When to carry?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Food for thought:

A whole bunch of people went unarmed to Luby's for a meal, . . .

Abraham Lincoln did not take his sidearm to the Ford theater, . . .

Bill Hickock only got slack once in his situational awareness, . . .

John Kennedy played the odds in Dallas that said a middle aged, white, president of the United States had never been shot while riding in an open convertible in Dallas.

Personally, . . . I think they were all bad decisions, . . . but you need to decide for yourself, . . . and then ask youself: "How safe did they think that they were?"

May God bless,
Dwight

Now you know why I carry every day, . . .
 
This is a pretty easy one. I never know if, or when, I may need my sidearm. Ergo, I always have it with me. There's a lot to be said for avoiding "trouble" areas, paying attention to your surroundings, etc...but if it comes down to fighting back, I need the wherewithal to do so. Hence, I'm always armed.
 
24/7 unless forbidden by law/state/federal. :)

I wear my seat belt all the time in the car, never I been in a wreck myself. I do not know when I will be or some clown will hit me, so I wear it. Just like I carry my gun because some basket case could try to rob me or try something around me and I have to fight out of it.
 
when I'm awake i carry. i get out of bed get dressed including my pistol when i go to bed i get undressed and put it on my nite stand. but then i dont have the luxury of living in backwater usa. i also hardly ever leave the house but I'm not looking for a gun in the event of a home invasion occurs.
 
+1 for whenever I can.

I can't determine when/if the need to defend myself or my family will arise. So best to be armed when I don't need it, rather than be unarmed when I do need it.
 
When ever you have in your possession and control of a device that if mishandled can cause harm or death, there is a level of inherent risk. Training and conscientious safe gun handling practices and rituals can greatly mitigate that risk but not eliminate it completely. It only takes one brain fart or moment of complacency. Have you ever ran a red light or pulled out in front of another vehicle? Or dropped a cup of coffee in your lap?
Click to expand...

Ah, I see. That is true to an extent, but is largely dependent on your carry method. If you put on a holstered weapon, leave it on all day, and don't remove it or otherwise fiddle with it, the risk is close to zero (assuming you were paying attention and safely holstered it to begin with). Stick it in your pocket, without a holster, and with a bunch of other crap, much more risk.

Risk of a ND is probably greater when you are using a range as you are loading/unloading/manipulating the gun numerous times, as opposed to it being immobile, strapped to your side.
 
Every day all day. I did a "Shoot with SWAT" at my membership range earlier this year and the team leader in his opening remarks said "We are all Pro 2A and need more folks doing CCW". FBI stats show more civilians kill bad guys than Law Enforcement. Think about it, you have a greater chance of getting into a gun fight than a Policeman does.
 
first rule to winning a gunfight, have a gun with you

as others stated, i pretty much carry whenever its possible and whereever its legal. There really arent any more or less dangerous times, crime/disaster/confrontation could happen to you anywhere anytime...from someone robbing the convenience mart you happen to stop at, to a road rage situation, to a drunk hostile person, etc. I remember the case of some young lady in texas i believe, she was in a restaurant with her parents, a guy comes in and starts shooting people, she had left her gun in her car.....she lost her parents and she was really crushed knowing she might could have changed the outcome.
 
I almost never carry. I mostly got my carry permit for going for walks and making it much easier to transport a gun. I think too many people carry as is. I'm not saying responsible people that practice with their firearms shouldn't carry, but I do think the course that is taken should be much more strict. When I took my course there was a girl there that not only completely missed her target multiple times but once hit a target a good foot or so to the right of hers and yet she still somehow passed the shooting portion. Thats not even mentioning the fact that the instructor told everyone the answers to the written portion while we were taking the test.
 
threat levels, concealment....

I'd say use common sense & good judgement.
I live in a metro area with a lot of tourists & a daytime population of approx 1,000,000 people.
When I had my concealed license; 2002-2007, I packed a firearm about 25-30% of the time. Now, I also toted my loaded .38spl revolver or 9x19mm pistol in a street legal, secured gun case in my vehicle. When I drove around, I was armed 75-90% of the time.
While I agree that most violent crime involves criminals(both subject & victim) and has high risk elements(crime, alcohol, illegal drugs, etc) you can't assume you(as a upstanding, citizen with a valid carry license) won't be involved in a lethal force incident. Being armed means being alert to danger too!
A few years ago, a veteran police officer in my city was killed in a off duty robbery incident at a ATM. The armed robbers shot the armed, off duty cop and took off.
 
I think too many people carry as is.

Curious as to why you feel this way. I know that you describe the course you took as being, shall we say, less challenging than it might have been. Based solely on your description, I don't disagree. But why would it necessarily follow that "too many people" carry firearms? I don't see that it does. Or are you making two separate points? And, from a rhetorical standpoint only, how many is "too many?"
 
I guess I wasn't specific enough in my last post. I am perfectly fine with an infinite number of responsible people that can actually use their handgun carrying. I just think that there are a lot of people with carry permits that shouldn't have them. Its something I would like to see require much stricter testing to get as well as required refresher courses. In a perfect world, I think carry permits should be MUCH harder to get and maintain but true carry permits that are valid anywhere.
 
jasmith85 said:
In a perfect world, I think carry permits should be MUCH harder to get and maintain but true carry permits that are valid anywhere.
Click to expand...

Why?

Has there been a problem with the current system of "shall issue", minimal training, permit holders accidentally shooting people?

I haven't seen anything in the media about it if there has, and I would think that such an issue would be front page headlines in todays' media.

I haven't heard of any problems from Alaska, Arizona, Vermont, or Wyoming. No permit at all is required for CCW in those states.
 
Last edited:
Why?

Has there been a problem with the current system of "shall issue", minimal training, permit holders accidentally shooting people?

I haven't seen anything in the media about it if there has, and I would think that such an issue would be front page headlines in todays' media.

I haven't heard of any problems from Alaska, Arizona, Vermont, or Wyoming. No permit at all is required for CCW in those states.
Click to expand...

I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. I didn't say people with minimal training shoot people. What I'm saying is the ease to get a concealed carry permit is the reason there are so many restrictions on the carry permits. If the background check was much more extensive and the training program was much more difficult there wouldn't be a need to restrict guns in places like schools and government owned property.
 
jasmith85 said:
I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. I didn't say people with minimal training shoot people. What I'm saying is the ease to get a concealed carry permit is the reason there are so many restrictions on the carry permits.
Click to expand...
Maybe I just don't get it, either, but I don't think that the underlined part holds water. I haven't done any extensive research on the legal history of various "sensitive places" statutes regulating carry, but my gut says that those statutes predate the (fairly recent) rise in CC statutes. IOW, the restrictions cannot have been put there "because of" the ease of getting a permit. Do you have any information to the contrary?

jasmith85 said:
If the background check was much more extensive and the training program was much more difficult there wouldn't be a need to restrict guns in places like schools and government owned property.
Click to expand...
First: With respect to most CCL holders, there's not any current need to restrict their places of carry. Beefing up the background check and training won't change that.

Second, do you have any information that supports the claim that if "the background check was much more extensive and the training program was much more difficult there wouldn't be a need to restrict guns in" the sensitive places you mentioned?

Third, even if you do, I do not believe that any of the above warrants a more extensive background check system. Such a system is simply further infringing on the 2A right.
 
jasmith85 said:
If the background check was much more extensive and the training program was much more difficult there wouldn't be a need to restrict guns in places like schools and government owned property.
Click to expand...

Ok, I think I understand what you're saying now.

You probably haven't had your CCW very long and have no idea of the battles that people have gone through to get you that "privelege" to exercise your rights. What you describe is the exact situation that existed in the majority of the country until about 25 years ago. There were no "gun free school zones" or restrictions against carry in particular places because it was almost impossible to get a CCW permit.

This little graphic below shows how the US gradually got the right to carry over the past 25 years. It wasn't until the mid to late 90's that the majority of the states came on board. I've been involved in the fight since the 70's, kind of forget sometimes that new people don't know what it used to be like.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rtc.gif

I'm not personally willing to give back ANY control over CCW to the government.

Violent crime rates in the US which had been climbing rapidly since the 1960's started dropping through the 1990's as more CCW permits became available. Imagine that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Violent_Crime_Rates_in_the_United_States.svg

The US is currently experiencing the lowest violent crime rates since WW2. Why would you want to go back to the way things were and take CCW away from people?

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...es-in-the-us-drop-approach-historic-lows?lite

Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it.
 
Last edited:
I guess I wasn't specific enough in my last post. I am perfectly fine with an infinite number of responsible people that can actually use their handgun carrying. I just think that there are a lot of people with carry permits that shouldn't have them. Its something I would like to see require much stricter testing to get as well as required refresher courses. In a perfect world, I think carry permits should be MUCH harder to get and maintain but true carry permits that are valid anywhere.
Click to expand...

jasmith85, . . . the problem with your line of reasoning is very simple: we do not live in a perfect world.

Most people are in one respect or another, inferior to the majority of others: some are nearsighted, some are hard of hearing, some are color blind.

Some have learning difficulties, and at the risk of offending you (which I hope I don't do) it has been my experience over 67+ years, that EVERYONE has some sort of learining difficulty. Some have math problems, others it is spelling, to others mechanical engineering is a marvel understood only by the angels, . . . and your learning difficulty may be only slight, . . . but it is there none the less.

In order to enforce the standards you wish, every time there is an accident, a problem, a situation: the training standards would have to be lifted up to include the "new" situation. It would be a never ending escalation of difficulty for obtaining/maintaining CHL's, . . . and would be the liberal/Democrat's greatest dream come true.

Better yet: make NO PLACE a gun free zone, and remove all restrictions from CHL's.

THEN, . . . enforce the laws we have. MAKE personal responsibility once again be the deciding factor. If a dang fool blonde shoots up a bar trying to load her Whizzit pistol, . . . throw her butt in jail. Put murderer's in jail, and leave them there. Kick the illegals the hell out of this country.

Then, . . . you will be on the road to a safe, sane, honest society. Your idea penalizes me because of your inadequacies, . . . and penalizes you for mine. Your idea raises the bar beyond the reach of the majority of people and quite honestly, . . . is just a bad idea.

May God bless,
Dwight
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top