I'm a DC resident, applied for my CCW, and I'm now carrying concealed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is enlightening.

The pro-CCW posters here tend to be very pragmatic, serious and sober in their posts (with the exception of a few obvious sarcastic jabs), while the anti-gun posters generally tend to be more histrionic, dramatic, and combative. The pro-CCW people sound like my attorney neighbors. The anti-gun people sound like angry yahoos at a protest.

It’s a noticeable thing. It consistently comes through in these 10 pages.

Yep!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The people who keep passing laws and trying to ban guns don't seem to know much about the things they are trying to ban. I love the people who say the AR in AR-15 stands for "Assault Rifle" (news flash, it stands for Armalite Rifle as in the company that developed it in the 50's) MD bans the M1-A1 in 308 but not the SCAR-20 in 308? The SCAR-20 is a modern battle rifle, the M1-A1 was used in Korea and Viet Nam as the M-14.

And none of them belong in the home. They are weapons of war, came as tanks and hydrogen bombs.

Right, because there is zero difference between a gun and a nuclear bomb.

Seriously, come up with some new schtick, because I can’t even…..

Come back when you shoot your kid coming in late.

That's one thing that will never happen in my house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The people who keep passing laws and trying to ban guns don't seem to know much about the things they are trying to ban. I love the people who say the AR in AR-15 stands for "Assault Rifle" (news flash, it stands for Armalite Rifle as in the company that developed it in the 50's) MD bans the M1-A1 in 308 but not the SCAR-20 in 308? The SCAR-20 is a modern battle rifle, the M1-A1 was used in Korea and Viet Nam as the M-14.

And none of them belong in the home. They are weapons of war, came as tanks and hydrogen bombs.

Right, because there is zero difference between a gun and a nuclear bomb.

Seriously, come up with some new schtick, because I can’t even…..

Come back when you shoot your kid coming in late.

That's one thing that will never happen in my house.

Yes, because you will be tied up at gun point while your house is being robbed. Shoot your kid - what a dbag you are. Great argument argument. I’m getting my CCW after reading your post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The people who keep passing laws and trying to ban guns don't seem to know much about the things they are trying to ban. I love the people who say the AR in AR-15 stands for "Assault Rifle" (news flash, it stands for Armalite Rifle as in the company that developed it in the 50's) MD bans the M1-A1 in 308 but not the SCAR-20 in 308? The SCAR-20 is a modern battle rifle, the M1-A1 was used in Korea and Viet Nam as the M-14.

And none of them belong in the home. They are weapons of war, came as tanks and hydrogen bombs.

Right, because there is zero difference between a gun and a nuclear bomb.

Seriously, come up with some new schtick, because I can’t even…..

Come back when you shoot your kid coming in late.

That's one thing that will never happen in my house.

Yes, because you will be tied up at gun point while your house is being robbed. Shoot your kid - what a dbag you are. Great argument argument. I’m getting my CCW after reading your post.

DP good for you. Good luck to your family though. The vast majority of guns that get fired in the households they belong to end up hurting someone in the family. That's a fact that you cannot disprove.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15522849/

Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.

[Anonymous]

OP are you confident you will actually shoot a criminal, or shoot a criminal first before he shoots you, and not miss your target and maim or kill an innocent bystander? How could you live with yourself if your bullet missed its intended target, or went through your intended target and then also hit and killed a 3 year old who was innocently nearby? Do you think that child (or other innocent victim) would simply be collateral damage? Surely you have done your homework and seen what damage guns can do to little bodies, or how one bullet can go through one person and continue on to hit another. Have you done your homework in this regard?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The people who keep passing laws and trying to ban guns don't seem to know much about the things they are trying to ban. I love the people who say the AR in AR-15 stands for "Assault Rifle" (news flash, it stands for Armalite Rifle as in the company that developed it in the 50's) MD bans the M1-A1 in 308 but not the SCAR-20 in 308? The SCAR-20 is a modern battle rifle, the M1-A1 was used in Korea and Viet Nam as the M-14.

And none of them belong in the home. They are weapons of war, came as tanks and hydrogen bombs.

Right, because there is zero difference between a gun and a nuclear bomb.

Seriously, come up with some new schtick, because I can’t even…..

Come back when you shoot your kid coming in late.

That's one thing that will never happen in my house.

Yes, because you will be tied up at gun point while your house is being robbed. Shoot your kid - what a dbag you are. Great argument argument. I’m getting my CCW after reading your post.

DP good for you. Good luck to your family though. The vast majority of guns that get fired in the households they belong to end up hurting someone in the family. That's a fact that you cannot disprove.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15522849/

Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.

You’re a broken record. You cannot fathom that people can be responsible gun owners and that the gun could actually save their lives. You are insufferable. And consider yourself the reason for one more CCW permit which I had not considered until reading this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP are you confident you will actually shoot a criminal, or shoot a criminal first before he shoots you, and not miss your target and maim or kill an innocent bystander? How could you live with yourself if your bullet missed its intended target, or went through your intended target and then also hit and killed a 3 year old who was innocently nearby? Do you think that child (or other innocent victim) would simply be collateral damage? Surely you have done your homework and seen what damage guns can do to little bodies, or how one bullet can go through one person and continue on to hit another. Have you done your homework in this regard?

How could you live with yourself owning a car that could possibly strike a 3 year old in a cross walk while you are driving and checking your HuffPo app? Far greater chance of this happening than you shooting a 3 year old.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is enlightening.

The pro-CCW posters here tend to be very pragmatic, serious and sober in their posts (with the exception of a few obvious sarcastic jabs), while the anti-gun posters generally tend to be more histrionic, dramatic, and combative. The pro-CCW people sound like my attorney neighbors. The anti-gun people sound like angry yahoos at a protest.

It’s a noticeable thing. It consistently comes through in these 10 pages.

Here are some pragmatic and sober questions, which I hope you can answer: How frequently do bullets miss their intended targets and hit innocent bystanders? Would you be able to live with yourself if you killed a child accidentally? Statistically speaking, are household firearms more likely to be used to kill or ward off an intruder or to kill or maim someone in the household or known to the members of the household?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP are you confident you will actually shoot a criminal, or shoot a criminal first before he shoots you, and not miss your target and maim or kill an innocent bystander? How could you live with yourself if your bullet missed its intended target, or went through your intended target and then also hit and killed a 3 year old who was innocently nearby? Do you think that child (or other innocent victim) would simply be collateral damage? Surely you have done your homework and seen what damage guns can do to little bodies, or how one bullet can go through one person and continue on to hit another. Have you done your homework in this regard?

How could you live with yourself owning a car that could possibly strike a 3 year old in a cross walk while you are driving and checking your HuffPo app? Far greater chance of this happening than you shooting a 3 year old.

My car has an entire purpose that is not centered on killing someone. Can't really say the same thing about a firearm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The people who keep passing laws and trying to ban guns don't seem to know much about the things they are trying to ban. I love the people who say the AR in AR-15 stands for "Assault Rifle" (news flash, it stands for Armalite Rifle as in the company that developed it in the 50's) MD bans the M1-A1 in 308 but not the SCAR-20 in 308? The SCAR-20 is a modern battle rifle, the M1-A1 was used in Korea and Viet Nam as the M-14.

And none of them belong in the home. They are weapons of war, came as tanks and hydrogen bombs.

Right, because there is zero difference between a gun and a nuclear bomb.

Seriously, come up with some new schtick, because I can’t even…..

Come back when you shoot your kid coming in late.

That's one thing that will never happen in my house.

Yes, because you will be tied up at gun point while your house is being robbed. Shoot your kid - what a dbag you are. Great argument argument. I’m getting my CCW after reading your post.

DP good for you. Good luck to your family though. The vast majority of guns that get fired in the households they belong to end up hurting someone in the family. That's a fact that you cannot disprove.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15522849/

Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.

You’re a broken record. You cannot fathom that people can be responsible gun owners and that the gun could actually save their lives. You are insufferable. And consider yourself the reason for one more CCW permit which I had not considered until reading this thread.

Show me the statistics to convince me that guns save more lives than they take. Please - I'll be convinced if you have the facts to back that up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP are you confident you will actually shoot a criminal, or shoot a criminal first before he shoots you, and not miss your target and maim or kill an innocent bystander? How could you live with yourself if your bullet missed its intended target, or went through your intended target and then also hit and killed a 3 year old who was innocently nearby? Do you think that child (or other innocent victim) would simply be collateral damage? Surely you have done your homework and seen what damage guns can do to little bodies, or how one bullet can go through one person and continue on to hit another. Have you done your homework in this regard?

How could you live with yourself owning a car that could possibly strike a 3 year old in a cross walk while you are driving and checking your HuffPo app? Far greater chance of this happening than you shooting a 3 year old.

What is a HuffPo app?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The people who keep passing laws and trying to ban guns don't seem to know much about the things they are trying to ban. I love the people who say the AR in AR-15 stands for "Assault Rifle" (news flash, it stands for Armalite Rifle as in the company that developed it in the 50's) MD bans the M1-A1 in 308 but not the SCAR-20 in 308? The SCAR-20 is a modern battle rifle, the M1-A1 was used in Korea and Viet Nam as the M-14.

And none of them belong in the home. They are weapons of war, came as tanks and hydrogen bombs.

Right, because there is zero difference between a gun and a nuclear bomb.

Seriously, come up with some new schtick, because I can’t even…..

Come back when you shoot your kid coming in late.

That's one thing that will never happen in my house.

Yes, because you will be tied up at gun point while your house is being robbed. Shoot your kid - what a dbag you are. Great argument argument. I’m getting my CCW after reading your post.

DP good for you. Good luck to your family though. The vast majority of guns that get fired in the households they belong to end up hurting someone in the family. That's a fact that you cannot disprove.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15522849/

Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.

You’re a broken record. You cannot fathom that people can be responsible gun owners and that the gun could actually save their lives. You are insufferable. And consider yourself the reason for one more CCW permit which I had not considered until reading this thread.

Show me the statistics to convince me that guns save more lives than they take. Please - I'll be convinced if you have the facts to back that up.

Better yet, post links to 5 instances where someone like you stopped a criminal in his tracks with your sidearm.

Meanwhile, I'll find 5,000 links to instances where someone like you accidentally shot and killed someone they knew and another 500,000 where someone in the house got hold of their gun and shot themselves or their kid brother.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The people who keep passing laws and trying to ban guns don't seem to know much about the things they are trying to ban. I love the people who say the AR in AR-15 stands for "Assault Rifle" (news flash, it stands for Armalite Rifle as in the company that developed it in the 50's) MD bans the M1-A1 in 308 but not the SCAR-20 in 308? The SCAR-20 is a modern battle rifle, the M1-A1 was used in Korea and Viet Nam as the M-14.

And none of them belong in the home. They are weapons of war, came as tanks and hydrogen bombs.

Right, because there is zero difference between a gun and a nuclear bomb.

Seriously, come up with some new schtick, because I can’t even…..

Come back when you shoot your kid coming in late.

That's one thing that will never happen in my house.

Yes, because you will be tied up at gun point while your house is being robbed. Shoot your kid - what a dbag you are. Great argument argument. I’m getting my CCW after reading your post.

You certainly sound like someone who should be carrying around a gun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I recently reported a petty crime and the police officer told me to strongly consider getting a firearm/gun for my home, because things are getting really bad.

Yeah, because some people think the answer to petty crime is shooting someone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP are you confident you will actually shoot a criminal, or shoot a criminal first before he shoots you, and not miss your target and maim or kill an innocent bystander? How could you live with yourself if your bullet missed its intended target, or went through your intended target and then also hit and killed a 3 year old who was innocently nearby? Do you think that child (or other innocent victim) would simply be collateral damage? Surely you have done your homework and seen what damage guns can do to little bodies, or how one bullet can go through one person and continue on to hit another. Have you done your homework in this regard?

How could you live with yourself owning a car that could possibly strike a 3 year old in a cross walk while you are driving and checking your HuffPo app? Far greater chance of this happening than you shooting a 3 year old.

My car has an entire purpose that is not centered on killing someone. Can't really say the same thing about a firearm.

My gun’s purpose is defending me and my family but at the end of the day when you kill the 3 y/o in your ev what diff dies it make.