Do you carry?

[Leslie]

I don't have a gun, but I do have this magnificent walking stick I use as a cane for when I walk in excess of 3 blocks (where having it is useful to my mobility).

Made from a sledge hammer handle of solid hickory and topped with a solid oak grip.

Now if a person attacks me, they damn well better have a gun, because a knife will just get you clubbed to death.

[Hiro_Antagonist]

Jack Simth said:
If someone pulls a knife and tells you to go away while he forcefully has his way with your wife, which would you prefer?

Hmm... I assume your odds are better of being hit by lightning than this sensantionalist event happening. Do you carry a lightning rod too?

-Hiro_Antagonist

[Atrocities]

Actually the odds of being assaulted are far greater than being struck by lightening. Especially in areas like Seattle where meth use could lead to higher crime rates like it has in Portland/Vancouver area. Albeit the chances that someone, other than a coward of a man, would ever stand by and allow some low life POS to rape his wife uncontested are extremely remote, it could happen as often as being struck by lightening, although I sincerely doubt it would.

Most likely it would be a car jacking with your wife or child, god forbid both, in the car. In that case what would you do? Call 911 on your cel phone and hope that the police will react? It has been reported, although I cannot find any written proof, that some folks have claimed that there was a child in their car following a car jacking, in order to get the cops involved and to recover their car.

I personally do not know if I would pull out a gun and shoot a car jacker, albeit the Portland PD has shot several people who allegedly were about to run them down, so the precedence has been set for a viable defense in just such a scenario. My opinion is better to let them have the car, then to risk hurting someone who was not involved with a stray or ricochet.

[Jack Simth]

Hiro_Antagonist said:

Hmm... I assume your odds are better of being hit by lightning than this sensantionalist event happening. Do you carry a lightning rod too?

-Hiro_Antagonist

If I'm in an area where thunderstorms are part of the normal course of events, and there aren't lots of things around taller than me (huge swaths of the Great Plains, for instance), I will be thinking about defenses against lightning (but not carrying a lightning rod - that's silly - lightning rods ATTRACT lightning - it's their job, and why they are effective at keeping lightning away from important things, like people's skin - and if you were HOLDING one during a thunderstorm, you would likely be in for a nasty shock), and make sure to have some reasonably viable method of not getting zapped (probably making sure a good steel frame car is within quick walking distance - sure, it will get hit by the lightning - but the lightning will go around anyone in the car, not through them, provided that they avoid touching the metal of the car). Most people who get struck by lightning do so because they are outside, in fields, with nothing meaningfully taller than they are nearby (many are in the middle of swinging a golf club).

The odds of the *specific* event happening? Sure; a lightning strike is more probable (especially as I'm not married). The odds of a violent threat of some form wherein severe injury/death of someone involved is likely due to malicious actions and threats of actions by someone present? Considerably more probable than getting struck by lightning. The example in question was simply chosen because most people put there fundamental assumptions on the side of "it would be ethically acceptable to shoot the antagonist in question" and mostly avoids the magnitude side-issue involved with a mugging example where all the antagonist is after is a person's wallet.

Of course, in the post your partially quoting, you are pulling a statement of mine very thouroughly out of context. Re-read the first two sentances of mine in that post.
Really; re-read them. There's a situational qualifier before the example is brought up. The first two sentences. One of the very first things in that post was noting (briefly, granted) that it depends on the general situation.

[Mephisto]

I rather not see civilians armed. The German police is quick to respond while I can defend myself or third persons in the mean time without a gun. The fastest respond time for the police was 30 seconds, the longest around 6 to 8 minutes. Just my 0.02$.

[El_Phil]

I'm just reminded of the story from ages back. Deep in the darkest Cornwall there was my old uni's test mine. Well being a mining school they needed a test mine. Being a mine it had an explosive store. Obviously such a store had hefty walls and a hefty steel door, however this was felt not to be enough. So there was a silent alarm linked up to the local cop shop and from there to the armed response unit.

However, this store was in the middle of nowhere so the claimed response time of >5 minutes was rubbish, as various lightning storms proved. (The alarms were very sensitive, obviously given what they protected, and apart from the police the mine manager was also alerted. He timed a run once and it came out at around 15 minutes and he was still waiting for the police to arrive.)

Nothing much to do with topic I know, but it seemed relevant at the time

[Kamog]

No, I don't have a concealed weapons permit, and no I don't carry any weapons. I don't know anybody who carries a concealed weapon. I do know of a few people who own guns, but they don't carry it around with them. Some guys I know carry knives, but I don't carry anything.

[Gandalf Parker]

Actually, anyone trained in any weapons can tell you that a trained person will usually beat an untrained person. Even if the trained person has a stick and the untrained person has a gun. Of course untrained people usually will say that a gun will always beat a stick but reading news reports or watching real-life cops shows will show how often thats wrong. Few people who just grab a gun and shoot it end up hitting anything important even if the target is standing still. Often its some innocent bystander. And cops will tell you that a gun for protection gets works against the person more often than not.

Along that line.. I have never, since the age of 10, failed to go "armed". But its been something like a stick, or a heavy 4-inch iron washer off of a train, or a bicycle sprocket, or a dog leash (the chain kind). "Why no officer, that is not a shuriken. Thats a bicycle sprocket." "But it was just luck that I had that dog leash in my pocket."

Of course now that Im old I can post such things. In my younger days I was smart enough not to make a public record of the fact that I didnt just happen to have such things in my pocket.

Oh, and I have 4 expert shooting ribbons from the military in 4 different firearms. I still wouldnt carry.

Gandalf Parker

[Kamog]

Yes, I have been told something similar by someone who studied martial arts. At close range, a knife in the hands of a trained person is supposed to be much more dangerous than a gun.

[Atrocities]

This is not directed at any one. So please no hate mail.

To understand this debate you must really be an American. It has been an American right since the inception of the Constitution and one cannot expect a foreigner to understand what it means to us.

Trying to explain something such as the constitutional right keep and bear arms to a non-American is like trying to convince an American to use a commode when there is a perfectly good toilet next to it. It just doesn't work.

For us the right to keep and bare arms is as essential to our constitution as the 1st amendment. Without it, none of the amendments would mean anything because they could all be taken away at a whim.

Our definition of freedom is different from those out side the US and we often catch a lot of flak for it. But unless you are American the debate over the constitution holds no special meaning for you.

For the most part saying that our system is wrong because it does not conform to your system is nothing less than age-old political horse fodder. It is best to practice what you preach and not pass judgment on us for who we are. We have our ideals and you have yours. Let us leave it at that.