Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: The context for self-defense [View all]Hoyt
(54,770 posts)21. Maybe not your mom, but a lot of folks that age have no business carrying a gun.
If one can't see well enough, process info fast enough, is prone to misinterpreting things, etc., through age -- you take their keys away if they won't give them up voluntarily. Need to do same with a gun. Did so when my father-in-law, who retired from Air Force with over 25 years and from police with 23+ years, starting having hallucinations, seeing ghosts, etc. He didn't like it, but better than having him accidentally shoot my wife who was carrying for him.
Again your mom may be sharp as a tack (hope so), but if my mom were still alive I certainly would not encourage her to carry in public. She was also smart enough to limit exposure to high crime areas and I did most of her errands.
So, what's your reason for carrying?
Oh, and let's not forget all the elderly ladies who have taken out folks like Loughner WITHOUT A GUN. Now, that is impressive.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
71 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
He did not speak of firearms in public -- The comments you improperly cite were about MILITARY arms
Hoyt
Jan 2012
#35
But, not because he or any individual was "deprived" of guns. He was talking about British depriving
Hoyt
Jan 2012
#44
But, that is NOT WHAT Gandhi was talking about. Do some real research rather than relying on
Hoyt
Jan 2012
#59
You are attempting to shift the debate to one involving carrying firearms in public...
spin
Jan 2012
#50
Assuming they need dispatching. In any event, glad to have you protecting society with your guns.
Hoyt
Jan 2012
#52
Sure, the only "rational" ones are the 4% of population who can't venture out without a gun or two.
Hoyt
Jan 2012
#10
No No No...having the means to defend yourself and loved ones is mean, hateful, and impolite.
ileus
Jan 2012
#5
You should learn better ways of "defending" yourself, if you really honestly think you need it.
Hoyt
Jan 2012
#11
I don't think the 96% of people who walk outside without a gun see it as "inferior" response.
Hoyt
Jan 2012
#18
Ah, that old trick again -- they aren't a member of "gun culture" once they get caught in crime.
Hoyt
Jan 2012
#58
You were probably "grandfathered in" or provided life-time membership upon first caressing a gun.
Hoyt
Jan 2012
#62
No, it indicates a small percentage of population is desperate to have a gun with them always.
Hoyt
Jan 2012
#66
Hopefully the "indirect" effects of gun proliferation will not screw others. Unfortunately it will.
Hoyt
Jan 2012
#27
More guns are like more chemical pollution. Gun proliferation = more guns available to wrong folks.
Hoyt
Jan 2012
#36
One never sees the claim that arsonists are emboldened by matches or lighters,
friendly_iconoclast
Jan 2012
#24