- Joined
- Apr 20, 2021
- Messages
- 590
With that,Sir, I agree 100%×100.My life experience is to stay far away from situations/ venues where a handgun may be needed. The juice is not worth the squeeze.
With that,Sir, I agree 100%×100.My life experience is to stay far away from situations/ venues where a handgun may be needed. The juice is not worth the squeeze.
Never understood this logic. How’s does one predict when and where is a gun is needed? There are shooting in malls, schools and movie theaters. If all one has to do is avoid X location to not need a gun the why even own a gun at all? Also what about home invasion?AWith that,Sir, I agree 100%×100.
I don't think you're catching quite what he means. What I believe he is conveying is that there are certain areas, parts of town, higher risk venues that have significantly greater risk of trouble. Avoiding such places or getting in and out ASAP if they are unavoidable should always be the protocol.Never understood this logic. How’s does one predict when and where is a gun is needed? There are shooting in malls, schools and movie theaters. If all one has to do is avoid X location to not need a gun the why even own a gun at all? Also what about home invasion?
I think you'd find there is a bit of a correlation between people prepared for gun use and their individual risk of needing one. In some areas a home invasion is less likely than a lightning strike... Locally I can only recall one home invasion incident that didn't involve previous criminal connections, and it was that the bad guys went to wrong house, realized their mistake and left.... The only guy I know that gets robbed also associates with those type of people...Never understood this logic. How’s does one predict when and where is a gun is needed? There are shooting in malls, schools and movie theaters. If all one has to do is avoid X location to not need a gun the why even own a gun at all? Also what about home invasion?
I do understand and disagree.I don't think you're catching quite what he means. What I believe he is conveying is that there are certain areas, parts of town, higher risk venues that have significantly greater risk of trouble. Avoiding such places or getting in and out ASAP if they are unavoidable should always be the protocol.
Too many folks fancy themselves as Doc Holliday and create a mindset that essentially looks for trouble, or at very least has no intention of avoiding it when that option is a clear and doable choice.
It's the job of cops to look for trouble. It's the job of civilians to avoid it.
I don’t think the first correlation exists. People in large urban area with the highest crime rates are the most likely to be anti gun demographically. However the second regarding home invasion is a more plausible correlation.I think you'd find there is a bit of a correlation between people prepared for gun use and their individual risk of needing one. In some areas a home invasion is less likely than a lightning strike... Locally I can only recall one home invasion incident that didn't involve previous criminal connections, and it was that the bad guys went to wrong house, realized their mistake and left.... The only guy I know that gets robbed also associates with those type of people...
If you like to get involved in road rage incidents in the rougher parts of town, then maybe a gun starts to become more of an asset, but you are choosing to increase your risk.
What is the risk of being involved in a random mass shooting per year? Then what are the chances that you being armed is going to reduce your risk of death? If you hear shooting at the far end of the mall, are you going to do anything different if you have a gun or not? You should leave as quick as you can just like the un-armed folks.
I'd guess there's far more people winning a million dollars+ in the lottery everyday than non-criminal people using guns in self-defense. But if you are an abused women who is in the middle of getting a divorce, then for sure, get a gun and learn how to use it, as your risk of needing it, is far far higher than the general public.
Well stated, Sir.I think you'd find there is a bit of a correlation between people prepared for gun use and their individual risk of needing one. In some areas a home invasion is less likely than a lightning strike... Locally I can only recall one home invasion incident that didn't involve previous criminal connections, and it was that the bad guys went to wrong house, realized their mistake and left.... The only guy I know that gets robbed also associates with those type of people...
If you like to get involved in road rage incidents in the rougher parts of town, then maybe a gun starts to become more of an asset, but you are choosing to increase your risk.
What is the risk of being involved in a random mass shooting per year? Then what are the chances that you being armed is going to reduce your risk of death? If you hear shooting at the far end of the mall, are you going to do anything different if you have a gun or not? You should leave as quick as you can just like the un-armed folks.
I'd guess there's far more people winning a million dollars+ in the lottery everyday than non-criminal people using guns in self-defense. But if you are an abused women who is in the middle of getting a divorce, then for sure, get a gun and learn how to use it, as your risk of needing it, is far far higher than the general public.
"No one plans to get into a gun fight, they end up in one"I do understand and disagree.
1) Avoiding high crime areas is a given for everyone except those who cannot. It’s implied. It’s like saying I avoid traffic - yeah, we all do that. It’s advice which isn’t really advice. 2) Who are these “I’m your huckleberry” people? Internet trash talking people? Listen, strapping up and heading into a bad part of town looking trouble and internet talk are two completely different things. People who grab a gun and head to high crime areas are three types. Cops, criminals or people caught in the middle. No one plans to get into a gun fight, they end up in one.
Internet talk doesn’t amount to much with people. As a LEO how many people did you actually encounter with more than one gun? If even one gun?"No one plans to get into a gun fight, they end up in one"
Yeah...just no. I've read enough posts in enough forums to know that your statement is categorically incorrect. How do you explain the civilians that have a CCW and carry two guns? Where TF did the acronym BUG come from and why would a civilian ever on God's green earth feel the need to carry more than one firearm as a CCW ...aka a backup gun? I have no clue where the term even came from. Not from cops...that I'm sure of as I was a cop and yes I carried a second gun in an ankle holster but I worked in a major city and learned my oates from serious dudes.
It's a fantasy that many envision. If you don't get that, I've got little more to help you understand.
OKInternet talk doesn’t amount to much with people. As a LEO how many people did you actually encounter with more than one gun? If even one gun?
I train in mixed martial arts and I can tell you what people think and say they can do. And what they are actually capable of doing are not the same.
Every male is born thinking they can shoot, fight and fornicate better than they actually can. I would not take what people say on the matter of themselves at face value.
Very true, but that's life in general.It’s impossible to determine, in advance, “where you need a gun” Just as it’s impossible to know “where you need a seatbelt”. You can judge less, perhaps, more likely situations, but you cannot know, in advance that one is “not needed”. Nothing is ever that absolute.
Risk is inherent to life. We choose which ones we are willing to accept.Very true, but that's life in general.
I am sure you are very confident when you ride on a large passenger plane with a reputable airline that your going to have a soft landing, but wear your seatbelt just in case, even though the odds of a crash on a 4 hr flight are around 1 in 250000, or 1 accident per million flight hours.
I doubt you would ever live in your neighborhood though if you stood the same odds of needing your gun, as having an accident when flying on an airliner though? 1 per million hours. Logging a lifetime by the hour, people live around 750000 hrs, so they would have a 75% chance of needing a gun at some point... I don't think 3/4 of the US population needs a gun in their lifetime, maybe in some neighborhoods, but only a very small percentage of the population would have even that risk. I think for 99% of us in our lifetimes, the dozens or 100's of hours flying on the safest airliners is still a greater overall risk that not having a gun handy the rest of the time.
Well said .Risk is always present. Manage it to minimize it, but there isn’t any certainty one way or another.
Astro is on-target again (no pun intended)It’s impossible to determine, in advance, “where you need a gun” Just as it’s impossible to know “where you need a seatbelt”. You can judge less, perhaps, more likely situations, but you cannot know, in advance that one is “not needed”. Nothing is ever that absolute.