very good post NM
YES
AMEN Brother… !!!
Very well stated Bill.
Snake Pliskin? I heard you wuz dead!
Bill
You certainly have some valid points and beliefs, however, “but I feel it weakens the pro gun point of view to make statements like “I can hit 6” target at 100 yards with a carry gun” is not what I said and I agree with you on that. What I don’t get is the fact that there seems to be a problem with my actual marksmanship claim so I am put on the defensive to “prove” my point. The OP never had questions about concealed carry and the firearms typically used for such.
Whether I was protected or not in the WI/UP incident is not something debatable because it did not directly involve me. I never got shot at or had to shoot back. The only thing certain about a “gunfight” is that it is totally uncertain. When I say that I am protected it only means that I am confident that I am doing my best, not that something unforseen can’t happen. I am not armour plated and bulletproof. I do not regularly carry or possses a firearm while outside enjoying the peace and tranquility of nature nor do I expect to be attacked at any moment.
If the absence of a firearm makes a person feel better then who am I to say differently? This thread has become so long that we seem to forget what each has posted in the past. If you look, you will see that I have posted that a gun doesn’t solve everything. Common sense will take a person much further in daily life than any gun will. Nonetheless, sometimes a firearm can be the best chance of staying alive and protecting your loved ones if it is your choice.
Tom
it’s not about you
It’s about evaluating threat vs. rational responses and expectations (and side effects or consequences of those responses and expectations), and how realistic it is to expect a concealed weapon to save one’s bacon in a panic situation.
Good shot
Bill,
“I will not support the I am a crack shot and can defend myself argument.”
Isn’t practice and correct firearms knowledge step one in gun ownership? Your above statement seems to imply that being a good shot is not needed to defend yourself. GBG and others have posted about how police officers have been in gunfights, emptying their firearms at the perps and never hit them once. Doesn’t that say that if you can’t hit the broad side of a barn you aren’t able to defend anything? You must be either a good shot, or a lucky shot. If you can’t hit your target and they can then you loose, they win.
Tom
seakak1
Actually it is about:
“besides the bears what about protection from looters and crazy people…I was wanting to know what kind of protection other people use and if a firearm what kind and what kind of permit do you need??”
OP didn’t ask for advice on whether or not they were able to successfully engage and win a gunfight.
As I said, this thread has become so long that we are all missing the original topic.
Tom
Got a call in the middle of the night
In my daughters university dorm - 2 older drunken men were banging on their doors repeatedly in the middle of the night and as all the dorm kids have info on their doors and first names - they were even calling out their names. Thankfully none of these girls neglected to lock their doors last night!!! Things could have turned out drastically different. The 2 men (not local) were found later and arrested.
The question is how did they get in? There are security measures in place. We (they) can only do so much for one’s own safety without lethal force and then what? No gun policy in schools - they can only pray that the police are right around the corner…
I know this is off topic but just wanted to share this.
Tom, on the one hand you deserve a
thoughtful response to your comments, on the other hand it almost like a game of got you last. Have we made our points and should now leave it be? Or would you like me to respond? I have read my postings and for the most part I am comfortable with my statements, the exception being my ramblings about my penis. I should have worded my statement in a way that did not make you feel like you had to prove yourself. I have been shooting since I was 6 years old and I love my guns. I am an instinctive shooter and do well in combat courses and duck hunting, but lousy at static shots. Just because I can’t does not mean you can’t. I saw your words " It sure was comforting to know that we were protected" and I ended up getting pulled into this thing and said “you were not protected”. You then said " I can hit a 6" target at 100yds with a handgun. We were protected…"
and well I just could not keep my mouth shut. Have you noticed that I cannot keep my mouth shut right now either. I was trying to end this thing and …
Here’s whats truly amazing
Wow, look at how long this hot topic has been going and hasn’t gotten so out of control as to dissapear. Just shows ya that if we keep the insults, personal attacks, and ego’s out of a thread a decent discussion can take place. We really can agree to disagree peacefully!
Peace, Love, & Happiness
Tom
seakak1,
– Last Updated: Mar-02-09 3:48 PM EST –
To answer your question. It became obvious to me that my discussions both the g2d and gbg weren't going to go anywhere else. Time to put energy elsewhere.
One does come to that conclusion on occasion, don't you think?
When I get a response like this, that's the conclusion I come to: "So no amount of actual experience would convince you that the bush is not the place to guard against crazies? Just how do you learn in life? Television? Of course, there are a lot of sasquatch out there, and you might be the first person to shoot one." And, "I'm saying you totally overestimate the
frequency of "crazies" in the outdoors, you don't know what you mean by "crazies," and you are liable to shoot some poor country person out of ignorance. I'm serious. You need to do some self-examination." I never estimated anything and the rhetoric quickly went beyond reasonable.
That has gone past the point of relevant discussion and, in addition, makes my point for me. So, what's the point of continuing?
Both of these gentlemen made tremendous assumptions as to my background and experience and as well as my personal philosophy on life safety. gbg even went as far as to say that people who might choose to carry a gun have an 'emotional problem'. Now there's a helpful constructive discussion. That's a pretty egocentric blanket statement that disallows individual experience. Not very constuctive to the discussion. Here's the quote: "...by carrying a gun for defense, and therefore I see this as an emotional problem, a skewing of reality on the part of the person who "needs" a gun." Maybe if he wasn't 'single and free as a bird', he'd have something to protect and might have a different perspective on this issue. I have a wife and family and that might provide me, in part, with a different perspective than gbg. But gbg did not allow for another perspective in his discussion as he assumed a great deal about myself, it appeared, and people who chose to carry guns in general. I've had several run-ins in the 'bush' over 30 years+ of being in the 'bush'. When I wasn't married and/or didn't have kids and was usually with several friends, I didn't give as much heed to those situations as I might now. I hope gbg might allow for a different perspective, but the wording of his argument didn't allow for that.
I never said it was 'important' to carry a gun in the woods or that there was a general 'need' to or that I even felt the 'need' to. Where did these terms come from? Not sure that gbg was referring to me specifically, but his reply is to me on this point. And, I never gave any comparison as to how important is was to carry a gun to guard against certains risks vs. other risks, which is a major part of gbg's disucssion. I never made such a comparision, so I really don't know where this apparent angst came from. However, I am the one accused of not being able to read, among other things.
As far as gbg appearing to say that I'm 'deluding' myself based on g2d's discussion--all I said and continue to say is that to say there are not ANY 'crazies' in the 'bush' is, again, sticking your head in the sand. g2d seemed to want to fight that point. How could anybody fight that point? Of course there are 'crazies' in the 'bush'! Thankfully, not very many, but they are there as many in this thread have personally attested to. But I never gave a statistical probability as to running into said crazies. I just said that they do exist and to say they don't exist is 'crazy'. It's not rocket science.
Did you have relevant purpose to raising this question, when not even g2d or gbg did the same?
Bill
Believe it or not I come here to get away from my job of selling guns and talk about my main passion, paddling! No hard feelings here.
A couple more posts and we hit the 200 mark though.
Tom
know a lot of cops
but only a few who were shot—actually only one–a game warden—took six rounds in his torso and survived—but then he was and is one tough SOB
Kudos
one and all. 
agreed focus
than all the other bears combined?!?!
you mean, more than panda bears, gummi bears, and grizzlies? (what other bears are there in NA?)
Panda Bears in North America?
I suppose you meant to type “polar” instead of “panda”.
Are we there yet?
I am sorry, what did you say?