I see a lot of arguments saying that conceal and carry laws are the best way to prevent violent crime, but this method seems backwards. Conceal and carry laws prevent crime by promising a threat of even more violence, not working to eliminate violence as a whole. It's akin to Twain's quote, 'An armed society is a polite society.' People should be polite because it is the right thing to do, not because they fear death. In that case, the politeness is ingenuous and is void of meaning. It is the same with violent crime. If people are only refraining from violent crime because they might get shot, they have not truly learned anything, but are only being held in check by a different culture of violence. We need solutions that do not rely on the threat of violence to prevent violence, but instead promote society to develop into a more just, peaceful and compassionate place.
I see a lot of arguments saying that conceal and carry laws are the best way to prevent violent crime, but this method seems backwards. Conceal and carry laws prevent crime by promising a threat of even more violence, not working to eliminate violence as a whole. It's akin to Twain's quote, 'An armed society is a polite society.' People should be polite because it is the right thing to do, not because they fear death. In that case, the politeness is ingenuous and is void of meaning. It is the same with violent crime. If people are only refraining from violent crime because they might get shot, they have not truly learned anything, but are only being held in check by a different culture of violence. We need solutions that do not rely on the threat of violence to prevent violence, but instead promote society to develop into a more just, peaceful and compassionate place.
Thoughts?
You propose somehow making 300 million people be non-violent and polite?
Like it or not no matter what we accomplish as a society there will always be people who wish to do harm to other people or cheat their way into a better living. Not all people will identify with treating others as you want to be treated or playing fair. Some will identify more with "this is better for me so I will do it".
If there are no negative consequences for someone's actions then there is no reason for them to not do it. Some people will identify harming strangers as being a negative consequence, because of this even if a complete stranger dropped a thousand dollars on the ground and there was no way of them being caught taking the money for themselves, they would run up to the real owner and give it back. Other people only see themselves when making that kind of decision. They would kill people for the tiniest self benefit if they had enough reason to believe they would not be caught.
The 'An armed society is a polite society.' saying is a load of crap. It implies a widespread acceptance of murdering people simply because you disagree with what they said. It goes against the fundamentals of a free society.
I'm not really concerned with why people aren't trying to hurt, rape, or kill me - whether it's because they're a just and compassionate person or because they're scared that I'll kill them if they do - either way, if I'm not getting hurt, raped, or killed then I'm pretty happy with the results.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Of course you should fight fire with fire. You should fight everything with fire."
—Jaya Ballard, task mage
redthirst is redthirst, fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse. He was the leader of the Fires of Salvation, the only clan I'm aware of to get modded off the forums so hard they made their own forums.
Degenerate? Sure. Loudmouth? You bet. Law abiding? No ****ing way.
The 'An armed society is a polite society.' saying is a load of crap. It implies a widespread acceptance of murdering people simply because you disagree with what they said. It goes against the fundamentals of a free society.
Wait, what?
The whole point of the 2nd Amendment is to protect citizens from their own government. If you disarm citizens, you give the state a monopoly on violence. At that point, you do not have a free society.
I see a lot of arguments saying that conceal and carry laws are the best way to prevent violent crime, but this method seems backwards. Conceal and carry laws prevent crime by promising a threat of even more violence, not working to eliminate violence as a whole. It's akin to Twain's quote, 'An armed society is a polite society.' People should be polite because it is the right thing to do, not because they fear death. In that case, the politeness is ingenuous and is void of meaning. It is the same with violent crime. If people are only refraining from violent crime because they might get shot, they have not truly learned anything, but are only being held in check by a different culture of violence. We need solutions that do not rely on the threat of violence to prevent violence, but instead promote society to develop into a more just, peaceful and compassionate place.
Thoughts?
Seems like your real problem isnt with conceal and carry, but rather the idea that you can defend yourself with lethal force. We would all love it if we didnt have to protect ourselves from harm, but the reality is that we do. Why attack a defense when the real problem is the crimminal? Why strip rights away from victims?
I'm not really concerned with why people aren't trying to hurt, rape, or kill me - whether it's because they're a just and compassionate person or because they're scared that I'll kill them if they do - either way, if I'm not getting hurt, raped, or killed then I'm pretty happy with the results.
Except that a society taught that conditioning behavior via threat of violence or death has its own consequences. Namely that violence and death become accepted means to reach ends.
I understand your point of view, but I think instilling the connection between threatening violence and death and achieving results is ultimately dangerous because violent crime is rooted in a very similar mindset for the most part.
Except that a society taught that conditioning behavior via threat of violence or death has its own consequences. Namely that violence and death become accepted means to reach ends.
I understand your point of view, but I think instilling the connection between threatening violence and death and achieving results is ultimately dangerous because violent crime is rooted in a very similar mindset for the most part.
I tihnk the real underlying point in my mind is "why do people think these two are mutually exclusive?"
Why can we not instill politeness and "goodness" in society for their own sake and not at the same time recognize that there are bad people and we want to be able protect ourselves from them?
I always thought that saying, and the arguments that are similar to that, is like the principle behind MAD- If everyone is armed with something that can ruin your day, then everyone will be nice because no one wants their day to be ruined.
But MAD relies on the assumption that every state is rational. It is rather certain that individual people are not rational. They can never be rational by the definition of the term (yes, most people use the word wrong- most frequently they mean reasonable, not rational, and the two are different things).
I find the 2nd amendment outdated, simply because the original reason for it is hard to actually hold. You cannot reasonably defend yourself against tanks and aircraft with the type of weaponry we're legally allowed to own. People raise the argument of guerrilla warfare, but virtually all such examples have the people supported by a powerful foreign country. Without such support, guerrilla warfare typically do not succeed.
And I don't think the framers of the U.S. Constitution ever anticipated the situation arising today, and the arguments made for and against gun control. Very few people actually killed their neighbors with guns back in the 18th century- they were too unwieldy and unpractical for the purpose of individual self-defense. Their aim sucked, and it took an experienced individual roughly 20 seconds to load a musket. I don't think the concept of self protection with musket even crossed people's mind. Most people kept it for their yearly militia training and for hunting.
I'm perfectly fine with people keeping guns for hunting. They tend to be the most responsible people with guns, because they use them frequently and know very well just how dangerous they can be. But people who just buy them randomly for self-defense without properly understanding them bothers me.
My argument is more about Conceal and Carry being touted as a way to prevent violence when it itself IS violence. It's like saying end world hunger by starving everyone so there is no one to feed.
Acts of violence are not terminal, they create ripples of after effects that often create more violence. Even if a 'good person' shoots the 'bad person', the trauma and shock experienced by witnesses can create long lasting psychological problems that spill over into family and school, etc.. A 'good' shooter doesn't make the violence any better.
I tihnk the real underlying point in my mind is "why do people think these two are mutually exclusive?"
Which two things? The threat of death and violence and a 'polite' society? I don't know if they're mutually exclusive, I wasn't commenting towards that. They may not be mutually exclusive per se, but it does seems to be self-defeating in ways to hold both as goals.
"We should strive to be good to one another and trust that we all want what's best for each other. But when that inevitably fails, aim for the chest, it's the biggest target."
Why can we not instill politeness and "goodness" in society for their own sake and not at the same time recognize that there are bad people and we want to be able protect ourselves from them?
If I had to wager a guess? Because arming up to protect yourselves from hypothetical bad guys isn't a sign of trusting politeness and goodness. I'm not sure there's a sustainable balance between the two.
Of course, I'm not sold on either as viable options since I think both paths to potential peace are flawed.
I understand you're not sold, so what are your ideas? I am very interested in solutions in addition to banter about personal position. If people are not working hard to create a better world, then why don't we all just blow the crap out of each other now and get it over with? It seems nihilistic to just be like, "There will always be violent people, if you can't beat em', join em,!" It is an apathetic position as well.
If people are not working hard to create a better world, then why don't we all just blow the crap out of each other now and get it over with? It seems nihilistic to just be like, "There will always be violent people, if you can't beat em', join em,!" It is an apathetic position as well.
What?
How is "there are always violent people so I need to protect myself against them" not a valid option? If there was a non-violent way to protect myself from being mugged and raped in downtown Detroit maybe I would use that... however that is currently not true.
Fluffy, answering violence with violence is just lowering yourself to someone's primitive level and behaving as bad as them. Do you stop a flood by adding water? No, you cut the water off at the source.
The whole point of the 2nd Amendment is to protect citizens from their own government. If you disarm citizens, you give the state a monopoly on violence. At that point, you do not have a free society.
I find what you just said impolite. Would you still say such an impolite thing to me if I was armed and standing right in front of me?
If your answer is "yes" than obviously an armed society does not result in a polite society. If you said "no" then I just managed to use the threat of violence to take away your free speech rights.
My argument is more about Conceal and Carry being touted as a way to prevent violence when it itself IS violence.
Concealed Carry isn't violence, just the threat of violence. It's not "You kill me and I'll kill you and everyone will be dead." it's "You don't try and kill me and I won't try and kill you and we'll all be okay." - which only works against someone who would otherwise try to hurt you if they think you have the means to carry out that threat.
Acts of violence are not terminal, they create ripples of after effects that often create more violence. Even if a 'good person' shoots the 'bad person', the trauma and shock experienced by witnesses can create long lasting psychological problems that spill over into family and school, etc.. A 'good' shooter doesn't make the violence any better.
I absolutely disagree.
Are you saying that a "Bad Guy" killing someone you care about for their wallet is no worse than a "Good Guy" seeing the attack and killing the "Bad Guy" to protect the person you care about?
One of those is much worse than the other to me.
I'd also argue that the trama a witness would experience from seeing a "Good Guy" kill a "Bad Guy" who attacked someone would be significantly less than if the "Good Guy" did nothing and the witness instead saw the "Bad Guy" kill that person. Especially if, like in the first example, the bad guy's victim was someone the witness cared about.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Of course you should fight fire with fire. You should fight everything with fire."
—Jaya Ballard, task mage
redthirst is redthirst, fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse. He was the leader of the Fires of Salvation, the only clan I'm aware of to get modded off the forums so hard they made their own forums.
Degenerate? Sure. Loudmouth? You bet. Law abiding? No ****ing way.
Fluffy, answering violence with violence is just lowering yourself to someone's primitive level and behaving as bad as them. Do you stop a flood by adding water? No, you cut the water off at the source.
Cool a taser will be soooo helpful when the guy has a gun and is out of range of my taser.... or if a miss my first shot...
Funny you mention that because in a wildfire you actually do fight fire with fire in some situations. You burn an area to hopefully get the wildfire to stop there and not continue. If someone is going a murderous rampage killing him could stop him from killing 10 more people.
My right for survival is more important than some self-righteous ideal that it is better to never harm anyone.
Fluffy, answering violence with violence is just lowering yourself to someone's primitive level and behaving as bad as them. Do you stop a flood by adding water? No, you cut the water off at the source.
Tazers work fine as long as there's not more than one attacker and they're in range. They are violent, though.
Also, I'll take lowering myself to their primitive level and living over being enlightened and dead, thanks.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Of course you should fight fire with fire. You should fight everything with fire."
—Jaya Ballard, task mage
redthirst is redthirst, fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse. He was the leader of the Fires of Salvation, the only clan I'm aware of to get modded off the forums so hard they made their own forums.
Degenerate? Sure. Loudmouth? You bet. Law abiding? No ****ing way.
The 'An armed society is a polite society.' saying is a load of crap. It implies a widespread acceptance of murdering people simply because you disagree with what they said. It goes against the fundamentals of a free society.
Nah, it implies murdering people who violated the fundamentals of a functioning society.
I am not trying to be self-righteous, but am interested in ways to end violence and I do not think Conceal and Carry is an answer that is a good fit for our society. Though, when I read the debates, the only options have to do with guns, either restricting them for protection or making them more prominent for protection. Aren't there solutions that don't revolve around weapons? It's why I didn't put this in debate. I wanted discussion about possible alternatives to conceal and carry that we're not founded on violence and result in people choosing not to be violent rather than being forced not to be. Forcing someone to refrain from doing what they want creates resentment towards a system that making the choice yourself does not.
I am not trying to be self-righteous, but am interested in ways to end violence and I do not think Conceal and Carry is an answer that is a good fit for our society. Though, when I read the debates, the only options have to do with guns, either restricting them for protection or making them more prominent for protection. Aren't there solutions that don't revolve around weapons? It's why I didn't put this in debate. I wanted discussion about possible alternatives to conceal and carry that we're not founded on violence and result in people choosing not to be violent rather than being forced not to be. Forcing someone to refrain from doing what they want creates resentment towards a system that making the choice yourself does not.
I dont think anyone has ever suggested that the only way to lessen violence is more or less guns....
That is why you are getting responses that you did not want. You framed the question in such away that makes it appear as though you think conceal and carry in general should be replaced. Conceal and Carry has uses outside of trying to make society as a whole less violent.
Now I will give you the obvious answer... education will lessen violence. Education about violence will help and education that betters an individual's standing in society will help. It is not a coincidence that poor people are more likely to commit crime. If people were better able to provide for themselves they would have less need to turn to violence for survival.
But again. No matter what society does there will always be members of society that will desire violence. Even if everyone was living like Bill Gates there would be people who would be violent towards each other.... that is why Conceal and Carry will always be relevant.
As a pro-gun guy, I would love (seriously) to make our society more compassionate, peaceful, etc. And, I do think there are potentially ways we can improve our society, that don't revolve around the proliferation or restriction of guns.
But:
1) Any such social initiatives would take a long, long time to sink into our cultural consciousness, and
2) There have always been, and always will be, violent people from whom I want to protect myself and my family. I find nothing apathetic about that statement. I think it is an accurate assessment of human nature and society, and a tragic truth. There was a point in human history, where the Europeans felt their society had ascended beyond war. Then, World War I broke out...:(
I'm not a violent person. The only fight I've ever been in was in middle school, eighteen years ago. But, while I would take no pleasure in it, I would use violence to protect those I love. I find nothing at all apathetic about that view; quite the opposite, in fact. That you don't come to the same conclusion doesn't make mine an apathetic one .
Study the history of humans. We have always been a violent warring animal. Its ingrained in our DNA. There is really no way to ensure people will be polite and less violent. I say this as a whole, not on the singular level. A single person can be polite, so polite it could be a fault. But for every person that is polite, there is a violent person ready to take everything from that polite person.
If that polite person has taken a conceal carry class and knows how to defend themselves, they will not lose everything. Crime and violence is much lower in states with conceal carry laws. Simply because criminals have to be wary of anyone they confront.
Evil is inherent in the presence of good. As long as good people exist there will be bad people who want to do bad things, this would hold true even if guns did not exist (at which point I am certain we would all simply carry daggers or short swords).
Myself being a carrier of a concealed weapon, I do not invite violence of any kind as I do not brandish my weapon as I walk around town with it acting tough (its illegal to brandish in Texas anyway). In truth, I respect my weapon to the point that I hope I never have to draw it because I know what it is for and I respect life too much to want to take someones. I will however, defend my wife and children with my life and I will use any equalizer/force multiplier I can to survive should the situation ever arise.
A gun owned by a well trained, honest, respectable and good person is no more of a threat to anyone than a house fly.
I have carried mine through WAL-MARTS, TARGETS, Malls, out to dinners and a movies with my wife and even my LGS owner knows I carry in store. I have caused no violence by carrying my weapon, but GOD help the man who tries to hurt my family or friends while I am present.
“The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.”
-Jeff Cooper
“If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.”
- Dalai Lama XIV
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently Playing Modern :symu::0mana:Sundering-Architect:0mana::symu: EDH :symr::symg::symw:Uril the Miststalker:symw::symg::symr:/:symb::symg::symw:Karador, Ghost Chieftain:symw::symg::symb: Legacy :symr:Burn:symr:
Thoughts?
[Clan Flamingo]
You propose somehow making 300 million people be non-violent and polite?
Like it or not no matter what we accomplish as a society there will always be people who wish to do harm to other people or cheat their way into a better living. Not all people will identify with treating others as you want to be treated or playing fair. Some will identify more with "this is better for me so I will do it".
If there are no negative consequences for someone's actions then there is no reason for them to not do it. Some people will identify harming strangers as being a negative consequence, because of this even if a complete stranger dropped a thousand dollars on the ground and there was no way of them being caught taking the money for themselves, they would run up to the real owner and give it back. Other people only see themselves when making that kind of decision. They would kill people for the tiniest self benefit if they had enough reason to believe they would not be caught.
It is part of being human.
—Jaya Ballard, task mage
Wait, what?
The whole point of the 2nd Amendment is to protect citizens from their own government. If you disarm citizens, you give the state a monopoly on violence. At that point, you do not have a free society.
Seems like your real problem isnt with conceal and carry, but rather the idea that you can defend yourself with lethal force. We would all love it if we didnt have to protect ourselves from harm, but the reality is that we do. Why attack a defense when the real problem is the crimminal? Why strip rights away from victims?
Except that a society taught that conditioning behavior via threat of violence or death has its own consequences. Namely that violence and death become accepted means to reach ends.
I understand your point of view, but I think instilling the connection between threatening violence and death and achieving results is ultimately dangerous because violent crime is rooted in a very similar mindset for the most part.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
I tihnk the real underlying point in my mind is "why do people think these two are mutually exclusive?"
Why can we not instill politeness and "goodness" in society for their own sake and not at the same time recognize that there are bad people and we want to be able protect ourselves from them?
I always thought that saying, and the arguments that are similar to that, is like the principle behind MAD- If everyone is armed with something that can ruin your day, then everyone will be nice because no one wants their day to be ruined.
But MAD relies on the assumption that every state is rational. It is rather certain that individual people are not rational. They can never be rational by the definition of the term (yes, most people use the word wrong- most frequently they mean reasonable, not rational, and the two are different things).
I find the 2nd amendment outdated, simply because the original reason for it is hard to actually hold. You cannot reasonably defend yourself against tanks and aircraft with the type of weaponry we're legally allowed to own. People raise the argument of guerrilla warfare, but virtually all such examples have the people supported by a powerful foreign country. Without such support, guerrilla warfare typically do not succeed.
And I don't think the framers of the U.S. Constitution ever anticipated the situation arising today, and the arguments made for and against gun control. Very few people actually killed their neighbors with guns back in the 18th century- they were too unwieldy and unpractical for the purpose of individual self-defense. Their aim sucked, and it took an experienced individual roughly 20 seconds to load a musket. I don't think the concept of self protection with musket even crossed people's mind. Most people kept it for their yearly militia training and for hunting.
I'm perfectly fine with people keeping guns for hunting. They tend to be the most responsible people with guns, because they use them frequently and know very well just how dangerous they can be. But people who just buy them randomly for self-defense without properly understanding them bothers me.
Acts of violence are not terminal, they create ripples of after effects that often create more violence. Even if a 'good person' shoots the 'bad person', the trauma and shock experienced by witnesses can create long lasting psychological problems that spill over into family and school, etc.. A 'good' shooter doesn't make the violence any better.
[Clan Flamingo]
Which two things? The threat of death and violence and a 'polite' society? I don't know if they're mutually exclusive, I wasn't commenting towards that. They may not be mutually exclusive per se, but it does seems to be self-defeating in ways to hold both as goals.
"We should strive to be good to one another and trust that we all want what's best for each other. But when that inevitably fails, aim for the chest, it's the biggest target."
If I had to wager a guess? Because arming up to protect yourselves from hypothetical bad guys isn't a sign of trusting politeness and goodness. I'm not sure there's a sustainable balance between the two.
Of course, I'm not sold on either as viable options since I think both paths to potential peace are flawed.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
[Clan Flamingo]
What?
How is "there are always violent people so I need to protect myself against them" not a valid option? If there was a non-violent way to protect myself from being mugged and raped in downtown Detroit maybe I would use that... however that is currently not true.
Fluffy, answering violence with violence is just lowering yourself to someone's primitive level and behaving as bad as them. Do you stop a flood by adding water? No, you cut the water off at the source.
[Clan Flamingo]
I find what you just said impolite. Would you still say such an impolite thing to me if I was armed and standing right in front of me?
If your answer is "yes" than obviously an armed society does not result in a polite society. If you said "no" then I just managed to use the threat of violence to take away your free speech rights.
Concealed Carry isn't violence, just the threat of violence. It's not "You kill me and I'll kill you and everyone will be dead." it's "You don't try and kill me and I won't try and kill you and we'll all be okay." - which only works against someone who would otherwise try to hurt you if they think you have the means to carry out that threat.
I absolutely disagree.
Are you saying that a "Bad Guy" killing someone you care about for their wallet is no worse than a "Good Guy" seeing the attack and killing the "Bad Guy" to protect the person you care about?
One of those is much worse than the other to me.
I'd also argue that the trama a witness would experience from seeing a "Good Guy" kill a "Bad Guy" who attacked someone would be significantly less than if the "Good Guy" did nothing and the witness instead saw the "Bad Guy" kill that person. Especially if, like in the first example, the bad guy's victim was someone the witness cared about.
—Jaya Ballard, task mage
Cool a taser will be soooo helpful when the guy has a gun and is out of range of my taser.... or if a miss my first shot...
Funny you mention that because in a wildfire you actually do fight fire with fire in some situations. You burn an area to hopefully get the wildfire to stop there and not continue. If someone is going a murderous rampage killing him could stop him from killing 10 more people.
My right for survival is more important than some self-righteous ideal that it is better to never harm anyone.
Tazers work fine as long as there's not more than one attacker and they're in range. They are violent, though.
Also, I'll take lowering myself to their primitive level and living over being enlightened and dead, thanks.
—Jaya Ballard, task mage
Nah, it implies murdering people who violated the fundamentals of a functioning society.
I am not trying to be self-righteous, but am interested in ways to end violence and I do not think Conceal and Carry is an answer that is a good fit for our society. Though, when I read the debates, the only options have to do with guns, either restricting them for protection or making them more prominent for protection. Aren't there solutions that don't revolve around weapons? It's why I didn't put this in debate. I wanted discussion about possible alternatives to conceal and carry that we're not founded on violence and result in people choosing not to be violent rather than being forced not to be. Forcing someone to refrain from doing what they want creates resentment towards a system that making the choice yourself does not.
[Clan Flamingo]
I dont think anyone has ever suggested that the only way to lessen violence is more or less guns....
That is why you are getting responses that you did not want. You framed the question in such away that makes it appear as though you think conceal and carry in general should be replaced. Conceal and Carry has uses outside of trying to make society as a whole less violent.
Now I will give you the obvious answer... education will lessen violence. Education about violence will help and education that betters an individual's standing in society will help. It is not a coincidence that poor people are more likely to commit crime. If people were better able to provide for themselves they would have less need to turn to violence for survival.
But again. No matter what society does there will always be members of society that will desire violence. Even if everyone was living like Bill Gates there would be people who would be violent towards each other.... that is why Conceal and Carry will always be relevant.
But:
1) Any such social initiatives would take a long, long time to sink into our cultural consciousness, and
2) There have always been, and always will be, violent people from whom I want to protect myself and my family. I find nothing apathetic about that statement. I think it is an accurate assessment of human nature and society, and a tragic truth. There was a point in human history, where the Europeans felt their society had ascended beyond war. Then, World War I broke out...:(
I'm not a violent person. The only fight I've ever been in was in middle school, eighteen years ago. But, while I would take no pleasure in it, I would use violence to protect those I love. I find nothing at all apathetic about that view; quite the opposite, in fact. That you don't come to the same conclusion doesn't make mine an apathetic one .
UBW Sharuum
BR Olivia Voldaren
UR Jhoira
URG Riku
U Vendilion Clique
You mean like the Westboro people and all those other people opposing same sex marriage?
If that polite person has taken a conceal carry class and knows how to defend themselves, they will not lose everything. Crime and violence is much lower in states with conceal carry laws. Simply because criminals have to be wary of anyone they confront.
Myself being a carrier of a concealed weapon, I do not invite violence of any kind as I do not brandish my weapon as I walk around town with it acting tough (its illegal to brandish in Texas anyway). In truth, I respect my weapon to the point that I hope I never have to draw it because I know what it is for and I respect life too much to want to take someones. I will however, defend my wife and children with my life and I will use any equalizer/force multiplier I can to survive should the situation ever arise.
A gun owned by a well trained, honest, respectable and good person is no more of a threat to anyone than a house fly.
I have carried mine through WAL-MARTS, TARGETS, Malls, out to dinners and a movies with my wife and even my LGS owner knows I carry in store. I have caused no violence by carrying my weapon, but GOD help the man who tries to hurt my family or friends while I am present.
“The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.”
-Jeff Cooper
“If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.”
- Dalai Lama XIV
Modern
:symu::0mana:Sundering-Architect:0mana::symu:
EDH
:symr::symg::symw:Uril the Miststalker:symw::symg::symr:/:symb::symg::symw:Karador, Ghost Chieftain:symw::symg::symb:
Legacy
:symr:Burn:symr:
My Cube
Some of my Alters
My Trades (retired)
My Sales