And in the "for whatever it's worth" category . . . . we've had a rash of break-ins around here in which the thieves broke into state and local police cruisers and stole their ARs.
+1000I don't carry because of the odds. I carry because of the stakes.
After the third time the front corner lights on my second-to-last car were stolen while the car was in my driveway, I stopped replacing them.When I was working in the Bronx, many times car windows were broken, to the tune of hundreds of dollars of damage, to steal less than a dollar of visible change. Everything is valuable to a thief, and why would they care about the damage?
While there I personally had prescription sunglasses, change, a radio, and turn signal housings stolen from my car, all on different occasions.
Leave a gun or anything else valuable in a car? Never. Anywhere. If I had a gun stolen from a car it would have been minimum two weeks loss of pay and possible dismissal. Don't feed the anti gun people by adding another stolen gun statistic.
I am neither antigun nor anti self defense. I'm on the "pro" side in both categories.The living fearfully and you are more likely to get it stolen than use it are both anti arguments, but maybe AA isn't anti, maybe he just doesn't believe in self defense. Some gun owners are that way, the guns are merely toys to be enjoyed at the range, or maybe hunt with, but never to shoot someone, even in defense of life.
Routinely carrying a gun is another issue. To the extent it makes you less vigilant (because of overconfidence), it's a detriment.
You learn to substitute situational awareness for being armed.
I am neither antigun nor anti self defense. I'm on the "pro" side in both categories.
These don't match up at all.Routinely carrying a gun is another issue. To the extent it makes you less vigilant (because of overconfidence), it's a detriment. I worked for 30 years at the IRS headquarters in downtown DC. Carrying a gun was out of the question, both because of DC law, and workplace rules. You learn to substitute situational awareness for being armed. (The same applies when overseas.) I find much of this idea of "carrying everywhere" to be unrealistic.
They are trying to pass gun storage reqirements to close the Criminal Gets the Gun loophole. Sadly many gun owners do not exercise good judgement like leaving guns in vehicles for extended periods of time.
Sure they CAN. They just don't want to. If all the criminals were locked up doing hard time, who would commit the crimes they want to blame on law abiding gun owners?For practical reasons they can't keep gun thieaves locked up very long. That is why in this case cooperation from car owners is needed.
This is just the thing. Our nanny state has found that it's much easier to hold victims responsible for crimes than the actual perpetrators. [with the exception of the "me-too" movement, which seems to have turned in to a war against men and rather a witch-hunt]The saddest thing is society exercising poor judgement in not keeping criminals in jail doing hard time for extended periods of time and then brushing off their lack of responsible behavior on to the law abiding citizens. Blaming the victims is not the answer. More vigorous enforcement and harsher penalties for criminals is the answer.
Why does being "pro gun" necessarily equal being "pro carry"? The "pro carry" movement is a subset of the gun rights movement. It gets a lot of press these days because carrying -- either through relaxed licensing standards or permitless carry -- is probably the one area in which the gun rights movement has had notable legislative success recently. But the right to own guns is more important. You have to be able to own something before you can carry it. Possession is what is primarily being attacked by the antigunners. And that's what worries me most, considering that I'm mainly a collector.These don't match up at all.
The people of a country will get the government they are willing to accept.This is just the thing. Our nanny state has found that it's much easier to hold victims responsible for crimes than the actual perpetrators. [with the exception of the "me-too" movement, which seems to have turned in to a war against men and rather a witch-hunt]
Given the political views of our nation's current leadership, this won't change anytime soon.
Why does being "pro gun" necessarily equal being "pro carry"? The "pro carry" movement is a subset of the gun rights movement. It gets a lot of press these days because carrying -- either through relaxed licensing standards or permitless carry -- is probably the one area in which the gun rights movement has had notable legislative success recently. But the right to own guns is more important. You have to be able to own something before you can carry it. Possession is what is primarily being attacked by the antigunners. And that's what worries me most, considering that I'm mainly a collector.
Furthermore, being able to carry legally (which I'm all for) is an entirely separate issue from whether it's wise to do so. In this thread, we are discussing the wisdom of carrying (in a vehicle or on one's person), not whether it's legal to do so.
I did not say that at all, I said those two things don't jive. Don't keep changing the subject.Why does being "pro gun" necessarily equal being "pro carry"?
Gotta agree.Folks like you do nothing but hurt our cause.
And that's a fact. The Texas State Service Rifle matches were held annually @ Camp Bullis just northwest of Loop 1604 and a motel located on I 10 in that area was always filled with competitors; they welcomed competitors with marquee Welcome TSRA....(more effective than gun stickers on the vehicles).SA Express News Article said:Between 2016 and 2018 in San Antonio, there were 3,881 guns stolen from cars either by thieves breaking into them, or stealing the cars that had guns inside, McManus said.
The highest concentration of the gun thefts were at locations along the Interstate 10 corridor between Loop 410 and 1604 on the Northwest Side, he said.
They're not necessarily mutually exclusive, you do realize that, right?You learn to substitute situational awareness for being armed.
So because it's inconvenient for you, we all should quit carrying? That's thinking like a Democrat.Since my daily routine often takes me to both of those places, it just isn't practical to carry a gun around.
And that's what worries me most, considering that I'm mainly a collector.
Well, there you have it. This means that everybody on the pro-gun side must march in lockstep, and subscribe 100% to the prevailing ideology. I've always liked this forum because (I thought) it tolerates diversity of opinion.If you are against carry, you might as well be an anti. Divide and conquer, you'll gladly give up some of our rights because you don't care about them.
Well, no, but Franklin's quote "We must all hang together, or we shall all certainly hang separately" is starting to apply to gun owners, so it would behoove all of us to at least not turn on one another ala Jim Zumbo.Well, there you have it. This means that everybody on the pro-gun side must march in lockstep, and subscribe 100% to the prevailing ideology.
The thing is, unless you are omniscient, you don't know when or where those circumstances will arise. This is why most of us that do carry, do so whenever possible.There are extreme circumstances in which the ability to carry would be useful.
Again, your personal experience/perception. And things are different for MT Militiaman out in MT, Walkalong in AL, Spats down in AR, and me in WI. That's what's great about THR, we can compare notes from around the US, and indeed the World; for things are different for Odd Job in the UK and Snejdarek in the Czech Republic, and other members in other parts of the world.The way things are now, people in general hate arrogant gun owners (such as open carriers) more than they hate the guns themselves. At least that's what I'm seeing around the area where I live (northern Virginia).