And, BTW, this is The High Road, which is pro 2nd Amendment, but not brain dead. Debates about who should carry and what they have to do to qualify are allowed.
Here is a thread for it
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=9470192#post9470192
And, BTW, this is The High Road, which is pro 2nd Amendment, but not brain dead. Debates about who should carry and what they have to do to qualify are allowed.
But I want live fire, and an accuracy minimum, and a knowledge of self defense laws and castle doctrine in your home state. I want personal interviews, references, fingerprints, background checks, firearms seized from men who have protective orders issued against them.
'troll' with over 800 posts? Please be serious. Your attempted insult is meaningless and silly.
And NO, your hated federal government doesn't have to be in charge of any mandatory training. The NRA and its instructors could come up with qualifications, or private club instructors could do so, an they could administer the test.
But I want live fire, and an accuracy minimum, and a knowledge of self defense laws and castle doctrine in your home state. I want personal interviews, references, fingerprints, background checks, firearms seized from men who have protective orders issued against them.
And, BTW, this is The High Road, which is pro 2nd Amendment, but not brain dead. Debates about who should carry and what they have to do to qualify are allowed.
jrdolall
And NO, your hated federal government doesn't have to be in charge of any mandatory training. The NRA and its instructors could come up with qualifications, or private club instructors could do so, an they could administer the test.
jrdolall
But I want live fire, and an accuracy minimum, and a knowledge of self defense laws and castle doctrine in your home state. I want personal interviews, references, fingerprints, background checks, firearms seized from men who have protective orders issued against them.
The average shooter i see at the range is more likely to hit an innocent bystander. I don't think it makes a significant difference either way.
so low that it makes this a useless gesture
In a publicly accessible location, in a shall-issue state, do you believe that you are more safe if at least one other person at your location is carrying a firearm? (most likely a concealed pistol).
The average shooter i see at the range is more likely to hit an innocent bystander.
This thread is like so many others, where folks are getting upset with folks that have opinions different than their own.
Their opinion does not mirror mine and thus they and their reasoning must be wrong.......or maybe I'm wrong?
My opinion is, if you cannot trust the police to protect you when presented with a threat, you cannot trust folks around you to protect you.
Just them having a gun on their person does not make you safer, and this was the question asked.
Not unless the threat were on one side and the people with guns were on the other. I wouldn't want someone in back of my family shooting past me to hit someone else. With the majority of permit holders being inexperienced and not that good a shot to begin with, I would prefer that they were not trying to shoot someone near me or mine.
It's a recipe for disaster in a crowd, if it were a clear shot with no one in back of me trying to shoot through me, but again its impossible to answer this question as each situation is different.
When those opinions are that other people's Rights and Liberties should be forcibly restricted by armed government employees...yeah...that can be upsetting.
For the life of me, I have no idea where this comes from. Was someone in this thread actually suggesting that?
Some of the reasoning being presented in this thread is demonstrably wrong. It is incorrect. It isn't a matter of opinion. We have literally milliions of examples all over the country to look to.
Reasoning is the thought process that folks use. It is like an opinion and is as varied as the person using it. It may use facts as part of the process, but it also uses logic, common sense and previous experiences.
The question(s) posed in this thread never, in anyway, said nor implied ANYTHING about "trusting" anybody else to protect you.
I only said I need to trust folks around me in order to feel safer. I didn't say you had to. The question presented was how I felt, not how I knew you felt. If I'm in a room full of people, whether or not they have firearms on them or not, I have to trust them to feel safe. Are you saying you feel safe in a room full of folks you don't trust?
Yes, that was (more or less) the question that was actually asked.
Well, at least we agree on one thing.....
In a publicly accessible location, in a shall-issue state, do you believe that you are more safe if at least one other person at your location is carrying a firearm? (most likely a concealed pistol).
For purposes of this question ignore the outside chance that something happens and you both end up with guns drawn, not sure if the other is a threat or not.
For the life of me, I have no idea where this comes from. Was someone in this thread actually suggesting that?
Reasoning is the thought process that folks use. It is like an opinion and is as varied as the person using it. It may use facts as part of the process, but it also uses logic, common sense and previous experiences.
I only said I need to trust folks around me in order to feel safer. I didn't say you had to. The question presented was how I felt, not how I knew you felt. If I'm in a room full of people, whether or not they have firearms on them or not, I have to trust them to feel safe. Are you saying you feel safe in a room full of folks you don't trust?
Warp,
In you OP, you do not tell us the skill level of those with firearms, nor do you tell us their intent. You only tell us that at least one other person at the location has a firearm on them. You don't say if that person or persons are able to carry a gun legally, only that you are in a shall-issue state. You also do not state whether that person or persons is a good guy or bad guy. Bad guys are likely to have a concealed pistol also.
Warp said:In a publicly accessible location, in a shall-issue state, do you believe that you are more safe if at least one other person at your location is carrying a firearm? (most likely a concealed pistol).
It's bad idea in MOST situations for a civilian to apply deadly force in a 3rd person role. Unless you know with certainty who's who and what's happening, you're better off staying out of it. That "thug" could be an undercover LEO.