[QUOTE=treis]
Yeah, a political spin that was inappropriate for the thread.
[/QUOTE]
shrug You seem to think so. I don’t.
A CCP allows an individual to carry a firearm on private property. It is a misdemeanor to carry a weapon (ccp or not) to any public gathering including places that are considered private property but have access to the public, such as churches, museums, airports, a bank, etc.
You are not allowed to carry a firearm (ccp or not) onto a college campus unless you are an officer licensed specifically to do so.
You can carry in Wal-Mart (privately owned), your local mall (same), and many other privately owned establishments with some exceptions (you can’t carry in a restaurant that serves alcoholic beverages, and if you are asked not to by signs posted on the property or if you are directed by the owner to take the firearm outside, etc.).
This is Georgia CC law. I imagine Virginia’s isn’t much different in that respect. The point being, that you are not allowed to carry a firearm onto a college campus no matter if you have a CCP or not.
I learned this not by reading the law on the matter (because it is horribly vague) but from asking many questions to government officials on the matter. You’d be shocked to know that many of your local police officers have no idea where you can and cannot carry a concealed weapon. Sometimes I think they make the law vague on purpose.
[QUOTE=nyctea scandiaca]
Do you live in a high crime area where the danger is so high that it trumps the danger of having a gun in the same home in which a child is present?
Which do you think is more likely to happen: (1) you using the gun in self-defense or to save the life of someone in danger; or (2) Your kid gaining access to the gun and shooting himself or someone else?
If you think the chances of (1) happening are greater than (2) happening, do you still think the chances of (1) are great enough overall to accept the risk of (2)?
And there are a couple of other scenarios… (3) the risk of someone breaking into your home and stealing your gun to use for criminal acts; or (4) you shooting someone who you think is breaking into your house and it actually being your wife or your teenager sneaking in after curfew?; or (5) you confronting an intruder with a gun and him either wrestling it away from you and shooting you, or if he is armed, be more inclined to shoot you as fast as he can, lest he be shot by you (whereas if you were unarmed he would not be as inclined to harm you).
[/QUOTE]
I can’t answer for Doors, but I can give you my answers to those questions:
1a) At home, not very likely (decent neighborhood);
1b) abroad? Who knows; I go to some rough neighborhoods on a near-daily basis.
-
Unless junior is a nascent safecracker, then the odds are low enough to be insignificant.
-
If they take the safe, they’re taking a gun-safe-sized chunk of concrecte wall with them as well.
-
Due to my expertise with guns, some training in hostile situations, a predisposition to be calm in “situations,” and familiarity with my family, zilch.
I can say “Freeze!” and keep my sights lined up on the 10-ring with very little difficulty, and all without wetting myself and spraying bullets randomly. But, see 1).
- Again, zilch. And I will NOT, ever, depend on the good conscience and good intentions of someone who breaks into my home in the dead of night.
Edit: Added sig, and subscribed to thread.
You don’t get to evaluate my reasons. I carry because it is my right to do so, and it is my (natural) right to defend myself if the situation demands it. It is also, conversely, my responsibility to make sure that I know exactly what I am doing at all times.
[QUOTE=Gangster Octopus]
I don’t know, I don’t read every thread, but if he had written it like catsix I would’ve had no problem.
[/QUOTE]
You think this is okay?
catsix’s sentiment is just as annoying as the fervent gun-controllers who try to blame situations like this on lax gun control.
But catsix’s is opinion is worse, because it indirectly blames the victims, painting a scenario that the victims could have stopped. It’s like Monday night quarterbacking. If only they’d fought harder…
One of the reporters at the press conference probably thinks this. He sounded like a real fool as he rambled on about how hard it is to imagine no one fighting, how if he felt his life was on the line he would have charged the gunman (I can’t even remember his question). Everyone thinks like this, Bubba. You think you’re special because you can imagine yourself surviving?
I think it makes folks sleep better at night, because then they can say, “Well, this can’t happen to me 'cuz I’m a HARD ASS.”
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
You’ve never seen me argue for gun control either. If you were to do a search (which would be tricky since “gun” is a three letter word), you’d find that I’ve been consistent in saying that gun rights should be protected, but I also have a strong distaste for pro-gun zealots. I don’t dislike gun nuts because I think they’re wrong but because I think they’re creepy and fetishistic and they take the issue too seriously.
[/QUOTE]
Well, that’s true. However, I do note that you continually use slurs such as “nuts” and “fetishists” towards one side only. That would give someone an impression that you were not entirely bipartisan. I searched, and I can’t find any instance of you using similar slurs towards people who want to ban guns outright. Do have some examples you can link for me? Otherwise, it might look awfully one-sided, and even if that’s not what’s in your mind, you could at least see why it would give the impression that that was the case, yes?
catsix is a shrill, tactless zealot? Next you’ll be telling me water is wet.
[QUOTE=flight]
You don’t need a gun to stop someone with a gun.
[/QUOTE]
Flight, you are correct, but only to a very small degree.
I teach Taekwondo. Part of what I teach is gun control and defensive tactics. The sad fact of the matter is that disarming tactics only work within about a 5-6 foot range. If I were in this situation, if the shooter had been that close, I might have tried it, but the sad fact is that, in this scenario, he would probably have shot me already.
[QUOTE=monstro]
One of the reporters at the press conference probably thinks this. He sounded like a real fool as he rambled on about how hard it is to imagine no one fighting, how if he felt his life was on the line he would have charged the gunman (I can’t even remember his question). Everyone thinks like this, Bubba. You think you’re special because you can imagine yourself surviving?
[/QUOTE]
Said reporter wouldn’t happen to be Jeff Gannon, would it?
[QUOTE=Tuckerfan]
That depends upon the workplace and local laws. Some places of employment won’t allow you to have a firearm at all on premises, even though it’s perfectly legal for you to do so. Other times, the law prohibits people from carrying weapons in a place of employment. For example, in TN, it’s illegal for anyone to carry a firearm into a bar, unless they’re an on-duty police officer.
[/QUOTE]
That’s a very good point to bring up – someone upthread made a comment on how “a university should not be able to restrict lawful gun carrying”… well, except for that the LAW itself probably counts educational institutions among the places, along with bars/liquor stores, gaming halls, courthouses, and others, that are excepted from the concealed-carry permit. Like speech, worship and association, the RTBA is** not ** absolutely unrestricted: reasonable safety regulations and limitations of time, place and manner may be imposed. Also, the Bill of Rights imposes limits on what the government may do to the citizen: a **private ** entity may order that no employee be armed w/o the permission of management, you are free to work elsewhere.
…and I see Euthanasiast has looked into the issue in some depth.
[QUOTE=ExTank]
- Unless junior is a nascent safecracker, then the odds are low enough to be insignificant.
[/QUOTE]
So you use a safe with a combination lock? And the combination is not written down anywhere? And you put the gun immediately into the safe every single time you enter your home?
Well if all the above is true, then good for you for being a responsible gun owner. However, not everyone is like you. A sturdy safe is pretty expensive, isn’t it? A lot of people just have “gun cabinets” or “lock boxes.” “Juniors” throughout history have been able to gain access to the aforementioned.
[QUOTE=ExTank]
- Due to my expertise with guns, some training in hostile situations, a predisposition to be calm in “situations,” and familiarity with my family, zilch.
[/QUOTE]
So you are perfect and could never make a mistake? And your child could never ever do anything wrong, such as sneak out unbeknownst to you? I don’t think anyone is so perfect as to guarantee a “zilch” percent chance of anything.
[QUOTE=nyctea scandiaca]
So you use a safe with a combination lock? And the combination is not written down anywhere? And you put the gun immediately into the safe every single time you enter your home?
[/QUOTE]
Someday I might get a gun for home defense, but… I always wondered, if you kept your gun locked up in a safe all the time, how would you have it in a timely manner in the case of a home invasion? And if you had it out in a home with kids, that’s not safe. What do gun owners do to keep the gun handy but keep family members safe?
nyctea, I’ll admit Ex-Tank came across as a bit TOO cocky in his reply. Obviously the risk of something going wrong can never be 100% reduced to absolute zero.
HOWEVER there is such a thing as an acceptable nonzero risk. Your questions CAN be answered as that given the proper training, temperament and safety practices, the chances of a bad outcome of gun ownership can be made low enough to be an acceptable risk vis-a-vis the chances of a favorable outcome (which includes the oucome of “it’s never used for anything other than shooting enemy squirrels”).
[QUOTE=nyctea scandiaca]
So you use a safe with a combination lock? And the combination is not written down anywhere? And you put the gun immediately into the safe every single time you enter your home?
[/quote]
The combo is in my will, of which there is a copy in my home, but it’s sealed. If I found the seal broke on my will, I’d change the combo (my safe lets me do that).
[QUOTE=nyctea scandiaca]
So you are perfect and could never make a mistake? And your child could never ever do anything wrong, such as sneak out unbeknownst to you? I don’t think anyone is so perfect as to guarantee a “zilch” percent chance of anything.
[/QUOTE]
No, I’m not perfect. But perfection isn’t required. Besides, if “perfection” were the standard for anything difficult or dangerous, we’d never issue a single driver’s license, or immediately revoke it after the first speeding ticket. “Perfection” may be required in your mind; most of the rest of us mere mortals settle for reasonable, sensible precautions.
Ruby: what you’re looking for is something along the lines of these.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I never saw Airman provide any reason he needs to carry a gun, by the way.
[/QUOTE]
As I have said before in other threads, justification is not necessary to exercise a right. However, I will say that I have personal reasons for doing so. I will not make any appeals to emotion, nor will I justify myself beyond what I have said. You will never see me providing an explanation of my “need”, ever, lest I start demanding that you justify your right to call me a “chickenshit gun fetishist”, with your worthiness based upon how I feel about your answer..
[QUOTE=Una Persson]
Well, that’s true. However, I do note that you continually use slurs such as “nuts” and “fetishists” towards one side only. That would give someone an impression that you were not entirely bipartisan. I searched, and I can’t find any instance of you using similar slurs towards people who want to ban guns outright. Do have some examples you can link for me? Otherwise, it might look awfully one-sided, and even if that’s not what’s in your mind, you could at least see why it would give the impression that that was the case, yes?
[/QUOTE]
For what it’s worth, I think that people who favor total bans or huge restrictions are shrill and naive but I also don’t think they’re much of a danger. There’s no way any truly crippling anti-gun legislation would ever pass Congress or get signed into law and even if it did, the Supreme Court would strike it down.
I guess I see anti-gun zealots as harmless fools but I don’t see them as creepy and obsessive like a lot of gun nuts are. There’s something off-putting about people who spend so much time thinking about hypothetical situations where they might get to shoot somebody.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
For what it’s worth, I think that people who favor total bans or huge restrictions are shrill and naive but I also don’t think they’re much of a danger. There’s no way any truly crippling anti-gun legislation would ever pass Congress or get signed into law and even if it did, the Supreme Court would strike it down.
I guess I see anti-gun zealots as harmless fools but I don’t see them as creepy and obsessive like a lot of gun nuts are. There’s something off-putting about people who spend so much time thinking about hypothetical situations where they might get to shoot somebody.
[/QUOTE]
A fair answer, thank you. I understand where you’re coming from now.
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
As I have said before in other threads, justification is not necessary to exercise a right. However, I will say that I have personal reasons for doing so. I will not make any appeals to emotion, nor will I justify myself beyond what I have said. You will never see me providing an explanation of my “need”, ever, lest I start demanding that you justify your right to call me a “chickenshit gun fetishist”, with your worthiness based upon how I feel about your answer..
[/QUOTE]
I never said you needed provide a reason, I merely corrected an assertion that you had provided a reason.
Ruby, why worry about responsible gun ownership? You should be more concerned about being socially ostracized from the SDMB for being a gun fetishist who needs to compensate for some shortcoming by owning a firearm!
Seriously though, it’s really a matter of money and practice. I’ve known folks who don’t have kids at home and have a weapon in more than just one room. I’ve also met people who have a safe that they can open in less than ten seconds, and they actually practice at it to make sure they can do it quickly. I’ve also met one guy who had fingerprint identification safes in multiple rooms of his house, each one containing a firearm. These safes would open instantly using only his finger, so even knowing a combination obviously wouldn’t get you in. It’s all a degree of how much you’re willing to pay and how much you’re willing to practice at being efficient about it. Unfortunately, we can’t make sure every gun owner is competent and responsible enough to do this anymore than we can make sure people don’t drink a bottle of bourbon and get behind the wheel of a motor vehicle.
And seriously, Diogenes, get over yourself. Airman doesn’t need to justify his second amendment right to you. If anything, you need to justify your presumptions about him, or me, or any other gun owner. If you’d ever actually met a gun owner even half as responsible as Airman or ExTank or myself, maybe you’d stop being condescending towards them and labelling them chickenshit fetishists. But then again, you’re Diogenes, so maybe not.