In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
Visitor Asked About My Gun(update12-15)
tr fox
Member Posts: 13,856
Twice now I have been asked about me and my gun. Both visitors were friendly and polite about it, but in one case the man came up to me and said something like "Are things here ever bad enough that you need to have a gun?".
I answered him by saying that there are evil people in society that want to harm innocent people. And if we were able to predict when and where those evil people were going to strike, we would just have all the intended victims stay home that day. But since we can't tell in advance when bad things are going to be done to good people, yes, me having a gun is a good idea.
I also told him that he might think about what I had just said in regards to him and his own life and self-protection. He took it pretty well and maybe I did some good.
Update Dec. 15, 2006.
At work today I had one of the occassional visits from my supervisor, Federal Police Officer. While he and I were casually talking, one of the older, male visitors drifted over and started talking to us. The subject of the visitor getting hired into our line of work came up and the FPO mentioned that if the visitor has a police or military background he might be qualified for our jobs. The FPO went on to mention that the training was kinda rugged with the physical part and the firearms training and all. The FPO also mentioned about how not so long ago, at the one of the federal court houses, one of our people was shot just as the intruder stepped off the elevator, so the job can sometimes be dangerous. The visitor half-jokingly said all he would need/want would be the "nightstick" (police baton) as he did not want to carry a gun and thereby encourage someone to shoot him.
I responded by telling him that the violent criminals are going to do whatever they damn well please regardless of what you are wearing/carrying. He responded by saying that if he didn't have a gun, maybe he would not get shot at.
I responded by saying that if he was shot at, and he also had a gun, at least he would be able to fight back. We left it at that, but I am discouraged about how just plain stupid and naive some people are about violence directed them and the stupid idea that maybe if you yourself don't carry a gun, maybe the bad guy won't shoot you.
That way of thinking is a philosopy unfortunely held by many liberals.
I answered him by saying that there are evil people in society that want to harm innocent people. And if we were able to predict when and where those evil people were going to strike, we would just have all the intended victims stay home that day. But since we can't tell in advance when bad things are going to be done to good people, yes, me having a gun is a good idea.
I also told him that he might think about what I had just said in regards to him and his own life and self-protection. He took it pretty well and maybe I did some good.
Update Dec. 15, 2006.
At work today I had one of the occassional visits from my supervisor, Federal Police Officer. While he and I were casually talking, one of the older, male visitors drifted over and started talking to us. The subject of the visitor getting hired into our line of work came up and the FPO mentioned that if the visitor has a police or military background he might be qualified for our jobs. The FPO went on to mention that the training was kinda rugged with the physical part and the firearms training and all. The FPO also mentioned about how not so long ago, at the one of the federal court houses, one of our people was shot just as the intruder stepped off the elevator, so the job can sometimes be dangerous. The visitor half-jokingly said all he would need/want would be the "nightstick" (police baton) as he did not want to carry a gun and thereby encourage someone to shoot him.
I responded by telling him that the violent criminals are going to do whatever they damn well please regardless of what you are wearing/carrying. He responded by saying that if he didn't have a gun, maybe he would not get shot at.
I responded by saying that if he was shot at, and he also had a gun, at least he would be able to fight back. We left it at that, but I am discouraged about how just plain stupid and naive some people are about violence directed them and the stupid idea that maybe if you yourself don't carry a gun, maybe the bad guy won't shoot you.
That way of thinking is a philosopy unfortunely held by many liberals.
Comments
What is safe, secure and acceptable versus "provoactive"? Each of us may have a take on what they mean but it is ultimately up to the perception of the person who sees you and complains about you. And, what is the specific definition of "provocative" as applied to carrying a holstered handgun into a public place where it is permitted?
Does the size or caliber of the gun make it more or less provocative? Again, it's up to the perception of the person who sees it. Ergo, it can create certain issues where none should theoretically exist.
One more benefit of concealed carry. Less to explain.
Tonight's homework:
Explain what you feel is carrying a handgun "in a provocative manner" in 3,000 words or less.[;)]
Hey guys, he openly carries a gun, as part of his job.
A true statement Pickenup and I thank you for clarifying the situation. I didn't include that info in my original post because I am reluctant to offer more information about me than is needed to present my story. But I probably should have included it since it apparently caused unnecessary confusion.
I don't see where that makes any difference. No doubt if an individual chose to exercise their right to open carry, which is perfectly legal in most communities in this country, they would encounter exactly the same questioning probably sooner than later.
Before I got my CCW, I contemplated open carry a few times for both protection and to "make a statement". I decided against it, pretty much for the reason that Slow Hand mentioned. It only takes one overly sensitive person and a sympathetic cop to make that open carry stroll through the supermarket into an extended stay at the county jail.
-Wolf
Twice now I have been asked about me and my gun. Both visitors were friendly and polite about it, but in one case the man came up to me and said something like "Are things here ever bad enough that you need to have a gun?".
I answered him by saying that there are evil people in society that want to harm innocent people. And if we were able to predict when and where those evil people were going to strike, we would just have all the intended victims stay home that day. But since we can't tell in advance when bad things are going to be done to good people, yes, me having a gun is a good idea.
I also told him that he might think about what I had just said in regards to him and his own life and self-protection. He took it pretty well and maybe I did some good.
Update Dec. 15, 2006.
At work today I had one of the occassional visits from my supervisor, Federal Police Officer. While he and I were casually talking, one of the older, male visitors drifted over and started talking to us. The subject of the visitor getting hired into our line of work came up and the FPO mentioned that if the visitor has a police or military background he might be qualified for our jobs. The FPO went on to mention that the training was kinda rugged with the physical part and the firearms training and all. The FPO also mentioned about how not so long ago, at the one of the federal court houses, one of our people was shot just as the intruder stepped off the elevator, so the job can sometimes be dangerous. The visitor half-jokingly said all he would need/want would be the "nightstick" (police baton) as he did not want to carry a gun and thereby encourage someone to shoot him.
I responded by telling him that the violent criminals are going to do whatever they damn well please regardless of what you are wearing/carrying. He responded by saying that if he didn't have a gun, maybe he would not get shot at.
I responded by saying that if he was shot at, and he also had a gun, at least he would be able to fight back. We left it at that, but I am discouraged about how just plain stupid and naive some people are about violence directed them and the stupid idea that maybe if you yourself don't carry a gun, maybe the bad guy won't shoot you.
That way of thinking is a philosopy unfortunely held by many liberals.
Just a slightly different way to view this offered here, TR.
He may in fact be a Liberal or just an individual who cannot bring himself to perform a violent act that may prove lethal, even in self-defense. Some folks are extremely apprehensive about being aggressive. Some folks don't trust themselves in a high stress situation. Some folks are scared that they will hurt or kill an innocent bystander. Not everyone who may be dead set against carrying a firearm on his or her person is necssarily an anti-gunner or Liberal.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Twice now I have been asked about me and my gun. Both visitors were friendly and polite about it, but in one case the man came up to me and said something like "Are things here ever bad enough that you need to have a gun?".
I answered him by saying that there are evil people in society that want to harm innocent people. And if we were able to predict when and where those evil people were going to strike, we would just have all the intended victims stay home that day. But since we can't tell in advance when bad things are going to be done to good people, yes, me having a gun is a good idea.
I also told him that he might think about what I had just said in regards to him and his own life and self-protection. He took it pretty well and maybe I did some good.
Update Dec. 15, 2006.
At work today I had one of the occassional visits from my supervisor, Federal Police Officer. While he and I were casually talking, one of the older, male visitors drifted over and started talking to us. The subject of the visitor getting hired into our line of work came up and the FPO mentioned that if the visitor has a police or military background he might be qualified for our jobs. The FPO went on to mention that the training was kinda rugged with the physical part and the firearms training and all. The FPO also mentioned about how not so long ago, at the one of the federal court houses, one of our people was shot just as the intruder stepped off the elevator, so the job can sometimes be dangerous. The visitor half-jokingly said all he would need/want would be the "nightstick" (police baton) as he did not want to carry a gun and thereby encourage someone to shoot him.
I responded by telling him that the violent criminals are going to do whatever they damn well please regardless of what you are wearing/carrying. He responded by saying that if he didn't have a gun, maybe he would not get shot at.
I responded by saying that if he was shot at, and he also had a gun, at least he would be able to fight back. We left it at that, but I am discouraged about how just plain stupid and naive some people are about violence directed them and the stupid idea that maybe if you yourself don't carry a gun, maybe the bad guy won't shoot you.
That way of thinking is a philosopy unfortunely held by many liberals.
Just a slightly different way to view this offered here, TR.
He may in fact be a Liberal or just an individual who cannot bring himself to perform a violent act that may prove lethal, even in self-defense. Some folks are extremely apprehensive about being aggressive. Some folks don't trust themselves in a high stress situation. Some folks are scared that they will hurt or kill an innocent bystander. Not everyone who may be dead set against carrying a firearm on his or her person is necssarily an anti-gunner or Liberal.
Thank you for your response. However, sadly I have observed that way too many of those people who are horrified about themselves carrying a gun are also horrified about me carrying a gun. And that would be ok except too many of such people are in favor of getting laws passed that will not let EITHER of us carry a gun.
In addition, you have got to recognize and have contempt for such naive, wishful and personally dangerous thinking on their part. How stupid is it to think that just because you don't have a gun on you the bad guy is less likely to shoot you? Ask those non-Muslim Darfur Africa victims who were raped, tortured and killed, by armed Muslim "raiders," how well such a policy works in the real world. Ask anyone of those USA unarmed convience store clerks who were robbed by a gun weilding robber then the clerk was shot and killed.
Many years back, I met two people in my life who had been professionally determined (clinically by psychiatrists) to possess a temper that would kill. They're were not criminals and, in fact, had no real history with LEO's.
But they were deemed to be dangerous nonetheless. One had extraordinary hand speed and punching power and earned a reputation for supposedly not hearing his opponent scream "uncle". The other liked to pick up errant objects laying around and use them to settle grievances. He also earned a reputation for being more "thorough" than was necessary.
They no doubt concluded on their own or were formally told that living life without a weapon on their person may actually help them more than it might endanger them. To my knowledge, neither even carried a pocket comb, let alone a knife or gun, and I don't know the outcome for either as it's been over 35 years.
You may think it heresy but I firmly believe that some folks simply are not gun-carrying material, even though they have the right to do so. Two separate issues there. Good judgement, maturity, responsibility, and the reluctance to actually use it unless absolutely necessary are all criteria that gun owners should live by. The same caveats can easily be offered for some who procreate, become priests, drive vehicles, practice law, practice medicine, etc.
Your associate may not see himself as being emotionally "fit" to carry and possibly use a gun.
TR, you and I may be discussing dissimilar points of this event. Here's my take on his adamantly refusing a gun and offering such a lame excuse.
Many years back, I met two people in my life who had been professionally determined (clinically by psychiatrists) to possess a temper that would kill. They're were not criminals and, in fact, had no real history with LEO's.
But they were deemed to be dangerous nonetheless. One had extraordinary hand speed and punching power and earned a reputation for supposedly not hearing his opponent scream "uncle". The other liked to pick up errant objects laying around and use them to settle grievances. He also earned a reputation for being more "thorough" than was necessary.
They no doubt concluded on their own or were formally told that living life without a weapon on their person may actually help them more than it might endanger them. To my knowledge, neither even carried a pocket comb, let alone a knife or gun, and I don't know the outcome for either as it's been over 35 years.
You may think it heresy but I firmly believe that some folks simply are not gun-carrying material, even though they have the right to do so. Two separate issues there. Good judgement, maturity, responsibility, and the reluctance to actually use it unless absolutely necessary are all criteria that gun owners should live by. The same caveats can easily be offered for some who procreate, become priests, drive vehicles, practice law, practice medicine, etc.
Your associate may not see himself as being emotionally "fit" to carry and possibly use a gun.
He is not my associate. He was a one time visitor to the office.
You are correct in red above. Such people exist and I agree with your take on that situation. However, my objection is towards people that have the same attitude as the visitor. It is not that he/they feel dangerous or incompetent possessing a gun. It is instead the naive concept that if they don' carry a gun they are much less likely to get shot by a bad guy carrying his gun. While that concept might work in rare instances, it does not/cannot work often enough to be relied upon. For instance, the example of numerous unarmed convenience store clerks, who have totally cooperated with the robber and still the clerks get shot and killed.
But even at that, the goofey, naive and hopelessy false idea by the anti-gun people, about being less likely to get shot if they don't have a gun, that might be fine for those people to go around with that unworkable idea. It could easily be an example of Darwin's law at work. But instead, many of these goof-balls start to get the idea that their objection to carrying a gun should also work for people like me who WANT to carry a gun. So then of course, the only way for those anti-gun people to bring their concept into reality is to get a law passed that prohobits ALL LAWFUL citizens from carrying guns.
This liberal, anti-gun concept is yet another example how liberals and conservatives can look at the same problem and come away with two totally different and diverse solutions. And usually the liberal's solution will not work very well. An example is that there IS a situation whereas a man carrying a gun is more likely to get shot than the same man not carrying a gun. That man would be an armed, violent criminal and he IS more likely to get shot when THE POLICE try to arrest him and find out he is carrying a gun.
However, the main differences between the liberal carrying a gun and the criminal is that the criminal is usually vicious, violent and unpredictable and is often desperate to eliminate any witnesses to his crime. So he is more likely to shoot ANYBODY (armed or not) that he thinks he needs to shoot.
However, usually the police are more careful, cautious and reluctant to shoot. This is probably where the goofey liberals got the stupid idea that it is better not to carry a gun because without the gun you are less likely to get shot.
If I am a bit sensitive to one thing about TRTKBA it's that I believe despite the Constitutionl right, some law-abiding folks would be better off - as would society - if they consciously chose to NOT carry a weapon. But as I said in my last post, the exact same could said for some folks who drive a car, use power tools, install a wall dimmer switch, hang Christmas lights off the roof, etc.
Whenever I'm in a gun store, I'm always amazed at the mindset of some folks who come in to buy a gun for "protection". I truly do not believe that they are aware of what a gun is and what responsible gun ownership entails. They have a perceived need and the money to satisfy it. As if they are saying "Okay, I myself bought a gun and I loaded it with the stuff the guy in the store sold me. Now, I'm ready to defend myself if I have to".
I agree 100% with you TR in that not carrying a gun is no guarantee or indication whatsoever that a bad guy won't shoot you deader than a fence post. That premise is absurd but it doesn't surprise me. How many times have we read that the victims complied fully and were shot to death anyway?
If I am a bit sensitive to one thing about TRTKBA it's that I believe despite the Constitutionl right, some law-abiding folks would be better off - as would society - if they consciously chose to NOT carry a weapon. But as I said in my last post, the exact same could said for some folks who drive a car, use power tools, install a wall dimmer switch, hang Christmas lights off the roof, etc.
Whenever I'm in a gun store, I'm always amazed at the mindset of some folks who come in to buy a gun for "protection". I truly do not believe that they are aware of what a gun is and what responsible gun ownership entails. They have a perceived need and the money to satisfy it. As if they are saying "Okay, I myself bought a gun and I loaded it with the stuff the guy in the store sold me. Now, I'm ready to defend myself if I have to".
I see your point and have some agreement with it. In fact, at one time I probably had a lot of agreement with it. However, over the years I have observed that if we as a people become "stingy" when giving or approving of other peaceful, lawful citizens and their legal activities, then very likely that "stingy" attitude will be the attitude that soon will (or has) prevail all across our country.
I would rather have to deal with too much freedom for our citizens in our great country than to suffer under too little freedom for me and for other peaceful, lawful citizens. Keep in mind that those citizens who you don't trust to own a gun, in order to legally purchase a gun from an FFL, must meet several strict requirements. You know what those requirements are. My opinion is that if the citizen is good enough to meet the requirments, sell them the gun.
Remember that those same people whom you don't trust must have already lived a lifetime with no serious criminal record. They may have driven to the gun store in a large SUV and apparently did it in a safe enough fashion in that they did not cause any wrecks, hurt anyone ,etc. Those people may very well be one of the ones who prepares your meals at your favorite restuarant or your medications at your local pharmacy and they have not carelessly killed you yet. Those people may store 5 gallons or so of lawnmower/ATV gasoline at their home next door to your and have not accidently burned down both your houses yet. Those people may have and use a chain saw and apparently still have enough hands and fingers to be able to use a gun. And on and on and on.
You and I both are far for perfect. If we want our fellow citizens to approve of us owning guns, then we must put faith in our lawful, peaceful fellow citizens. The anti-gun crowd does not trust ANYBODY except themselves and the government to own guns. We pro-gun people do ourselves harm if we start distrusting each other.
My gun store observations were not intended to make buying and owning a gun difficult for the LAC (law abiding citizen). They were really just a commentary on how some people - clearly a minority - see the acts of buying and owning a gun. Zero interest on either matter beyond possibly having it to use for "protection".
Before I actually bought my first gun at the very end of last year, I rented a bunch of them - revolvers, semi-autos - and shot hundreds of rounds through each of them at the range. It was an eleven week process for me. After all, here's a 50+ year old geezer from NYC experiencing something totally new in his life. During that time I asked tons of questions, practiced handling, loading and unloading the weapon, experienced FTE's, FTF's and jams, tried various types and brands of ammo, improved my techniques and shooting skills, and window-shopped guns, ammo, holsters, cleaning kits, etc. every chance I had. I even took the CCW class and qualified with a rented gun before making the commitment to buy one.
Speaking only for myself, I felt that it was essential for me as a flat out "newbie" to know in my mind and in my heart that I was competent enough to own and - heaven forbid - use a gun if necessary. I thought about all of the scenarios, the need to walk away if possible, the personal and unwaivering affirmation to never fool around, joke or flash it, good solid safety practices, gun maintenance, discreet carry, etc.
If anything, the mindset of today is what I often question. I know that to most people nowadays, I'm simply a relic, a fossil, a throwback to another era altogether. I accept it. He**, I embrace it.[;)]
If anything, the mindset of today is what I often question. I know that to most people nowadays, I'm simply a relic, a fossil, a throwback to another era altogether. I accept it. He**, I embrace it.[;)]
Hi there...new to the forum. It struck me when I read your comment that we could use a lot more "throwbacks"...like people who would be more at home around some late 1870's Virginians
quote:Originally posted by Slow_Hand
If anything, the mindset of today is what I often question. I know that to most people nowadays, I'm simply a relic, a fossil, a throwback to another era altogether. I accept it. He**, I embrace it.[;)]
Hi there...new to the forum. It struck me when I read your comment that we could use a lot more "throwbacks"...like people who would be more at home around some late 1870's Virginians
Welcome to the forum. With your signature line I like you already.
1. Those people are all the more reason why I SHOULD BE CARRYING A GUN.
2. These people are still not nearly as scary as the ones buying a gun from the back of a van in an alley downtown (Okay, maybe not such a comforting thought).
But despite the observation that some folks just ain't quite right in the head, we still must understand that the intention of the 2nd Amendment was not only to enumerate our rights, but to define our OBLIGATION. All members of the Militia (which is basically composed of EVERY citizen) actually have the RESPONSIBILITY to keep and bear arms for the sake of their community and our country.
This intention was wonderfully displayed this past year by proposals in rural towns in Idaho and Pennsylvania to REQUIRE every household in the community to possess a firearm in their home. Of course now days this is done under the guise of crime prevention rather than the constitutional intention of defense from enemies foreign and domestic.
-Wolf