Ron, I hate to break it to you, but much of the western half of the US is like this. I don't know about the South, but maybe someone will chime in there too.

Also, you're right, I didn't type out mile for mile every detail of the experience. They weren't always in rear view mirror, sometimes they were beside me, trying to run me off the road. I'd slam on the breaks putting them in front of me. They'd slow down to a crawl leaving me no choice but to try to pass them. I also could get my truck up to about 100 mph, a pace they couldn't keep, but since I took a chance of hitting a deer, elk or antelope that would disable not only my truck but also possibly me, I'd have to slow back down again and they'd catch up and it would start all over again. I thank God I didn't have to use my gun, but I knew I might and was greatful to have it.

I'm just telling you that my pov comes from real life experience. Did Joe Law-abiding-citizen shoot you? Well, I guess that's not possible. I know, a hunter mistook you for a deer and shot you ala Dick Cheney? No? Theory is great, but in my mind, no substitute for a real life experience. That's my story and I'm sticking to it!

And yes, the sky out here is absolutely increadible just about any time of day. It's a perk of living in the wild, wild west

Ron, it's called self sufficiency and personal responsiblity.

To some extent, this goes towards the argument that you can't rely on the government to do everything for you and that, ultimately, we are all truly responsible for ourselves and our own protection.

Re: More citizens carrying concealed firearms.

[NOTE: I'm pretty certain that both sides of this, er, conversation will find things to agree with in this post, and things with which they disagree. I'm also pretty certain that the '47 Ninjas'and 'Crazed Biker on PCP' crowd will impugn my manhood. Oh well.]


Jim quoted an article that said,
"I weep even more for a land which not only denies the tools required for self-defence, but also denies the very mindset required for self-defence."

The sentiment "I weep for a land that denies the mindset required for self-defence." has several meanings, for me, at least.
This note addresses a meaning that the original author likely did not intend, that of individual mindset and responsibility.

There are serious responsibilities attendant on carrying a concealed weapon;

*understanding the legal conditions for its use
*to train and practice the concepts and skills of self-defense shooting.
*to train and practice (I know I said it twice, it's that important.)
*to understand the psychological consequences of being willing to shoot another human being, or to have shot another human being. (These are tough to explain to people who haven't 'been there', and the '47 Ninjas' crowd deny them utterly. Dave Grossman and Loren Christensen have written quite eloquently on the topic, though.)


A couple of examples for clarification:

While helping a local PD training officer, I donned a redman suit and advanced on trainees. On the first couple of drills I was able to get close enough to tweak their noses before they a)issued a verbal command to stop, b)drew their pepper spray, or c)drew their gun. Instruction, training and practice were required to get a good response reflex.

While training with another group, we would run, box, wrestle, and then on command, break off and draw a weapon. The first few times it was not unusual to see a gun or knife go flying across the room until people learned to 'step down' from an adrenalized state and retain fine motor control.

A training officer faced an armed trainee with only a snowball in his hand. He hit the trainee in face with the snowball, and the trainee dropped his gun. On a more serious note, being shot at (says Capt. Understatement) is a whole other world.

The Sean Bell and Diallo incidents have two attributes of concern; 'contagious shooting' and (ahem) poor marksmanship. In the Bell case, of the 50 rounds fired, only 21 hit the car, and 16 went on to hit people. (Bell the driver, was hit just twice, a passenger in the back seat was hit 11 times.) In the Diallo case, 41 rounds were fired, only 16 of them hit their target.

My personal fear is that the 'average law abiding citizen' carrying will not put in the time, money and attention to acquire the skills needed, will not practice regularly, and will show a complete lack of fire discipline.

Instead of the 'armed hero' scenario envisioned, my 'probable' scenario is:

35 students in a classroom, 5 carrying, and (assuming all 5 successfully draw their weapons when the intruder starts shooting from the doorway) 85 rounds go flying, 30 into the intruder and 55 go somewhere else (other classrooms, out the window, down the hall, and sadly, into other students.)

stay focused here! don't bumper stickers mean something; aren't they "pithy" on purpose?

(and i certainly have seen the "cold dead hands" bumper sticker)

does your bumper sticker say "return to deadwood!"

I am focused Ron. It was a joke. It was not meant too start a debate over how serious one may or may not take a bumper sticker.

sorry, i wasn't trying to be insulting. i was refering to you inquiring about something unrelated to the bumper sticker and me oblivious to the world.

DH, the South is represented.

I guess I'm living in Cloud Cuckoo Land, because I still fail to see how possessing a gun is a necessary component of ensuring one's safety. To me, to feel that ordinary precautions are inadequate and that only a gun can guarantee security presupposes that our society is packed full of criminals who are perpetually on the prowl for the slightest weakness and who do not fear detection and apprehension but only the virtuous gunfire of the armed homeowner. The argument for owning guns for protection also seems predicated on the notion that any confrontation can only go from mildly unpleasant straight to DefCon5 without any opportunities for any other remedy. There also seems to be some notion that the government's ceaseless plotting to strip us of all liberties is only stymied by the fact that Joe Bloggs of 123 Elm Street owns a 9mm handgun. I find the idea that the army and its fleets of tanks, APCs, and self-propelled artillery pieces would be powerless in the face such frightening resistance to be a bit ludicrous.

Have people saved their lives because they had a gun and fought off an assailant? Sure. But plenty of other people have been killed when playing with guns or because they got in a drunken argument and had a gun readily at hand. I don't know if there's an actual net benefit.

Again, I would say that in the U.K., Australia, Canada, and indeed most of Europe there are relatively few guns in private hands, and they haven't turned into military dictatorships lately nor are criminal gangs running completely out of control, breaking into houses at will and terrorizing citizens in the street.

Of course, practically everyone is armed in Somalia. And that's worked out pretty well.

Ron, you just keeping sounding like someone that does not believe that people get broken into, or stalked, or whatever in real life all that often. I was just wondering what kind of commumnity you grew up in or live in. Unfortunately, crimes like these are committed too often. There are psycho exspouses that try to do bad things to the other. We had one exhusband drive his car into his exwifes house to try to kill her. We had one ex boyfriend, shoot and kill his exgirlfriend, her new boyfriend and himself. I'm not saying a gun would have saved the day but maybe, just maybe, if the exgirlfriend or the new boyfriend had a conceal carry permit and had been packing they could have been saved. Then again maybe not. We will never know. I could, unfortunately, give you more examples and not of just crazy exspouses.

you keep sounding like this happens to a large portion of the population all the time! it's anarchy i tells ya!


sounds like you are describing something in a way that people normally don't describe "needs".

I never said it happens all the time. I said it happens too often. You are really good at twisting words.
You have to stop blaming the gun. The person that did the killing is the responsible party.

Ron, I don't understand why it matters if the crime rate is high or low. Either the Constitution allows gun possession or it doesn't. Once again, your fact based rule making is not legal analysis and wholly irrelevant.

wow, counselor. do i need post the text of the 2nd to show you that "allowing gun possession" isn't the entire right given to the people?

I never said anything about needing a gun. I am just about protecting my freedom to own one if I so choose. As I have stated, I'll be happy to have a more strigent background check, a longer waiting period, whatever.

and i'm just trying to tell you that the gun lobby has done a magnificent job of brainwashing the populace. your "freedom to own one" springs from the 2nd amendment. and the second amendment does just say "the right to bear arms". in fact, that is only the part of the 2nd amendment that modifies the real protection which is to provide a militia to fight off foreign intruders.

You understand that when the 2nd Amendment was written, citizens provided their own weapons. That is why the 2nd amendment refers to militias.

Now, either the amendment allows weapons possession or it doesn't. It is irrelevant whether citizens need those weapons to protect themselves, to prevent crime, to hunt.

Those factual reasons for possessing weapons are irrelevant if the Constituition permits or denies this right.

Counselor, please go back to you Con Law texts. You clearly need a refresher course.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...



it does. because a well regulated militia is necessary.

is it?

It is beacuse the Constitution says it is. What power does the Constitution give you or anyone to say that a well regulated militia is no longer necessary.

If it is not, amend it.

Perfectly put. Ron, the Constitution deems it necessary. It is the law of the land that a well-regulated militia is necessary; that's a matter of law, not a question of fact for the court to determine.

I firmly believe in responsible gun ownership. If you don't know how to use it, don't just have it just for show - that will get you shot & probably killed. I don't know the specifics on all concealed carry laws in the other states that have them, but there is typically a profeciency (sp?) exam included as part of the process - you don't pass that, you don't get the permit.

Obviously, most people don't want to have to shoot someone else - but you have to prepare yourself for that possibility if you are going to carry. Otherwise, the bad guy will take your weapon from you and use it on you. Given my choices, I'll choice my life over theirs. Go ahead, call me selfish, I know I am.

Awesome, thanks Becca. I have to tell you, it feels weird typing your name since I'm a "Becca" too

So Ron, how much land mass is represented by rural areas vs. populated areas of Pleasantville with cops & military on every street to protect us?

Sorry, wish I had time to calculate, but I'm out the door and soon to be on a plane. See ya'll next week!

[quote=DarkhorseI have to tell you, it feels weird typing your name since I'm a "Becca" too ;)...Sorry, wish I had time to calculate, but I'm out the door and soon to be on a plane. See ya'll next week! [/quote]

I think that makes at least 4 of us on here! Must be a popluar name for bankers. And I may be assuming a bit too much - but I think we're all pretty much in the same age group, as well. At least I know that MOPNB and I are.

Have fun at the races! My hubby swears he'll never miss another (wihtin driving distance) as soon as we get a camper...

realism does. does the national guard ask its members to provide f-16s and m-16s?