Quote:

Originally Posted by CTKook 

Are you urban homesteading next a crack house?  If in a residential neighborhood with detached homes you're hearing clear gunshots twice a week, I figure you'd be missing some due to watching tv, running errands, etc., so let's say 4-6 shootings a week, roughly 240-300 shootings a year, within a few blocks of where you live. 

 

 

It isn't exactly "urban" either.  That possum was in my back yard.  Just too many damn guns.  Glad that they rarely hit anything/anyone on my immediate area.  The shots (2) last night were probably almost a half mile away.  Someone gets shot somewhere in town probably once a week, killed maybe once a month.  Even the police chief is vulnerable.  His gun, all his training, and all his back up didn't help him last year, he was just lucky.  He did opt to not return fire thankfully not risking more strays and potential innocent bystanders getting hit.

Note that this was at 2PM, not some late night drunken party incident.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CTKook 

 

 

Just for me, carrying a handgun around would seem particularly prudent in that situation. 

 

I don't mind the idea of me carrying a handgun.  I'd just prefer that NOBODY that isn't a cop did regardless of what piece of plastic they have.  I live in a home with small children.  I'd rather there not be any guns here that could be found, unlocked, and played with by little kids or invincible teens.  More often than not, when a gun kills someone within their own home that gun belonged to one of the occupants and was legal. 

I trust myself with a gun.  I just don't trust you or anybody else with one out in public that doesn't absolutely need one to do their job.

The only time I really believe I would like to have a gun is in case of some major disruption of police function such as what we had in the aftermath of Katrina.  If 911 is working then people shouldn't be carrying guns or need them to protect their property.  If you want to deputize yourself with some piece of plastic and pack heat downtown that is legal, but completely unnecessary in my opinion.  The odds of your gun being used against you or by you on a family member are far greater than the odds of you actually using it to stop some major bad dude and being a hero dude on the TV news. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by crgildart 

I don't mind the idea of me carrying a handgun.  I'd just prefer that NOBODY that isn't a cop did regardless of what piece of plastic they have.  I live in a home with small children.  I'd rather there not be any guns here that could be found, unlocked, and played with by little kids or invincible teens.  More often than not, when a gun kills someone within their own home that gun belonged to one of the occupants and was legal. 

 

I trust myself with a gun.  I just don't trust you or anybody else with one out in public that doesn't absolutely need one to do their job.

 

The only time I really believe I would like to have a gun is in case of some major disruption of police function such as what we had in the aftermath of Katrina.  If 911 is working then people shouldn't be carrying guns or need them to protect their property.  If you want to deputize yourself with some piece of plastic and pack heat downtown that is legal, but completely unnecessary in my opinion.  The odds of your gun being used against you or by you on a family member are far greater than the odds of you actually using it to stop some major bad dude and being a hero dude on the TV news. 

The police are NOT responsible for your personal safety. This is a common misconception. They are more of the "clean up the mess, take pictures and create a report" kinda organization.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rossi Smash 

The police are NOT responsible for your personal safety. This is a common misconception. They are more of the "clean up the mess, take pictures and create a report" kinda organization.....

 

 

Humm, I always thought their motto was "to PROTECT and serve".   I thought they had "Public Safety" stenciled on their vehicles.   I guess that must be some other organization. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by crgildart 

Humm, I always thought their motto was "to PROTECT and serve".   I thought they had "Public Safety" stenciled on their vehicles.   I guess that must be some other organization. 

They can "promote" any slogan they want. It simply is not true.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1976377/posts

Why would wolves that kill four elk . . . and, one assumes, without eating them, which is exactly what is happening in Yellowstone . . . hesitate to kill a human, without needing to eat him? This is obviously just sport for them.  Hell yes, I'd carry a gun.

Quote:

Originally Posted by crgildart 

Isn't encountering a moose actually the most likely dangerous or fatal wildlife encounter most humans have in the back country?

In Colorado, you're far more likely to be killed by a mosquito than a bear, moose, or mountain lion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rossi Smash 

They can "promote" any slogan they want. It simply is not true.

 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1976377/posts

 

 

I think the police generally do a good job at their defined role, but the reality is that they can't be everywhere, anyway.  And, yes, even when they know a violent crime is being committed, a number of departments have shifted to more of a "let it burn" philosophy, similar to fire departments moving to letting your house burn down if it's not threatening the neighborhood.

Fire extinguishers in homes are very good ideas anyway, but again particularly so if the local fire department may or may not decide to help you with, say, your grease fire that gets a bit out of hand.

DNR/DOW/park rangers etc. likewise give lots of info on things ranging from bears on down, including very good advice -- it's amazing what just talking to them can yield -- but they are not there to keep you out of harm's way. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by skibearll 

Why would wolves that kill four elk . . . and, one assumes, without eating them, which is exactly what is happening in Yellowstone . . . hesitate to kill a human, without needing to eat him? This is obviously just sport for them.  Hell yes, I'd carry a gun.

Because wolves ain't stupid.  They're shy around humans.

They may kill and eat your dog -- and coyotes, which aren't wolves, will in particular with frail people kill and eat dogs on the leash right in front of them -- but they know the difference between a dog and a human. 

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/home/news/pdfs/wolfattackfatality.pdf

Killing time on a travel day...I think this is still the only fatal wolf attack in the U.S. in the recent past.  Canada has had a couple I think.  FWIW given the potential for interaction, if they were not in general shy around people, there'd be way more issues.  View them as yet one more version of shark attacks or bear attacks, except even less of a concern. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rossi Smash 

They can "promote" any slogan they want. It simply is not true.

 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1976377/posts

 

 

All that says is that individual citizens are not entitled to 24/7 round the clock personal protection just because they have a restraining order against someone.. as that would endanger everyone else on the beat for a particular cop.  It doesn't in anyway say that police are not obligated to be dispatched to protect citizens that call for help should they actually be under attack from someone.  The slogan is true.  There is just no guarantee that they can do it perfectly 100% of the time for everyone.. and your own personal guns can't protect you 100% of the time from every potential threat without fail either.  There are gaps in every system.

Bottom line is that your gun (or the gun of someone else you know well) is more likely to kill you or your family members than any unknown criminal's gun is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by crgildart 

All that says is that individual citizens are not entitled to 24/7 round the clock personal protection just because they have a restraining order against someone.. as that would endanger everyone else on the beat for a particular cop.  It doesn't in anyway say that police are not obligated to be dispatched to protect citizens that call for help should they actually be under attack from someone.  The slogan is true.  There is just no guarantee that they can do it perfectly 100% of the time for everyone.. and your own personal guns can't protect you 100% of the time from every potential threat without fail either.  There are gaps in every system.

 

Bottom line is that your gun (or the gun of someone else you know well) is more likely to kill you or your family members than any unknown criminal's gun is.

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by crgildart 

 

....

 

Bottom line is that your gun (or the gun of someone else you know well) is more likely to kill you or your family members than any unknown criminal's gun is.

 

This is an old fallacy stemming in large part from a flawed use of statistics.  People predisposed to like gun control still like to throw it around, but it doesn't hold water for all sorts of reasons, not least of which is failing to take account of defensive use of guns (i.e., a gun deters an attack without being fired.)   It's also incredibly irrelevant to a discussion of carrying a gun while skiing. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rossi Smash 

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html

 

 

"Individuals" <> "The Public"

Again this just states that they do not have the resources to provide a personal bodyguard for every citizen.  Police do have the duty to protect the general public.  And, that includes stopping criminals where possible when dispatched.  I live in a fairly high crime city, but casual observation and experience proves to me that the carrying a gun would not do anything to increase my personal safety or that of my family more than carrying a cell phone does.  Maybe I'm stupid, or maybe I'm just not afraid of people that might be armed until some fool's already shooting at some other fool.  You think that pulling a gun out when someone else has a gun pointed at you will make them less likely to shoot you than giving them your wallet?  Guns are worthless unless you are already shooting at someone that isn't already shooting at you.  Here's an idea... give them your wallet, then pull out your gun and shoot them in the back as they are running away

Quote:

Originally Posted by CTKook 

This is an old fallacy stemming in large part from a flawed use of statistics.  People predisposed to like gun control still like to throw it around, but it doesn't hold water for all sorts of reasons, not least of which is failing to take account of defensive use of guns (i.e., a gun deters an attack without being fired.)   It's also incredibly irrelevant to a discussion of carrying a gun while skiing. 

 

Oh, I cannot resist this one, Kook.  I have a LOT of experience with guns used in crimes and have been at the scene of literally hundreds of shootings over the years.

While that's a large number, I'll admit up front my experience is still anecdotal, but in the vast majority of those shootings, the victim and assailant had some sort of prior relationship....it may not  have been a family member necessarily (as seems implied above), but if it wasn't, it was fellow dopeheads known to each other, rival gangsters known to each other, current and ex boy/girl friends, a neighborhood rival, etc.  I never kept stats, but I would say roughly 90% of the time they knew one another somehow.  Maybe other cities are different.....

An innocent, law-abiding citizen not associated with some violent nutcase in their lives is very rarely shot.  Of course it happens, but the relative rarity of it is why it's all over the news when it does happen.  A thug capped by another thug seldom made the news where I lived.....unless it was a crowded public place.  Again, maybe other places are different.....

That said, I'm not taking anyone's side here.  I will say the notion of a responsible and law-abiding armed citizen does not bother me.  The ones that don't fit that description do bother me.

Anyhoo, sorry for the interruption.  I hope you liked my savvy use of italics and please do continue with the endless debate!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skierish 

... I have a LOT of experience with guns used in crimes...anecdotal,... dopeheads known to each other, rival gangsters known to each other,...

 

That said, I'm not taking anyone's side here.  I will say the notion of a responsible and law-abiding armed citizen does not bother me.  The ones that don't fit that description do bother me.

Anyhoo, sorry for the interruption.  I hope you liked my savvy use of italics and please do continue with the endless debate!

 

Well, y'know, you kind of illustrate why defensive use does need to be taken into account.  It's kinda like factoring in the net social benefits of spoons.  Not only do I own and use spoons, but everyone I know does, and I literally don't know anyone well who's ever put a spoon to a socially destructive use.  Can you see where I'm going with this one?  Now, dopeheads may cook with spoons, and gangbangers may shank each other with them. but I still feel totally ok with picking one up at either Bed Bath & Beyond or REI.  Or even Gander Mountain, even if they sell nasty firearms there....

Can you see where I'm going with this one?  If a gangbanger acquires a gun, it goes in the debit column.  But, let's say you're a worker at a bodega in a bad neighborhood in a big city.  The business model is you openly carry to deter armed robbery.  There are TWO people in the bodega at all times openly carrying.  HUGE net social benefit, without a round being fired, hopefully ever.  The workers are kept safe by their rationally chosen equipment, and can go home to their families and make a living.  The community gets a huge social and economic resource, enabled by the defensive value of guns, that it otherwise wouldn't have had.  Let's say you're an ex-girlfirend or wife being stalked, but you live in a gun-friendly jurisdiction and your attorney lets it be known that you're now carrying, so you don't get assaulted or killed.  HUGE net social benefit.  More relevant to the outdoors, let's say you live in an area with coyotes that prey on dogs, and like to jog with your toy poodle.  You use a gun to deter a coyote from snarfing Fifi.  Again, huge economic and emotional benefit. 

When you add that stuff up, and there are people out there who do, guns are a big net social benefit.  Just like gas stoves, cars, insulin, and all sorts of other things with large net benefits that can also be misused.  Simple. 

crgildart - your Brady catchphrases have been beaten to death years ago. You don't like hearing gunfire in your hood? Maybe move somewhere far away from meth labs - only seems logical.  You want to be totally dependant on the police for your and your family's safety and protection? That's cool - just don't expect the rest of us to be so helpless. Only seems logical. Seriously - sounds like you need to use your head for something besides freaking out about everything.Only seems logical.

As far as wild animals go - the dumb ones don't make it very long. The smart ones who survive realise that going after something that has the potential to mess them up is a bad idea. They don't have the option of calling 911 and relying on the police and/or paramedics to kiss their boo-boos. Given the chance pretty much any wild animal will choose to play it safe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jer 

crgildart - your Brady catchphrases have been beaten to death years ago. You don't like hearing gunfire in your hood? Maybe move somewhere far away from meth labs - only seems logical.  You want to be totally dependant on the police for your and your family's safety and protection? That's cool - just don't expect the rest of us to be so helpless. Only seems logical. Seriously - sounds like you need to use your head for something besides freaking out about everything.Only seems logical.

 

No, freaking out would be running around screaming "THE SKY IS FALLING, POLICE SUCK, TOO MANY MANIACS EVERYWHERE SO I NEED MORE GUNS!!!!!!!!"  I'm not the one that feels helpless.  I'm the one living in reality and accepting my fate.  Moving away cuz I'm skerd of dem meth labs?  FWIW, bloods don't typically deal meth.  They deal drive byes.  I'm staying right where I am.  We keep our hood free of gang activity, can't really control what folks are shooting at across town, but I can certainly hear it from time to time.

Better check your survivalist list.  Surely there is something else you need for your bomb shelter.  Get more bullets before Obama takes them all away  Good thing you're not freaking out LOL!

I'm laughing so hard right now.. Wanna know what's so funny?  I own several firearms.  I just don't sleep with them  I store them elsewhere cause I don't live in fear.  However, should there be some catastrophic event that renders local law enforcement more useless that normal I can become quickly and heavily armed.  I just don't see the need while society is functioning and those that chose to carry everyday send the message that they have given up on society themselves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by crgildart 

  Moving away cuz I'm skerd of dem meth labs? 

No - I'm suggesting maybe you start thinking about your family's safety and move them out of your high-crime neighborhood. Only seems logical if you value your family's safety. At least it's far more proactive then going on a ski message board and spewing a bunch of Brady bullshit.

I've currently got 20 30 round East German AK mags I'm storing for the election this fall. If Obama wins I plan on selling them for at least twice what I paid. Last time he was elected prices on stuff like that went through the roof. Might as well make some money.

As for the rest of your post, I have no idea who you're raving to. I don't sleep with any kind of weapon (most of them are in the safe) and I don't carry every day.In fact I hardly ever strap. But unlike you, I don't live in constant fear of those who do, nor do I think carrying should be outlawed. Maybe you should quote the guy you're raving to so you don't look like you're just projecting some boogieman.

The "I own several firearms" thing is as tired as your Brady talking points. That's like the obvious bigot excusing his racism by stating "I know a few black people".

Seriously crgildart - pack up and move your family to a smallish town in Illinois. You won't have to worry about law-abiding citizens walking around with handguns under their coats and if you're far enough away from Chicago you won't have to worry about the Bloods either. I think it would do you a world of good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jer 

 

Seriously crgildart - pack up and move your family to a smallish town in Illinois. You won't have to worry about law-abiding citizens walking around with handguns under their coats and if you're far enough away from Chicago you won't have to worry about the Bloods either. I think it would do you a world of good.

The whole point is that I'm not worried in the least. Nobody's shooting at me.  I'm not the one getting "beat down by cokeheads".  I wish they'd stop shooting at each other, but me or anyone else but cops packing downtown only makes that problem worse.  When others stop worrying then gun ownership will drop and eventually with no guns to steal eventually the illegal gun prevalence will also drop. 

Smart move capitalizing on the the Obama-noia. 

Why would anyone WANT to live in Illinois outside of having to inorder to keep a great job?  I'm less than 3 hours from 5K (great skiing) and top 10 beaches on the planet (with free parking).  Yet, the cost of living is among the lowest along with a low unemployment rate and high level of white collar job opportunities.  Hearing a few pops here and there is a small price to pay and keeps it real understanding that others aren't as fortunate as I am.

Quote:

Originally Posted by crgildart 

The whole point is that I'm not worried in the least. Nobody's shooting at me.  I wish they'd stop shooting at each other, but me or anyone else but cops packing downtown only makes that problem worse.  When others stop worrying then gun ownership will drop and eventually with no guns to steal eventually the illegal gun prevalence will also drop. 

 

So you're saying that there's a high incidence of law-abiding civilians legally carrying getting involved in cop/gang crossfire (making the problem worse)? As for the last sentance - that's a nice little fantasy you've concocted. Is that before or after the rivers run with chocolate?

If you're shitting your pants every time you hear some crackhead bust off a few rounds from the hood, don't ever come up to northern Wisconsin in late November. If you think a gangsta with a Glock is scarey you should try a fat dumbass dressed in orange with a 30-06.

I don't know why anybody would want to live in Illinois either...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jer 

 

If you're shitting your pants every time you hear some crackhead bust off a few rounds from the hood, don't ever come up to northern Wisconsin in late November. If you think a gangsta with a Glock is scarey you should try a fat dumbass dressed in orange with a 30-06.

Naw, I lived in Minnesota growing up.

Here's what NC has to offer there.

He should have gone skiing instead

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jer 

So you're saying that there's a high incidence of law-abiding civilians legally carrying getting involved in cop/gang crossfire (making the problem worse)?

The Police Chief incident was ruled road rage instead of gang activity.  IIRC one of the shooters had a CCW (the dead guy).  There are quite a few instances of road rage involving CCW folks. 

Please elaborate on "quite a few". There's the one guy by you and...????

There are hundreds of thousands of citizens legally carrying nationwide. What percentage of them end up hurting/killing innocent people with their weapons? .001%? Maybe? With the hysterical way the mass-mindrape media portrays anything related to firearms, if there actually was even a very small problem with CCW and innocent victims we would be hearing/seeing/reading about it 24/7. There's not. Except in your head.

Yes - I know the classic anti-gun arguement:" if we can save just one life it's worth it!".  What else is "worth it" if we can save just one life? Outlawing back country skiing? Requireing helmets at all resorts? Outlawing any kind of private motor transportation? Outlawing alcohol? Outlawing food with a high sodium content? I'll take freedom over security any day.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CTKook 

Well, y'know, you kind of illustrate why defensive use does need to be taken into account.  It's kinda like factoring in the net social benefits of spoons.  Not only do I own and use spoons, but everyone I know does, and I literally don't know anyone well who's ever put a spoon to a socially destructive use.  Can you see where I'm going with this one?  Now, dopeheads may cook with spoons, and gangbangers may shank each other with them. but I still feel totally ok with picking one up at either Bed Bath & Beyond or REI.  Or even Gander Mountain, even if they sell nasty firearms there....

 

Can you see where I'm going with this one?  If a gangbanger acquires a gun, it goes in the debit column.  But, let's say you're a worker at a bodega in a bad neighborhood in a big city.  The business model is you openly carry to deter armed robbery.  There are TWO people in the bodega at all times openly carrying.  HUGE net social benefit, without a round being fired, hopefully ever.  The workers are kept safe by their rationally chosen equipment, and can go home to their families and make a living.  The community gets a huge social and economic resource, enabled by the defensive value of guns, that it otherwise wouldn't have had.  Let's say you're an ex-girlfirend or wife being stalked, but you live in a gun-friendly jurisdiction and your attorney lets it be known that you're now carrying, so you don't get assaulted or killed.  HUGE net social benefit.  More relevant to the outdoors, let's say you live in an area with coyotes that prey on dogs, and like to jog with your toy poodle.  You use a gun to deter a coyote from snarfing Fifi.  Again, huge economic and emotional benefit. 

 

When you add that stuff up, and there are people out there who do, guns are a big net social benefit.  Just like gas stoves, cars, insulin, and all sorts of other things with large net benefits that can also be misused.  Simple. 

 

Hey, I wasn't arguing their deterrent value, necessity, or usefulness!

It was said earlier essentially that a person is more likely to be shot by a family member or the person him/herself than a perfect stranger, and you replied that claim was a fallacy.  I was simply stating that in my personal experience, that claim is not a fallacy.  Keep in mind that the person themselves in that claim includes suicides, which are quite common.

I wasn't taking the Poster's side in the debate, but I've personally found that one particular claim to be more than correct.

I don't know why that would surprise anyone, tho; to use your kitchen utensil analogy, you're more likely to be stabbed with a fork or struck over the head with a frying pan by a family member than a perfect stranger also......not in your family, I'm sure, but in society at large. :)

As I said earlier, as long as you're a stable, responsible, and law-abiding "Joe Schmo," I don't care if you're legally packing heat in the line next to me.....I'm cool with that.  I won't be doing so myself 99%...O-K, maybe 97%....of the time, tho.  I found carrying even in the city to be an unnecessary nuisance most of the time.  I guess I could've been robbed.....or I could've been struck by lightning.....or run over by a bus....or...............

Of course, now that I'm in the wilds of North Idaho, I never carry at all.

i still try to understand if the discussion is linked with biathlon  which is my passion.. but guys the rest of the world is driven crazy by the love of gins in US...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jer 

Please elaborate on "quite a few". There's the one guy by you and...????

 

Gun lobby loves to use these as rationale why having a gun is good.. so you can protect yourself from other crackpots raging because of traffic incidents..

Here's a thought, instead of escalating road rage over a mistake made by another driver, spot in line, or parking place why not just let it go and drive away instead of pushing the issue and drawing your gun?  Don't take it upon yourself and your gun to police the assholes of the world.  Let the other assholes or police take care of that problem.  I can understand being backed in to a corner with no escape in a robbery after already giving up your money.. But, escalating something merely out of ego to the point of gunplay without necessity just because someone's being an asshat seems silly to me.

Now, having a gun when the jackhat traverses diagonally and poaches the line of all the folks hiking across the ridge for fresh?  Maybe that is grounds for escalation...  Just don't shoot it near the avy prone area.  Get him at the base.

OK - so now you have five examples. So that's .00000000013 % of people with a CCW license (that's assuming the subjects of your cut & pastes had a CCW license - only the first anti-gun blog article you posted even mentioned CCW permits). wow. You've convincd me.

Also - the comment on avalanche terrain proves you know as little about avalanche science as you do about guns. Again - hysteria. People who watch Shoot Em Up to get all their knowledge about firearms have about the same room temperature IQ as people who get all their avalanche wisdom from Bugg Bunny cartoons.

Keep digging CR - pretty soon you're bound to come up in China.

Sotiris - I totally agree that the US has a big problem with booze, although I'd have to say it's stuff like beer, vodka and whiskey than gin. In fact I haven't checked all the looney anti-gun blogs, but I'd venture to guess alcohol is responsible for far far far more carnage, death and human suffering than CCW permit holders. I don't drink myself, but I'm not going on a ski message board to scream about how we MUST OUTLAW THE DEMON GIN NOW!!!.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jer 

OK - so now you have five examples. So that's .00000000013 % of people with a CCW license (that's assuming the subjects of your cut & pastes had a CCW license - only the first anti-gun blog article you posted even mentioned CCW permits). wow. You've convincd me.

 

Also - the comment on avalanche terrain proves you know as little about avalanche science as you do about guns. Again - hysteria. People who watch Shoot Em Up to get all their knowledge about firearms have about the same room temperature IQ as people who get all their avalanche wisdom from Bugg Bunny cartoons.

 

Keep digging CR - pretty soon your bound to come up in China.

I've disclosed why I don't think people really need to carry guns.  Why don't you give some reasons why you believe guns are necessary (armed civilians in public places).  Bob Peter's wolves are a decent one.  How about other areas where and why having a gun is needed

And, I'm not talking about the sound, you don't believe a well placed (or very poorly placed)  bullet could trigger an avalanche?