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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And fear of criminal assault is anything but irrational. Just ask the lady who was beaten and strangled on the roof of her building recently. Oh, that’s right, you can’t.

The PP’s fear of common sense laws is irrational.

Not nearly so irrational as pretending violent criminals aren’t preying on people every day, and it’s just a matter of time until it’s your turn. I would rather face that sort of situation armed.

You are free to choose to face it unarmed. That’s your choice. But you don’t get to choose for me, too.

I don't have an issue with people having guns. I have an issue with people not pushing for better safety measures that will reduce gun violence.

As a gun owner I support laws that would actually contribute to reducing gun violence - prosecution of EVERY straw purchase, mandatory minimum sentences for drug dealing, robberies, sexual assaults or carjackings committed with a gun, making drive-by shootings punishable by life in prison or the death penalty if an innocent bystander is killed. That would be a good start.

I do not support most of the cliched “common sense” gun control measures often bandied about here because those laws are mostly aimed at punishing people like me by greatly restricting the types of guns I’d be permitted to own, rather than deterring actual crime. There’s nothing common sense about that, unless your goal is just eliminating gun ownership on an installment basis.

That's the primary consideration, of course. Making sure you're able to buy as many guns, of whatever type, as you want, whenever you want. Your freedom to buy and own guns is more important than my freedom to go places without fear of people wielding guns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And fear of criminal assault is anything but irrational. Just ask the lady who was beaten and strangled on the roof of her building recently. Oh, that’s right, you can’t.

The PP’s fear of common sense laws is irrational.

Not nearly so irrational as pretending violent criminals aren’t preying on people every day, and it’s just a matter of time until it’s your turn. I would rather face that sort of situation armed.

You are free to choose to face it unarmed. That’s your choice. But you don’t get to choose for me, too.

DP. You want to live in a society where guns and gun violence are prevalent. I want to live in a society where guns and gun violence are less prevalent. How come you get to choose for me?

The constitution chooses. Not someone who arms themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And fear of criminal assault is anything but irrational. Just ask the lady who was beaten and strangled on the roof of her building recently. Oh, that’s right, you can’t.

The PP’s fear of common sense laws is irrational.

Not nearly so irrational as pretending violent criminals aren’t preying on people every day, and it’s just a matter of time until it’s your turn. I would rather face that sort of situation armed.

You are free to choose to face it unarmed. That’s your choice. But you don’t get to choose for me, too.

I don't have an issue with people having guns. I have an issue with people not pushing for better safety measures that will reduce gun violence.

As a gun owner I support laws that would actually contribute to reducing gun violence - prosecution of EVERY straw purchase, mandatory minimum sentences for drug dealing, robberies, sexual assaults or carjackings committed with a gun, making drive-by shootings punishable by life in prison or the death penalty if an innocent bystander is killed. That would be a good start.

I do not support most of the cliched “common sense” gun control measures often bandied about here because those laws are mostly aimed at punishing people like me by greatly restricting the types of guns I’d be permitted to own, rather than deterring actual crime. There’s nothing common sense about that, unless your goal is just eliminating gun ownership on an installment basis.

That's the primary consideration, of course. Making sure you're able to buy as many guns, of whatever type, as you want, whenever you want. Your freedom to buy and own guns is more important than my freedom to go places without fear of people wielding guns.

Perhaps the US isn’t the place for you. I’m guessing the second amendment isn’t changing anytime soon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Spite gun purchases. Do you always buy deadly weapons when you get emotional?

Reminds me of when gun owners go on a shopping spree right after a mass shooting. How many guns were sold after Sandy Hook or Vegas?

It is fascinating, this legend in their own mind thinking. They fancy themselves being good guys with a gun. (Spoiler: They are not).

I’m definitely not a legend in my own mind. I’m 5’3” and weigh 118 lbs and I don’t want to be raped, strangled or maybe beaten to death by a man who could be twice my size and 3 or 4 times stronger than me. I don’t “fancy myself” being able to physically resist or stop someone so much larger and stronger than me.

Serious question (assuming you’re also female) - do you think you could stop a man from attacking you? I can’t. If you think you can, what makes you believe that? Why are you so much more capable than I am?

Here’s the difference between you and I:

I don’t live in this weird state of fear and paranoia that I am going to be attacked by strange, large men. Because that just isn’t something that is likely to happen.

Except in 2019 (the most recent year available in the FBI UCR) 104,720 women were attacked and raped by…. large men.

So let’s not pretend it doesn’t happen. It actually happens with terrifying regularity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP and other gun owners - do you support the bipartisan “Prevent Family Fire Act of 2023“?

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2770?s=1&r=74

https://www.bradyunited.org/legislation/prevent-family-fire-act
“The Prevent Family Fire Act of 2019 embraces a market approach to increasing safe firearm storage by incentivizing retail sales through tax credits. It provides a tax credit for retail sales of safe storage devices that are designed and marketed to deny unauthorized access to, or render inoperable, a firearm or ammunition, and secured by a combination, key, or biometric lock.”

There are already laws against criminal negligence.

That's not what this does.

Do you comprehend that the only enforcement measure for the laws you advocate is prosecution? For the same negligent behavior that can already be prosecuted? Laws don’t magically change behavior. People who are leaving firearms where unauthorized people can get access to them aren’t going to stop doing that because of some new law. Gun locks and gun security boxes cost next to nothing. Any “tax credit” would be infinitesimal.

Do what now? Laws absolutely do change behavior, and there's nothing magic about it.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP and other gun owners - do you support the bipartisan “Prevent Family Fire Act of 2023“?

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2770?s=1&r=74

https://www.bradyunited.org/legislation/prevent-family-fire-act
“The Prevent Family Fire Act of 2019 embraces a market approach to increasing safe firearm storage by incentivizing retail sales through tax credits. It provides a tax credit for retail sales of safe storage devices that are designed and marketed to deny unauthorized access to, or render inoperable, a firearm or ammunition, and secured by a combination, key, or biometric lock.”

I support making safes, locks, and vehicle secure storage containers 100% tax deductible.

I do not support anything that makes a firearm itself inoperable by any means.

Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Spite gun purchases. Do you always buy deadly weapons when you get emotional?

Reminds me of when gun owners go on a shopping spree right after a mass shooting. How many guns were sold after Sandy Hook or Vegas?

It is fascinating, this legend in their own mind thinking. They fancy themselves being good guys with a gun. (Spoiler: They are not).

I’m definitely not a legend in my own mind. I’m 5’3” and weigh 118 lbs and I don’t want to be raped, strangled or maybe beaten to death by a man who could be twice my size and 3 or 4 times stronger than me. I don’t “fancy myself” being able to physically resist or stop someone so much larger and stronger than me.

Serious question (assuming you’re also female) - do you think you could stop a man from attacking you? I can’t. If you think you can, what makes you believe that? Why are you so much more capable than I am?

Here’s the difference between you and I:

I don’t live in this weird state of fear and paranoia that I am going to be attacked by strange, large men. Because that just isn’t something that is likely to happen.

But you live in a state of fear and paranoia that someone else’s registered gun is going to kill you?

100% This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And fear of criminal assault is anything but irrational. Just ask the lady who was beaten and strangled on the roof of her building recently. Oh, that’s right, you can’t.

The PP’s fear of common sense laws is irrational.

Not nearly so irrational as pretending violent criminals aren’t preying on people every day, and it’s just a matter of time until it’s your turn. I would rather face that sort of situation armed.

You are free to choose to face it unarmed. That’s your choice. But you don’t get to choose for me, too.

DP. You want to live in a society where guns and gun violence are prevalent. I want to live in a society where guns and gun violence are less prevalent. How come you get to choose for me?

I also want to live in a society where gun violence is less prevalent. But the way to achieve that is not by making it more difficult for decent people to obtain and carry a gun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And fear of criminal assault is anything but irrational. Just ask the lady who was beaten and strangled on the roof of her building recently. Oh, that’s right, you can’t.

The PP’s fear of common sense laws is irrational.

Not nearly so irrational as pretending violent criminals aren’t preying on people every day, and it’s just a matter of time until it’s your turn. I would rather face that sort of situation armed.

You are free to choose to face it unarmed. That’s your choice. But you don’t get to choose for me, too.

I don't have an issue with people having guns. I have an issue with people not pushing for better safety measures that will reduce gun violence.

As a gun owner I support laws that would actually contribute to reducing gun violence - prosecution of EVERY straw purchase, mandatory minimum sentences for drug dealing, robberies, sexual assaults or carjackings committed with a gun, making drive-by shootings punishable by life in prison or the death penalty if an innocent bystander is killed. That would be a good start.

I do not support most of the cliched “common sense” gun control measures often bandied about here because those laws are mostly aimed at punishing people like me by greatly restricting the types of guns I’d be permitted to own, rather than deterring actual crime. There’s nothing common sense about that, unless your goal is just eliminating gun ownership on an installment basis.

That's the primary consideration, of course. Making sure you're able to buy as many guns, of whatever type, as you want, whenever you want. Your freedom to buy and own guns is more important than my freedom to go places without fear of people wielding guns.

There are plenty of places of public accommodation that restrict non-criminals like the OP and others in this thread from carrying guns into them. Various stores, restaurants, theaters, hospitals, government buildings, schools, Metro, etc. Certainly enough places for you to spend your entire day isolated and secured from people who already posed exactly ZERO danger to you.


Of course, the actual armed criminals - the people who DO pose a danger to you - they’re absolutely undeterred by such trivial things as laws. But hey, at least you’re safe from the people who were never going to hurt you to begin with, so…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And fear of criminal assault is anything but irrational. Just ask the lady who was beaten and strangled on the roof of her building recently. Oh, that’s right, you can’t.

The PP’s fear of common sense laws is irrational.

Not nearly so irrational as pretending violent criminals aren’t preying on people every day, and it’s just a matter of time until it’s your turn. I would rather face that sort of situation armed.

You are free to choose to face it unarmed. That’s your choice. But you don’t get to choose for me, too.

DP. You want to live in a society where guns and gun violence are prevalent. I want to live in a society where guns and gun violence are less prevalent. How come you get to choose for me?

I also want to live in a society where gun violence is less prevalent. But the way to achieve that is not by making it more difficult for decent people to obtain and carry a gun.

Actually it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And fear of criminal assault is anything but irrational. Just ask the lady who was beaten and strangled on the roof of her building recently. Oh, that’s right, you can’t.

The PP’s fear of common sense laws is irrational.

Not nearly so irrational as pretending violent criminals aren’t preying on people every day, and it’s just a matter of time until it’s your turn. I would rather face that sort of situation armed.

You are free to choose to face it unarmed. That’s your choice. But you don’t get to choose for me, too.

I don't have an issue with people having guns. I have an issue with people not pushing for better safety measures that will reduce gun violence.

As a gun owner I support laws that would actually contribute to reducing gun violence - prosecution of EVERY straw purchase, mandatory minimum sentences for drug dealing, robberies, sexual assaults or carjackings committed with a gun, making drive-by shootings punishable by life in prison or the death penalty if an innocent bystander is killed. That would be a good start.

I do not support most of the cliched “common sense” gun control measures often bandied about here because those laws are mostly aimed at punishing people like me by greatly restricting the types of guns I’d be permitted to own, rather than deterring actual crime. There’s nothing common sense about that, unless your goal is just eliminating gun ownership on an installment basis.

That's the primary consideration, of course. Making sure you're able to buy as many guns, of whatever type, as you want, whenever you want. Your freedom to buy and own guns is more important than my freedom to go places without fear of people wielding guns.

There are plenty of places of public accommodation that restrict non-criminals like the OP and others in this thread from carrying guns into them. Various stores, restaurants, theaters, hospitals, government buildings, schools, Metro, etc. Certainly enough places for you to spend your entire day isolated and secured from people who already posed exactly ZERO danger to you.


Of course, the actual armed criminals - the people who DO pose a danger to you - they’re absolutely undeterred by such trivial things as laws. But hey, at least you’re safe from the people who were never going to hurt you to begin with, so…

Libraries, for example? You seem to believe that the only people who ever shoot anybody anywhere, ever, are people who were already convicted criminals before they did the shooting. Unfortunately, that's not true.

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/video-released-of-shooting-that-killed-special-officer-during-training-exercise-in-dc-library/3422274/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And fear of criminal assault is anything but irrational. Just ask the lady who was beaten and strangled on the roof of her building recently. Oh, that’s right, you can’t.

The PP’s fear of common sense laws is irrational.

Not nearly so irrational as pretending violent criminals aren’t preying on people every day, and it’s just a matter of time until it’s your turn. I would rather face that sort of situation armed.

You are free to choose to face it unarmed. That’s your choice. But you don’t get to choose for me, too.

I don't have an issue with people having guns. I have an issue with people not pushing for better safety measures that will reduce gun violence.

As a gun owner I support laws that would actually contribute to reducing gun violence - prosecution of EVERY straw purchase, mandatory minimum sentences for drug dealing, robberies, sexual assaults or carjackings committed with a gun, making drive-by shootings punishable by life in prison or the death penalty if an innocent bystander is killed. That would be a good start.

I do not support most of the cliched “common sense” gun control measures often bandied about here because those laws are mostly aimed at punishing people like me by greatly restricting the types of guns I’d be permitted to own, rather than deterring actual crime. There’s nothing common sense about that, unless your goal is just eliminating gun ownership on an installment basis.

That's the primary consideration, of course. Making sure you're able to buy as many guns, of whatever type, as you want, whenever you want. Your freedom to buy and own guns is more important than my freedom to go places without fear of people wielding guns.

Perhaps the US isn’t the place for you. I’m guessing the second amendment isn’t changing anytime soon.

The Second Amendment isn't changing anytime soon, but I'm hoping we will soon get back to the traditional understanding of the meaning of the Second Amendment, all 27 words of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And fear of criminal assault is anything but irrational. Just ask the lady who was beaten and strangled on the roof of her building recently. Oh, that’s right, you can’t.

The PP’s fear of common sense laws is irrational.

Not nearly so irrational as pretending violent criminals aren’t preying on people every day, and it’s just a matter of time until it’s your turn. I would rather face that sort of situation armed.

You are free to choose to face it unarmed. That’s your choice. But you don’t get to choose for me, too.

I don't have an issue with people having guns. I have an issue with people not pushing for better safety measures that will reduce gun violence.

As a gun owner I support laws that would actually contribute to reducing gun violence - prosecution of EVERY straw purchase, mandatory minimum sentences for drug dealing, robberies, sexual assaults or carjackings committed with a gun, making drive-by shootings punishable by life in prison or the death penalty if an innocent bystander is killed. That would be a good start.

I do not support most of the cliched “common sense” gun control measures often bandied about here because those laws are mostly aimed at punishing people like me by greatly restricting the types of guns I’d be permitted to own, rather than deterring actual crime. There’s nothing common sense about that, unless your goal is just eliminating gun ownership on an installment basis.

None of these take away your rights or restrict the types of guns you'd be permitted to own:
https://www.bradyunited.org/the-brady-plan
https://www.bradyunited.org/legislation/code-of-conduct-act

What are your issues with these specific proposals?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a liberal and I'm fully in support of your right to concealed carry, as long as you're at the shooting range every week to develop and maintain your skill.

Think of this this way: by carrying a gun, you're tacitly acknowledging you may one day have to use it in public. So, best to practice frequently to make sure that if (God forbid) you have to use it, you will be able to draw, aim, and hit the bad guy in three seconds -- without accidentally hitting anyone else.

A few years ago, in another big city, I spoke to the owner of a private shooting range. His most consistent clients? Local police officers. They apparently didn't get as much on-the-job practice as they felt they needed to be confident of their ability to react quickly with their sidearm.

So, to any gun owner who's reading this thread: may I suggest you practice far more than you think you'd need to? If the cops feel the need for extra training every month, then perhaps you should be practicing every week.

If you do practice every week, then honestly, I'll probably feel safer walking at night beside you than without you. But if you don't practice... I really hope I'm nowhere near when you feel the need to draw.

Really? I mean, I don’t really trust them to carry a gun. Period. They don’t really sound trustworthy.

I don’t trust anyone who owns a gun and does NOT support common sense gun laws.

The vast majority of existing gun laws, and an even greater proportion of proposed additional restrictions are anything but “common sense.” What kind of “common sense” would favor endless restrictions on the rights of decent people in a completely failed effort to prevent criminal behavior by violent sociopaths, who typically already prohibited from possessing firearms?

Comments like this are exactly why I don’t trust you.

These are not “endless resitrictions”:
https://www.bradyunited.org/the-brady-plan
https://www.bradyunited.org/legislation/code-of-conduct-act

Yes they are. Because all the laws already on the books were supposed to solve the crime problem. When they didn’t, new laws got passed, over and over. And those have failed too, because the problem is criminal psychopaths, not decent people and inanimate objects. And if Brady & Co. got everything they are wishing for today, that will fail too. And so there will be a demand for still more pointless, ineffective laws that criminals (being criminals) will ignore the way they ignore all the laws already in effect. Read the posts in this thread and similar ones on DCUM: the people who blame firearms for the behavior of criminals will not be satisfied until a “magic magnet” comes and supernaturally lifts away all the guns, not that would make an iota of difference anyway, because the criminal underworld would promptly meet criminal demand for firearms the same way it meets the criminal demand for narcotics and every other form of Vice.

No, these are not “endless”. These are targeted actions that address real issues today.

You prefer to make up wild scenarios (magic magnet?) over these actions that would reduce gun deaths.

You can’t support any of these proposed actions/laws? Did you even read them?

Gun owners should be responsible and rational. That’s why I don’t trust you.

It is not “gun owners” who are misusing firearms. It is violent criminal psychopaths already prohibited from firearms possession.

And the “magic magnet” isn’t my idea. Read the posts on DCUM. There are plenty of posters living in a fantasyland who want all guns to disappear and actually think this is possible. Some Eden advocate for such a solution to be imposed by authoritarian violence worthy of a totalitarian dictatorship.

You are fixated on one piece of the puzzle. How did he get the gun? Can the LEOs track to the source if it was sourced in a different state?

Read the proposed actions from Brady. You can support any of them? None of these proposed actions should affect responsible gun owners.

People who are driven by irrational fears and refuse to inform themselves have no place owning a weapon.

No, the people who are fixated on inanimate objects have no place imposing unworkable policies that have proven ineffective since Reconstruction at preventing crime. Where a particular criminal obtained a particular firearm is virtually irrelevant. If they didn’t get it there they’d have gotten it somewhere else. If they didn’t get it that place they’d have gotten it from yet another source, just like they do PCP, methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin, codeine, fentanyl, and all the other illicit drugs and contraband no laws have been able to stop.

Since Reconstruction? Why then?

Do you think the regulations around automatic weapons make sense? Or should anyone be able to just go in and buy one at Walmart?

And you still haven’t read the Brady proposals? Brady, you know, Reagan’s press secretary.

The Reconstruction era is when southern politicians (dems, BTW) began implementing gun control laws to keep Black citizens from owning guns, so the6 would be at the mercy of terrorists like the KKK.

“Automatic” weapons have been regulated since 1934. Prior to that, yes, anyone could walk into a Sears & Roebuck’s department store and buy a Thompson machine gun or Browning Automatic Rifle. Even up until 1986, you could buy a new machine gun. You can *still* buy them today - just not new ones - so they are extremely expensive now, and beyond the reach of affordability for most people, including UMC DCUM households.

The Brady proposals have been addressed by other posters on the first couple pages of this thread.

What page #s were they addressed? I just looked through all pages and couldn't find them addressed.

Yes, we all know that racist conservatives were Ds back in the day and they switched to Rs in the 60s.

Yes, we know the regulations around machine guns. The question was what do you think about the regulations? SHOULD anyone be able to walk into Walmart and buy one?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Spite gun purchases. Do you always buy deadly weapons when you get emotional?

Reminds me of when gun owners go on a shopping spree right after a mass shooting. How many guns were sold after Sandy Hook or Vegas?

It is fascinating, this legend in their own mind thinking. They fancy themselves being good guys with a gun. (Spoiler: They are not).

I’m definitely not a legend in my own mind. I’m 5’3” and weigh 118 lbs and I don’t want to be raped, strangled or maybe beaten to death by a man who could be twice my size and 3 or 4 times stronger than me. I don’t “fancy myself” being able to physically resist or stop someone so much larger and stronger than me.

Serious question (assuming you’re also female) - do you think you could stop a man from attacking you? I can’t. If you think you can, what makes you believe that? Why are you so much more capable than I am?

And yet you think you will have time and presence of mind to pull out your gun and shoot him. Good luck with that.

It's amazing how many Americans think they can become professional gunslingers. Are they practicing at the level that Olympic shooters do? But even more than that, are they practicing being in all sorts of unexpected situations so that they are trained well enough to react quickly and accurately to a sudden attack? Heck, even professional police and soldiers have trouble hitting the right perpetrator in a dangerous situation. Why do weekend warriors think they will be able to prevent an attack better than trained police?

Ignorance is one hell of a drug!