Query for the not-so-keen on guns...

[Goshin]

I'd like to discuss something, mainly with those who are less than enthused about guns/weapons and do not put a high priority on armed self-defense.

This is not bait or a "gotcha" thread... I'm genuinely interested in better understanding your perspective.

I've noticed it is often the case, in debates between those who carry a gun daily and are highly security-conscious (such as myself), and those who lean more towards the other side of the fence, a disagreement centered on "fear".

It usually goes something like this:

Gun Guy says I carry everyday, I'm always conscious of my surroundings and mentally prepared.

Other Side says You live in fear. I don't want to live in fear, it's not worth it, and our society isn't that dangerous.

Gun Guy: I don't live in fear. I am confident in my ability to protect myself, so I just do what I do; what is this fear you speak of?

*********

Now I've been wondering if perhaps we (the two sides, or spectrum-curves if you prefer) are misunderstanding each other entirely over this word "fear", and the phrase, "to live in fear".

My side tends to respond as if we're being accused of the emotion of fearfulness, or of being in a state of anxiety over the possibility of being attacked, and say that No, our preparedness makes us confident, not fearful.

But perhaps that isn't what you mean?

Perhaps you're referring to the entire mindset, regardless of any emotional content or lack thereof; the whole enchilada (as it were) of being mentally prepared and equipped to deal with violence should it come your way. Perhaps you mean that is a lifestyle and mindset you want no part of, regardless of whether the emotion of fear is involved.

Would anyone from the other side of the aisle like to present their thoughts on this? I would be interested to hear them.

Let's keep this civil please... I'm hoping for a discussion, rather than a lowest-common-denominator shouting match.

 

[Drawdown]

My position is based on law. The Constitution says shall not be infringed. Repeal the second amendment and I will support whatever the majority decides. Don't repeal it, and I won't support restricting them further.

 

[Goshin]

My position is based on law. The Constitution says shall not be infringed. Repeal the second amendment and I will support whatever the majority decides. Don't repeal it, and I won't support restricting them further.

Thank you, but that isn't really related to what I was asking about.

 

[Cameron]

I'd like to discuss something, mainly with those who are less than enthused about guns/weapons and do not put a high priority on armed self-defense.

This is not bait or a "gotcha" thread... I'm genuinely interested in better understanding your perspective.

I've noticed it is often the case, in debates between those who carry a gun daily and are highly security-conscious (such as myself), and those who lean more towards the other side of the fence, a disagreement centered on "fear".

It usually goes something like this:

Gun Guy says I carry everyday, I'm always conscious of my surroundings and mentally prepared.

Other Side says You live in fear. I don't want to live in fear, it's not worth it, and our society isn't that dangerous.

Gun Guy: I don't live in fear. I am confident in my ability to protect myself, so I just do what I do; what is this fear you speak of?

*********

Now I've been wondering if perhaps we (the two sides, or spectrum-curves if you prefer) are misunderstanding each other entirely over this word "fear", and the phrase, "to live in fear".

My side tends to respond as if we're being accused of the emotion of fearfulness, or of being in a state of anxiety over the possibility of being attacked, and say that No, our preparedness makes us confident, not fearful.

But perhaps that isn't what you mean?

Perhaps you're referring to the entire mindset, regardless of any emotional content or lack thereof; the whole enchilada (as it were) of being mentally prepared and equipped to deal with violence should it come your way. Perhaps you mean that is a lifestyle and mindset you want no part of, regardless of whether the emotion of fear is involved.

Would anyone from the other side of the aisle like to present their thoughts on this? I would be interested to hear them.

Let's keep this civil please... I'm hoping for a discussion, rather than a lowest-common-denominator shouting match.

I'm not sure I've ever had the conversation you are referring to. But here's a counter-hypothetical that I think may be on topic: Say you are a gun carrier at a bar, and you see someone harassing a waitress. You also see that this person, too, is carrying a gun. Are you more or less likely to tell him to stop than if he weren't carrying a gun? If you do ask him to stop, are you more or less likely to have your finger on the proverbial (if not literal) trigger as you do so?

If you are less likely to interfere because the man has a gun, that IMO is socially problematic.

Conversely, if you are just as likely to interfere, but more likely to prepare yourself for a shoot-out, that is also socially problematic. This other guy is also probably likely to be on edge when a guy with a gun comes up to confront him. The presence of guns escalates the situation, and raises the risk of misunderstandings and injury.

You see this in how many instances there are of police shooting unarmed suspects. The "fear" that these suspects may be criminals who have a gun on them leads police to err on the side of their own safety. (I fervently believe that guns, not racism, are the cause of most of the big police incidents in the news).

The proliferation of guns in ordinary society literally creates an arms race, which either harmfully disincentives or harmfully encourages conflict. There is no in between.

 

[Goshin]

I'm not sure I've ever had the conversation you are referring to. But here's a counter-hypothetical that I think may be on topic: Say you are a gun carrier at a bar, and you see someone harassing a waitress. You also see that this person, too, is carrying a gun. Are you more or less likely to tell him to stop than if he weren't carrying a gun? If you do ask him to stop, are you more or less likely to have your finger on the proverbial (if not literal) trigger as you do so?

If you are less likely to interfere because the man has a gun, that IMO is socially problematic.

Conversely, if you are just as likely to interfere, but more likely to prepare yourself for a shoot-out, that is also socially problematic. This other guy is also probably likely to be on edge when a guy with a gun comes up to confront him. The presence of guns escalates the situation, and raises the risk of misunderstandings and injury.

You see this in how many instances there are of police shooting unarmed suspects. The "fear" that these suspects may be criminals who have a gun on them leads police to err on the side of their own safety. (I fervently believe that guns, not racism, are the cause of most of the big police incidents in the news).

The proliferation of guns in ordinary society literally creates an arms race, which either harmfully disincentives or harmfully encourages conflict. There is no in between.

Ok. This isn't really the topic I was trying to discuss, but since you're here...

In *theory*, a fully disarmed society *might* be more generally peaceable (though there are contradictory studies)... or at least, less inclined to murder.. The problem is there is no such society (cf the Swedish massacre, Charlie Hebdo, many other instances of illegal weapons). In America, the fact that there are well over 300 million guns in circulation, many never registered, means that even attempting to disarm society is futile short of Orwellian police-state tactics, if even then.

Even if guns were utterly illegal, you still face the risk of an armed attacker... without the means of your own, as a law abiding citizen, to effectively defend against same. For me this is not a situation I am at all in favor of.


As to the bar scenario:
Given concealed carry, neither of you would know for sure the other was armed.

Conversely, even in a society where no one could carry legally, you *still* don't know that he isn't armed... you only know *you* are *not*.

 

[Drawdown]

Thank you, but that isn't really related to what I was asking about.

My apologies. I assumed when you said you would like to learn more about people like me's perspective, you were not hyperfocusing on whether or not they see people like you as fearful.

Anyway, often the other side from Gun Guy is correct. Intellectualized emotions associated with fear are still fears. Being "always conscious of my surroundings and mentally prepared" can be a tell. If you live in an inner city neighborhood where crime is really high, it is rational to be " always conscious of my surroundings and mentally prepared." If you live in a place where violent crime needing lethal self-defense almost never happens, then being "always conscious of my surroundings and mentally prepared" with a gun is not rational. In fact, I see some posts periodically by gun people on the internet that makes me think they have gone to the extreme with their depersonalizations/derealizations

 

[rickc]

What the anti-gun crowd doesn't understand is there are lots of reasons to own guns besides self defense. I own a lot of guns. All have different uses. None of mine were bought strictly for self defense.

Hunting and the shooting sports are what mine are for. Do a little search about the shooting sports if you are interested. 10's of millions of Americans participate.

Here is one link

Shooting Sports Organizations

A list of shooting sports organizations and governing bodies as well as youth and collegiate opportunities.

www.nssf.org

 

[zsu2357]

What I do see is that the "other side" would like people to think we live in a hyper state state of fear, therefore needing a hand cannon under a shirt or jacket. I live in a town or city of fifty+ thousand but fear does not rule my life. Shit (still not used to that) if I really HAD to feel fear it would be right here at home at this keyboard of someone rushing the door in broad daylight, over going to the store unarmed.
Fear? I think I feel the same as a anti gun person does with the exception, if it came down to it I would be in a much better place or frame of mind. One life no do overs.

 

[Goshin]

Very little response, I see. Probably because I was too polite and not nearly controversial enough.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Gun Guy says I carry everyday, I'm always conscious of my surroundings and mentally prepared.

Other Side says You live in fear. I don't want to live in fear, it's not worth it, and our society isn't that dangerous.

Gun Guy: I don't live in fear. I am confident in my ability to protect myself, so I just do what I do; what is this fear you speak of?

*********

Now I've been wondering if perhaps we (the two sides, or spectrum-curves if you prefer) are misunderstanding each other entirely over this word "fear", and the phrase, "to live in fear".

My side tends to respond as if we're being accused of the emotion of fearfulness, or of being in a state of anxiety over the possibility of being attacked, and say that No, our preparedness makes us confident, not fearful.

But perhaps that isn't what you mean?

Perhaps you're referring to the entire mindset, regardless of any emotional content or lack thereof; the whole enchilada (as it were) of being mentally prepared and equipped to deal with violence should it come your way. Perhaps you mean that is a lifestyle and mindset you want no part of, regardless of whether the emotion of fear is involved.

Would anyone from the other side of the aisle like to present their thoughts on this? I would be interested to hear them.

Let's keep this civil please... I'm hoping for a discussion, rather than a lowest-common-denominator shouting match.

I don't really identify with the mindset of either the Other Side or of Gun Guy, but I think I understand them both. And I believe the bolded above is correct. Here is an equivalent discussion from Gun Guy's perspective:

Gun Guy: I have a smoke alarm in every room and fire extinguishers by the stove and the fireplace.

Other Side: You live in fear. I don't want to live in fear, it's not worth it, and our society isn't that dangerous.

Gun Guy: I don't live in fear. I am confident in my fire safety precautions, so I just do what I do; what is this fear you speak of?

And an equivalent discussion from the perspective of the Other Side.

Gun Guy: I always line the insides of my hat with tinfoil, and never go out without wearing my hat. Any time I need to make a phone call I take out the sim card to see if there are any signs that it as been tampered with. And I'm always on the lookout for anyone who might be an Illuminati informant.

Other Side: You live in fear. I don't want to live in fear, it's not worth it, I don't think your obsession with this unlikely Illuminati conspiracy is healthy.

Gun Guy: I don't live in fear. I am confident that tin foil scrambles the brain scanners. I know what to look for on a sim card to see if it's been tampered with, and I am confident in my ability to spot an Illuminati agent. So I just do what I do; what is this fear you speak of?

 

[Torus34]

I'd like to discuss something, mainly with those who are less than enthused about guns/weapons and do not put a high priority on armed self-defense.

This is not bait or a "gotcha" thread... I'm genuinely interested in better understanding your perspective.

I've noticed it is often the case, in debates between those who carry a gun daily and are highly security-conscious (such as myself), and those who lean more towards the other side of the fence, a disagreement centered on "fear".

It usually goes something like this:

Gun Guy says I carry everyday, I'm always conscious of my surroundings and mentally prepared.

Other Side says You live in fear. I don't want to live in fear, it's not worth it, and our society isn't that dangerous.

Gun Guy: I don't live in fear. I am confident in my ability to protect myself, so I just do what I do; what is this fear you speak of?

*********

Now I've been wondering if perhaps we (the two sides, or spectrum-curves if you prefer) are misunderstanding each other entirely over this word "fear", and the phrase, "to live in fear".

My side tends to respond as if we're being accused of the emotion of fearfulness, or of being in a state of anxiety over the possibility of being attacked, and say that No, our preparedness makes us confident, not fearful.

But perhaps that isn't what you mean?

Perhaps you're referring to the entire mindset, regardless of any emotional content or lack thereof; the whole enchilada (as it were) of being mentally prepared and equipped to deal with violence should it come your way. Perhaps you mean that is a lifestyle and mindset you want no part of, regardless of whether the emotion of fear is involved.

Would anyone from the other side of the aisle like to present their thoughts on this? I would be interested to hear them.

Let's keep this civil please... I'm hoping for a discussion, rather than a lowest-common-denominator shouting match.

Hi!

At one time I was an NRA member and a gun club member. I rather enjoyed paper-punching with the guys on a weekend. I never got very good at it, but it presented a golf-like challenge of me vs. me. I also hunted, both with a gun and with bow and arrow. I also customized old military rifles into nicely-stocked hunting arms. I note this so you are aware that I'm not unfamiliar with long guns.

I don't presently have a gun in the house. I legally disposed of my guns a number of years ago. A resident of Staten Island, NYC, I live in a suburban 'town'. I walk freely around my town day and night, unarmed and unafraid. I'm 86 years old. My reason for getting rid of my guns was simply that it was easier to do that rather than set up an absolutely secure way to keep them from being burgled. With perhaps a small percent of exceptions, guns presently in the hands of criminals began as legally manufactured and legally sold arms. Then, through one means or another, they ended up in the hands of those who would use them illegally. I did not wish to be a part of that 'supply' chain.

I must admit to wondering, from time to time, whether those who feel it important to go about armed [Ed.: Note 'important'. Words such as 'necessary' and their ilk indicate a bias, right?] have ever taken time to think through all of the various mishaps that can befall them and see where a situation which calls for being armed falls in a ranked list of probabilities.

Over to you, Sir.

Regards, stay safe 'n well. Remember the Big 3: masks, hand washing and physical distancing. [Ed.: On a list of priorities, this isn't inconsequential for an 86 year old.]

 

[Goshin]

Hi!

At one time I was an NRA member and a gun club member. I rather enjoyed paper-punching with the guys on a weekend. I never got very good at it, but it presented a golf-like challenge of me vs. me. I also hunted, both with a gun and with bow and arrow. I also customized old military rifles into nicely-stocked hunting arms. I note this so you are aware that I'm not unfamiliar with long guns.

I don't presently have a gun in the house. I legally disposed of my guns a number of years ago. A resident of Staten Island, NYC, I live in a suburban 'town'. I walk freely around my town day and night, unarmed and unafraid. I'm 86 years old. My reason for getting rid of my guns was simply that it was easier to do that rather than set up an absolutely secure way to keep them from being burgled. With perhaps a small percent of exceptions, guns presently in the hands of criminals began as legally manufactured and legally sold arms. Then, through one means or another, they ended up in the hands of those who would use them illegally. I did not wish to be a part of that 'supply' chain.

I must admit to wondering, from time to time, whether those who feel it important to go about armed [Ed.: Note 'important'. Words such as 'necessary' and their ilk indicate a bias, right?] have ever taken time to think through all of the various mishaps that can befall them and see where a situation which calls for being armed falls in a ranked list of probabilities.

Over to you, Sir.

Regards, stay safe 'n well. Remember the Big 3: masks, hand washing and physical distancing. [Ed.: On a list of priorities, this isn't inconsequential for an 86 year old.]

Good afternoon sir.

I certainly support your right to dispose of your guns as you see fit. If you feel safe going about unarmed, that is your choice to make. Although I imagine Staten Island NYC is probably nigh-impossible to legally do otherwise.

As to the importance or risks of going armed, I think everyone has to make their own decision about that. Hopefully they will use logic and reason to weigh the matter, in light of their own circumstances. Some people believe they live in a very safe location; others feel they have significant risks to consider.

I support the right of the individual to make that choice. I would point out that the vast majority of gun owners never have their guns stolen, and the vast majority of the millions who carry never have an accident or any other sort of action-deleterious-to-the-public.

 

[Goshin]

I don't really identify with the mindset of either the Other Side or of Gun Guy, but I think I understand them both. And I believe the bolded above is correct. Here is an equivalent discussion from Gun Guy's perspective:

Gun Guy: I have a smoke alarm in every room and fire extinguishers by the stove and the fireplace.

Other Side: You live in fear. I don't want to live in fear, it's not worth it, and our society isn't that dangerous.

Gun Guy: I don't live in fear. I am confident in my fire safety precautions, so I just do what I do; what is this fear you speak of?

And an equivalent discussion from the perspective of the Other Side.

Gun Guy: I always line the insides of my hat with tinfoil, and never go out without wearing my hat. Any time I need to make a phone call I take out the sim card to see if there are any signs that it as been tampered with. And I'm always on the lookout for anyone who might be an Illuminati informant.

Other Side: You live in fear. I don't want to live in fear, it's not worth it, I don't think your obsession with this unlikely Illuminati conspiracy is healthy.

Gun Guy: I don't live in fear. I am confident that tin foil scrambles the brain scanners. I know what to look for on a sim card to see if it's been tampered with, and I am confident in my ability to spot an Illuminati agent. So I just do what I do; what is this fear you speak of?

Thank you for your reply.

I find your example quotes interesting. I identify strongly with the fire-safety version, and find the tinfoil-hat one entertaining.

I suppose it may well be that the gentlefolk from the other side of the aisle often view pro-gunners in that light: that is to say, worried about nothing real and engaging in ineffective precautions. I would disagree with that assessment and cite personal experience and so forth in return... but that just brings us full-circle to the usual round of bickering in the same old tired fashion.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Thank you for your reply.

I find your example quotes interesting. I identify strongly with the fire-safety version, and find the tinfoil-hat one entertaining.

I suppose it may well be that the gentlefolk from the other side of the aisle often view pro-gunners in that light: that is to say, worried about nothing real and engaging in ineffective precautions. I would disagree with that assessment and cite personal experience and so forth in return... but that just brings us full-circle to the usual round of bickering in the same old tired fashion.

I use fire safety precautions because they empirically have a net result of increasing overall safety. An anecdotal tale of someone who was killed when a pressurized fire extinguisher exploded, would not dissuade me from this.

By contrast, if the evidence suggested that the dangers of having a fire extinguisher in the home outweighed the potential benefits, I would not keep fire extinguishers in my home. In that case, an anecdotal tale of someone's life being saved by a fire extinguisher would not dissuade me either.

 

[dave8383]

Very little response, I see. Probably because I was too polite and not nearly controversial enough.

I think the problem is you either get it or you don't.

I think there are people, depending on where they live, occupation, etc., who do need to consider carrying a firearm. However, the average citizen, living in an average neighborhood, no. I think for that average person to carry they're either giving into fear or fantasies of aggression or have some other need that the weapon fulfills.

 

[zsu2357]

="dave8383, post: 1072785225, member: 33147"]
I think the problem is you either get it or you don't.

I think we all get it.

I think there are people, depending on where they live, occupation, etc., who do need to consider carrying a firearm.

Why would it matter where you live? You can live in the very best part of your town/city, or gated community and in your belief that fear is just a four letter word that has no meaning in your case. No meaning until someone shows up in your neighborhood with intent to do harm. My guess is that's where the saying "there goes the neighborhood" originated.

However, the "average citizen",

Are you saying that the "average citizen" shouldn't have any fear at all?

living in an "average neighborhood", no.

I think most of us live in an "average neighborhood."

I think for that average person to carry they're either giving into fear or fantasies of aggression

It could be that if the "average person" didn't carry not many people would be huh? Or is that the endgame? Yeah a little fear is good but not the paranoid
all encompassing pants wetting fear you mean. Hell driving down the highway you have a little fear in the back of your mind. It keeps you on your toes.

or have some other need that the weapon fulfills.

I wonder whatever that could be.

 

[dave8383]

I think we all get it.

Why would it matter where you live? You can live in the very best part of your town/city, or gated community and in your belief that fear is just a four letter word that has no meaning in your case. No meaning until someone shows up in your neighborhood with intent to do harm. My guess is that's where the saying "there goes the neighborhood" originated.

Are you saying that the "average citizen" shouldn't have any fear at all?

I think most of us live in an "average neighborhood."

It could be that if the "average person" didn't carry not many people would be huh? Or is that the endgame? Yeah a little fear is good but not the paranoid
all encompassing pants wetting fear you mean. Hell driving down the highway you have a little fear in the back of your mind. It keeps you on your toes.

I wonder whatever that could be.

Yeah, apparently you don't get it.

 

[Torus34]

Good afternoon sir.

I certainly support your right to dispose of your guns as you see fit. If you feel safe going about unarmed, that is your choice to make. Although I imagine Staten Island NYC is probably nigh-impossible to legally do otherwise.

As to the importance or risks of going armed, I think everyone has to make their own decision about that. Hopefully they will use logic and reason to weigh the matter, in light of their own circumstances. Some people believe they live in a very safe location; others feel they have significant risks to consider.

I support the right of the individual to make that choice. I would point out that the vast majority of gun owners never have their guns stolen, and the vast majority of the millions who carry never have an accident or any other sort of action-deleterious-to-the-public.

Hi again.

Continuing our dialog, I noted that as a retired scientist, I tend toward dealing in things through concepts I can measure and evaluate based upon data. That doesn't mean that I'm, in essence, a Mr. Spock in all respects. Far from it. Emotion and personal feelings are part of the calculus I use in making decisions, as do most people. I've lived long enough to be able to penetrate the veil of ego and look at myself dispassionately [Ed.: well, perhaps somewhat, right?]

As far as going about armed, I'm aware that I might be accosted by thugs and robbed. The odds against it are great. I've no way of knowing that, if armed with deadly force, I would have the opportunity to use it. I also know myself to some degree. I have no idea how I would live out my few [compared to most] remaining days knowing I had taken a human life when, in all probability, I might only have been roughed up. I suspect that thinking about it would consume me, reducing significantly my ability do do what I must do in support of others.. No man, you see, is an island, entire unto itself.

So ... though I probably have the ability, through whom I know, to obtain a 'carry' permit for a hand gun, I have no interest in applying for one.

Again, I'm explaining my own personal reasoning. I do not expect it to convince anyone to abandon theirs but, rather, to broaden their understanding of how someone thinks about the armed citizen issue. For me, it's not a knee-jerk 'Guns are evil' response. As has often been said, guns don't kill people. Bullets, though, account for a large number of deaths each year.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

[Goshin]

I think the problem is you either get it or you don't.

I think there are people, depending on where they live, occupation, etc., who do need to consider carrying a firearm. However, the average citizen, living in an average neighborhood, no. I think for that average person to carry they're either giving into fear or fantasies of aggression or have some other need that the weapon fulfills.

I think rather than "you get it or you don't" it would be more accurate to say "you are of one mindset or another".

As I specified in my initial post, I think there's a large misunderstanding (or series of them) between the advocates of the different views. One of which is discounting the views of the other side as invalid, illogical, or some kind of delusion. Both sides often do this... indeed it often seems both sides do very little else, in debating each other.

As you noted, some people certainly live under conditions where violent crime is a real threat. It is a fact that I do; I've checked the statistics, and the city I live near is a high crime area, roughly comparable to some of the worst sections of many major metropolitan areas. Moving isn't a practical option for a variety of reasons, so I practice serious precautions.

Others may live in areas that are far safer. Interestingly enough, I grew up here and just assumed this sort of thing was the norm everywhere, until my perspective broadened from adulthood and travel.

However, on the other side of the equation, I'm also former law enforcement. I've had personal experience with citizens who believed they lived in a safe neighborhood... but only because they were apparently unaware that, within 100y of where they sat, there had been 2 burglaries, a rape and an attempted murder within the past two years. Sometimes these things get hushed up, because politicians or developers don't want people spooked and the families involved value their privacy.

People who haven't experienced personal loss from violent crime often believe they are safe, whether they really are or not.
Now I will concede that those of us who *have* had all too many unfortunate experiences, are probably biased by our experiences into believing there is more danger than actually exists.

Perhaps neither side is entirely free from a degree of self-deception?

For me personally, I choose to go armed and ready. My experiences have demonstrated to me that trouble can come at any moment, anywhere, and if you are caught unready you can be gone so very suddenly.... like my best friend in 1990, when I was 24.

But I support anyone's right to go unarmed and trust to odds, or the benevolence of their fellow man, as they choose. I only ask the same freedom of choice in return.

 

[Court Jester]

I'm not sure I've ever had the conversation you are referring to. But here's a counter-hypothetical that I think may be on topic: Say you are a gun carrier at a bar, and you see someone harassing a waitress. You also see that this person, too, is carrying a gun. Are you more or less likely to tell him to stop than if he weren't carrying a gun? If you do ask him to stop, are you more or less likely to have your finger on the proverbial (if not literal) trigger as you do so?

Here is my answer to that:

DON'T carry your gun to a bar for a night of drinking, If you have a carry permit it is to protect YOU (or your loved ones). You didn't get the carry permit to be a cop; therefore I highly suggest you avoid places where trouble is more likely to happen. And if you happen to be at grocery store or watching your kid's little league game and some crazed mass shooter shows up, your gun may save some lives. But let's not be going to bars with our guns because a lot of stupid happens in places where people are drinking.

If you are less likely to interfere because the man has a gun, that IMO is socially problematic.

How do I know he has a gun unless he has already pulled it? How would he know I have a gun-- same thing. This is why it is called concealed carry.

Conversely, if you are just as likely to interfere, but more likely to prepare yourself for a shoot-out, that is also socially problematic. This other guy is also probably likely to be on edge when a guy with a gun comes up to confront him. The presence of guns escalates the situation, and raises the risk of misunderstandings and injury.

Guns don't escalate anything, people do that. One reason I am wary of being with my gun where stuff may go sideways is because off duty cops carry guns too, so they don't know automatically who the good guys or the bad guys are. Many instances happen where two off duty cops end up shooting at each other. So again, best to avoid certain situations and certain locations. Because once you pull your gun out you had better need it to protect YOU, not someone else. Your job is not to protect other people or their property. That is how George Zimmerman ended up in court.

You see this in how many instances there are of police shooting unarmed suspects. The "fear" that these suspects may be criminals who have a gun on them leads police to err on the side of their own safety. (I fervently believe that guns, not racism, are the cause of most of the big police incidents in the news).

I agree, not racism. But a lot of people get shot by police based of how they are acting to create that fear in police. Where they are, what is going on around at the time police arrive, and then stupid moves by people which end up causing the police to react. A good idea is to avoid certain places or gatherings, and if some other people start trouble then get out of there. Too many people move TOWARD conflict; think they may get their phones out an record something to share on their myface page--- dumb.

The proliferation of guns in ordinary society literally creates an arms race, which either harmfully disincentives or harmfully encourages conflict. There is no in between.

Here I disagree. The guns don't do anything, it is people who do the conflict. So due to the fact that there are people who live for making trouble, it is a good reason for many of us to want to be armed to protect ourselves just in case. What I am certain you are oblivious to are the thousands of times you are standing near a person with a concealed carry permit just going about your everyday life and he his----and NOTHING happens. Nothing happens because you are a good law abiding citizens with intelligence--- and so is he. Were it that you had my perspective you would understand how my gun(s) over the last 40 years have never been in an incident. Mainly because folks like me are avoiding conflict; we know too well that the gun we have concealed--- God forbid... is there to use if necessary, so we avoid all scenarios where there is a higher probability for stuff going sideways. But from your perspective you think we are all like George Zimmerman; that is just not even close to the reality out there. For every George Zimmerman out there with half a brain and a concealed carry permit, there are 10,000 others like me you will never read about. Therefore fear not my friend.

 

[Fledermaus]

I'd like to discuss something, mainly with those who are less than enthused about guns/weapons and do not put a high priority on armed self-defense.

This is not bait or a "gotcha" thread... I'm genuinely interested in better understanding your perspective.

I've noticed it is often the case, in debates between those who carry a gun daily and are highly security-conscious (such as myself), and those who lean more towards the other side of the fence, a disagreement centered on "fear".

It usually goes something like this:

Gun Guy says I carry everyday, I'm always conscious of my surroundings and mentally prepared.

Other Side says You live in fear. I don't want to live in fear, it's not worth it, and our society isn't that dangerous.

Gun Guy: I don't live in fear. I am confident in my ability to protect myself, so I just do what I do; what is this fear you speak of?

*********

Now I've been wondering if perhaps we (the two sides, or spectrum-curves if you prefer) are misunderstanding each other entirely over this word "fear", and the phrase, "to live in fear".

My side tends to respond as if we're being accused of the emotion of fearfulness, or of being in a state of anxiety over the possibility of being attacked, and say that No, our preparedness makes us confident, not fearful.

But perhaps that isn't what you mean?

Perhaps you're referring to the entire mindset, regardless of any emotional content or lack thereof; the whole enchilada (as it were) of being mentally prepared and equipped to deal with violence should it come your way. Perhaps you mean that is a lifestyle and mindset you want no part of, regardless of whether the emotion of fear is involved.

Would anyone from the other side of the aisle like to present their thoughts on this? I would be interested to hear them.

Let's keep this civil please... I'm hoping for a discussion, rather than a lowest-common-denominator shouting match.

When presented with the "fear" nonsense I ask if someone "lives in fear" if they own a first aid kit, a fire extinguisher, a tire pump or spare tire, etc..

A huge divide between "living in fear" and being prepared for contingencies..

 

[BahamaBob]

Hi!

At one time I was an NRA member and a gun club member. I rather enjoyed paper-punching with the guys on a weekend. I never got very good at it, but it presented a golf-like challenge of me vs. me. I also hunted, both with a gun and with bow and arrow. I also customized old military rifles into nicely-stocked hunting arms. I note this so you are aware that I'm not unfamiliar with long guns.

I don't presently have a gun in the house. I legally disposed of my guns a number of years ago. A resident of Staten Island, NYC, I live in a suburban 'town'. I walk freely around my town day and night, unarmed and unafraid. I'm 86 years old. My reason for getting rid of my guns was simply that it was easier to do that rather than set up an absolutely secure way to keep them from being burgled. With perhaps a small percent of exceptions, guns presently in the hands of criminals began as legally manufactured and legally sold arms. Then, through one means or another, they ended up in the hands of those who would use them illegally. I did not wish to be a part of that 'supply' chain.

I must admit to wondering, from time to time, whether those who feel it important to go about armed [Ed.: Note 'important'. Words such as 'necessary' and their ilk indicate a bias, right?] have ever taken time to think through all of the various mishaps that can befall them and see where a situation which calls for being armed falls in a ranked list of probabilities.

Over to you, Sir.

Regards, stay safe 'n well. Remember the Big 3: masks, hand washing and physical distancing. [Ed.: On a list of priorities, this isn't inconsequential for an 86 year old.]

Would you feel the same if you lived in Greenwich Village or Flatiron?

 

[uptower]

What the anti-gun crowd doesn't understand is there are lots of reasons to own guns besides self defense. I own a lot of guns. All have different uses. None of mine were bought strictly for self defense.

Hunting and the shooting sports are what mine are for. Do a little search about the shooting sports if you are interested. 10's of millions of Americans participate.

Here is one link

Shooting Sports Organizations

A list of shooting sports organizations and governing bodies as well as youth and collegiate opportunities.

www.nssf.org

Firstly hunting and sports are not the topic of the thread and secondly that's not really what the 'anti-gun' crowd are against.

Nor is the 'anti-gun crowd' entirely against guns. Some want stricter rules about what can be bought or who can buy them; some to a greater or lesser degree than others; others on licensing and permits; only a handful want to ban civilian firearm ownership altogether. They're not a monolith.

Now back on topic: owning a gun for home defence is reasonable; carrying it to the mall in a town where you're unlikely to ever need it is a statement.

Being aware and prepared to me means being ready to run like crazy the first time I hear a shot crack off rather than fantasizing I'll be the 'good guy with a gun' who ends it all. Given that I could be just as likely to be the first person shot, and unbeknownst to me cop it in the back when a crazed incel starts lighting us up outside Walmart, having a pistol in my belt won't make a damn bit of difference. If I do know what's going on with enough time to react, I'd be better served getting me and mine the hell outta there.

The only scenario I see this being 'useful' is if I'm cornered in the bathroom with cold footsteps ringing closer down the hall. If I've thought it through to that minuscule possibility then as others have pointed out here - and more eloquently than I'm about to - I've been watching too much damn TV.

 

[dave8383]

As you noted, some people certainly live under conditions where violent crime is a real threat. It is a fact that I do; I've checked the statistics, and the city I live near is a high crime area, roughly comparable to some of the worst sections of many major metropolitan areas. Moving isn't a practical option for a variety of reasons, so I practice serious precautions.

Others may live in areas that are far safer. Interestingly enough, I grew up here and just assumed this sort of thing was the norm everywhere, until my perspective broadened from adulthood and travel.

Interesting that you would react as if I was only referring to areas of violent crime. I didn't mean that at all. I was thinking about farmers, ranchers, people who live in extreme wilderness areas, and yes some people who live in difficult neighborhoods. Your reaction is a perfect example of not getting it.

I drove a cab at night in Boston years ago, no gun. I worked as a bouncer in a bar in Boston, no gun, even after a guy stood across the street with a double-barrel shotgun. I lived, for a period of time, a block or so down the street from where the New England/Boston mafia leaders meet, no gun. You either know how to keep your head on a swivel stay alert, feel the atmosphere, or you don't and need to pretend that carrying a gun is the answer.

 

[Torus34]

Would you feel the same if you lived in Greenwich Village or Flatiron?

Hi!

That's a hypothetical question. I live where I live and go where I go. As luck would have it, I was a teaching fellow at NYU downtown and know the Village relatively well. Truth be known, I knew it in the 50's when it was yeasty. I wander about it and the Tribeca area from time to time still with an old classic 35mm camera. I process my own B&W.

Back to your question. A hypothetical response: most likely.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.