What situation would you need a gun? Which moment would you pick? When do you draw? How often is a gun man going to try to get into your family room? How do you know you won't escalate a bad situation to a point where someone you love gets hurt? What if you miss? Having a gun creates so much complexity in the outcome. Just having it forces the other's hand. Unless the invader is there to kill you and your family - a gun is likely to do more harm than good. And unless you have some powerful enemies, you have no reason to have someone trying to kill you or your family. I've had my apartment broken into 13 years ago. Did I have a gun? Did I survive - yes. If I had a gun, I would have shot and likely killed the guy. If he had a gun, I would have just given him what he wanted and let it go. But he didn't have a gun, and I didn't either, and you know what - it all worked out ok.
I take my gun out of my holster for target practice at the range, to clean it, and to change holsters. I have not had to draw it for protection and I thank God every day for that. I do not draw it for "show". It's not a toy.
Well then thank God for the castle doctrine. Now that burglars know that Texas is a castle state, they may never put me in a situation where they will know that I do not have to retreat because they are in my home. I, for one, will not put the decision in the burglars hands if he will shoot me or my loved ones. If there is a threat, I will do my best to neutralize the threat. I would rather have my Glock and not need it rather than need it and not have it. What I don't get is that you can trust a criminal to not take your life, but you won't trust a CHL holder to protect you.
You never use a gun to force someone's hand. If you pull your weapon, you'd better be ready to use it.
I will again state that I respect the 2nd Ammendment and that I'm not for banning guns and in spite of my rhetoric believe people should have the right to own guns for recreation and self-defense. That said I believe gun ownership should be limited and made more difficult and an armed citizenry doesn't make us safer. To your particular point which has been raised by a few posters. The nature weaponry at the time of the writing the Constitution was very different and at the sametime there wasn't a standing army. The languange of the 2nd Ammendment is deliberately vague but is important. Referring to Federalist Paper #29 on the subject. Under that the right to bear arms is actually more for the states as a way to provide for their own defense either collectively with the rest of the states or even against other states or the Federal Government. Prior to the 14th Ammendment the states themselves could ban and restrict arms so its not so much as a personal check but a state check. Given that we have the 14th Ammendment and that some of the Fouders also recognized the need for personal checks on government power the 2nd Ammendment is now a personal right. That given though the Founders themselves only believed in personal self-defense against the government to a point and were OK with militarily crushing rebellious US armed US Citizens like in the Whiskey Rebellion. So while they might've recognized the right to have an armed check by citizens that didn't stop them from also allowing government to use the military to also crush those armed citizens. The Civil War has pretty much done away with the idea of states relying on their own citizen militias to resist the Fed.. While at the development of National Guard has also largely done away with the need of armed citizen militias to be called up by the states for their defense and a the standing US military with the Fed needing armed citizenry. So the needs for armed citizens under Federalist 29 is pretty much moot. To the idea that an armed citizenry is a check on tyranny like in the example you use is valid philosophically but not really practical and and antiquated given the nature of modern warfare. Groups like the Branch Davidians, MOVE, WAR, and many others have tried armed resistance but have all been crushed with little problem. Given that the US military has tanks, attack helicopters, fighter jets, nukes and etc.. Citizens armed with rifles and pistols aren't going to stand a chance against a determined government force. Not saying a determined guerilla force couldn't cause a lot of problems by resorting to terrorism but it is unrealistic that short of getting WMD that armed US civillians could overthrow the government without having the military side with them. To head off the comparisons with Iraq. It is true that irregular forces are causing us a lot of problems in Iraq. A few problems with that comparison is that while they have caused a lot of damage Iraqi insurgents haven't won in Iraq and even if the US leaves its not likely that Al Qaeda would defeat a Shiite dominated government either. The next problem is that the US is fighting on foriegn soil not here at home. If it is a domestic rebellion in the US its not likely that the US military would pack up and leave. Finally if personal arms are a check on tyranny prior to the US invasion pretty much everyone in Iraq had a Kalishnikov yet that didn't keep Saddam from maintaining an iron grip on power nor did it stop the US military from conquering the country in 3 weeks. Personal arms are no check against a mechanized military. Back to your example though. If GW Bush attempted to do something like that and seize dictatorial powers the military doesn't have to follow his orders as the officers oath is to abide by all lawful orders and defend the Constitution, not the presidency. If a president tried to seek dictatorial powers the military is not obligated to follow him and if Congress impeached and removed him from office the military is obliged to help remove him.
So your wife does not carry a gun, check. Your children do not carry guns, check. How in earth can they go thru life ... How do you let that go on ... What kind of a husband / father are you?
I still don't see what race has anything to do with this? Most of the mass shootings have been carried out by white males so since the shooters of Columbine, the Amish School, Paducah, KY, Jonesboro, AK, Kileen, TX and so on where white then if race is an issue then caucasians far far far are more likely to go on shooting rampages. This guy was an angry loner and there are angry loners of all races. Being Asian had nothing to do with this, or until someone shows that he was being picked on for being Asian but I have yet to hear anything about that. Asian isn't a pre-requisite for violence and personally I'm bothered that us Asians would be willing to even entertain that sort of idea. So you know a lot of smart neurotic Asians caught well there's a lot of smart neurotic whites, Jews, Indians, blacks, Hispanics and so on.. Being Asian doesn't mean we're anymore prone to insanity than any other group. IMO team sports should be prescribed to kids like this rather than video games. Team sports help take out stress and energy but also help with socialization and fitness. Its true not everyone is good at sports but given a range of sports and skill levels pretty much everyone can find a sport and team where they can play at.
Just to add that all of us are armed already in out daily lives. We carry keys, back packs, laptops, hard shoes and many other things that can be used. Most of us aren't trained how to use them but with proper training anyone can affectively defend themselves with means and objects all around us.
The counter problem is though overreacting. What if the person you think is breaking is your daughter's boyfriend? What if that strange noise you hear downstairs is one of your family members getting a snack because they are having problems sleeping? I'm not going to presume that you are so irresponsible as to shoot without looking but not everyone is so responsible and if someone is so paranoid about crime that they feel they always have to be armed they are more likely to shoot without assessing the threat.
You know Sishir, I don't disagree with much of what you are saying. If people would be more aware of the situations around them and know how to use the tools that they have on them, there would be a lot less dead victims. Personally, I carry a can of Fox OC spray and a knife as well as my Glock. I am also looking EVERYWHERE local to find someone that can train in Krav Maga.
That is what IDPA training is about. Persoanlly, I beleive every CHL holder should have mandatory IDPA training. Probably most CHL holders already do.
And from everything you have posted you sound like you are a very responsible gun owner and I apologize if I come off as criticizing you for it. I certainly think if everyone would get as educated as you this wouldn't be a problem. That said what I worry about is that not everyone is going to be as responsible as you are. Maybe I just have a darker view of humanity than you do.
I think that you would be surprised that most CHL holders are at least as responsible as me. I can not speak for gun owners without their CHL, but CHL holders are held to a higher standard, and justly so.
You know... I just heard from a news source that the killer told the 30 victims in the classroom to line themselves up in a line so he could kill them more easily....my parents and I were incredulous that out of 30 people or so in the classroom, none of them tried to take him down? I guess they were just too scared or something, but, come on, if all of them lunged at him, or someone threw something at him then lunged, i'm pretty sure casualties could've been reduced. Most likely, the killer went in, killed some people by surprise, and rendered all the other people frozen scared... I don't know how the killer managed to control the classroom like that, or if he did manage to get everyone who tried to disarm him - but sigh......thinking about this just makes me
Most shootings aren't people breaking into homes and shooting thier victims. That's what you argue for but it's not the reality of gun violence. Houston is the murder capital of the world - I think that shows what a gun culture does to a city. I don't trust anyone with a gun - you or a "CHL" holder. It's all the same. A CHL only has to squeez and point to become a criminal. Look, I don't trust you with a gun, and I don't ask you to trust me with one. THe only people we should have to trust with a killing device is the military and police. Even they are suspect at times. People abuse power. It's human nature. And having a gun is a lot of power. Sorry pal - it's not person, but I want the gun out of your hands, criminal hands, and everyone in between. By the way, I learned self-defense after that, and disarmament. I have never used it, but I practice every day. I have gotten into fights since then, but have never used the self-defense techniques because they aren't designed to win a fight, they are designed to be disarm and incapacitate an opponent. But that's not the same as carrying a gun by any magnitude. If someone breaks into my home again, I'll go with the training over a gun any day of the weak.
The argument with the right to bear arms, is weak and antiquated. Our forefathers wrote ... “ A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed ..." so that they can take up arms against the King of England ... I don't think you need to worry about that right now. I am not sure why people keep falling back to this, time and again ... and actually believe in it!
