Sorry, make that “where they cannot carry…”
The times I’ve left the US have been to visit areas that, due to them being tourist destinations, the local authorities were at great and obvious pains to keep very secure. When I left the resort areas, I didn’t go blindly wandering about. There are bad areas in every country.
If I were staying in an equivalent resort here in the US, I’d handle it the same way. The gun is only part of self-defense. Situational awareness is a larger part.
Yeah, I missed the edit window. Work got in the way… 
I would say that many would not. I’m not part of that crowd, but I can respect their own personal safety concerns without calling them nuts or anything. I think that not going to Disney because they can’t carry is a bit extreme, but I am really not in any place to judge.
Once to dissuade a would-be rapist who thought that it was okay to sexually assault hitch hikers.
Once to run off a fellow who wished to rob me at an ATM.
Once to deter a car full of chemically-altered yoots who were spoiling for a fight and irritated that I passed them.
The first two were failures of situational awareness on my part. I was younger then.
An anecdote is not data, of course, but I recall at least one friend from another message board who wouldn’t. He was a Texan, who planned to take a few months driving through the continental US and Canada, eventually ending up in Anchorage, Alaska. When he found out the correct information–that he couldn’t have his guns in Canada under any circumstances (before he took the time to find out for sure, he was under a number of misunderstandings, such as “Canadian Customs seals them at the border and I get to keep them with me, sealed until I get back in the US” and “As a US citizen, it is my constitutional right to have my guns, even in a foreign country”), he decided to park his truck in Seattle and fly (with his guns presumably in his checked luggage) to Anchorage. He wouldn’t go into or through Canada at all, for the sole reason that he couldn’t have his guns there.
He was a nice enough guy, but we must never forget that the fight against ignorance continues.
An anecdote is never data, as we so often say, but there is at least one such incident from my experience.
Neither do I. Except I would have my girlfriend call 911, and I would grab the shotgun from the closet. If I’m going to wait for the police to arrive - and who knows how long that might take? - I’m much more comfortable waiting for them to arrive with a shotgun. Wouldn’t you be?
I mean - think about it - there’s a criminal in your house; you’ve just dialed 911; that means you’re going to be alone in there with him for at least a few minutes, which is far too long for my liking. In that thread we had some time ago about “someone breaks into your house, what are they met with?” I heard all these answers like, I’ll hit them with a lamp, I’ll hit them with a kitchen knife, I’ll hide in the corner, etc. Who are these people kidding? Unless you’re a seasoned veteran of bar-fights you’re not going to take on a burglar with some found object and win.
Calling 911 is a good idea but why be defenseless while waiting for the cops? Or for that matter, waiting for the dispatcher to figure out what you’re saying?
The idea of not having at least a shotgun around in case of a break in is as alien to me as not having a fire extinguisher.
[ETA - replying to Spoons, not Argent Towers]
interesting - I remember a thread from years ago where a poster was asking about that very issue, because the poster’s father-in-law was planning on driving an RV to Alaska and was upset about the gun issue. (If I recall correctly, it may have been Qadgop the Mercotan who was asking.)
Those inhumane bastards!
Hey, I’ve always wondered about just what Mickey is carrying under that bulky costume. Can’t be too careful…
Not offhand, no.
I really should be working, but a very fast look found the following. There isn’t a duty to retreat, but whether that option is open to the defender is a factor that the jury can use in order to decide whether there is a justifiable defense under CC s. 34(2). Nicely summed up with cites to other cases in R. v. Kong, 2005 ABCA 255 (CanLII) at paragraph 117:
There is also an interesting historical survey of the development of CC s. 34 in the Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling in R. v. McIntosh, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 686, in paragraphs 62 to 75. It’s part of McLachlin’s dissent, but it does show the history of the statutory provision for self-defense.
Hitchhiking with a loaded weapon? I’m not at all sure that “situational awareness” quite covers this one…
Would it have been better for me to have been sexually assaulted and/or murdered? The weapon was legally mine. I was legally carrying it concealed. All I wanted was a lift.
Okay, then I’ll judge for you. Are those the same people who, in **PatriotGrrrl’s **link, are calling *us *non-gun toters cowards? Oh the irony.
Again, not speaking for anyone in particular, but I would venture a guess that they would call cowards, those who choose to fear an inanimate object.
They could say that but they’d still be wrong. They have too strong of an emotional attachment to their guns if they won’t go to DW.
Several years ago (sheesh, it was over a decade now; where does the time go?) I worked as a contract tech for a telcom located just south of downtown Dallas (Texas). I worked nights, along with lots of other people.
The neighborhood is okay by day, but not a place you wanted to be in at night. A lady (employee) was attacked in the parking lot one night. She lost an eye from her injuries.
Several of us, with unspoken but tacit approval from our supervisors, began bringing handguns to work. My supervisor simply kept mine in his desk during work hours, and handed it to me after my shift was over.
We would escort people to their cars. Security wasn’t allowed to leave the building to escort us (it wasn’t in their contract).
I’ve lived in neighborhoods where, yes, you did keep a loaded gun in the house/apartment, as middle-of-the-night break-ins were prevalent.
That’s been some time ago. I no longer work in an urban hell-hole. I live in a quiet suburb. There are break-ins, but they are rare, and always when the homeowner is away. Typical items targeted for theft are portable electronics and jewelry.
I no longer keep a loaded firearm in my home. Mine are all unloaded and locked up in a stout gun safe that’s anchored to the floor. They are purely “recreational shooting” guns, now. That is, I take one or two to the local shooting range about twice a month.
I have no emperical data, but I think that I’m fairly “normal.”
According to the company and the law, were you allowed to have guns at work? And, what specifically was the purpose of the guns? Wouldn’t a group of employees walking together have been enough to deter a would-be mugger? Or was there a gang of hoodlums menacing the neighborhood and you felt that you needed guns as deterrents? Did you think that any of the possible attackers had guns?
After the woman was attacked, were there any policy officers patrolling the area?
Also, if the neighborhood was “not a place you wanted to be in at night”, why was the woman allowed to walk unescorted in the parking lot at night?
Based on the bare bones of the story, I don’t understand why guns were needed to protect the employees, or, if the area was so dangerous, why a telcom company would have an office there and why people would choose to work there.
Uh, huh.
And if someone in your house were choking would you call 911 and relax, or would you take action while waiting for them because they might not get there in time to be any good?
Lessee… when an area is unsafe for unarmed people to go at night, the solution is (A.) flee the area and hope to find someplace safer; or (B.) go armed.
I’ll pick B.
Not relevant to the discussion and too close to personal carping.
Back off.
[ /Moderating ]