testtest

Should You Not Carry a Gun?

I don't know. I just have a gut feeling that as soon as I say "it's ALWAYS better to be carrying" someone will come up with an example where that is wrong.

And that is what I was hoping to learn about when I saw the article title and clicked to read it.

The thing is…going by Cooper’s color code…there are times where it’s necessary to go “white”; living in constant…hyper awareness…leads to paranoia.
 

Sld1959

Professional
The thing is…going by Cooper’s color code…there are times where it’s necessary to go “white”; living in constant…hyper awareness…leads to paranoia.
Then there's always this.

800px-the_last_traction_hero_promo_4.png
 

Flyboy514

Operator
Drawing and pulling the trigger solves my problem,
BUT... It may very well cause a heck of a lot of FUTURE problems as well. You might want to take Sld1959's advice and put your lawyer on speed dial. I'd advise you to cooperate with LE, but keep your mouth shut until you've hit the speed dial and got your lawyer to show up.
 

HayesGreener

Professional
From my point of view it is better to be armed than not. The likelihood that you will ever need to use the gun defensively is extremely remote. But we arm ourselves and train to become proficient against that remote possibility. If you don't carry it you do not have the option. My nightmare as retired LEO is to have violence erupt in my presence and being helpless to stop it. It is why I try to avoid places where I cannot carry it. That psychological set to not be helpless and being prepared to act I believe is what the article is all about. If you are not willing to use it you might as well leave it at home.
 

Sld1959

Professional
The thing is…going by Cooper’s color code…there are times where it’s necessary to go “white”; living in constant…hyper awareness…leads to paranoia.
Actually thinking about it, I have never carried a firearm at a wedding, or reception, church, unless asked to by clergy as part of protection, otherwise it is prohibited by law. It's also prohibited to do so at hospitals in Michigan, and Bars, and certain entertainment facilities. And where prohibited I do not do so. It is my choice not to go there if I feel this is onerous. Same with places the owners have posted and prohibited it. Thier place thier rules. Everyone will have thier feelings on this, as has been shown before, this is simply my personal belief for me.

Some will scoff and say that is stupid, but you are quite correct, there are simply times when it is not correct, for me.
 
Last edited:

stuartv

Operator
From my point of view it is better to be armed than not. The likelihood that you will ever need to use the gun defensively is extremely remote. But we arm ourselves and train to become proficient against that remote possibility. If you don't carry it you do not have the option. My nightmare as retired LEO is to have violence erupt in my presence and being helpless to stop it. It is why I try to avoid places where I cannot carry it. That psychological set to not be helpless and being prepared to act I believe is what the article is all about. If you are not willing to use it you might as well leave it at home.

This sort of brings up my thoughts on the possibility of being somewhere where it would be better to not be carrying.

Please don't take this personally, as I am not asserting that I know what YOU think. But, your words give some credence to the idea that at least some people view a gun as the ONLY way to deal with violence. I mean, saying "my nightmare is that violence will erupt and I will be helpless to stop it. That is why I carry" makes it sound like the only option for dealing with violence is to use a gun.

I think it does EVERYONE a disservice to give any credibility to the suggestion that the only way one can deal with violence is with a gun.

There are a million (figuratively speaking) ways one can be prepared for many forms of violence without having a gun. Anything from hand-to-hand training of some type (Krav Maga, Karate, Judo, wrestling, boxing, etc..) to carrying pepper spray, a collapsible baton, a knife, or whatever. On and on.
 

HayesGreener

Professional
This sort of brings up my thoughts on the possibility of being somewhere where it would be better to not be carrying.

Please don't take this personally, as I am not asserting that I know what YOU think. But, your words give some credence to the idea that at least some people view a gun as the ONLY way to deal with violence. I mean, saying "my nightmare is that violence will erupt and I will be helpless to stop it. That is why I carry" makes it sound like the only option for dealing with violence is to use a gun.

I think it does EVERYONE a disservice to give any credibility to the suggestion that the only way one can deal with violence is with a gun.

There are a million (figuratively speaking) ways one can be prepared for many forms of violence without having a gun. Anything from hand-to-hand training of some type (Krav Maga, Karate, Judo, wrestling, boxing, etc..) to carrying pepper spray, a collapsible baton, a knife, or whatever. On and on.
You are correct there are many options for defense before you get to the gun. It is called the force continuum. Much depends on physucal ability and training. I taught officers the full range in defensive tactics and firearms. A confrontation may escalate only part way through the continuum or may go right to guns from the outset. We have no way of knowing how far it will go or how quickly it will get there. It is the reason officers have all that stuff on their belts and defensive tactics training-to have options. The gun is the last resort. But one thing is for certain: If there is to be a gunfight you gotta have a gun (and that means enough gun). We tend to focus on that part because, well, this is a gun forum.
 

stuartv

Operator
You are correct there are many options for defense before you get to the gun. It is called the force continuum. Much depends on physucal ability and training. I taught officers the full range in defensive tactics and firearms. A confrontation may escalate only part way through the continuum or may go right to guns from the outset. We have no way of knowing how far it will go or how quickly it will get there. It is the reason officers have all that stuff on their belts and defensive tactics training-to have options. The gun is the last resort. But one thing is for certain: If there is to be a gunfight you gotta have a gun (and that means enough gun). We tend to focus on that part because, well, this is a gun forum.

All I was trying to say is, when the question is "are there scenarios where it would be better to not have a gun" and the response is "I want to be prepared in case of violence, so I carry a gun", I think it gives the impression that you think the only response to violence is with a gun.
 
My perspective, luckily I live in Kentucky which is very gun friendly however I do see things changing with the upcoming elections, that being said if I encounter a place where I can’t carry then I won’t go there, (ever)
As far as going hands on? I’ve never been much of a fighter and as I have gotten older and recently following surgery I’m not stupid to think that I “don’t” now have a physical limitation.
For me does that mean that carrying a gun gives me cart blanch to draw and start shooting? Absolutely not!!! Except for in my home I would much rather retreat.
I carry a firearm to be able to protect myself and loved ones in a worst case scenario.
In today’s society it’s a mistake to expect or rely on someone else to protect me.
 

Bassbob

Ronin
This sort of brings up my thoughts on the possibility of being somewhere where it would be better to not be carrying.

Please don't take this personally, as I am not asserting that I know what YOU think. But, your words give some credence to the idea that at least some people view a gun as the ONLY way to deal with violence. I mean, saying "my nightmare is that violence will erupt and I will be helpless to stop it. That is why I carry" makes it sound like the only option for dealing with violence is to use a gun.

I think it does EVERYONE a disservice to give any credibility to the suggestion that the only way one can deal with violence is with a gun.

There are a million (figuratively speaking) ways one can be prepared for many forms of violence without having a gun. Anything from hand-to-hand training of some type (Krav Maga, Karate, Judo, wrestling, boxing, etc..) to carrying pepper spray, a collapsible baton, a knife, or whatever. On and on.
Not being armed significantly reduces your ability to defend against an armed attack should it be necessary. It’s like going to work on a Ford without a 10MM socket and just hoping you won’t need one. ( you will. In fact you will need every single tool in existence 😉)
Hayes isn’t suggesting a gun is the only tool you need. He is suggesting a gun is pretty much the only useful tool if a gunfight breaks out. And here’s a thing. When we were kids, teenagers, whatever, fist fights or even knife fights or fights with blunt objects were pretty much the norm. Those days are long gone. Now we have 12 year olds traveling around the hood in packs with hot, crappy Hi-Point 9MMs. So to be prepared to defend yourself but not having a gun, along with the ability and willingness to properly deploy it, is the opposite of being prepared.
 
Top