So I just had an argument with an anti-gun type and...
- Thread starter stratus
- Start date
Mannlicher
New member
having an 'argument' with an anti-gun type is akin to trying to empty the Atlantic with a pitchfork. The conclusion is foregone, and inalterable.
When was the last time YOU listened to, and changed your viewpoint on guns, after discourse with an anti? See what I mean?
Most folks take an argument or discussion as a venue to promulgate their own agenda, not as an opportunity for considered thinking, and accomodation.
When was the last time YOU listened to, and changed your viewpoint on guns, after discourse with an anti? See what I mean?
Most folks take an argument or discussion as a venue to promulgate their own agenda, not as an opportunity for considered thinking, and accomodation.
281 Quad Cam
New member
My honest opinion since i started my membership on this forum and began to frequent more gun oriented stores and environments. I carry everyday and shoot my rifles for fun... But i really don't fit in.
JSP,
When a person starts to think that they and only they should be able to "allow" certain Rights to others, then you get into trouble and stand out as the elitist that you aren't.
I don't judge others (and when I do, I realize that I'm wrong, it's not my place to do so).
And if you wish us to respect your judgements, then you have to respect ours. I may (most likely) be one of those that you have deemed "should not be allowed to carry, heck, even have/own a gun" but what if I said the same of you?
If I am to respect your opinion, then shouldn't you respect mine?
Think about it
.
Wayne
When a person starts to think that they and only they should be able to "allow" certain Rights to others, then you get into trouble and stand out as the elitist that you aren't.
I don't judge others (and when I do, I realize that I'm wrong, it's not my place to do so).
And if you wish us to respect your judgements, then you have to respect ours. I may (most likely) be one of those that you have deemed "should not be allowed to carry, heck, even have/own a gun" but what if I said the same of you?
If I am to respect your opinion, then shouldn't you respect mine?
Think about it
.Wayne
USP,
I have no problem with you. We've disagreed before. But so what? I disagree with lots of people lots of time. I don't care (yet) if you can figure out how to carry interplanetary disruptors. Besides, I'm perfectly clear that I'm wrong about issues at least as often as I am right. But I have to live in this skull, so we're all stuck with what I've got upstairs.
Here is my issue with CCW.
To my knowledge there is no way for LEO's to verify that you are not a goofball before issuing a permit. Now they might be able to do it except they would probably violate your other rights to do it. I think that most nut jobs eventually run into some type of trouble with the law. But..... Can we legally or logically only give CCW permits to people who are old enough to have gotten into trouble and "outed" themselves? How old is old enough? 18, 21, 30, 50? I don't have any answers, either.
But I do have my concerns.
I do not think that you are a whack job if you want or feel you must carry a pistol for protection.
But there are people on this board that are on the fringe. At least in my opinion and as a member of a larger society, my voice has exactly the same weight as any other persons. I do not think that responsible carrying of a weapon by responsible people is a problem. But the people who are so far out there that they are a tool of the weapon and not the other way around are a source of worry for me. Especially when they get demonstrably angry and aggressive when ridiculed about it. What else might set them off? And how far off will they go?
Do you think I post the way I do to be a troublemaker? Well maybe a little
I am definitely a chain yanker at times. But I had a purpose. I wanted to check my observations about certain people and certain outlooks on life. Some people (you for one) are adamant supporters of CCW without seemingly being an idiot about it.
On the other hand, I have my concerns about some people, who are clearly not quite clear headed about their little substitute for manhood.
Therefore, the more I see of people acting strange and being supported by other seemingly normal (or at least not goofy) people, the more I wonder about the actual practice of handing out permits to individuals who cannot be verified to have a normal brain function.
Oddly, I'm much more comfortable with states like FL or TX where almost anyone could have a gun. Then, if the legal goofballs tip over the edge, maybe someone else will be there to "solve" the problem. But the gun whack jobs also tend to be well trained and well prepared. If and when one goes over the edge, it could be all the worse in outcome.
Jim
I have no problem with you. We've disagreed before. But so what? I disagree with lots of people lots of time. I don't care (yet) if you can figure out how to carry interplanetary disruptors.
Besides, I'm perfectly clear that I'm wrong about issues at least as often as I am right. But I have to live in this skull, so we're all stuck with what I've got upstairs.Here is my issue with CCW.
To my knowledge there is no way for LEO's to verify that you are not a goofball before issuing a permit. Now they might be able to do it except they would probably violate your other rights to do it. I think that most nut jobs eventually run into some type of trouble with the law. But..... Can we legally or logically only give CCW permits to people who are old enough to have gotten into trouble and "outed" themselves? How old is old enough? 18, 21, 30, 50? I don't have any answers, either.
But I do have my concerns.
I do not think that you are a whack job if you want or feel you must carry a pistol for protection.
But there are people on this board that are on the fringe. At least in my opinion and as a member of a larger society, my voice has exactly the same weight as any other persons. I do not think that responsible carrying of a weapon by responsible people is a problem. But the people who are so far out there that they are a tool of the weapon and not the other way around are a source of worry for me. Especially when they get demonstrably angry and aggressive when ridiculed about it. What else might set them off? And how far off will they go?
Do you think I post the way I do to be a troublemaker? Well maybe a little
I am definitely a chain yanker at times. But I had a purpose. I wanted to check my observations about certain people and certain outlooks on life. Some people (you for one) are adamant supporters of CCW without seemingly being an idiot about it.On the other hand, I have my concerns about some people, who are clearly not quite clear headed about their little substitute for manhood.
Therefore, the more I see of people acting strange and being supported by other seemingly normal (or at least not goofy) people, the more I wonder about the actual practice of handing out permits to individuals who cannot be verified to have a normal brain function.
Oddly, I'm much more comfortable with states like FL or TX where almost anyone could have a gun. Then, if the legal goofballs tip over the edge, maybe someone else will be there to "solve" the problem. But the gun whack jobs also tend to be well trained and well prepared. If and when one goes over the edge, it could be all the worse in outcome.
Jim
Jim, (nice to meet you, instead of having to start out with JSP)
In a way I understand what you are saying. Some of the members may come off abit strong or may seem to be driven by emotion moreso than common sense, heck, to tell you the truth, I used to be that way and sometimes revert back to my bad habits.
But I've found that as I grow older, I also grew wiser (or up in this case). That many of the members that I think that you are refering are the younger set and that one has to remember how they were at that age. All we can do is to help them grow and teach them the lessons that we learned earlier.
And I am still learning. Each and every day upon this board as well as others. I've made my mistakes, and I find that I continue to do so, but the main thing is that I learn from these mistakes and grow from them.
I will admit that I find myself reading those who I have problems with moreso than any others on the board. I find myself actually seeking the posts of Sendec, Josh, Jammer and others, not to argue mind you, but to help me understand them more. To find the angle or thought process they are coming from and so then I can either see their points, or debate against them. I do so because I don't judge them, or create a judgement against them, I just want to know them.
Yet, I will never say that I believe that they shouldn't have the Rights that they have and that one has the right to take away their Rights.
Jim, the world is a dangerous place, and the US is a very dangerous place. The reason being is that we have Rights that no other nation in this world has. We can't take away a Right from a person until that person abuses that Right. Even though we sometimes wish that we could, it's not our place to do so. That is not America, America is that we leave people alone until they break a law, even if it is a most wicked one like murder, and then we bring them to the courts to be judged and sentenced, not until then.
When you have absolute Freedom, and as written and given, they are absolute, you run into the fact that some in our society will abuse those freedoms. But in real freedom, you can't take those freedoms until they are abused and you can only take them away from the abuser for the amount of time that they are sentenced.
I think that this is where the divid lays. With absolute freedom, some people may extend that to their bathrooms, to their speech, to what they write or what they own, to their beliefs of whatever god or gods. Yet they actually have the right to do all the above. To you, as an individual, you may decide for yourself that that person shouldn't have the Right to do this or that, or that you, as an individual, think that the person is paranoid or mentally disabled, but it's only an opinion of a lone individual.
And since it's only an opinion, it should be held as such and not forced upon others that may not hold the same opinion. You can state your observations, but until they do something to give up their Rights for a limited time, or face death, your observations are just that, opinions.
I like you Jim, and I do enjoy reading you. As long as I am allowed to be a member of this board, I will always enjoy debating with you and even agreeing with you on some points. I just wanted to point out that until the Right is abused, then the Right is theirs to have and keep for as long as they are able.
Wayne
In a way I understand what you are saying. Some of the members may come off abit strong or may seem to be driven by emotion moreso than common sense, heck, to tell you the truth, I used to be that way and sometimes revert back to my bad habits.
But I've found that as I grow older, I also grew wiser (or up in this case). That many of the members that I think that you are refering are the younger set and that one has to remember how they were at that age. All we can do is to help them grow and teach them the lessons that we learned earlier.
And I am still learning. Each and every day upon this board as well as others. I've made my mistakes, and I find that I continue to do so, but the main thing is that I learn from these mistakes and grow from them.
I will admit that I find myself reading those who I have problems with moreso than any others on the board. I find myself actually seeking the posts of Sendec, Josh, Jammer and others, not to argue mind you, but to help me understand them more. To find the angle or thought process they are coming from and so then I can either see their points, or debate against them. I do so because I don't judge them, or create a judgement against them, I just want to know them.
Yet, I will never say that I believe that they shouldn't have the Rights that they have and that one has the right to take away their Rights.
Jim, the world is a dangerous place, and the US is a very dangerous place. The reason being is that we have Rights that no other nation in this world has. We can't take away a Right from a person until that person abuses that Right. Even though we sometimes wish that we could, it's not our place to do so. That is not America, America is that we leave people alone until they break a law, even if it is a most wicked one like murder, and then we bring them to the courts to be judged and sentenced, not until then.
When you have absolute Freedom, and as written and given, they are absolute, you run into the fact that some in our society will abuse those freedoms. But in real freedom, you can't take those freedoms until they are abused and you can only take them away from the abuser for the amount of time that they are sentenced.
I think that this is where the divid lays. With absolute freedom, some people may extend that to their bathrooms, to their speech, to what they write or what they own, to their beliefs of whatever god or gods. Yet they actually have the right to do all the above. To you, as an individual, you may decide for yourself that that person shouldn't have the Right to do this or that, or that you, as an individual, think that the person is paranoid or mentally disabled, but it's only an opinion of a lone individual.
And since it's only an opinion, it should be held as such and not forced upon others that may not hold the same opinion. You can state your observations, but until they do something to give up their Rights for a limited time, or face death, your observations are just that, opinions.
I like you Jim, and I do enjoy reading you. As long as I am allowed to be a member of this board, I will always enjoy debating with you and even agreeing with you on some points. I just wanted to point out that until the Right is abused, then the Right is theirs to have and keep for as long as they are able.
Wayne
USP,
I have no problem with rights. I have 5 weapons. One of them purely by coincidence is laying in the bathroom right now!
I am even OK with people having full auto weapons with some usage/location restrictions.
My problem is with the mental attitudes of people with those rights. Can you (not you specifically) sit on the toilet and take a crap without a .45 clutched in one hand and a wad of double ply in the other? Then you are normal. If you really feel that you are too vulnerable to drop your pants without a gun within grasping range you might want to move. There are other neighborhoods, cities, states, countries, planets you can move to. Or maybe your head and neck aren't using the same threads?
Rights are one thing, psychotic paranoia is an entirely differnet animal. Mix it with a zealous need to carry a gun in all possible locations and I personally sense a problem.
Did you read the post from the guy with the belly band holster who found it a good option at the beach. At the beach. Why go to the beach? Really? Why? If you have a holster in a belly band, you aren't going to enjoy the water or the sun. I guess you could be named Roy Schneider and be sitting in a shark tower.....
Whatever. I was totally serious when I posted that message about calling yourself (again, not you specifically) Kurzon Glock. If you watched Star Trek, Deep Space Nine, you'll get it.
I have no problem with rights. I have 5 weapons. One of them purely by coincidence is laying in the bathroom right now!
I am even OK with people having full auto weapons with some usage/location restrictions.
My problem is with the mental attitudes of people with those rights. Can you (not you specifically) sit on the toilet and take a crap without a .45 clutched in one hand and a wad of double ply in the other? Then you are normal. If you really feel that you are too vulnerable to drop your pants without a gun within grasping range you might want to move. There are other neighborhoods, cities, states, countries, planets you can move to. Or maybe your head and neck aren't using the same threads?
Rights are one thing, psychotic paranoia is an entirely differnet animal. Mix it with a zealous need to carry a gun in all possible locations and I personally sense a problem.
Did you read the post from the guy with the belly band holster who found it a good option at the beach. At the beach. Why go to the beach? Really? Why? If you have a holster in a belly band, you aren't going to enjoy the water or the sun. I guess you could be named Roy Schneider and be sitting in a shark tower.....
Whatever. I was totally serious when I posted that message about calling yourself (again, not you specifically) Kurzon Glock. If you watched Star Trek, Deep Space Nine, you'll get it.
"Did you read the post from the guy with the belly band holster who found it a good option at the beach. At the beach. Why go to the beach? Really? Why? If you have a holster in a belly band, you aren't going to enjoy the water or the sun. I guess you could be named Roy Schneider and be sitting in a shark tower....."
Why not have a gun at the beach? Okay, so you couldn't swim. (unless it's a glock, you don't want a real gun getting all rusty, hee, hee) You could still hangout at the beach in Fort Lauderdale and pick up chicks.
There's a good reason to carry at the beach.
There's a lot of crime at the beach. Mostly car break-ins. Think about it- where do people leave their wallets and purses when they go on the beach? You leave your gun in the trunk or glove box and it's gone when you get back. Some thug is out robbing a liquor store with it tonight.
Burglary of a conveyance isn't the only crime that happens at the beach. We had a deputy sheriff who murdered 5 girls at Tiger Shores beach up here. I wouldn't blame a woman for going to the beach to suntan and keeping the gun in a beach bag.
I remember when I was a kid there was a somebody in a tent on Jensen Beach who was attacked by a guy with a knife.
Our less populated beaches used to be the place for guys to run drugs. The guy me and my dad used to fish with got stuck outside the St. Lucie Inlet one night. He tried to come in and apparently interrupted a drug deal on the beach. Somebody started shooting at him with a rifle from a pickup truck on the beach. (He said that was the only time he ever got seasick- lying in the bottom of a 14' boat in 6' seas ducking bullets.)
There was a story in one of the gun rags last year about a woman who was attacked by a serial rapist/murderer in the Caribbean. She had tucked a 25 auto in a pocket in her bathrobe. (How paranoid!) The guy beat her up at the beach, threw her over his shoulder and was carrying her over the dune to where he raped and killed the other women, when she pulled her gun out of the pocket and shot him in the leg.
Carry at the beach? No more paranoid than anywhere else.
Why not have a gun at the beach? Okay, so you couldn't swim. (unless it's a glock, you don't want a real gun getting all rusty, hee, hee) You could still hangout at the beach in Fort Lauderdale and pick up chicks.
There's a good reason to carry at the beach.
There's a lot of crime at the beach. Mostly car break-ins. Think about it- where do people leave their wallets and purses when they go on the beach? You leave your gun in the trunk or glove box and it's gone when you get back. Some thug is out robbing a liquor store with it tonight.
Burglary of a conveyance isn't the only crime that happens at the beach. We had a deputy sheriff who murdered 5 girls at Tiger Shores beach up here. I wouldn't blame a woman for going to the beach to suntan and keeping the gun in a beach bag.
I remember when I was a kid there was a somebody in a tent on Jensen Beach who was attacked by a guy with a knife.
Our less populated beaches used to be the place for guys to run drugs. The guy me and my dad used to fish with got stuck outside the St. Lucie Inlet one night. He tried to come in and apparently interrupted a drug deal on the beach. Somebody started shooting at him with a rifle from a pickup truck on the beach. (He said that was the only time he ever got seasick- lying in the bottom of a 14' boat in 6' seas ducking bullets.)
There was a story in one of the gun rags last year about a woman who was attacked by a serial rapist/murderer in the Caribbean. She had tucked a 25 auto in a pocket in her bathrobe. (How paranoid!) The guy beat her up at the beach, threw her over his shoulder and was carrying her over the dune to where he raped and killed the other women, when she pulled her gun out of the pocket and shot him in the leg.
Carry at the beach? No more paranoid than anywhere else.
Ok. There are exceptions to every rule.
But the post said he carried at the beach.
It didn't say he was at the beach at night, surf fishing. Or hanging on drug scenes. And I guess if I was a woman that was going to go to a beach so deserted that I could actually be raped there then I could see carrying a gun.
But for the most part, there are without a doubt something odd about some people. Me included. But I don't live my life around the needs of a gun, a car or anything else. That cannot be said for some gun owners. And its especially unnerving in a gun owner when they get just a wee bit too committed to the gun.
If people just want to admit their gun owns them, then I'm cool with that. Once people admit that the gun is a fetish, an addiction, then they can come to terms with it and take appropriate measures to control their own behaviour.
I'll start. "Hello, my name is Jim and I'm addicted to Hostess Ho-ho's"
Ok, your turn.
But the post said he carried at the beach.
It didn't say he was at the beach at night, surf fishing. Or hanging on drug scenes. And I guess if I was a woman that was going to go to a beach so deserted that I could actually be raped there then I could see carrying a gun.
But for the most part, there are without a doubt something odd about some people. Me included. But I don't live my life around the needs of a gun, a car or anything else. That cannot be said for some gun owners. And its especially unnerving in a gun owner when they get just a wee bit too committed to the gun.
If people just want to admit their gun owns them, then I'm cool with that. Once people admit that the gun is a fetish, an addiction, then they can come to terms with it and take appropriate measures to control their own behaviour.
I'll start. "Hello, my name is Jim and I'm addicted to Hostess Ho-ho's"
Ok, your turn.
Dust_Devil
New member
A person who is against the ownership of guns for personal protection is a person who never has never been in a life threatening situation, ignores the fact that there is bad people out in the world and lives a carefree and pampered life.
Though it may seem good that a person has never felt or seen any threats, not being prepared for the unexpected is much worse.
It is much better to carry a gun and never have to use it than not to have one and then need it.
Though it may seem good that a person has never felt or seen any threats, not being prepared for the unexpected is much worse.
It is much better to carry a gun and never have to use it than not to have one and then need it.
"Paranoia is an illogical fear not based on fact." Who knows what some people have been through or had to deal with. Maybe someone they know was raped in a bathroom or attacked in the shower. Who knows. I've actually seen someone who was murdered in the shower once. Thought it was pretty damn weird to have been killed in the shower too. B&E that went bad. To bad the victim didn't have a tactical thigh holster on with a pistol hanging in it...
People approach their protection in different ways and who are we to say how they should or should not do it until we've walked 10 feet in their shoes?
An interesting thread given the first posting..
I appreciate this interesting discussion, having considered many of the points of view expressed. Here are a couple considerations.
First, not everyone who sounds like a psychopath on the internet is anywhere near being one in real life (conversely, I've no doubt that the real "nut jobs" frequently come across as normal in both settings).
Second, the thing I notice and enjoy most about these forums (and shooters in general) is a strong tradition of civility and respect, and a realistic understanding of what will happen if a gun must be used in self defense. At times, yes, comments are made that suggest a disturbing lack of common sense. But it is far from the norm.
But there is a big difference between expressing a concern that there appear to be people with arms and CCW permits who may be irresponsible, and advocating that rights should be revoked pre-emptively. I didn't hear Jim advocating that anyone should lose their rights, just concern that some seem disturbingly likely to abuse that right. I can't say I'm convinced by his examples, but I've seen enough to know there are people out there who are not really able to handle the responsibilities inherent in owning a firearm, much less carrying one on a daily basis.
I guess if it was up to me I would want to see the right to keep and bear arms respected as a right (duh) as opposed to something that can be denied as a matter of whim by local authorities. However, I would also want to have a high standard of competence, safety, and understanding of the legal issues around the ownership and defensive use of firearms. Is it possible to have real standards of competency and sanity without compromising the fundamental right?
John
I appreciate this interesting discussion, having considered many of the points of view expressed. Here are a couple considerations.
First, not everyone who sounds like a psychopath on the internet is anywhere near being one in real life (conversely, I've no doubt that the real "nut jobs" frequently come across as normal in both settings).
Second, the thing I notice and enjoy most about these forums (and shooters in general) is a strong tradition of civility and respect, and a realistic understanding of what will happen if a gun must be used in self defense. At times, yes, comments are made that suggest a disturbing lack of common sense. But it is far from the norm.
But there is a big difference between expressing a concern that there appear to be people with arms and CCW permits who may be irresponsible, and advocating that rights should be revoked pre-emptively. I didn't hear Jim advocating that anyone should lose their rights, just concern that some seem disturbingly likely to abuse that right. I can't say I'm convinced by his examples, but I've seen enough to know there are people out there who are not really able to handle the responsibilities inherent in owning a firearm, much less carrying one on a daily basis.
I guess if it was up to me I would want to see the right to keep and bear arms respected as a right (duh) as opposed to something that can be denied as a matter of whim by local authorities. However, I would also want to have a high standard of competence, safety, and understanding of the legal issues around the ownership and defensive use of firearms. Is it possible to have real standards of competency and sanity without compromising the fundamental right?
John
Elitist? Some gun owners act that way. If we can't unite as one and agree everyone has rights except convicted criminals, then we are setting ourselves for failure. I had a supervisor that was very much against ownership of any type of assault type firearms. He voiced out his opinions on non sporting use of so called assault weapons - anything hi capacity and black in nature of course. I explained to him what I experienced during the LA Rodney King riots and he answered back to me that was a job for the police and military. This person did not understand the reason why the military was called into action and the lives that were lost due to lawlessness that erupted. josh
John R., you make some good points.
"I didn't hear Jim advocating that anyone should lose their rights, just concern that some seem disturbingly likely to abuse that right."
I understand that. But he seems to be hung up on geography. That there are places that should be gun free. Like a gun is ok in someone's house, but it's some kind of breach in etiquete at a golf course, beach or a Luby's cafeteria.
As far as I'm concerned there is no place that should be off limits. Some people should be prohibited, sure. There are some activities when carrying a gun should be off limits. But I can't think of too many places where carrying should be off limits. Can you think of a place where no one has been killed?
Some people think guns should be prohibited in the workplace. I suppose this is where it hits home for me. Don't think there aren't people, gun owners or not, who would freak if they knew I was carrying in the office. Makes perfect sense to me and others, but some people think it irrational to the point of being paranoid. I'd rather not be judged so I let it go when I talk to a cop at the range who keeps a gun under his pillow. Seems a little freaky to me, but what the heck, I never woke up with someone I busted standing over me.
"I didn't hear Jim advocating that anyone should lose their rights, just concern that some seem disturbingly likely to abuse that right."
I understand that. But he seems to be hung up on geography. That there are places that should be gun free. Like a gun is ok in someone's house, but it's some kind of breach in etiquete at a golf course, beach or a Luby's cafeteria.
As far as I'm concerned there is no place that should be off limits. Some people should be prohibited, sure. There are some activities when carrying a gun should be off limits. But I can't think of too many places where carrying should be off limits. Can you think of a place where no one has been killed?
Some people think guns should be prohibited in the workplace. I suppose this is where it hits home for me. Don't think there aren't people, gun owners or not, who would freak if they knew I was carrying in the office. Makes perfect sense to me and others, but some people think it irrational to the point of being paranoid. I'd rather not be judged so I let it go when I talk to a cop at the range who keeps a gun under his pillow. Seems a little freaky to me, but what the heck, I never woke up with someone I busted standing over me.
I am not saying that there are places that are off limits. Not at all. There are of course. Court houses, visiting rooms at prisons, airport metal detectors, etc.
My concern is not where you have it. My concern is people who can't seem to be able to function if they don't have it and readily admit that there are places they won't go if their gun isn't welcome.
People are normal that won't go somewhere if they can't bring their biological children. People are not normal that won't go somewhere without their gun when 99.999999% of the time this is a non-threatening location.
I'm not suggesting you leave your gun at home if you are going to be at a dangerous location like being a Jew at an Al Queada convention. But you just might make it through your child's baptism without standing back to back with your wife, both at full cock and finger on the trigger.
My concern is not where you have it. My concern is people who can't seem to be able to function if they don't have it and readily admit that there are places they won't go if their gun isn't welcome.
People are normal that won't go somewhere if they can't bring their biological children. People are not normal that won't go somewhere without their gun when 99.999999% of the time this is a non-threatening location.
I'm not suggesting you leave your gun at home if you are going to be at a dangerous location like being a Jew at an Al Queada convention. But you just might make it through your child's baptism without standing back to back with your wife, both at full cock and finger on the trigger.
"My concern is people who can't seem to be able to function if they don't have it and readily admit that there are places they won't go if their gun isn't welcome."
Well, you must be concerned about me then. I walked into a credit union near me and found they not only have an antigun policy, they have metal detectors there to enforce it. I'm gonna walk across the parking lot with $1000 when everybody knows I'm not armed. I took my money down the road to another bank. Sure coming out of the bank 99.9999% of the time is a non threatening siutuation. I went somewhere else mostly on principle.
99% non threatening?
Someone got robbed at gunpoint in our parking lot at work last year. I carry there. I just calculated it. Considering the amount of people coming and going I have a 99.9997% chance of making it through the parking lot safely in the morning. I still carry across that parking lot. I don't go around poised to blow someone away, but it's always there. Is that paranoid?
Please note to get it across the parking lot I have it in the office, and in the bathroom too.
Well, you must be concerned about me then. I walked into a credit union near me and found they not only have an antigun policy, they have metal detectors there to enforce it. I'm gonna walk across the parking lot with $1000 when everybody knows I'm not armed. I took my money down the road to another bank. Sure coming out of the bank 99.9999% of the time is a non threatening siutuation. I went somewhere else mostly on principle.
99% non threatening?
Someone got robbed at gunpoint in our parking lot at work last year. I carry there. I just calculated it. Considering the amount of people coming and going I have a 99.9997% chance of making it through the parking lot safely in the morning. I still carry across that parking lot. I don't go around poised to blow someone away, but it's always there. Is that paranoid?
Please note to get it across the parking lot I have it in the office, and in the bathroom too.