Douva

Very true. Guns don't make you safe. They can make you safer. Without proper training, they can put you in more danger. It's like they say about martial arts--Martial arts won't make you a better fighter than the next guy, but they will make you a better fighter than you are. Nothing you can do will ever make you perfectly safe, but there are steps you can take to make yourself safer. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

It varies by state. In Texas, only law enforcement officers with a badge showing can openly carry a handgun. In some states, such as New Mexico and Arizona, civilians can openly carry without a license; however, they are more limited in the places they can carry than Texas CHL holders. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

You and Kallend have failed to show that those of us who carry concealed handguns harm you or anybody else in any way, shape, or form, so instead you've taken to making thinly veiled attacks, referring to "tinfoil beanies," and citing irrelevant statistics. If, statistically, a person is more likely to die of heart disease than in a car accident, should that person only wear his or her seatbelt if he or she first makes the effort to diet and exercise? The decision to carry a gun shouldn't be based on statistics. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I don't have any statistics to back this up, but I would venture to guess that if gun crimes in America were limited to only those committed by NRA members (the epitome of "gun nuts"), we'd have less gun crimes than Great Britain. The problem is not the "gun nuts;" the problem is the criminals. People who rob convenience stores and perform drive-by shootings and shoot up high schools seldom have time to attend rallies or write congressmen, and most of them aren't big on paying membership dues. I'm not worried about the "gun nut" with twenty guns; I'm worried about the criminal with one gun. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I sometimes wonder over your sanity John. I may not always carry, what's in your eyes, the ultimate tool to prevent violent attacks. But I have lots of other tools and methods. Do you carry a gun to the beach? When you go for a swim? When you're parachuting? You can't always carry - so how on earth can you justify the risk of being unarmed John!! As you said; 'Violence happens every day, and can happen to anyone, anywhere, no matter how careful you may be.' So explain yourself. And all the very best of luck!

The NRA's "Armed Citizen" files: http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/Default.aspx The KABR's "Operation Self Defense" files: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/opsd/ Violence happens every day, and can happen to anyone, anywhere, no matter how careful you may be. Going armed to be prepared for violence, is no different than having a fire extinguisher in your house in case of a fire, wearing your seat belt in case of an auto accident, or taking out life insurance to care for your family in case of your premature death. If you wish to go through life unprepared, then I wish you good luck. Come to think of it, since you aren't interested in the ultimate tool for saving yourself from a violent attack, that life insurance might be a good idea for you. Cardiac arrest happens every day. More people die of cardiac arrest than any other cause (including, surprise, being a victim of crime). Do you carry a portable defibrillator with you? I work out four to five days a week, for an hour to ninety minutes each day, so I feel that I'm going to MUCH greater lengths to avoid a heart attack than I am to defend myself against violent crime. And if portable defibrillators got a little more affordable, I might consider keeping one in the back of my car, next to the jumper cables. It would be kind of a notch up from taking a CPR class. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Sure, while in your little situation carrying a gun may not help you, there are equal numbers of situations where having a gun could save you. Case in point a guy comes up to a buddy of mine, and pulls a knife on him. He hands over his wallet and watch like asked. The criminal then turns to my buddies GF and asks for her purse. She starts to hand it over and the guy starts paying attention to her...At that point my buddy pulls out his pistol and tells the criminal to drop his knife and his wallet and watch. The criminal does and then runs. [ironic voice]Amazingly my friend didn't even shoot the guy!!!! Wow, who would have thought that a gun when drawn does not always have to shoot someone?[/ironic voice] As Douva wrote, there are LOTS of things that you might need but probably won't. Those with finite resources and mere human strength can't have all of them with us. I would like to see some proof that a concealed gun should be high on the list. I guess I look at things a little differently than most people. I don't see the world as a big, scary place where I take my life into my hands every time I walk out my front door. I also don't see carrying a gun as an act of monumental consequence. I have to be conscientious about where I carry it, and I have to be careful that it's not clear to anyone else that I am carrying it--neither of which require a great deal of effort--And beyond that, it's really not much of an inconvenience. If I ever need it, it'll be there, and if I don't, nobody who doesn't know me will ever know it's there. If you don't want to carry a gun or own a gun or ever touch a gun, that's perfectly fine with me; just stay off the backs of those of us who do. It isn't the people with concealed handgun licenses who are robbing convenience stores and shooting up schools, so concentrate your fear of firearms somewhere else, such as on the criminals who unlawfully purchase, own, carry, and sell firearms on the street. I don't recall any of them sitting through the fifteen hour training course and submitting to state and federal fingerprint checks, as well as an FBI background check, with me. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

True that. I've always been pretty thin, especially when I started drinking beer (@ 22 y/o and 145 pounds). I used to look like I smoked crack, which I honestly miss . I'm not so much looking to lose a particular amount of weight, just enough to lose a little more flab around my waist and under my chin. Totally vanity pounds, and I won't be heartbroken if they don't go willingly. Okay, first of all, I take offense to the idea that he'd look like a weakling at 160 lbs. I'm 6' 1", 160 lbs., and I don't think I look like a weakling. So there! As for your vanity pounds, Matt, the problem isn't that you weigh too much; it's that you have too much body fat. Get to the gym and focus on full-body weight training with heavy weight. Do minimal (short but intense) cardio. Maintain a high protein diet, and eat between 2,000 and 2,500 calories every day. In a few months you'll look like a Light Heavyweight fighter. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I don't think too many people out there realize that the myth about the rule of thumb relating to beating your wife is a bunch of bull. Linder, you can dispel myths with the best of us. PS. I already knew that myth was a bunch of bull. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

My fault. I interjected my definitions of a "prepared person" and a "fearful person" without first explaining why I was defining them. I've edited the first post to make it a little clearer. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

As stated in my previous post, I think the point of my original post was misinterpreted. I was trying to point out that carrying a gun is not what makes a person a fearful person; being afraid of everything is what makes a person a fearful person. We've both made the same point, in a roundabout way--You can carry a gun without being a paranoid nut. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

It occurs to me that the point of my original post has been seriously misinterpreted, so just to clarify, I was trying to dispel the notion that people carry guns because they're fearful, when in fact, most people carry guns because they want to be prepared. I was NOT suggesting that all people who don't carry guns are fearful or that people who do carry guns are somehow mentally superior. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I can't afford a million things I probably won't need, nor do I have the strength to carry a million mostly unnecessary things around with me, so I prioritize. I suspect most others do too. Based on the experience of my 61 years on this Earth (even living and working in Chicago!!) I have found no need to carry a gun, so a gun is down near the bottom of the million things on my probably not needed list. I really don't care if you own or carry a gun or not. I just hope you're not so arrogant as to suggest that the life experiences of one American man, from 1945-2006, are sufficient evidence that no civilian, including yourself, will have need of a gun in 2007 or 2017 or 2027, because you have no way of knowing that. Fifteen years ago, most people thought they would never have need of the Internet. After all, they'd gone their whole lives without it, and their parents had gone their whole lives without it, and their grandparents had gone their whole lives without it--Why would they ever need a frivolous luxury like that? I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I never said anything about the prepared person encountering a bomb or a terrorist or a chemical agent. I simply used people who panic at the sight of white powder and mysterious packages as EXAMPLES of fearful people. There are white powders and mysterious packages in life; the world needs to get used to that. The idea that you can plan your life so well that you'll never need to defend yourself or protect yourself is ridiculous. Most people who own guns do not view them as a substitute for common sense. Most of them understand that common sense is a great tool but a poor substitute for a gun when you really need a gun. The last sentence of your response almost sounds like you're trying to twist my argument about prepared people and fearful people into an argument about courageous people and cowards. Owning a gun has nothing to do with being courageous, and living in a world of fearful paranoia has nothing to do with being a coward. The prepared person simply has a broad enough view on history and life to know that his 18 to 98 years of life experiences are not indicative of the way things have always been, nor are they indicative of the way things will always be. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

The actions of the fearful person harm everybody because they needlessly disrupt the "system" and perpetuate unwarranted fear. I never said anything about the prepared person seeing a white powder; you made the mistaken assumption that that was what I was getting at. If you read my post carefully, you'll see that I was listing things a prepared person might POTENTIALLY own, not things a prepared person carries with him at all times. But if the prepared person did see a white powder, he'd probably stop and ask himself, "Do I have reason to believe terrorists might have planted a biological or chemical agent here, or is it considerably more likely that this white powder is from another, much less harmful source?" The prepared person isn't living in a world of paranoid delusions; therefore, he needs neither his gun nor his gas mask to deal with the white powder. Why do you say the prepared person in my context is fearful? Because he owns objects he may never use? I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Since a lot of people seem to be under the mistaken impression that carrying a gun is the act of a fearful person, I'd like to explain the difference between being a prepared person and a fearful person. The difference between the prepared person and the fearful person. The prepared person owns a gun or a gas mask or a million other things he probably won't need but might. The fearful person calls for the evacuation of a building, airport, or freeway because he sees a white powder or an unattended parcel. Society sometimes confuses these two people, praising the fearful person for being alert and not taking any chances, while chastising the prepared person for being a paranoid fool. Ignored is the fact that the actions of the fearful person harm everybody, while the actions of the prepared person harm nobody (unless, of course, he crosses the line and begins behaving like a fearful person). I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Right on the money! Seriously, our NYPD Compstat unit is involved with crime statistics. They monitor crime patterns, develop crime tracking methods and what not. Bro, I just hang out in front of the local donut eatery. I sit back, relax with my donut and coffee and watch the greatest show on earth! Seriously, I don't even eat donuts and I don't even drink coffee. I prefer beer and pretzels while I'm on duty. I simply stated: I may have exaggerated on the quick minute or two but kids are snatched right from under their parents' nose a lot of times and yes it does happen regularly and no, a lot of these abductions do not make it to the paper often times. Can you tell me how many children are abducted by strangers in New York City each year? New York is a large metropolitan city, so its numbers may be a little higher than the national average, but according to the statistics I've seen, a child in America is roughly as likely to be abducted by a stranger as the average American is to be struck by lightning. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Source? I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Oh well then that really clarifies things. What the heck are you saying? You are no longer allower to whine about people not reading your posts, because you're reversing their meaning with your edits. Reversing their meaning? Sure thing. You're so cute when you try to play Thread Nazi. Covering your embarassment at being caught in a lie by attacking me as a nazi? I'm amazed you'd dare show your avatar in this thread again, but you did and stooped even lower. Unless... could it be you don't know what a physician is? I'll tell you what you can choose. Dumb or mendacious, which is it? No editing after you decide what you you were thinking this time though. Will both of you shut up and then go off somewhere and grow up? This has devolved from an intelligent discussion into an unintelligent discussion into something that can no longer even be considered a discussion. Go get some fresh air or something. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Chris, that's not an argument. That's the adult equivalent of sticking out your tongue and going "plffffff." An argument (aka "a debate") consists of supporting evidence. Your remark doesn't even state a complete opinion--You don't explain WHAT it works for. Poor form indeed. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Just to play Devil's advocate (or Jesus's advocate, or whatever), the Bible never condemns the wealthy; it simply admonishes them that they must work harder to avoid temptation and to be good stewards of what God has given them. The vast majority of the Christian leaders in America are NOT wealthy. They live modest existences and lead small to medium size congregations. But those Christian leaders don't show up on the six o'clock news and don't have weekly or nightly television shows, so most of us never hear about them. All we hear about are the Pat Robertsons of the world, and we only hear about them when the mainstream media is reporting on their latest crackpot tirades. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

... not to mention the urban landing environment, snag points, crazy winds, etc. I hate to say this, but I'm also pretty sure your average pilot has a better head on his/her shoulders than your average office worker. I'm pretty sure the risk of people jumping far outweighs the very slight chance that it would save someone (9/11 being a unique case) Again, I think this is the same old "The general public can't be trusted--They're not as smart as us." attitude that has reared its ugly head throughout history. People who have never used a parachute before are not going to nonchalantly clip in and jump at the first sign of danger. But they might like to have the option if they run out of breathable air or can no longer stand the heat. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I know skydivers like to believe we're an elite bunch, but we're really not the only people capable of surviving a decent under a parachute. I'm pretty sure a few untrained pilots have pulled it off. Most whuffos are not exactly overly eager to jump from a building. "Do you smell smoke, Bill?" "No, but let's jump from the thirtieth floor, just to be safe." You're using all sorts of assumptions--People might jump on top of each other; the parachutes might melt; jumpers might hit obstacles on the ground; people might jump when they really don't have to--to make the argument that these chutes wouldn't work. Why shouldn't people be given the option, as a last resort? Can you say for sure that none of the people who jumped from the Twin Towers could have had successful deployments if they'd been wearing parachutes? I don't remember seeing any of them fall through flames. The military uses round chutes because you can make a lot of mistakes under a round chute and still survive. Most of your arguments could be used against bailout rigs for pilots, but I doubt you'd ever make that argument. If I were a whuffo working in a high rise, I certainly wouldn't want to be denied the option of having a building escape rig available because some people don't think I'm wise enough to handle it. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

They're round chutes. It would be like a mass military air drop--The canopies don't steer, and if they collide, they just bounce off each other. As for conspiracy theories, I wouldn't call that a real problem. The conspiracy nuts will always find something to fuel their paranoia. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Can you imagine the conspiracy theories that would be flying about if just before the twin towers collapsed people had seen someone descending from one of them under a parachute? I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.