more reasonable one. nt hack89 Dec 2011 #87

Was yours just made up? boppers Dec 2011 #96

Ok - I accept 99 percent. hack89 Dec 2011 #98

That's not really exclusively true... ellisonz Dec 2011 #83

Post hoc ergo prompter hoc. LanternWaste Dec 2011 #76

Read back over the thread and note how many times I say there is no correlation hack89 Dec 2011 #79

You're perfectly safe till you're shot by someone else Missy Vixen Dec 2011 #32

But the trend is still downwards so the present laws are working hack89 Dec 2011 #34

That is demonstrably not true slackmaster Dec 2011 #72

No, thanks Missy Vixen Dec 2011 #73

Your hyperbole does not serve well for whatever point you are trying to make here slackmaster Dec 2011 #74

Those who carry a firearm for self defense often have the attitude that ... spin Dec 2011 #124

Yeah, if California only had strict gun laws... Dr_Scholl Dec 2011 #4

The answer is less guns, period. ellisonz Dec 2011 #7

Let's assume that you are correct, how do you suggest we reduce the number of guns... spin Dec 2011 #31

New limits on the number of guns one may acquire... ellisonz Dec 2011 #33

Do you support increased taxes on beer drinkers hack89 Dec 2011 #35

Since I enjoy shooting handguns, a limit of one is totally unacceptable... spin Dec 2011 #62

I was in a hurry and mispoke. ellisonz Dec 2011 #102

I am not denying that there is a problem with gun violence in our nation... spin Dec 2011 #108

Here's the real issue. ellisonz Dec 2011 #111

I have posted the idea of requiring an NICS background check for all private sales ... spin Dec 2011 #112

Legislation such as these in question always involve trade-offs. ellisonz Dec 2011 #113

Thanks for the interesting reply... spin Dec 2011 #123

"distrust of all government which developed from our Revolutionary War " ellisonz Dec 2011 #125

I disagree of course. The anti-Federalists didn't lose the debate... spin Dec 2011 #126

"outlawing slavery was politically impossible." ellisonz Dec 2011 #129

You may be right... spin Dec 2011 #130

No guns for poor people slackmaster Dec 2011 #75

Wrong. ellisonz Dec 2011 #84

The cops in my small town in Florida are the "gun nutz"... spin Dec 2011 #106

Oh, small town's in Florida... ellisonz Dec 2011 #107

self delete, replied to wrong post. (n/t) spin Dec 2011 #109

While we have had gang related shootings here... spin Dec 2011 #110

Nice cartoon. Atypical Liberal Dec 2011 #132

How would poor people be able to afford guns? Starboard Tack Dec 2011 #134

The issue is freedom of choice, not your assessment of "need." slackmaster Dec 2011 #136

Freedom of choice for those who can afford them, you mean, right? Starboard Tack Dec 2011 #137

ellisonz is the one who wants to make a gun "a privileged object" slackmaster Dec 2011 #147

Your using this tragety to attack American's rights is disgusting. Odin2005 Dec 2011 #26

your insult aside, obviously a citizen's right to safety is secondary to you when it comes to 2A DrDan Dec 2011 #36

You have no Constitutional right to be safe. nt hack89 Dec 2011 #43

I have an inalienable right to safety - as does everyone else DrDan Dec 2011 #44

Show me the words in the Constitution. hack89 Dec 2011 #45

"self-evident" . . . guess our founding fathers never anticipated the pro-gun agenda of today DrDan Dec 2011 #48

So there must be case law - surely this issue has been raised in court before? nt hack89 Dec 2011 #49

you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre - 1A rights suspended because of safety DrDan Dec 2011 #52

And that was determined through actual court decisions. hack89 Dec 2011 #54

USSC decision DrDan Dec 2011 #56

I know that - show me a similiar case for the right to be safe. nt hack89 Dec 2011 #57

I see - USSC decision is not enough - gotcha DrDan Dec 2011 #59

That decision says nothing about the right to be safe - it was a free speech issue. hack89 Dec 2011 #60

it shows exactly that - that the USSC recognizes the right to safety - even if other constitutional DrDan Dec 2011 #63

That's a hell of a reach. hack89 Dec 2011 #66

a "hell of a reach"?????? Holmes own words . . . . DrDan Dec 2011 #68

And yet that interpretation has never been used in any other case. hack89 Dec 2011 #70

I cannot address that - I just see that the USSC recognizes one's right to safety DrDan Dec 2011 #71

No - you think they recognize the right to safety. hack89 Dec 2011 #80

Holmes own words indicate a recognition of that right . . . and to preserve it constitutional rights DrDan Dec 2011 #97

btw, meant to ask you this (got too wrapped up in Christmas shopping, I guess) DrDan Dec 2011 #99

Do you think that driving is a civil right? We seem to have plenty of traffic laws. nt hack89 Dec 2011 #100

there are times rights must be restricted - like an 8-year old should not be a gun owner with the DrDan Dec 2011 #101

Who is arguing that there should be is an unrestricted right to own guns? hack89 Dec 2011 #103

you just asked about driving - and you commented on laws around driving. DrDan Dec 2011 #104

Driving is a not a constitutional right hack89 Dec 2011 #105

it is a fundamental right of all citizens - that has been affirmed by cort decisions DrDan Dec 2011 #114

OK - start listing those cases. nt hack89 Dec 2011 #115

plenty of references available - here is one DrDan Dec 2011 #116

I would love to see guns regulated like driving hack89 Dec 2011 #117

more regulation is necessary imo DrDan Dec 2011 #118

Why? hack89 Dec 2011 #119

because citizens have a right to be safe - and that includes protection from the dangers of guns DrDan Dec 2011 #120

You need to reread the Constitution... ellisonz Dec 2011 #85

So? Show me the case law that interprets that to mean a right to be safe? hack89 Dec 2011 #86

This really isn't that hard... ellisonz Dec 2011 #88

So you can't find a single ruling explicatly stating a right to safety? hack89 Dec 2011 #89

Oh my... ellisonz Dec 2011 #91

So start listing specific cases. hack89 Dec 2011 #92

Isn't that interesting? Starboard Tack Dec 2011 #138

Call it what you want - doesn't change that basic fact. hack89 Dec 2011 #140

I call it what it as I see it. Starboard Tack Dec 2011 #144

So lets call it a civil liberty hack89 Dec 2011 #146

No, let's call it what it really is. Stupidity. Starboard Tack Dec 2011 #148

So get your friends together and try to change the Constitution hack89 Dec 2011 #149

First of all, there are no brick walls in my world. Starboard Tack Dec 2011 #151

Well, have a good life then. tn hack89 Dec 2011 #152

I imagine we perceive those things most important to us as the fulcrum of any argument. LanternWaste Dec 2011 #78

Edison office shooting victims, killer identified ellisonz Dec 2011 #8

Gunman in Edison shooting had been reprimanded by boss, source says ellisonz Dec 2011 #9

Recording of SoCal Edison Shooting 9-1-1 Call Released ellisonz Dec 2011 #14

Another gun victimized by a useless human. ileus Dec 2011 #77

hmmm LadyInAZ Dec 2011 #121

Indeed. LAGC Dec 2011 #122

Is this the society we've evolved into? Starboard Tack Dec 2011 #150

yep, very possible Enrique Dec 2011 #131