Because I am a gun owner and hunter, I am sometimes asked for advice by someone wanting to purchase a gun, usually for home defense.
Although I do not have a concealed carry permit, occasionally I am asked if I can recommend a handgun that would be good for concealed carry, sometimes for a wife. When the question is from an elderly person or someone who is not familiar with guns, I get concerned. Some of these folks haven’t handled any type of gun in decades, if ever.
Although I usually suggest several reliable handgun models for concealed carry, or perhaps a shotgun for home defense, my advice to most of these folks is that they should not purchase a gun. For the price of some handguns, they can purchase a home security system that would be safer and provide more security than having a gun. If they want to carry protection in their car or on their person, I recommend pepper spray.
My advice also includes a warning that if they have a gun, a bad guy “just might take it away and shoot you with it.” It takes a lot of training and practice to effectively handle a handgun, particularly in a tense situation.
These inquiries make me wonder what folks are reading or listening to that causes them to have so much fear. Why, after decades without owning a gun, do they want to buy a gun, and in some cases want to have a concealed carry permit? Could it be that they have been influenced by the crazy conspiracy theories that they read about or hear from some radio and TV commentators?
Of course, guys like Kurt, and any number of other gun-rights preachers, who spread that fear-mongering far and wide, deny any responsibility for the results.
"My advice also includes a warning that if they have a gun, a bad guy “just might take it away and shoot you with it.”
ReplyDeleteActually, a better way of putting it is that simply showing a gun, without the will to use it will result in it being taken away from you and you being shot with it. You need to make the decision, that you are willing to use deadly force to protect you and yours. If you cant decide that, you shouldn't keep a gun for self defense.
This has become almost a standard comment when people try to talk you into giving up your rights. Whenever someone starts out a sentence with "I'm a gun owner,but" or "I'm a supporter of the Second Amendment, but" someone is going to try to sell you a bill of goods and is really NO different than the NRA that he disapproves of so.
Tell me, do you think that lobbying by the NRA is going to change this man's mind and to vote for someone who doesn't represent his position on the issues? Its like that for pretty much everyone. If this mythical majority of citizens in favor of "common sense" gun legislation truly existed, then no amount of lobbying would save a single politician.
So you do not believe that money has anything to do with a politician winning a race no matter what their politics are?
DeleteThe old cry about the gun issue being black and white. Either you are with us, or you are against us, is that the theory? Such childish thinking. Any derivation from complete acceptance. or questioning even something one believes in is a direct pronouncement of abrogating others rights.
I didn't think you were so naive, but you gave a clue the other day when you said Morgan was much worse than Nugent.
"So you do not believe that money has anything to do with a politician winning a race no matter what their politics are?"
DeleteI've never said than Anon, it's the contention of gun control advocates that the evil gun control lobby with the assistance of the even eviler gun manufacturers lobby politicians to vote against the desires of their constituents while sending out mailings to the voters to cloud their minds and oppose things they actually want.
I personally believe that voters are fairly savvy, and if they've made up their mind up on an issue, it's unlikely that they will change their mind because of a mailing, be it for, or against gun rights.
Of course, those that are undecided are fair game for both sides for advertising. And, that is what the advertising money is rightfully spent for. All of this though tends to disprove the gun control lobby's contention of those supporting "common sense" gun laws being up in the 80 to 90 percent level.
During the recall elections in Colorado, the gun control lobby outspent those who demanded the recalls by somewhere around three or five times. And the Democrats still ended up losing three loyal state congress critters through defeat at the polls or resigning.
In a recent interview, the Vice President suggested that the gun control lobby can outspend the NRA during the campaigns for the midterm elections. It will be interesting to see if they fair as poorly as they did in Colorado.
Then all the polls must be lying when they show those kind of overwhelming majority numbers. We are talking multiple, respectable polling companies who have been is business for decades and whose results have been proven to be consistently correct. I don't swallow that conclusion. It is a fact in over 85% of political races the candidate who raises the most money wins. Since only a tiny minority even give to political races, or can afford to, that is not a reflection of the majorities wishes.
Delete"Then all the polls must be lying when they show those kind of overwhelming majority numbers."
DeleteI know you aren't serious about this comment, and I don't believe they're lying either. All they have that makes them credible, and therefor profitable is their perceived integrity. If they get caught lying even once, all they'll be able to do is get a show on CNN abusing gun rights advocates.
I tend to think they are victims of the limitations of the fixed set of questions they ask. There are many reasons that someone might answer in favor of strict gun laws, yet not vote someone who doesn't support these views out of office. The simplest possibility is that while they may be in favor of it, it might not be as important as other issues that the politician supports.
So they are not a mythical majority, they just don't vote based on gun laws?
DeletePollsters have asked gun questions in many different ways from pro to anti gun and in between for decades (its not a fixed set of questions) and they are all biased for gun control?
I like this guy--a home security system makes far more sense than a gun for home protection. You can get them for about what a gun costs if you don't mind a bit of DIY.
ReplyDeleteHow many people have accidentally killed a family member with a security system? How many security systems end up being stolen and used in crimes?
Guns are not the best choice for personal protection--Get it through your heads.
I was figuring this guy was you since he's spouting the same nonsense. Guns may not be the best choice for you, given your history with accidental discharges and your rage, but how about not working to decide for the rest of us?
DeleteI can't imagine why we are being presented with an either/or choice of gun vs. home security system. An alarm can dramatically increase the chances of having the gun ready when needed. An alarm without a gun, of course, would at least give one some time to make peace with one's impending fate.
ReplyDeleteI do like the idea of my being a "gun rights preacher," Mikeb.
I imagine we can be certain that this asshole wouldn't have gotten far trying to massacre my congregation ;-).
A good example of UNARMED people stopping an armed killer.
DeleteI was still in school in Knoxville when that one happened. One of my professors was a member of that church; really affected her.
DeleteThe folks at that church showed real courage with one gentleman basically sacrificing himself so that others could live, charging headlong at the shooter and taking a shotgun blast. Several others had started charging at the same time and were able to take advantage of that one man's distraction to tackle the shooter and bring an end to his spree.
Made me happy to see that so many people simultaneously had the right idea and took courageous action to bring the shooter down quickly. Heroes all.
Still, it's sad that the response had to be a bum rush in which one of the heroes died. At least none of the others were shot while grappling with the gunman. How much better if they, like the church I attended, had volunteers with carry permits who kept an eye on the door and could respond to such a threat from where they stood rather than having to cover distance and grapple with such a maniac.
And as for the inevitable charge, in line with the comments on this entry, that this is being ruled by fear or some such, no. No, this is not reacting with fear and paranoia. Neither is the reaction of my professor who was supposed to have been an usher that day. Her reaction was to always have her phone on the lectern and always have it turned on in case something happened on campus so that she could make and receive calls.
It's a matter of acknowledging that something horrific can happen, taking a lesson from it, taking a step or steps to be ready to prevent or minimize that horror, and then going about one's life as usual. The professor kept that cellphone on the lectern and once explained the reason to me as we were walking and talking--she was a little talkative that day because the school had just had a student taken into custody after making threats--kinda opened some wounds. Other than that instance, you'd have never known about her thinking on the matter. She'd taken her step and went about her business just as she always did.
It was much the same with those of us at my church who carried, and at my church where I live now. We had an informal plan before that happened, a more formal one after, and that was that. People kept an eye on the door, greeting everyone who came in, welcoming them, giving them a bulletin, etc. Nobody sees the guns some people are carrying, and those people aren't looking around fearfully or being withdrawn--they're ready to act if the need arises, but until and unless that ever happens, they're the greeting squad welcoming anyone who cares to join us.
Kurt, you're more than a preacher. You're the high priest worshiping at the blood-soaked altar of the gun-rights movement.
DeleteI'm sorry to say this guy lives in my homeland.
ReplyDeleteI've helped several friends who wanted advice on buying a gun, and in none of the cases I've dealt with was the person a fearful, paranoid person drawn in by NRA lies etc. as you allege.
ReplyDeleteSome had moved from a low crime area to a higher crime area and were taking a rational precaution. Others lived outside the city, knew they were unlikely to be burgled, but realized that if it happened, the police were 10-30 minutes away and decided to have a last line of defense available--the subsequently realized that a shotgun was also great for eliminating foxes, groundhogs, and other pests. Some had been shooting with me, decided it was fun, and decided to get their own gun.
So many possible reasons, but of course you just zero in on paranoia and generalize that it motivates everything.
Simon, since guns do more harm than good, as I continually show, it is never a rational or a good decision to get a gun. It's a potentially disastrous mistake often motivated by fear.
ReplyDeleteSimon, since guns do more harm than good, as I continually show . . .
DeleteI must have missed where it was you that successfully demonstrated that it is appropriate to blame the gun (as people who claim that "guns do more harm than good" do)--could you point me to that demonstration?
Thanks in advance.
Mikeb regards assertion as proof. He's said that he's right. That's good enough for gun control freaks.
DeleteThe rest of us, of course, require actual evidence.
Mikeb, I've asked you this before, and you've dodged or ignored it. Explain to us why we should trust your promise that you don't want to disarm everyone. After all, you claim that buying a gun is an irrational and bad decision. You deny that gun ownership and carry are rights. You demand one ban or restriction after another. So on what possible grounds should we believe that with all that hatred and snobbery toward guns and gun owners, you don't actually want to take all guns away?
DeleteActually, I overstated my position a tiny bit. I don't think gun ownership ALWAYS a mistake. As I've explained in other discussions, which I guess you're pretending to have forgotten, I would own a gun myself again given the right circumstances. I don't oppose gun ownership, I oppose the lax gun laws that you support which allow too many unfit and dangerous people to obtain guns.
DeleteAnd now, Mikeb, you tack back from admitting your total hatred of guns and gun owners. But no, doing so won't convince me. You suffer from the same lack of credibility that all gun control freaks suffer. You, in fact, don't even try to hide your contempt with a claim that you support the Second Amendment.
DeleteI have never admitted total hatred of guns so there's nothing to "tack back from." except your lies and innuendo.
DeleteWhy do you find it necessary to exaggerate my position in order to argue against it? Isn't what I actually say bad enough for you?
Mikeb, as I said, you repeatedly claim that you don't want to disarm everyone, but you also demand one ban or restriction after another. When your every desire points in one direction, what do you expect me to conclude?
DeleteGC, I'm aware you don't understand the difference because you are so dumb, but restrictions are not the same as disarming everyone. Keep proving to us how stupid you are.
DeleteGreg, what I'd expect you to conclude, if you had a shred of honesty that is, is that I want to disarm half of the present gun owners, just like I always say, and that I want the others to follow the rules, however inconvenient they may consider them to be.
DeleteGreg, what I'd expect you to conclude, if you had a shred of honesty that is, is that I want to disarm half of the present gun owners . . .
DeleteYou say you "want to disarm half of the present gun owners" (including me--"for damned sure," no less--we now see), but you have also expressed the . . . remarkable (I didn't say the remark would be polite) opinion that, " Anyone who owns a gun for any length of time is likely to have had one of [incidents that you say justify disarming a person for life]."
So which is it? Do you want to disarm "only" half the gun owners (including me), or is it nearly all?
Kurt, as impressed as I am with your exhaustive researching of past comments to find any hint of a contradiction in order to play gotcha, it's getting tiresome.
DeleteThe problem with this one is that not all the things I mentioned in that comment would merit "disarming a person for life," which is what you said in your frothing-at-the-mouth excitement at having found something on me.
What I was talking about were the regular offenses, dropped guns, negligent discharges, etc, plus this:
"something as mild as having muzzled someone even for a moment, or fingered the trigger when you shouldn't have or having forgotten you left a round in the chamber for a moment."
The best defense against home invasion is a realistic threat assessment. Now, gunsucks, being paranoid cowardly losers, look around and see bunnies and fleas. This convinces them that they are in imminent danger. \
ReplyDeleteNon-gunsucks are not cowards. We look around and say "no one in your neighborhood has had a home invasion in 30 years. There will be no home invasion. Stop being a cowardly loser gunsuck".
Gunsucks are such losers. Pathetic.
Whether or not to get a gun--for home defense or concealed carry outside the home--is 100% personal decision that is not to be taken lightly.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who is contemplating buying a gun should learn about their rights and responsibilities.
It is imperative that anyone choosing to own a gun have sufficient training and mental preparedness to be able to fire a weapon and take a human life.
If you honestly can not do that, then owning a gun will not help you, so please, do not get a gun until you are truly ready. Those of us who are ready should protect your right NOT to carry as much as we want you to protect our right TO carry.