Guys what you think of girls that carry weapons on a date?

[salparadise]

I think there's this phenomenon, where people either assume that someone else already probably called the cops, or that it'd be awkward if it was just a normal dispute, etc.

 

Yes, it's called The Bystander Effect. Strange phenomenon.

[salparadise]

My issue with this sort of thing is that most people would not have the presence of mind nor the skill to use their weapon effectively.

 

This, and the fact that firearms are tactically poor defensive weapons for personal protection. You'll never have the gun in your hand prior to becoming aware of a threat (the element of surprise is always against you), and threats are not often recognized at an appropriate distance to draw and fire the weapon... even with some degree of skill and presence of mind.

 

There is a time/space paradox that leaves an extremely narrow window where a firearm can be used effectively. At too great a distance you could be charged with murder due to the threat not being deemed immanent. And at a short distance an assailant can cover the ground faster than you can draw the weapon and fire. Law enforcement uses the Tueller Drill to train officers to deal with advancing threats. An average assailant can cover 21 feet in 1.5 seconds. An average officer requires that same 1.5 seconds to draw his weapon from a holster and fire two shots if he's already on alert.

 

So for an aggressive threat advancing on a civilian from less than 21 feet, that 2 1/2 lbs. of steel is probably going to be more effective as extra weight inside a swinging handbag than as a firearm. That's not to say a handgun will never be the right defensive weapon, just that it's a lot more likely to provide an untrained person with a false sense of security, thereby reducing more effective defensive behaviors such as avoidance of questionable situations.

[tman666]

This, and the fact that firearms are tactically poor defensive weapons for personal protection. You'll never have the gun in your hand prior to becoming aware of a threat (the element of surprise is always against you), and threats are not often recognized at an appropriate distance to draw and fire the weapon... even with some degree of skill and presence of mind.

 

There is a time/space paradox that leaves an extremely narrow window where a firearm can be used effectively. At too great a distance you could be charged with murder due to the threat not being deemed immanent. And at a short distance an assailant can cover the ground faster than you can draw the weapon and fire. Law enforcement uses the Tueller Drill to train officers to deal with advancing threats. An average assailant can cover 21 feet in 1.5 seconds. An average officer requires that same 1.5 seconds to draw his weapon from a holster and fire two shots if he's already on alert.

 

So for an aggressive threat advancing on a civilian from less than 21 feet, that 2 1/2 lbs. of steel is probably going to be more effective as extra weight inside a swinging handbag than as a firearm. That's not to say a handgun will never be the right defensive weapon, just that it's a lot more likely to provide an untrained person with a false sense of security, thereby reducing more effective defensive behaviors such as avoidance of questionable situations.

 

These are all excellent points, in my opinion. There is definitely a fairly narrow range where the use of a handgun would be viable, both tactically and legally. I have done the Tueller drill, and it is a major wake up call to the realities of how effectively (or more likely, ineffectively) one would be able to use their pistol against a highly motivated aggressor. Going to the gun range and practicing marksmanship isn't going to cut it. Buying a gun and keeping it in your dresser is DEFINITELY not going to cut it.

 

Again, this is why I think there should be more (mandatory) training for those who seek to carry.

 

Regarding the bolded:

 

Obviously, the best self defense is avoiding dangerous situations altogether. The second best form of self-defense is leaving a dangerous situation, if possible.

 

I think that when a person looks at the total spectrum of self defense, carrying a handgun is only a small, and arguably optional, piece of it. As you said, there are situations where a handgun is the right tool. Of course, it is probably best left in the holster for most situations.

[salparadise]

These are all excellent points, in my opinion. There is definitely a fairly narrow range where the use of a handgun would be viable, both tactically and legally. I have done the Tueller drill, and it is a major wake up call to the realities of how effectively (or more likely, ineffectively) one would be able to use their pistol against a highly motivated aggressor. Going to the gun range and practicing marksmanship isn't going to cut it. Buying a gun and keeping it in your dresser is DEFINITELY not going to cut it.

 

Again, this is why I think there should be more (mandatory) training for those who seek to carry.

 

Regarding the bolded:

 

Obviously, the best self defense is avoiding dangerous situations altogether. The second best form of self-defense is leaving a dangerous situation, if possible.

 

I think that when a person looks at the total spectrum of self defense, carrying a handgun is only a small, and arguably optional, piece of it. As you said, there are situations where a handgun is the right tool. Of course, it is probably best left in the holster for most situations.

 

I agree with the need for more stringent training requirements for concealed carry permits. In my state you can take the course and get the certification online or at a gun show in a very short time, and without even firing a weapon. They automatically approve carry permits for anyone unless there is an obvious reason not to (felon, involuntary psych detention, etc). Issues are way up recently.

 

The home invasion situation is a bit different than using a handgun for defense on the street. Someone breaking into the house is likely to make noise before gaining entrance. They won't know where you are, but you know where they are. If it's dark, so much the better- they'll be using a light and you'll know the layout. So if you're not in bed asleep, the gun is loaded and within reach, it could be that the situational advantage is slightly in favor of the defender.

 

Of course the hard part here is that it may not be clear whether a burglar intends to do harm (other than steal property), and whether or not he's armed. Even if you're within your right to do so, who would want to kill a teenage kid trying to rip off a stereo? So the handgun owner will still be left wondering if it's appropriate to use lethal force until he sees a weapon or is being assaulted.

[tman666]

I agree with the need for more stringent training requirements for concealed carry permits. In my state you can take the course and get the certification online or at a gun show in a very short time, and without even firing a weapon. They automatically approve carry permits for anyone unless there is an obvious reason not to (felon, involuntary psych detention, etc). Issues are way up recently.

 

The home invasion situation is a bit different than using a handgun for defense on the street. Someone breaking into the house is likely to make noise before gaining entrance. They won't know where you are, but you know where they are. If it's dark, so much the better- they'll be using a light and you'll know the layout. So if you're not in bed asleep, the gun is loaded and within reach, it could be that the situational advantage is slightly in favor of the defender.

 

Of course the hard part here is that it may not be clear whether a burglar intends to do harm (other than steal property), and whether or not he's armed. Even if you're within your right to do so, who would want to kill a teenage kid trying to rip off a stereo? So the handgun owner will still be left wondering if it's appropriate to use lethal force until he sees a weapon or is being assaulted.

 

Yeah, this is one of those horrible situations where the milliseconds spent second guessing could end up getting the defender killed. On the other hand, would I kill someone because they wanted to steal my wallet, car, or a TV? In and of itself, of course not. Possessions can be replaced.

 

Unfortunately, how is one supposed to tell what is going on inside the head of a burglar? They took the time to break into my house, the place where my loved ones and I lay our heads, right? I think there's a huge difference in the mentality of someone who would do this versus, let's say, stealing a parked car, robbing a storage unit, etc.

 

What I'm saying is that I personally wouldn't hesitate to shoot and kill someone who broke into my home, especially at night. There's just too much at stake, in my opinion, to question such a thing in the moment. While it would most certainly be a horrible experience, and probably take its toll in terms of psychological trauma, I would rather deal with that than be helpless to the potential alternatives.

 

By chance, are you a gun owner as well, salparadise?

[justwhoiam]

a lot of people seem to have this picture in their heads that someone who owns and carries a firearm has more potential for violence or being paranoid of the world around them than their unarmed brethren. While there are certainly examples of this being true (OP, for example)

It is so. A gun has the potential to kill. And a high potential to harm, even accidentally. If the victim of an assault is physically weaker than the offender, there's a high chance the gun ends up in the wrong hands and can be used against the victim. Hence the gun goes from self-defence tool to self-harming weapon.

 

Also, engaging in a fight with the offender or challenging him can make things worse for oneself and other innocent people around you. You can easily get killed by playing the hero. That is statistically true.

 

In other countries, we think prevention works better than packing with weapons, especially at home. The average house in the US is all windows and a crappy door. Install some bullet proof glass for heaven's sake, and armored rolling shutters and door.

 

I always carry both pepper spray and my own gun on a first date (have two riffles at home too), when meeting a complete stranger.

1) You have a pattern of dating complete strangers. How come?

2) Do you carry the gun on you or in your purse? If it's on you, where exactly?

 

Anyway, it looks like you're still dating... So maybe you don't have any kids yet? Because mommy going around with guns is not very practical when you're holding children or they're all around you and on you. Children are not cautious nor delicate with their mom.

 

You said you have your gun with you only on your first date. That can't make you feel safe, because:

1) Serial offenders might study you a bit before taking action, or trying to gain your trust

2) If the weapon is in your purse, they would know it and neutralize it before you even know it

3) Offenders can be real psychos and wait until you're inoffensive or fully naked before trying to harm you

 

Guys, what would you think if either the girl brought this up in a conversation or you found out about it by accident?

I'm not a man, but I would think she's some psycho and a dangerous control freak. And what happens if she flips out for whatever reason? What should a guy do to defend himself from such a girl? Almost anything would be against him, so it's just wise for him to run away fast. Maybe you should date a marine or something like that. Someone who can keep up with your views and actually support them. Maybe he can give you a new gun for Valentine etc. That'd be your match.

 

I have to admit one guy actually freaked out when I brought this conversation and quickly got out of the table and left. Never heard from him again. Too much of a reaction IMO.

I think you were lucky you were not thrown out of wherever you were (café, restaurant, etc.) and no one called the police for that. That would have taught you a good lesson. Edited June 11, 2013 by justwhoiam

[tman666]

I think you were lucky you were not thrown out of wherever you were (café, restaurant, etc.) and no one called the police for that. That would have taught you a good lesson.

 

Just wanted to say that you mis-quoted me with someone else.

 

I did not say or post the following: "I have to admit one guy actually freaked out when I brought this conversation and quickly got out of the table and left. Never heard from him again. Too much of a reaction IMO."

[dave33]

I always carry both pepper spray and my own gun on a first date (have two riffles at home too), when meeting a complete stranger. At the same time I do know some self-defense moves but there might be times where that alone won't stop someone that's too large.

 

Guys, what would you think if either the girl brought this up in a conversation or you found out about it by accident?

 

Fortunately, I've never met a violent man and none have even gotten in my face. But you never know. If someone tried to (even if it was a bf) then I would either maze him immediately or shoot him if I have to (if neither my moves nor mazing worked out).

 

Though, I have to admit one guy actually freaked out when I brought this conversation and quickly got out of the table and left. Never heard from him again. Too much of a reaction IMO. I'm just trying to look after myself. Afterall, with some guys not even a kick in the balls nor a good hit in the jaw would make him stop from attacking and it would do nothing but pissed him off more than I'm toasted (I'm only 5'3).

 

If you're properly trained and it's concealed. More power to ya. This coming from a cops point of view.

 

Now telling him you have one? That defeats the purpose. When I'm off duty no one but me knows I'm carrying.

[salparadise]

What I'm saying is that I personally wouldn't hesitate to shoot and kill someone who broke into my home, especially at night. There's just too much at stake, in my opinion, to question such a thing in the moment. While it would most certainly be a horrible experience, and probably take its toll in terms of psychological trauma, I would rather deal with that than be helpless to the potential alternatives.

 

By chance, are you a gun owner as well, salparadise?

 

Yes, I am. I don't carry though, and I don't usually keep it loaded inside the house... for the above mentioned reasons, plus the fact that I just don't feel threatened. I may be be hesitant in the critical moment and that would put me at even greater risk than not having a loaded weapon in hand.

 

If I hear of a known threat such as a dangerous convict, or a rash of armed break-ins, I will load it. Otherwise, I feel safer having it locked away. Interestingly, I live less than a mile from where the Va Tech shootings occurred in 2007, saw some of the activity as it was happening, and know a family who lost their father that day.

 

Bottom line... I just don't see a handgun as enough of a defensive advantage to outweigh the extra risk, and I feel that the potential for an accident or having it used against me may be greater than the likelihood of it saving my life or someone else's. I don't have the training to make that split-second decision and I doubt my willingness to take a life except under extremely precise and unlikely circumstances. I realize the implications. Being able to shoot the eyes out of a target is just not relevant to being prepared to take a life.

[Emilia]

Bottom line... I just don't see a handgun as enough of a defensive advantage to outweigh the extra risk, and I feel that the potential for an accident or having it used against me may be greater than the likelihood of it saving my life or someone else's. I don't have the training to make that split-second decision and I doubt my willingness to take a life except under extremely precise and unlikely circumstances. I realize the implications. Being able to shoot the eyes out of a target is just not relevant to being prepared to take a life.

I think this is a very wise view

[therhythm]

I would not be legally or morally justified in harming someone just because I "felt threatened". There are very specific instances where use of lethal force is justified by the law, and "feeling threatened" is not among them. If I kill or injure someone, even out of legally justifiable self defense or legally justifiable defense of another, it will be looked at very closely by a jury. Prosecution lawyers will do their best to paint a grim picture of me. My entire life, actions and psyche would be dissected and re-dissected publicly. I have no incentive, legally or morally, to act like a tough guy, or Clint Eastwood, or any other billy-badass. If I do kill someone, it will be because it was a situation where it was either him or me (or a loved one) in that immediate situation (not after the fact or preemptively), not because I simply got my hackles up.

 

People who carry a weapon with them are dangerous people and people who think they have control over their actions while carrying a weapon are even more dangerous. At the moment you decide to carry a weapon you have decided that you are capable to use it against other person, you say you would only use a weapon in cases where either it was the other person or you or a loved one... but how do you measure the real risk of your life... even when someone would be pointing you with a weapon... how do you know he is going to shoot? I have had weapons pointed on me and I am still alive... If I have had a weapon at that moment on time I would probably have used it against a man who didn't have real intentions to kill me at that time...

 

 

I agree. I'm not sure where you get the idea that carrying a weapon is indicative that one is more or less "scared" than anyone else. There's a difference between paranoia (unhealthy) and situational awareness/common sense (healthy, "fear" based decision making).

 

Do you live in Somalia? or in a War zone? Because if you don't live in a war zone there is no place where carrying a weapon is justified as "situational awareness" it is pure paranoia!

 

 

I'm sorry that you've had to deal with persecution for whatever the reason was. And you're right: I don't know you. My earlier comment about "unicorns and rainbows" was unwarranted, and I apologize.

 

Don't worry... I will survive

 

Here's my question to you though: you're saying that you were in serious enough danger where you had to flee your country for a year, yet you never carried a weapon of any sort (knife, gun, baton, mace, etc.). I'm not overly familiar with the types of rights citizens in your area of the world have or don't have, but if you had the ability and right to purchase a firearm, and you were in legitimate danger for your life, you seriously wouldn't even consider carrying a gun?

 

As I said before if I would have had carried a weapon I would have probably killed someone or make someone kill me in the past as I have had people pointing me with a fire arm (who obviously didn't kill me). The end result would have been anyway me dead because if the guy who was pointing me with the weapon didn't kill me one of his friends would have done it... Killing a bad guy in a given moment will probably only help you till the next one comes for revenge...

 

 

It seems that a lot of people seem to have this picture in their heads that someone who owns and carries a firearm has more potential for violence or being paranoid of the world around them than their unarmed brethren.

 

There is no reason to carry a weapon if you are not capable to use it... if you are capable to use a fire arm then you are capable of extreme violence.... do you see where I am going?

 

 

While there are certainly examples of this being true (OP, for example), in my experience, CCW holders/hunters/competition shooter types tend to be the MOST leveled headed and gun safety minded, and the LEAST likely to commit crimes. This is statistically supported.

 

Who paid for that statistics? I remember to read statistics where cigarettes did not create cancer... guess who paid for those ones

 

The most dangerous people with guns are the people who have 1) obtained them illegally (not the case with CCW holders) 2) have not taken any interest or time to learn gun safety, obtain training, or understand the laws as they pertain to them (again, not the case with most CCW holders, though as I mentioned before, I think that training requirements should be more stringent). 3) mentally deficient/violent individuals (this is where we need some sort of legislative reform, along with more public awareness of this issue).

 

Do you realize in other western countries where weapons are not allowed criminality and killings is much lower than in the US?

 

Life is indeed a precious and fragile thing. I think it's important that people who own firearms understand the destructive power of guns and understand the potential finality of the consequences of using them. Having respect for life and respect for the weapon is essential in owning it and carrying it responsibly, in my opinion.

 

What about not allowing weapons? there is no need to create awareness, understanding of the potential finality of the consequences of using them... much easier and much less dangerous

[MissBee]

The issue isn't that your scenario is impossible. The issue is that you think it's likely enough to prepare for it, plan for it and consider it, carrying guns on dates and planning out what areas of your boyfriend's body you plan to shoot.

 

If you can't understand this then I think it's a lost cause.

 

I agree.

 

In reality, all of us can be assaulted when we go out about our daily lives. It doesn't happen a lot, but it's of course a possibility. However, I'm not sure I'd go on a date with a man if I felt even vaguely like I'd need to bring a firearm . That is extremely weird. Pepper spray, fine. But I think guns on dates "just in case" is a bit much...a lot much. I think there are other protective measures you can take beforehand and to be honest, it may simply come off as though you are a bit crazy walking around with a gun on a date, and perhaps it will scare people into thinking you're an unstable person who can't wait to use it.

 

If you're scared to meet someone, don't. If you have relatively little red flags to think you'll need to shoot (and possibly kill your date), then I'd leave the gun and just bring pepper spray. Let friends and family know where you're going and let this individual know that your friend/mom/sisters/dad/brother whomever know you're out with them. Don't let them pick you up. Meet up at a public place. Feel them out for a while before you go anywhere secluded or back to their house. Don't drink too much on the first date, so you're always aware of your surroundings and self. I think those things are reasonable, smart and safe. Carrying a gun is just bizarre and extremely fearful and paranoid. I'm not saying things don't happen...but since you've yet to use your gun I imagine, I think you may be overreacting. We live in a crazy world, I agree, but I refuse to make it the norm to carry lethal weapons to grab coffee with a man I'm interested in. Sorry.

[salparadise]

However, I'm not sure I'd go on a date with a man if I felt even vaguely like I'd need to bring a firearm . That is extremely weird. Pepper spray, fine. But I think guns on dates "just in case" is a bit much...a lot much.

 

Yes, of course it is. I think the OP needs to be evaluated. Not only did she bring the gun, she brought it into the restaurant and brandished it to the guy, as if to threaten him to be on good behavior. That tells me she's got some wires crossed in that pea little brain. It's people like this, who perceive threats hiding behind every tree, who should not be carrying weapons. She is just a momentary lapse in reality away from shooting an innocent person... patting herself on the back for saving the world from evil.

[salparadise]

What I'm saying is that I personally wouldn't hesitate to shoot and kill someone who broke into my home, especially at night. There's just too much at stake, in my opinion, to question such a thing in the moment.

 

Shooting someone because they are in the act of burglarizing your house would not be considered justifiable unless you are in immediate fear for your life or serious bodily harm. I guess it would be up to a jury to decide. Personally, I'd rather let them leave with my stuff than kill a person, or have to face that jury.

 

The problem with this whole thing is that having/carrying a gun seems to make a person more predisposed to confrontation, or maybe it's those who have such predispositions who seek to carry - to a hammer every problem looks like a nail.

 

What is the subtle difference in the mentality of someone who feels they need to carry vs. someone to whom that need never even occurs?

 

Do some people walk around perceiving threats, and does being armed fix this or make them feel invincible? Is it just a survivalist mentality where they become obsessed with being prepared for every potentiality, and do they also check the batteries in their flashlight every day? I really don't get it.

 

I'm setting in a coffee shop a quarter of a mile from where 32 people were killed by a mad gunman a few years ago, and yet I don't perceive any threat, have any feeling of being ill prepared, or otherwise feel like I'd be more anything if I were carrying.

[IT Geek]

Shooting someone because they are in the act of burglarizing your house would not be considered justifiable unless you are in immediate fear for your life or serious bodily harm. I guess it would be up to a jury to decide. Personally, I'd rather let them leave with my stuff than kill a person, or have to face that jury.

 

It depends on the local laws. In Georgia, if someone is attempting a forcible entry into your domicile (car, house, boat, RV, etc) and a person can reasonably assume that it is with the intention of committing a felony, you can use deadly force.

 

If you have determined you need to use lethal force you do not have to try to retreat before using that force. If your defense is valid, you are immune from criminal prosecution (unless it is illegal to carry that weapon where you used it) and civil liability actions.

 

----------------------------------------------------

 

Defense of habitation; (here habitation means dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business) A person is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if any one of the following is met:

 

1. A person is breaking\has broken into your home in a violent and tumultuous manner, and you think that the intruder is going to assault you or someone else living there.
   
2. A person who is not a member of the family or household and who unlawfully and forcibly enters the residence and you know it is an unlawful entry.
   
3. The person using such force reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony.
   

 

OCGA 16-3-23

[tman666]

Shooting someone because they are in the act of burglarizing your house would not be considered justifiable unless you are in immediate fear for your life or serious bodily harm. I guess it would be up to a jury to decide. Personally, I'd rather let them leave with my stuff than kill a person, or have to face that jury.

 

It depends on the laws in your state, but yes, this is generally true. In the state of Texas, for example, a person is legally justified to use deadly force in defense of property. However, in many (most) other states in the nation, one needs to be very judicious about whether taking the shot is legal. Case in point: Will YOU Get Arrested During a Home Burglary? - USA Carry

 

I'll refrain from posting the Colorado statutes - I posted an excerpt earlier- but the message here is that it is the responsibility of the citizen (especially if they're a gun owner) to know the laws regarding use of lethal force in their state.

 

To clarify-when I say that I wouldn't hesitate to shoot someone in my house at night-I don't mean to say that I wouldn't give them every opportunity to leave, with my property or not. This is why having "safe rooms" and making use of concealment/cover is important.

 

The primary goal is to protect the lives of your family and yourself, right? Any sort of confrontation puts those lives at risk. If I can hunker down, call the cops, yet be ready to use lethal force in a purely defensive manner if necessary, I'm not going to be opening up on anyone unless there is a clear and imminent danger for my life or the lives of my loved ones.

 

The bottom line is that making the decision on whether or not to take a shot is a very complicated one, and not one to be taken lightly. It is in the gun owner's best interests to know the law, know their own capabilities and limitations, and learn to control any reactionary or impulsive tendencies.

 

The problem with this whole thing is that having/carrying a gun seems to make a person more predisposed to confrontation, or maybe it's those who have such predispositions who seek to carry - to a hammer every problem looks like a nail.

 

This is possible, though I also don't think that this is universally true. Just like the rest of society, the demographic of gun owners seems to run the spectrum of personality types.

 

Personally speaking, when I'm carrying, I actually tend to be calmer (I'm a pretty calm/non-confrontational person anyways).

 

It's an interesting question: "do guns make people more violent, or do violent people seek to become armed?". I'll have to chew on that a bit.

 

What is the subtle difference in the mentality of someone who feels they need to carry vs. someone to whom that need never even occurs?

 

There is definitely a difference in the psychology of these two groups. Sometimes, I think the difference isn't even all that subtle. While there are some on this thread stating that it's all tied back to fear and paranoia (which could be true for some people), I don't think this is necessarily the case with everyone who seeks to arm themselves.

 

Sometimes, I think a lot of this mentality stems from the "Don't Tread On Me" viewpoint that is historically rooted in American culture. It's a concept that many people, especially non-Americans, do not understand. Personally speaking, I was brought up to believe in the value and preciousness of life, and a "live and let live" attitude. The thing is, I expect the same from those around me, my government, our leaders, and my community. Perhaps this is an unrealistic viewpoint, but it's how I feel.

 

Do some people walk around perceiving threats, and does being armed fix this or make them feel invincible? Is it just a survivalist mentality where they become obsessed with being prepared for every potentiality, and do they also check the batteries in their flashlight every day? I really don't get it.

 

Again, gun owners, just like the rest of the population, run the gamut of personality types. On one end, you have the nimrod that actually does feel invincible after buying a gun, and on the other, you have the "preppers" who literally spend their entire lives and financial means obsessively making preparations and contingency plans for the apocalypse. Neither extreme is healthy, smart, logical, or safe.

 

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with situational awareness. Armed or not, situational awareness is the primary mechanism in avoiding danger. I feel that the "correct" mentality lies in the middle somewhere, and is situation-dependent.

[firemanq]

The decision to carry or not is not to be taken lightly. When we got our permits, the instructor told us that we needed to give a great deal of thought as to if we could actually shoot another person. My girlfriend and I did give the matter a great deal of thought. Because of our former work backgrounds, we have seen people who have been shot. I was an EMT, she was a Registered Nurse. We each made up our minds, and both of us decided to carry. Because of my present job, I often work at night, by myself, in bad areas. In recnt purchase of a Ruger LCR was driven by 2 drug related murders in one week, while I was working in that town. Our daughter also has made the decision to carry. She is single, has children at home and made the decision to carry. Her carry gun was a Christmas present from a client. We do not show our weapons, or brag about being armed. I hope I never have to defend myself, or my family. Until you are in a situation, you do not know what you will do.

 

Too many times, gun ownership and use becomes an emotional topic. Guns have been demonized by the press and by those opposing the use of guns. Guns do not choose to be used, either for good or for evil. How the gun is used, which depends upon the individual. Obviously, some people should not have guns, ever. Criminals are among those who should not be allowed to have access to guns. People with mental and emotional issues should not have access to guns.

 

We taught our kids to shoot, they enjoyed shooting. They have shot the air rifle, .22s, .308s, shotguns, and the pistols. The first thing they were taught was safety. Only 1 bullet was allowed in the gun until they had some experience. Then they were allowed a full clip. Only one person shot at a time. When the gun was presumed to be empty, it was given to an adult, who cleared the gun. then the child was allowed to retrieve the target. What did the kids like the best, the air rifle. The target was an empty pop can, tied to a string and allowed to swing in the breeze. When the can was hit, it jumped! When we were done shooting, the guns were cleaned. Then the guns were put away. The best students were the girls. And my girlfriend is a better shot than I am. She has taken more deer than I have. Children were not allowed to access the guns w/o and adult present.

 

In Oregon, to carry concealed, you have to attend a class, be finger printed, and the County Sheriff has to sign the CCW permit. The permit cost is $50.00. I do not know the rules for other states.

 

I hope to never be in a situation where I need to decide to use a gun to protect myself. But I also hope my weapon is close by.

[Jedi]

I wouldn't be able to relax knowing my date is carrying a gun.

I'd be seriously uncomfortable. If I'm being honest, I'd say you're a little too paranoid.