If you feel like you need to carry a gun in order to go there...don't go there.

[Ivy Mike]

The logical flaw in such reasoning is further exemplified in SCOTUS decisions that rule that the police have duty to protect the average citizen.

The police have no duty to provide personal security and as such, you must do it for yourself. Either by protecting yourself, or hiring someone to do it.

Quite simply, protect your own and anyone who says otherwise is never to be trusted.

 

[pcosmar]

I have been unarmed for over 25 years, and there is no place I will not or do not go. I refuse to let fear rule my life.
I do not go looking for trouble ( it has a way of finding me) but but I will go anywhere in this country. I am an American, and it is my birthright. I have walked through several cities, and found myself it places that made me nervous. Being aware of your surroundings, is one thing, fearing to go is another.
There are times I wish I was armed, just for the comfort level, but not being armed has never stoped me from going anywhere.
There is way too much fear in this country, Fear of crime, fear of lawsuits, fear of the police, and fear of the unknown.
I refuse to accept fear.

 

[razorburn]

I did not see the other thread. How did he attack the argument to warrant disciplinary action? Was he cursing? Name calling?

 

[1911Tuner]

Duty to Protect

97GTI...Agreed with much zeal. We have to protect oursleves and our families. Would you agree that part of protecting ourselves would include not deliberately going in harm's way? I think that too many feel that carrying a gun makes them invincible...which may be part of what fuels the feeling of
going wherever and whenever the notion leads them. That's false security, and anyone who has either had to fight or run for their lives will have a deeper understanding of that. There comes the stark realization that the gun on your hip may not be enough...that despite your best efforts, you can lose this fight and get a tag on your toe or a lifelong ride in a wheelchair...and in that fleeting moment between the realization that you've walked into a snakepit and the first shot fired...you'll probably wish that you'd given it a pass.

So...Ask yourselves this:

If you're thinking of going in...would you go if you had one of your small children with you? (And please...no inane responses about adult-only establishments and the kids being home with the sitter late at night. Just a simple hypothetical scenario.) Would you...given a choice...take your 5 year-old daughter by the hand and walk down that street? No? Then you might not want to go either.

 

[1911Tuner]

Fear

pcosmar...Again, please don't confuse fear with good judgement. Would you enter the surf immediately after a lifeguard had spotted a large shark 30 yards past the breakers? Wisdom tempers bravery with due caution...and discretion is the better part of valor. After all...most of us refrain from driving after a heavy freezing rain unless it's necessary to drive. At least, the smart drivers do.

razorburn...Give it a rest. We've resolved the issue and moved on.

 

[razorburn]

If you've apologized to therealhawkeye and acknowledged a mistake made in the heat of the moment, I guess this is a non-issue for the rest of the forum. I'm sure you understood that this might've made the rest of us uncomfortable.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

And don’t forget about the civil suit that will be sure to follow by the family of the person you killed. Even if found innocent of all charges, you can still lose a civil suite. That will cost you another large lump of cash just to defend, and if found guilty in the civil case, you are likely to lose everything.

Not the case in my home State. In Florida, if you are acquitted, all are barred from suing you in civil court over the incident for which you were charged in criminal court. State by State, this is becoming the modern trend, and it's a damned good thing.

 

[1911Tuner]

re:

No razor...I've explained the whys and wherefores...and it never was an issue with anyone except the two of us. Not that I feel that I owe you an explanation, but the disciplinary action was taken because I read his responses as confrontational when he started a new thread on the same subject rather than arguing his point on the original thread. I didn't act on my own directive, and it wasn't done with malice or with predjudice. It was a "Take a breath before you cross the line" move, and nothing more...and because of his positive attitude after the fact, he starts over with a clean slate. Personally, I'd much rather take an action such as this than do an outright, permanent ban. I don't like to do that, and avoid it whenever possible. If I can redirect a member with a light application of the ol' cluebat, we all win. Other than spammers and one member who requested a ban, I think I've banned two members in the almost three years that I've done the mod duty here. I'd say that's a pretty low score.

Now...Can we move on? The discussion has been turned around into something that we can all gain from.

Hawk...Yes. I wish more states would follow suit. The trick is to be exonerated in the justifiable shoot. That's a pretty bad hassle in any state. Some moreso than others.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

Originally posted by 1911Tuner:
[...] The argument that one has the right to go where he or she pleases is valid and one that I agree with. The point was not to stay home to stay out of trouble, but rather to use your judgement before entering into an area that you can, in all likihood, expect to have trouble.

Would you arm yourself and walk into the worst area of town after dark on a Friday night, just because you have the right to be there? No? Yes? It's a matter of choice. Have to go? Arm yourself and go. Don't have to go? Why go? That simple.

Agreed. So what's all the fuss about?

 

[1911Tuner]

Fuss

Lone Harranguer...I've asked myself the same question. By some of the responses, you'd have thought I'd suggested callin' the cops to come serve and protect...

After having spent some of my best years carelessly and recklessly...I can offer a little real-world experience tinged with a dab of reality to discussions such as these. Or...another way:

"A man that's had a tiger by the tail knows 5 or 6 more things about tigers than one that ain't."

--Will Rogers--

 

[mike101]

I agree with 1911Tuner. It's unwise to go somewhere armed,that you would not go unarmed. It has nothing to do with your rights, bravery, or anything like that. It just ain't smart.

I spend a lot of time in center city Philadelphia. I go there armed, now, but used to go unarmed. I still would. To get there, I have to go through Camden, NJ, on a train. I wouldn't get off that train in Camden, in broad daylight, even if I had a BAR.

If you have to go somewhere dangerous, go. If you don't, don't.

 

[GEM]

The problem with this discussion is a cognitive problem. That means an error of thinking. Folks take a heuristic statement and think it is algorithm, absolute or a law of nature.

I go into the Hill Country of Texas, I take a gun because it might use - thus I shouldn't go. I shouldn't leave the house because I carry a gun and thus I shouldn't leave the house - this reduces the argument to an absurdity as you are making the rule absolute.

It's like the folks who quibbled about the 4 rules of gun safety as if they were as fixed as Newton's three laws.

What is saying, in an easy manner to recall, is that one should make a reasonable risk assessment of where you go and be alert.

We have had folks who post that they go to bars where fights break out and how should they conceal their gun in this their favorite bar. The 'law' would suggest that you get another bar as the risk is high and there are substitutes. Saying one shouldn't hike as you might meet a rattlesnake and if you carried a gun, you shouldn't hike is not the same level of risk analysis.

The 'law' is just saying not be stupid and go to places with a high risk of being targeted if going there is not vital.

Realize that there is risk continuum and an appropriate equipment response is a better way to say it but I'm afraid that is too complicated for many folks. Life is fuzzy but gun lists tend towards the absolutist.

 

[1911Tuner]

Dark Places

Several years ago, I found myself at a major party in The Big Easy. My first time in town, I was fascinated by what Mardi Gras was showing me...and I yearned for a different view of the city than the main show in the French Quarter. I was lucky enough to have hit it off with one of the locals...and wise enough to ask for directions to new and fun places.

He took the time to walk with me, point out different places and streets...telling me in a heavy Cajun brogue:

"Now you can go doun dere fo' maybe 'bout a block but don' go no furder dan
dat big sign dere."

"Don' go doun dat street none! Dey'll cut a fella up doun dere fo' no more'n bout fi-dollas if'n ya put up any kinda fight."

"You go doun' dere fo' two blocks and don' go no kinda ways off on no side streets, and whatever da hell ya do, don' go 'cross de river over ta Algiers after dark less'n ya go wit about t'ree folks who's from dese parts...an' don' talk too much, 'cause dey gonna know you ain' frum 'round here."

Mardi Gras was a hoot. New Orleans is a dangerous place if you don't understand the ground rules...and sometimes there's less than a city block between a good time and your worst nightmare.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

All good advice, Tuner, but I imagine that most of us would be just as quick to give that same advice, let alone follow it. I don't imagine there are a lot of us long time members here who go around looking for trouble. Trouble, does, however, have a way of finding one whether one looks for it or not.

That said, the old saw about not going any place if you feel the need to carry a gun there is a world apart from the above advice. It seems to suggest the pointlessness of carrying a handgun, since you would NEVER carry a handgun if you NEVER felt the need to do so. I carry a handgun precisely because I feel the need to do so. Your witticism, therefore, is not one I can agree with. I am happy to see that my post has sparked some worthwhile conversation on the matter.

 

[BobMcG]

Gotta be in 1911Tuner's camp on this one.

IMHO: Being prepared is one thing, looking for or just plain asking for trouble is another. Heck, trouble can find you easily enough without going out of your way to find or encourage it. Yeah it's a free country, yeah it's your choice. It's also about making wise choices by using sound, sensible, good judgement... or not.

As for me, I tend to listen closely to and try to learn from those who have experienced things that would only be a nightmare for me to experience myself firsthand.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Let me ask you, Bob, if you never carry when you feel the need to carry, when do you carry? If you say you carry just in case you are attacked in a place you thought was safe, then what you are saying is that you felt the need to carry it for that purpose in those places, and that puts you squarely in my camp, as it were. According to the saw in question, though, you should not carry it at all. Personally, I never do anything needlessly. See, the problem is not in the intent behind the saw. It's with the phrasing of it. It creates problems in logic. If you say you never carry when you feel you need to, then you are saying you never carry unless you feel you have no need to, which is just plain silly IMHO. Now we're with Alice somewhere down the rabbit hole. See the problem? A good saw will make logical sense. This one, IMO, needs scrapping.

 

[1911Tuner]

Need to Carry

Understand your position Hawk...but the sidearm is something that a body packs just in case of an unexpected emergency. If we actually expect trouble, we carry a rifle or we stay out of the way. A man that knowingly enters a fight with a pistol starts out at a disadvantage, because...as one wise old guy put it..."A pistol is a pretty ineffectual thing to trust your life to.
Its main advantage lies in its portability. You don't have to tie up your hands lugging it around, and you don't have to go get it. It's there on your belt."

Potentially deadly trouble that comes unexpectedly is either met with the sidearm...or with bare hands...or with contact weapons. If the lethal threat is expected...we go get a rifle or shotgun, if it's available.

In short...We don't carry a sidearm because we expect trouble. We carry it in case trouble catches us too far from our rifle. Hope for the best...Prepare for the worst...And try to refrain from tempting fate.

 

[Deanimator]

That's why I only visit my mother in Chicago once a year.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

You're speaking my language Tuner. Those very words could have come out of my mouth as easily as out of yours. My problem has never been with the advice you presented in the post immediately preceding this one.

 

[Old Fuff]

Perhaps things would be better if we amended the debated statement to read:

If you are going somewhere and think you need to carry a gun, maybe you shouldn't go.

When one goes about carrying a weapon they set themselves up for some awful consequences if something goes wrong, and sometimes even if things go right.

The best protection against such consequences is to use good judgment. When I went through my first CCW class the instructor stressed that if we learned nothing else from him he wanted us to understand the constructive use of good judgment. That I think is what Tuner is really trying to get across, and if so I would agree with him. Perhaps the contention we see here is a disagreement about what good judgment is. Ultimately, this is something each person has to decide for themselves, but make no mistake about it, you will be held fully responsible for whatever you do.

With that observation I will withdraw.

 

[BobMcG]

Let me ask you, Bob, if you don't ever carry when you feel the need to carry, when do you carry?

TRH, I can see the argument you are presenting and I thank you for offering your viewpoint. I just don't happen to look at it the same way. I carry in general because as I stated, trouble can find you anytime anywhere. You never know. However, to me it's not a matter of purposely carrying to give me the "courage" to go into places I'd normally never go. It's a choice I can make.

For instance, although I live in the mountains 200+ miles from NYC I do a lot of work there including night work. Sometimes in some very bad areas. I cannot carry there and so I don't. There have been very few times I've refused to do the job but when I feel it's not the smartest thing to be doing when and where I'm supposed to be doing it I say no. If I was to be told all of a sudden that "it's OK, you can go back and do the work 'cause we (my company) got you special permission to carry", it wouldn't change my mind one bit about continuing with the work. I could go on and tell you stories of things that have gone on in different areas of Harlem and the South Bronx at night to my crew and others (not nearly so fortunate) but I don't think it's necessary. Choosing to do the job anyways just because of the balls afforded one by carrying a pistol wouldn't make me the smartest person on earth. It comes down to choice and judgement.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

I guess we differ then. There are lots of places I wouldn't go if I couldn't carry. No, the gun doesn't make me superman. Yes, I understand there are consequences to lethal force in self defense, but I have to say there is a whole category of places that I am willing to go only if I can carry. There is also a whole category of places where I wouldn't go even if I was allowed to carry an M16 slung tactical style over my belly, grip in hand, thump on safety. So, that designates three zones: 1) places I'm willing to go unarmed, 2) places I'm willing to go only if armed, and 3) places I will avoid, armed or not.

Just to give you an example. I will not go out on my own property late at night to check on something in one of the structures unless I have a gun, a flashlight and my dog. Flashlight and my dog without the gun, and I'm deciding it can wait till morning.

 

[1911Tuner]

re:

I guess maybe a summation to my position on this whole question could be in the form of yet another quote:

"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread."

As some have noted...There are certain places in Winston-Salem that I won't go...armed or not...daylight or dark. Not afraid to...and I'd stand a better chance than average of being able to shoot my way out if things did get hinky...but it's just that mama didn't raise no foolish sons, and I like for life to be quiet and uneventful.

 

[sinistr]

interesting thread....but some of you guys are kinda splitting hairs.+1 on pcosmar's statement on fear.

 

[1911Tuner]

Fear 3

Quote:

>interesting thread....but some of you guys are kinda splitting hairs.+1 on pcosmar's statement on<
*****************

No fear here. Just a lotta years spent on the dark side of town. Grew up there. Learned to fight there. Most importantly, learned when to fight and when not to. When you're old and tired, "splittin' hairs" make a little more sense.