I have a Carry Concealed license and I do carry where it's legal and when its convenient for me. I didn't get it because I'm gay I got it for the same reason I got a fire extinguisher and first aid kit. I'll probably never use them but you never know.
I've never been a victim of a violent attack, even before I got my Permit. I doubt I will now that I do have it. However due to the unpredictability of others I can't guarantee that.
I know my limitations I can fight hand to hand but I know I can't take on several ill intentioned attackers. I can run fast but my health is bad now so I cant run far. I can call the police but depending on where I am and whats going on it could be awhile before they can get to me. Because of this I carry, not because I want violence but for the very slim possibility that I could be another statistic otherwise. I'd rather have it and not need it then to need it and not have it.
I also don't advocate everyone own a weapon. If you feel you need one get one and learn to use it, and learn as if your life may depend on it because while it probably won't it could. If you are afraid of guns then I suggest you don't own one unless you are willing to overcome your fear and learn to use it. If you hate guns you should never touch one because you will never give it's possession the respect required to safely use it and you will only be a danger yourself and others
 .
![[-]](https://gayspeak.com/images/duende_v3_local/collapse.png)
•
You can't blame the victims, but you can't ignore the fact that, regardless of the law, criminals will have guns. I know it's cliche but, its true: If guns are outlawed then only outlaws will have guns. Ban all you want, that is not going to get the guns out of the hands of criminals.
Sure someone, or multiple armed persons who actually knew how to use their weapons would have made a huge difference in a lot of situations, I would have made a difference but, you can't use that to get people who are not comfortable and/or not willing to face the possible ramifications of being armed to get guns.
•
Buffylo Wrote:"An armed society is a polite society"
Are you fucking serious?
The slums of Chicago is an armed slice of society, and are experiencing a historically high level of gun-related deaths, and I can tell you one thing, it's not a very "polite" situation.
Have you heard of what's going on in Syria?
Not very polite...
How about Mexico (another societal dimension that's "well-armed")
Not very polite.
Rio De Jienero?
Not a very "polite" armed society.
More guns don't equal a higher level of politeness or respect.
Guns just perpetuate violence at higher magnitudes.
If less people had guns, less people would be killed because of exterior motives.
Drive-by shootings couldn't happen if people just had knives.
Civil wars or genocide wouldn't wipe out entire communities if it were down to just a melee weapon availability.
Facts that claim arguments about the dangers of guns actually strengthen propaganda by those gun-toting organizations like the NRA.
When the whole Dark Night Massacre occurred there was a record number of people who purchased guns.
Whatever way you twist and turn your argument, MORE GUNS EQUAL MORE VIOLENCE, and that will always be fact.
•
Most of that involves illegal firearms in the hands of untrained people who could not own a gun legally or, military and civil war, which you can't lump with day to day life. Ban guns all you want, those people will still have them.
Even so, you think humans would not find another way to kill each other on a mass scale if firearms had never been invented? They would be that bow and arrow, burning entire towns, capturing and hanging on a mass scale, whatever, they'd find a way.
Yes, I'd love to live in a utopia where there was no violence and no need to protect myself but, that isn't reality and, I want the best chance to survive the worst of the reality I live in. For me that mean concealed carry and, knowing how to use and, maintain the firearms I do own. And it has nothing do with sexual orientation, anyone can be a victim but, if it's my turn to be the victim of gun violence, they are at least going down with me, if I don't survive and, that's one less gun toting criminal the rest of you have to worry about.
•
I can't quote because I already posted in this thread....so I'll just say that a great many places that were listed as "not polite" (from Mexico to Chicago) are areas where only criminals & cops have guns. And criminals (especially in places of strong gun control like Mexico and Russia and even Chicago) only rarely get their guns legally (and in places where it's difficult to get guns legally they tend to be braver in attacking with melee weapons by superior numbers so that women, gays, and the elderly especially need to fear or the thugs gain guns from military sources so that they're even deadlier).
Vermont has no restrictions beyond federal (and I've heard of like a woman who took in guns her ex-husband puts locks on to the police and told them that and they cut off the locks without even verifying if they were hers) and it's one of the most peaceful states in the nation...and for that matter much of Canada and the UK. Granted, it's rural, but it does go to show that guns don't automatically inspire violence.
A much better example is back when Washington DC has a very strict policy against carrying guns while Vermont was very liberal (that is, it was easy to get and carry guns concealed). The crime rate was very low compared to Washington DC than it was in Arlington despite that only a bridge separated the cities. Granted, it's easy for me to imagine criminals in Arlington deciding to take the bus across the Potomac where the prey is almost certainly not armed. But again it goes to show what the difference is when citizens (as opposed to criminals as in Chicago and Mexico) can carry guns for self-defense. Criminals prefer unarmed victims, and they prefer that their prey have legal barriers to arming themselves against criminals.
Go ahead and check the stats of those with CCW permits. It's a very rare person who gained a permit that used their guns in any crimes at all, or shot someone over a parking space. For that matter check out how many people who get shot over parking spaces at gun shows (none that I know of). And it makes sense to me that unless someone is purely suicidal but not wanting to kill themselves directly (probably believing they'd go to Hell if they did) they're not going to start trouble. I mean how many people looking to rob a store go to one where people in the store are likely to have guns themselves? (There was a store in Houston called "Stop and Go" or some such and they publicly made a policy of not allowing employees to have guns and they became so popular to be robbed that on the streets they were known as "stop and robs.") Though just in case you think that if someone did that it would turn into a chaos of people shooting everybody else (a surprisingly common assertion) I'll leave you with the only known case I know of where such a sitch happened:
http://www.snopes.com/crime/dumdum/gunshop.asp
Oh yes, contrast with how many died at the gun free Virginia Tech with those who died at Appalachian School of Law shooting (as opposed to massacre, where students ran out to their cars to get their own guns and then stopped the shooter within, and too bad they had to get to their cars first) and for what it's worth those schools are practically right by each other.
Oh, yes, the more draconian the UK got against guns, the more violence rose, including gun violence, though I'm sure most of those raped at knife point didn't feel any better (of course most rapists use knives instead of guns anyway). Btw, a member of Amnesty International and criminologist pointed out where rapes became so common in Florida that one town had the police give free gun training classes to women which was broadcasted by the media. Within that town alone rapes dropped by about 90% while they remained high in the rest of Florida (don't recall hearing of a rise in shootings over parking spaces either...). Now it can be said that overall the UK is still less violent than the USA even after their violence rose, but that overlooks something important: if their violence rose because criminals become emboldened then just imagine what happens in the USA when OUR criminals become a lot bolder in the same way. 
And think massacres can't happen without guns? China and Japan have had mass murders as well done mostly with knives. One was so deadly because he snuck into a boarding school and slit throat after throat of sleeping students and as he used a knife he didn't wake people up as if he had a gun. And history is replete with examples of entire villages put to the sword (even if they manage to escape they'll likely starve or fall prey to other misfortune in places like Africa).
I'm not saying guns are the panacea, but I consider the claim that "more guns equals more violence" to be ridiculous. Many factors play a role and guns may make the sitch better (like those in New Orleans who were left alone by looters when they made it known they were armed and states where violence dropped after CCW permits were legalized) or made worse (if there's a lot of poverty and injustice or extreme political turmoil as in Mexico and Syria, though in those cases being unarmed isn't going to help people either). You know, I recall even a BBC report that attributed the common ownership of shotguns in a city (I think Afghanistan, not sure, but definitely a Muslim country) to why there wasn't looting after a devastating earthquake.
•
I think anyone with the right mind set should be allowed to own a gun. I don't really see where being gay or not would be one of the requirements. I would lean more towards things like mental stability and above all training in the use and safety of a fire arm. As a child growing up there where always guns in our home. It was never hidden from us. We learned early its taboos. Early up we went out and learned how to shoot, clean, and care for the gun. Does and don't , when and when not to use it, and how it could harm someone. I think that was very important. One does not learn to respect a gun by hiding it from them or giving them all the negative rap. Learning proper gun ethics is essential to owning a gun. In a proper setting a gun can be a useful tool, like hunting,target practice, and yes , hoping one would ever need to, but in protection of the home and family.
•
Where I grew up it was pretty common for people to own guns. In New York I feel pretty safe and quite honestly its a great city to be gay. If I was lived back in my old hometown, I would probably own one, simply for self protection, not because I'm gay.
•
one aspect not mentioned here is guns and the necessary rounds, even if you buy them at WalMart, are EXPEN$IVE. Some one is going to the bank big time on this. Anything political always follows the money.
Evaluate your real needs.
•
pellaz Wrote:one aspect not mentioned here is guns and the necessary rounds, even if you buy them at WalMart, are EXPEN$IVE. Some one is going to the bank big time on this. Anything political always follows the money.
Evaluate your real needs.
that's why I buy surplus :biggrin:
•
And that, Pellaz is why I reload my own ammunition. Now there is another thing you need to be aware of if you are going to carry for self defense - NEVER use reloaded ammunition in your carry weapon - use factory ammo ONLY.
Should you have to use your sidearm, and thus end up in court, the prosecuting attorney will likely try to claim the home reloads were super charged rounds intended to kill someone, thus making your use of your gun premeditated murder. Using factory ammunition removes that possibility.
Home reloads are for hunting and target practice at the range, not self defense. I use the very costly Critical Defense rounds when I carry, yes those things are around 5.00 US per round, but I know it is effective and, will not create added complications in court, should it ever come to that.
•
|
should gays arm them selves (US)
