When to carry, and when not to carry

Status
Not open for further replies.
How many of them are going to whip out a gun and start killing everyone?

The same could be said about distraught sons - and I can point you towards articles about just one distraught son.

Why does there need to be a history of danger for an area to be deemed "carry worthy" in your mind? We keep providing evidence of violent acts being committed in all manner of areas, yet you seem unable to admit that there is no set pattern to define safe vs. unsafe. The point is that WE DON'T KNOW who will suddenly decide to whip out a gun and start killing everyone. If we knew, we wouldn't be there in the first place. It's really not a complicated concept to grasp.
 
Last edited:
I'm just trying to get a better understanding of what motivates them

Some of us would rather carry as often as legally possible than be a victim of a violent crime. It's pretty simple.
 
Don't take this personally, but I am literally laughing at your second paragraph about irate fathers in maternity wards. :D

Lets assume for the sake of argument you are right, and many fathers are questioning the paternity of their newborn child. How many of them are going to whip out a gun and start killing everyone?:rolleyes:
I'd very much like you to provide the data to back up that claim, because it seems absurd to me.

As to me being condescending, my response to you is the first time. :p

Seriously, I have not once called anyone paranoid or unreasonable, it is just that I do not understand some peoples thinking. That does not mean I think they are idiots or nut jobs, I'm just trying to get a better understanding of what motivates them. I might disagree with their way of thinking, but I do not think I have been disparaging. I am just attempting to have a mature and rational discussion on the subject.
You obviously have not spent much time in hospitals.

After the birth of my first grandchild last year, he was diagnosed with with a life threatening genetic condition. I spent 18 hours a day in a children's hospital with him for about three months.

You would be shocked to learn how many times police were called to deal with assaults, robberies, burglaries, etc. All this in a 'normal' part of a large city.

Violence can and does happen everywhere! And has in the past in each of the locations you specify.

Some people choose to prepare for it by carrying a firearm, knife, pepper-spray, kubotan or other weapon; others do not. Simple as that.
 
You asked for it Vector:

http://blogs.hcpro.com/hospitalsafe...rompts-safety-concerns-for-florida-hospitals/

http://www.seiu.org/2010/04/violent...t-bronx-hospital-tripled-from-2008---2009.php

http://workplaceviolencenews.com/2010/03/08/violence-in-hospitals-a-growing-problem/

This is about 8 years old and it shows hospital workers are the victims of non-fatal assaults almost four times as often as any other profession.
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2002-101/

I would continue, but I am sure you can work a Google search for yourself. Hospitals are not safe. However, you can keep your head under the sand and believe they are.
 
Yes I know it happened in Germany. But it has happened. Less than 2 months ago actually.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,6020400,00.html


And to be part of the discussion. I always carry. Unless its illegal where I am going. As previously stated I would hate to reach for my gun and not have it. That would be something to live with the rest of you life. Because "you figured the place was safe".
 
I put my carry on when I wake up and take it off when I go to bed and its close then. I don't carry where it is illegal to do so. Other than that I carry if I'm awake and dressed.
 
CHEVELLE - the woman you're thinking of is Suzanna Gratia Hupp. Her parents were killed in the Luby's massacre. She left her gun in the car because at the time, you had to in the state of Texas.
 
You asked for it Vector:

http://blogs.hcpro.com/hospitalsafe...rompts-safety-concerns-for-florida-hospitals/

http://www.seiu.org/2010/04/violent...t-bronx-hospital-tripled-from-2008---2009.php

http://workplaceviolencenews.com/2010/03/08/violence-in-hospitals-a-growing-problem/

This is about 8 years old and it shows hospital workers are the victims of non-fatal assaults almost four times as often as any other profession.
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2002-101/

I would continue, but I am sure you can work a Google search for yourself. Hospitals are not safe. However, you can keep your head under the sand and believe they are.

I am not trying to play semantics like you did earlier, even though this next sentence might sound like it.
You specifically said "your wife who worked in a large city hospital and the most dangerous part of the hospital is the maternity ward. (She had data to back it up)".

The google search you did apparently did not come up with a single incident of violence occurring in a maternity ward. The reason is obvious as that section of the hospital is not going to have the violence that ER's and Psych wards are.
I never said violence could not happen at a hospital. I clearly and repeatedly said it was not happening in maternity wards. Before you even try to claim it, general hospital visitor traffic does not travel through the ER or the lunatic bin to get to the floor of the maternity ward.
 
I'm just trying to get a better understanding of what motivates them

Habits are hard to break, so we make it a habit to be armed whenever legal. That pretty much ensures we'll have when/if we need it. The fact that we'll also have it when we wouldn't likely be needing it is a not even an inconvenience anymore.......because it's a habit.

Kind of like your wedding scenario, I had my wallet in my pocket at my wedding but I wasn't buying my wife, I didn't need my wallet but carrying it (and my CCW) is just a habit.

If it's legal I carry, if it's not I don't. For me it really is that simple, well simple wouldn't be the right word because of the "grey" areas in the laws. When I get in one of those grey areas I usually leave it in the truck.
 
I never said violence could not happen at a hospital. I clearly and repeatedly said it was not happening in maternity wards. Before you even try to claim it, general hospital visitor traffic does not travel through the ER or the lunatic bin to get to the floor of the maternity ward.

It does at our local general hospital, as well as multiple others in the area. There are many routes to the various departments in every hospital, for a reason.

But even if it didn't - you're predicating your argument on the idea that once in the maternity ward, the parents/new child will -stay- in that ward, and that no potential threats will enter from other areas of the hospital. That's ludicrous. Maternity wards are not secured areas - in fact, there are very few "secured" areas in hospitals in general. So the fact that there are few statistics (and remember what they say about statistics!) of violence in the Maternity ward is not the best base from which to argue your point.
 
Last edited:
Statistics are a poor measure of the real world. But even if they weren't it takes but once for a previously peaceful location to transform into a bloodbath.

No offense, but we all use statistics for our own purposes, so they are as relevant as anyone wants to make them.
You cannot tell me that a majority of us have not used statistics to defend our right to bear arms, or conversely argued that our right should not be infringed. So while certain hospitals are more dangerous than others, and certain parts of those hospitals are prone to violence such as ER's, statistically maternity wards are not a place you would need to use deadly force to protect yourself.



VA Tech was "safe" by your estimation - Cho changed that. The Luby's cafeteria, Westroads mall, U of MD Hospital, where the Dr. was shot...same thing. Statistically, very safe areas. In reality, just as vulnerable to attack and criminal behavior as anywhere else.

I disagree. Sure violence can and eventually will happen in most settings. However there are places violence rarely happens, and as a result the need to use deadly force to protect yourself is almost non existent. There are places you cannot legally carry, yet the threat level is very high. I do not see the same people who say they carry everywhere including low risk places claim they are carrying into places it is illegal to carry even though the threat level is high. To those individuals who make it sound like a risk reward scenario, why are they not screaming the mantra of "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6"?

If I may, I'm curious - if you already carry, then surely you can appreciate that once you strap on your pistol, it is essentially a non-issue as you carry out your daily activities. It's not going anywhere unless you choose to deploy it in response to a threat.

I honestly do not understand what you are trying to ask me with this question. If you could clarify, I'd appreciate it.

How does that differ from carrying in a supposed "safe" area? Why is it reasonable for you to carry in one place, and not the other, when doing so requires nothing more than toting the thing around?

I thought it was clear based on my previous posts. If I'm going into a low risk area such as a maternity ward, Disney World, etc., the threat potential of me needing to use deadly force to defend myself does not equate with my need to carry. However if I am going to a known area that is dangerous, strange place, isolated location, long road trip etc., I feel the need to carry just in case. So it is not as if I only carry while traveling near the ghetto. Unlike some here, I just do not carry all the time no matter the need or reason.
 
To Carry or Not to carry???

Please understand that I in NO WAY am suggesting and definitely NOT advocating that anyone should ever break the law. Heck no I do not break the law and advise everyone to pay the strictest attention to the law. PERIOD.

BUT let's suppose one were to enter a store, hospital, bank, post office or any facility where firearms are prohibited BUT they had their pistol on their person concealed. And let's say that while this armed cevilian in a building or facility clearly marked "NO FIREARMS" let's say while they were waiting on line or visiting someone, a crazy person storms in with a rifle or pistol or baseball bat or machete or whatever, they enter to hurt and kill people.
Now let's say this armed civilian draws his weapon and stops the would be killer dead in his tracks by shooting or better yet capturing him.
How would the law treat this hero, er'... I mean treat this law breaker?

I've always wondered about that?
 
I give up. This is pointless.
Sadly I took the time to respond to your questions and comments and you fail to extend the same courtesy. In reality there are safer places than others statistically whether you want to admit it or not. That is not to say some lunatic cannot decide to run through a hospital, go into the nursery and shoot all the newborns. However if it has never occurred to this day, or even if it happens once in five hundred years, carrying in certain places is not needed.

I do find it amusing that some who must carry at all times readily admit to not carrying in places like bars. Sure they are to be commended for abiding by the law, but they willingly go into these high risk areas where the need to use deadly force to defend themselves is statistically high. It seems like a contradiction to me, especially if they take the attitude "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6".
 
Dang Vector, you seem to be drawing a bit of heat to yourself. I went out to change a couple truck batteries in our company fleet, and this thread has taken on a life unto itself!

Thank you to the members who stepped in and took up the logical side of the debate while I was gone. Now give me a few minutes to read through some of this.
 
Vector said:
...If I'm going into a low risk area ...the threat potential of me needing to use deadly force to defend myself does not equate with my need to carry....
Good, don't carry. It won't be my problem. Of course, sometimes something happens that has never happened before. And 2 or 3 or 4 standard deviations from the mean is not zero. And the stakes are pretty high. But it's your choice and not my problem.

Vector said:
...I just do not carry all the time no matter the need...
Of course you never know if you really need it until you actually need it.
 
Dang Vector, you seem to be drawing a bit of heat to yourself. I went out to change a couple truck batteries in our company fleet, and this thread has taken on a life unto itself!

Thank you to the members who stepped in and took up the logical side of the debate while I was gone. Now give me a few minutes to read through some of this.

Well I will be gone for 2-3 hours in a couple of minutes so I guess others will have a field day in my absence.

This discussion hearkens me back to a thread about carrying at Disney World. I pointed out how I did not carry there, but others were coming up with all sorts of scenarios including terrorists and the like. This of course despite Disney specifically prohibiting firearms on their private property.
Disney is another example of a statistically safe place where the "need to carry" is not borne out by the facts. Yet to bring up that fact makes some here think I am a gun grabbing pinko communist.;)
 
Everywhere basically has the same risk factor, without any outside influence (i.e. deserts, hurricanes, tornados and earthquakes) as any other place. Geography for the most part, at least as far as handgun safety is concerned, could easily fall into the "inanimate object" category. It's the people that make somewhere safe or unsafe.

Unlike some here, I just do not carry all the time no matter the need or reason.

If I knew where I needed to carry or where I had reason to carry I would NOT carry. I simply wouldn't go there and eliminate the need altogether. Statistically a hospital is as safe as a prison, or a school, or a movie theatre, that is, until humans enter. If I were a criminal, and it's not all that hard to think like one if you've ever hunted (all predators), I wouldn't attack you in any of the places you mentioned that you would carry because of the likelihood of you carrying. If I were a criminal, I would aspire to be on the "unsolved" lists and your picture in the paper instead of mine. I think in general, we, probably due to the media, have this misconception that criminals are all a box of rocks.

No offense, but we all use statistics for our own purposes, so they are as relevant as anyone wants to make them.

Statistics are a perfectly legitimate way of debating a subject. They're always "with respect" (or used in their proper text) to something or they have little accuracy. If we're actually going to omit them because they could be misconstrued then this is just an opinionated debate with no foundation.

I do not carry where I am not allowed. I do not carry when prudence dictates that I should not. I make an attempt to mitigate risks one way or the other, I'm still going to be a hard target one way or the other. It's another tool in a tool box and I use it where appropriate.

My home is supposed to be safe, but I believe that the burglary/theft statistics are around a 9 in 10 chance in a persons lifetime, not necessarily of the violent variety.
 
Real simple, statistics.

Vector - When I get my permit, I'm going to carry anywhere legal. Since I will have a child soon, that means that I'll probably have it on myself in the house as well instead of on a shelf or dresser, etc. Does that make me paranoid?

http://web.mac.com/mj_lauer/iWeb/RangeDiary/Diary/6CB938C0-2B9C-4E64-950B-F9CF7388C277.html

Statistics are great for many things, but we don't carry guns based on statistics just like with don't carry fire insurance, or frankly any insurance, based on statistics. We carry insurance because, in the small, negligible, statistically insignificant chance that our house caught fire, it would be financially devastating for us to have to pay out of pocket to rebuild that asset. Carrying a gun is the same - we don't carry because it's statically probable that we will need it (otherwise most of us would change our circumstances to mitigate that risk) we carry it as an insurance policy because we know that if life doesn't go the way the probabilities tell us, the loss would be too catastrophic to bear.

Crime happens everywhere. Is a faculty meeting in a university a 'safe' location? Of course, but I bet there are at least six people that would have loved to have had a gun on them when that nut job at University of Alabama opened fire on her colleagues. How about a hospital? Well, that's where gang bangers drop off their wounded and dying. How about an Army base? Safe? School? Grocery store? Post office (going postal?). Restaurant? Lubby's.

The lesson is, if you base your decisions about where/when to carry on statistics, you probably will have guessed wrong when you need a weapon. If you just carry it at all possible times, you'll have more of a chance of being able to protect yourself. That really is the only variable in this equation that you and I get to set - all others are picked for us.

You can obviously choose to live as you see fit, but I have come to the conclusion after much thought and research that I can't predict when I'll need a weapon, and simply carrying a tool that could some day save a life isn't any more paranoid than having a fire extinguisher (or 2, OMG!!!!) in my house or wearing a seat belt in my car, or throwing a spare blanket in the trunk during winter months in case I break down in the middle of nowhere.
 
My wife had our baby at home in order to avoid the hospital "care". She had had two in the hospital before and wanted to avoid it again at all costs. No problem with being armed at our daughter's birth.
 
I doubt few carry 'to' their childs birth, but they might be carrying at their childs birth. There is a difference. The one carrying 'to' the birth might be paranoid, the one carrying while at the event might just not view their weapon any different than their wallet, cell phone, keys, etc
 
Sadly I took the time to respond to your questions and comments and you fail to extend the same courtesy. In reality there are safer places than others statistically whether you want to admit it or not. That is not to say some lunatic cannot decide to run through a hospital, go into the nursery and shoot all the newborns. However if it has never occurred to this day, or even if it happens once in five hundred years, carrying in certain places is not needed.

Then clearly there is nothing more to say. You believe that carrying in certain places is "not needed." All the evidence, statistical or anecdotal, shown to you isn't changing that belief. So why continue the discussion?

You asked why people do what they do. Now you know. Do what you want with that information for your own purposes, but don't belittle, deride, or ridicule those of us who find your beliefs unfounded.

I do find it amusing that some who must carry at all times readily admit to not carrying in places like bars. Sure they are to be commended for abiding by the law, but they willingly go into these high risk areas where the need to use deadly force to defend themselves is statistically high. It seems like a contradiction to me, especially if they take the attitude "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6".

I carry in bars. I carry while drinking, too. (Though mildly...inebriation in a public place is, IMHO, tactically irresponsible.) So you aren't going to find me contradicting myself in that way.

Disney World
Can't believe you said Disney World... of all the perfect examples to disprove your own point! Crime -- including violent crime -- is a serious problem at D.W. and places like it. Yes, as I pointed out earlier, I do carry in such locales, including while going 75 mph through the air upside down. 'Course, statistically speaking, I'm not likely to need it until I step off the ride! ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top