So - you choose NOT to carry .. anyone? Why?

[Majic]

Also, if you have a concealed weapons permit and you don't carry, you do realize that you've just registered yourself with the authorities, right? Lot of trouble to got to for no benefit...

I never considered it trouble getting my CCW.
Purchase your handgun thru a FFL and you have created a document that the authorities can have access to also. So what's the big deal?
I've done both and the benefit is that I can carry when I choose to without creating trouble.
The only ones who really need to worry about me carrying are the ones comtemplating on the idea of causing me phsical harm.

 

[Chris Rhines]

Purchase your handgun thru a FFL and you have created a document that the authorities can have access to also. So what's the big deal?

Well, yeah. That's one very good reason to avoid buying guns from FFLs...

- Chris

 

[Sven]

I live in the Bay Area of CA - I choose not to carry because I do not have a permit, and getting caught with a gun would mean either:

a) misdeameanor, or
b) felony

...decision of the judge. Option 'b' means: no guns for a long, long time.

 

[Majic]

Well, yeah. That's one very good reason to avoid buying guns from FFLs...

Not going thru a FFL will most likely severly limit the models of handguns you can purchase, but seeing that you are a Marylander you are limited anyway.

 

[Dilettante]

In a car, I wear a seat belt, but not a crash helmet. On a bicycle, I wear a light helmet that's good enough for bicycling--not for motorbiking.
Whenever I take up motorbiking, I'll get a motorcycle helmet.

For many years I've lived in places with very low crime. I've never been mugged or even witnessed a real fight.

I am now learning and training because I may move to an area where there is more reason to carry.

 

[MoNsTeR]

So, yeah, there is a difference in the logic of the choice.

NO, there is NOT. Whether your betting your life or your money, the calculation is the same: do the costs exceed the benefits?

Who the hell puts their life on the line based on odds?

You take risks with your life every day. Even wearing a seatbelt and driving a car with a dozen airbags, your chances in a single day of being killed on your morning commute are greater than the chances over your whole lifetime of needing your gun (assuming you don't live next to a crackhouse). It's not even possible, let alone desirable, to eliminate all risks. Standing on a stool to change a lightbulb is risky. Skiing is risky. Eating a rare steak is risky. Not going to the doctor when you get the flu is risky. What really matters is the "size" of the risk (probability * magnitude of event) relative to the cost of mitigating it.

Whether it's worth carrying a gun to mitigate the risk of being a victim of violence is an individual choice. That means the individual weighs their perception of the risk against their perception of the cost of avoiding or mitigating it. The fact that those perceptions are inherently subjective means that the choice that arises from them cannot be objectively criticized, it can neither be right nor wrong. It may come to pass that an individual regrets their choice ex post but that does not in any way show that their choice was "wrong" ex ante.

I don't care whether you (the plural "you") carry or not, it's your choice and I'll respect it, because I have no grounds on which to criticize it; it is rational by definition. All I ask is the same respect for my own choice(s).

 

[mountainclmbr]

If someone doesn't want to CCW..or wear seatbelts...doesn't matter to me.

Years ago I heard a commotion outside my apartment door. I looked out through the peephole and saw a creepy skinhead, but thought he was visiting the college students across the hall. I got my gun from the bedroom just in case. As I walked out of the bedroom the front door was busted in and this creep was charging straight for me. He changed his mind really quick when I got my revolver out of the case.

I had two other cases over a 20 year period where I had a gun and had situations where I could act decisively and with confidence. One was a group of motorcycles with gang-like riders blocking the road. A car jacking had happened in this same place a month earlier. I floored it and they scattered. I got my 44 mag out of my shooting bag in the seat next to me. They chased mefor a while, but Mr Darwin was looking out for them when they decided to turn around.

The second case was on a clear Sunday afternoon when I stopped by my banks ATM. A car pulled out of an adjacent gas station and pulled up between me and my car in the handicapped spot. The car is full of gang-clothed youths thar are argueing "you giddim, no you giddim". I had a colt ponylite 380 in my pocket. I grabbed my money and ATM card, had my hand on my gun and walked briskly past the front of their car and got in my car. They pealed out of the parking lot when I was in my car.

Confidence allows you to act boldly.

This is three times in 20 years for me. People can rationalize not carrying, but Mr Darwin will have a knowing grin.

 

[Z_Infidel]

QUOTE:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If people really want to protect themselves … why don’t they … learn martial arts first, rather than immediately jump to the lethality of a gun? … Maybe people who rely on a gun are [cowards].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Spoken like a true “martial artist.â€
END QUOTE

What point are you making here? That all martial artists are ignorant or ideallistic when it comes to the lethality of deadly weapons?

I have trained in martial arts for many many years. Thankfully there have only been a couple times when I have had to rely on that training in a violent situation. I tend to avoid when possible.

People with well-rounded martial skills will know they are not invincible against guns and other deadly weapons. They also know that unless you have specialized training it is very difficult to defend against someone armed with a gun or a knife. Proper training can increase your odds, but it really boils down to the individual, the type and amount of training, and each individual situation. There are never any guarantees.

In a very up-close confrontation, I would rather face a gun than a blade in the hands of a skilled knife fighter. I don't want to have to face either.

I don't consider a person a coward who relies on a gun for protection. That would be an unfair generalization, much like the comment about martial artists I quoted above.

 

[Gordon Fink]

People with well-rounded martial skills will know they are not invincible against guns and other deadly weapons. They also know that unless you have specialized training it is very difficult to defend against someone armed with a gun or a knife.

This was precisely my point.

The idea that someone should merely “take some martial arts†for self-defense is dangerously naive. Well-trained martial artists know this, but non-practitioners and, worse yet, beginners often seem to think that even a little training in unarmed combat will allow them to defeat an armed attacker.

~G. Fink

 

[CZ52GUY]

This is an outstanding thread...

...the pulpit pounding and cynicism by some notwithstanding.

I had my CCW several years ago, I let it expire when I moved.

I went through a period of "idealism".

9/11 changed that.

Bottom line, Risk quantified = probability * consequence

Is the risk that my 235lbs OR 3000lb SUV will not resolve the risks me and mine are likely to face greater than...

...the risks associated with registering my gun ownership with local LEO (something that does not yet happen automatically in my state when a FFL purchase is made) and the consequences of using a firearm to protect my family outside the confines of my own property AND the risks that actually using my piece in public, even if only as a deterrent would actually create more trouble for me than it would solve.

With due respect to those that choose to carry:
1) You are most effective when you pursue an attitude of vigilence that would seek to minimize the chances you would ever draw and fire. A threat pre-empted is preferable than a threat vanquished.
2) You live in an upside down post-modernist world that would too often see the "troubled youth" as the victim and all you seek to protect your family from could be visited upon them should you resort to a "vanquish first" strategy.
3) Related to #2, you and yours are significantly more at risk while you are waiting for your bail hearing or worse, serving your sentence, then if you pursue a threat pre-emption strategy (see #1)

I respect those that choose to carry.

I support with my ballot their right to do so.

I make my decision as to whether or not I will carry based on my specific circumstances.

Every man and women here at THR has to make that same decision based on THEIR circumstances.

Great thread!

Stay safe,

CZ52'

 

[Darrin]

My Father only carries when he takes trips out of town. He doesn't think anything will happen to him when in town, but mainly, he hasn't found a comfortable carry method yet.

He knows I carry daily and I think he's starting to come around. He wants an IWB holster like mine. As soon as I get it for him, I think he'll start carrying more often. (I hope)

 

[P95Carry]

I wasn't quite sure when I kicked this thread off .... quite where it would go .... how even it would be received.

As I said at the outset .. I was not wishing to tread on toes or ruffle feathers, or try to demean the non-CCW's .. just a genuine curiosity to hear views from the ''other side''!

Thanks to all so far who have contributed .... I think that overall, despite a few small ''contratents'' ...... we have on the whole all expressed our courtious approval of each and every person's right to decide...... whichever route they take.

No way can everyone agree on this sorta subject but I have noticed, with I think few, if any exceptions ...... the statement by those who wish not to carry ... that the rights of those who do are both accepted and respected. On the whole I reckon this works too in reverse, even we do not totally see eye to eye.

Thx guys... and stay safe whichsoever route you do choose.

 

[Poohgyrr]

Hmmm. I don't quite know if I'm lucky that I can CCW, or unlucky because rude thugs who will knock my head open for $20 walk the streets. But I will admit it. I do not carry in the shower, because I simply do not want to. The Glock is new school and some water wouldn't bother it. But the classic Hi Power would need to be cleaned and lubed every time. I don't even want to think about a prized blue steel revolver. The dogs better do their job.

Edited for personal rant: And yes, CZ52guy is right about 9/11. Those folks attack churches, schools, shopping centers, etc... often, and have for a long time. Well, in Israel, Germany, and France the terrorists & regular crooks kinda stopped attacking schools after getting shot to pieces by the Good Guys a few times. It's still open season elsewhere though. So yeah, each of us has to decide for ourselves. So, how many States here have shall issue, allowing freedom of choice?? Some people respond to "please" and "thank you" in a good way. Others think those words are a sign of weakness.

 

[P95Carry]

So, how many States here have shall issue, allowing freedom of choice??

I'm totally open to correction on this John but figure ''36'' comes to mind.