Target rich environment
- Thread starter LDB
- Start date
Yep, that's exactly what we should do.
Or, we could simply go about our business and live our lives knowing that you have a better chance of getting struck by lightning than you do of being in a situation where you need a gun to defend yourself.
Probably a common occurrence in Texas.
That is hardly a true statement. FAR more people are attacked in our nation every year that are struck by lighting.
I may self have never been struck by lighting, but my house has been broken into, once in England and once here. I was robbed, at gun point, at the gas station that I worked in back in 1974.
I don't go about looking for trouble. That is a stupid thing to do. The chances of having a problem while remote, are not nil. Crime in much of the area in which I live is on the rise, rather dramatically, due to an increase in heroin usage and the scum that attracts.
So, I carry, sometimes. I practice at the range, first off because it's fun, and second because since I choose to carry a handgun I have a responsibility to make sure I know how to use it properly.
I am installing basic security systems at the house, due to an increase in home invasions in the area, AND, because it will save me 10% on my home owners insurance.
Just in case you need a reality check, in the year 2013, 23 people were killed by lighting in the United States. I think we both know that the chances are far greater of being attacked by one of our fellow men than by being struck by lighting.
And yours is total reality and happens all the time for real so that makes your scenario and position real.
And, if I recall the statics correctly the number of people who are victims of violent crimes in the US is something like 26 out of every 1000.
All I'm concerned with is the contents of the article and the point the author is trying to make. The comments of the readers are irrelevant because we don't know who's making them or their level of experience and knowledge of the subject matter. For all we know most of the comments could have been submitted by a bunch of liberal college students posing as dumb crackers in an effort to make 2d amendment advocates look bad. I'm also not going to get distracted by some ad that somebody paid to have posted on the website. The only thing that matters in the content of the article, and I happen to agree with most of it.
My comprehension of the article was obvious, and the report about the armed psychiatrist most certainly supported the premise and provided an example of the problems with gun-free zones. Maybe you should re-read it.The police involved with that incident said that the shooter was found to have 39 rounds of ammo remaining after being taken down by the armed doctor.
There have been other articles and studies done on the subject of gun-free zones, such as the following piece from USA Today:
Notice that last sentence and how it relates to the armed mental patient previously mentioned. This author also provides supporting evidence with the 1999 study and its link.
One other thing to consider is whether or not the criminal perceives his potential target zone to be gun-free. I'd say that was likely the case with all the Home Depot robberies that Turtle listed, and those perps got lucky. The problem is most people who have carry permits don't carry all the time, and those who do can't be everywhere at once. However, sometimes people like Dr. Silverstein happen to be in the right place at the right time. Enforcing gun-free zones reduces the chances of this happening.
I didn't say ATTACKED, I said in a position where you NEED A GUN to defend yourself. Not WANT, not PREFER, but NEED one. A gun is not the sole or even the best way to defend yourself in all situations. I also didn't say KILLED by lightning. You're so dramatic.
Leo, no, it doesn't happen all the time. I've been to Home Depot, Lowes, Walmart, and never once been attacked or seen or heard a shooting. Heck, I've even been to Dearborn and haven't been decapitated or blown up once.
How many Home Depots are there, and how many get robbed or incur incidents where guns are needed daily? Is a very small percentage. How many customers and employees are in and out of all of their stores daily, and what preventative of them are attacked? It's a very small percentage. The percentages are so small that one could say is a rare occurrence. Which is the opposite of a lot.
Leo, no, it doesn't happen all the time. I've been to Home Depot, Lowes, Walmart, and never once been attacked or seen or heard a shooting. Heck, I've even been to Dearborn and haven't been decapitated or blown up once.
How many Home Depots are there, and how many get robbed or incur incidents where guns are needed daily? Is a very small percentage. How many customers and employees are in and out of all of their stores daily, and what preventative of them are attacked? It's a very small percentage. The percentages are so small that one could say is a rare occurrence. Which is the opposite of a lot.
What other form of self defense do I have if I am attacked? I can't run, my knees are shot. I am 63, there is no way I can fight off an attack. I am MORE than open to options, that make sense. Also, I have never said that a gun is always the best way to defend ones self. I have always said that being aware of ones surroundings and avoiding dangerous situations were the best means. Once attacked, there are not a lot of options. As we age, the number of available options tend to fade as the arthritis increases.
Now, one thing is for sure, IF I am out on Lake Erie my chances are much greater of getting struck by lighting if I believe NOAA weather predictions.
Now, one thing is for sure, IF I am out on Lake Erie my chances are much greater of getting struck by lighting if I believe NOAA weather predictions.
I guess their target audience excludes women, then. Eliminating half the population doesn't seem like a wise strategy to me, but what do I know, right? [Only that women buy weapons, too.] If I were looking for that product, I wouldn't buy it from a company that sees women as decorative [long as they look good in a bikini, of course]. I'd prefer a company that considered information about their product the best tool for selling it.
Speaking of what I don't know, what is the reference to "off the books" about? Is that something that would attract major interest from some government agency?
"Liberal college students posing as dumb crackers", huh? Apparently, you did read the comments, lol.
But why should anyone need to exert themselves to make 2nd Amendment supporters look bad, when there's so many examples like the one I mentioned, where 2 separate citizens reported a weapon stolen from an unlocked vehicle? How 'responsible' is that?
You can learn a lot from the readers' comments, including their level of knowledge & expertise on any given subject. You might even learn something, sometimes - if you don't think you already know it all, that is.
Judging by the news bits I've read, that employee would then get fired for violating some company policy, and unemployment compensation would definitely be denied. Unless he's lucky enough to get publicity for the good deed, he probably won't find another job, and will become another of those people who needs food stamps to feed his family, thus earning the scorn of many other people.
That's reality in America today.
paullud
Veteran Expediter
I guess their target audience excludes women, then. Eliminating half the population doesn't seem like a wise strategy to me, but what do I know, right? [Only that women buy weapons, too.] If I were looking for that product, I wouldn't buy it from a company that sees women as decorative [long as they look good in a bikini, of course]. I'd prefer a company that considered information about their product the best tool for selling it.
Speaking of what I don't know, what is the reference to "off the books" about? Is that something that would attract major interest from some government agency?
That site is not designed for women and it isn't designed for most men. The target audience is a small percentage of people that would want to build their own guns. Off the book just means that the gun is bought in parts so that it is assembled later and never registered as a sale.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app
I guess their target audience excludes women, then. Eliminating half the population doesn't seem like a wise strategy to me, but what do I know, right? [Only that women buy weapons, too.] If I were looking for that product, I wouldn't buy it from a company that sees women as decorative [long as they look good in a bikini, of course]. I'd prefer a company that considered information about their product the best tool for selling it.
Speaking of what I don't know, what is the reference to "off the books" about? Is that something that would attract major interest from some government agency?
Would you buy a Glock 9 if the commercial showed Tom Cruise in nothing but a Speedo modeling it?
Not a fan of Glock, no matter who is "modeling" it or what they are wearing.
I buy tools based on the "role" they are being bought to fill, the quality, how they handle, etc etc. That goes for every tool bought, not just firearms.
I buy tools based on the "role" they are being bought to fill, the quality, how they handle, etc etc. That goes for every tool bought, not just firearms.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
skyraider,
Fixed it for ya:
"You had to know that the "Pick you apart gang" would be on you to soon, but it happens here if you post enough stupid stuff....."