Do you carry a firearm for protection?

nope, to me a firearm is a whole lot more threatening than anything else out there. I don't feel safe at all around guns, even when I see a policeman with one.

To a brit, the concept of carrying a firearm is a very alien one. I have been in some remote places here and abroad and have never felt worried about it.

Ltdave wrote in post #15103863
Said: Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pol Pot, Amin, King George and every thug who has preyed upon the weak and unprotected populace...

An armed citizenry would not have prevented the excesses of these guys as most of them had an armed army, air force and navy and that trumps any old GWG (Guy with Gun) I think King George may be an exception, but then again you colonists would not have been anywhere near as successful had not the French navy blockaded for you so successfully.

I have spent many years in the Army (infantry) I have lived in South Africa and I regularly shoot in the UK (Deer, Foxes, Game)

I would not carry a handgun in the UK even if it were legal to do so, as I genuinely do not think there is a need to do so. Were I out in the wilds where there was a real and genuine threat of danger from wildlife (and that is nowhere in the UK), I still would not carry a handgun, but my .308 rifle would be handy.

neil_r wrote in post #15107110
An armed citizenry would not have prevented the excesses of these guys as most of them had an armed army, air force and navy and that trumps any old GWG (Guy with Gun) I think King George may be an exception, but then again you colonists would not have been anywhere near as successful had not the French navy blockaded for you so successfully.

I have spent many years in the Army (infantry) I have lived in South Africa and I regularly shoot in the UK (Deer, Foxes, Game)

I would not carry a handgun in the UK even if it were legal to do so, as I genuinely do not think there is a need to do so. Were I out in the wilds where there was a real and genuine threat of danger from wildlife (and that is nowhere in the UK), I still would not carry a handgun, but my .308 rifle would be handy.

^this

well ... I hate rules and law in general. Why? because its not the law that defines who we are but our morality. I think everyone should have the right to carry a gun. Its just a tool, there is nothing wrong with it. Its our morality that is responsible for the actions that we make. For me, its immoral to hurt any other human being. I just can't do it. That said if someone was about to hurt my love ones I would not hesitate to protect them any means necessary. Its a hard decision but, everyone is responsible for their own actions. Guns are just tools, its not immoral for me to carry one. I mean carrying guns is bad but carrying a knife makes you a much better citizen. lol. No, they are both just tools. Its not the law that separates us but our mentality. I mean ... a gangster will get a gun no matter what the law states as thats just his mentality so why is this law agains guns active in the first place? A regular citizen can get seriously hurt or die without protection if its needed.

A lot here think that there is no danger from people and carrying a gun only exacerbates the issue.

Well... no so much: Here's just a sample......


http://www.cpj.org …-murdered-in-veracruz.php
http://6thfloor.blogs.​nytimes.com …pher-and-her-tragic-tale/
http://www.facebook.co​m …unpoint/1015099​2439223763
http://blogs.dallasobs​erver.com …tog_stephen_mas​ker_wa.php

There are many more all over the net to be found.

YES, I carry.... because I can. Doesn''t make me a "cowboy".

I have a CC Permit and I should get in the habit and start carrying.

Sitting Elf wrote in post #15107357
A lot here think that there is no danger from people and carrying a gun only exacerbates the issue.

Well... no so much: Here's just a sample......


http://www.cpj.org …-murdered-in-veracruz.php
http://6thfloor.blogs.​nytimes.com …pher-and-her-tragic-tale/
http://www.facebook.co​m …unpoint/1015099​2439223763
http://blogs.dallasobs​erver.com …tog_stephen_mas​ker_wa.php

There are many more all over the net to be found.

YES, I carry.... because I can. Doesn''t make me a "cowboy".

so providing links of crimes is proof that carrying a gun makes it all better?

I don't live in a bubble. I know people are robbed and murdered. Even here in civilised places where people generally don't run round packing guns people get robbed and murdered. I simply don't think arming the general population is a civilised solution to the problem and I certainly don't think it helps.

Answer to initial question:

No I don't live in Texas.
And last time that I talked to a nice gentlesaleperson in gun shop, for certain locations of Los Angeles in question, he suggested not to take any small caliber such as 45 magnum or likewise as compare to weapons on the street, I only may insult or hurt the feelings of the bad guy...

But then on the serious side, as a patriotic American, I believe and totally respect 2nd amendment. Well there is a reason our forefathers could deal with the tyrant king, his illegitimate kids and cousins and at the end kicked his @!s out. He wouldn't go even upto today, when getting taxes on time... And I do believer Most European who oppose the way of American life are too poisoned by their media or anti gun culture embedding their mind, beyond coherent thinking or ability to understand the situation. Most believe its mater of class or prestige to be that way, sorry to say without knowing what they repeat...
There must be a very good reason why Texas has less crime rate than many other states.

I would say, if this is legal in your residential place (You have CCW permit or otherwise legal), then you have full knowledge of safe possession and use of your weapon, and for the given situation, you feel seriously vulnerable, then there is no better choice to have your weapon with you. No this doesn't have to be in civil condition. Think of assignment of photographing wolf or bear where no cellphone works or rescue is hundreds of mile away. If you think you can talk or convince a charging hungry grizzly, you are delirious and soon to realize delicious in a painful way.

samsen wrote in post #15107429
Answer to initial question:

No I don't live in Texas.
And last time that I talked to a nice gentlesaleperson in gun shop, for certain locations of Los Angeles in question, he suggested not to take any small caliber such as 45 magnum or likewise as compare to weapons on the street, I only may insult or hurt the feelings of the bad guy...

But then on the serious side, as a patriotic American, I believe and totally respect 2nd amendment. Well there is a reason our forefathers could deal with the tyrant king, his illegitimate kids and cousins and at the end kicked his @!s out. He wouldn't go even upto today, when getting taxes on time... And I do believer Most European who oppose the way of American life are too poisoned by their media or anti gun culture embedding their mind, beyond coherent thinking or ability to understand the situation. Most believe its mater of class or prestige to be that way, sorry to say without knowing what they repeat...
There must be a very good reason why Texas has less crime rate than many other states.

I would say, if this is legal in your residential place (You have CCW permit or otherwise legal), then you have full knowledge of safe possession and use of your weapon, and for the given situation, you feel seriously vulnerable, then there is no better choice to have your weapon with you. No this doesn't have to be in civil condition. Think of assignment of photographing wolf or bear where no cellphone works or rescue is hundreds of mile away. If you think you can talk or convince a charging hungry grizzly, you are delirious and soon to realize delicious in a painful way.

It's quite ironic that people keep citing King George to justify gun ownership. The descendants of the founding fathers who wrote the second amendment now live in a country riddled with gun crime (the murder rate per 100,000 of population by guns in the US is higher than the West Bank and Gaza Strip) and a government that often acts like a tyrant of the world. I'm pretty sure they didn't have that in mind when they talked about the rights to bear arms.

FACTS that anti-gun pundits don't want you to know...

The first city in the USA to BAN guns was Morton Grove, Illinois. Two years later, their crime statistics had increased dramatically.

There are two towns in America... one in Georgia, and one in Texas... that have ordinances that REQUIRE gun ownership of their citizenry. BOTH towns had relatively high crime rates prior to the ordinances being put in place. Within months of enacting the ordinances, both town's crime statistics, especially violent crime, went to a statistical zero.

The gun control pundits simply don't want to hear those factual statistics. It completely undermines their arguments.

Finally, the 2nd Amendment in the USA was originally written by our forefathers to insure that a well-armed citizenry would have the means to prevent the government from becoming tyrannical.... not that it's helping at the moment

Point of contention:
The overwhelming percentage of gun crimes in the USA are commited by criminals who were not eligible to own guns in the first place. Those guns are purchased under the table illegally.
The statistics of gun crimes committed by legal owners is miniscule... and you will NEVER be able to stop the flow of illegal guns to criminals. That's no different than UK, your Germany (Bader Meinhoff for example), Gaza, JAPAN of all places, Philippines, etc. The ONLY place I've been to that clearly has virtually no guns (as well as extremely low violent crime of any sort) is Singapore... but they have a beneficial dictatorship with extreme laws anyway.

Sitting Elf wrote in post #15107524
<snip> you will NEVER be able to stop the flow of illegal guns to criminals.<snip>

..and even if we could, we can't keep them from buying pipe and bolts. $7 at the hardware store will net you 12 gauge shotgun: http://youtu.be/n1wV3l​mbSv4

To go back to the OP's post though - I do carry a pistol when I'm in the woods. But for defense I consider it the third line. If I'm ever unfortunate enough to need defend myself or family I'll use bear spray first and then either the knife or pistol depending on the species I'm defending against.

Good luck with whatever you choose. The best thing to have in the woods is a buddy you really trust. Folks get hurt in the back country all the time up here and no weapon or tool will help get you home better than a buddy.

neil_r wrote in post #15107110
An armed citizenry would not have prevented the excesses of these guys as most of them had an armed army, air force and navy and that trumps any old GWG (Guy with Gun) I think King George may be an exception, but then again you colonists would not have been anywhere near as successful had not the French navy blockaded for you so successfully.

I don't know, the taliban and alqaeda don't seem to be doing too badly.

We needed the french blockade, but the fact remains that we wouldn't have been anywhere near as successful if we didn't have small arms to do the actual fighting.

After WWI england passed gun control laws that basically disarmed it's citizens. After the battle of dunkirk in 1940, the British Expeditionary Force retreated across the channel, leaving behind most of their arms. Having heard this, Americans established the American Committee for Defense of British Homes to gather, among other things, firearms for the british.

US citizens alone donated more than 7000 rifles and of course, the US gov sent rifles too. After the US helped prevent the **** invasion of britain, an appreciative Churchill wrote in his book, Their Finest Hour, "When the ships from America approached our shores with their priceless arms, special trains were waiting in all ports to receive their cargoes. The Home Guard in every county, in every village, sat up through the night to receive them...By the end of July we were an armed nation...Anyhow, if we had to go down fighting...a lot of our men and some women had weapons in their hands..."

There will never be agreement on the utility of guns and their relationship with murder and crime, as there are no possible controlled studies, and each side would use demographic data, and their own interpretation. Here are a few unanswerable questions.
1. How many times does gun ownership lead to a "good outcome"
2. How many times a bad outcome secondary to legal, or somewhat legal gun ownership could have been averted, if the guns were not available (the whole guns dont kill people, people kill people argument
3. What is a good or bad outcome anyways?
4. How much are we willing to sacrifice individual rights for the better good of the society. And this is one that our friends from across the pound will have greater difficulty understanding. In US, there is far greater emphasis on individual and far less on the society compared to Europe.
To give you an example of 3, of course every one is familiar with the Zimerman case in Florida. But here is another true example. I know of a retired Vietnamese army officer, who about 7 years ago was robbed at gun point in his Jewelry store, with a lot of stuff taken. he was also hit in the face. he follows the Robber outside as he leaves, gets down to his knee and takes him out with a single shot to the back with his rifle. walks out to him, takes back his merchandise, goes back to his store and calls police. He got 10 years, was released in 18 months, and there was outrage on both sides. Again, no agreement if this was a good or bad outcome.
I personally dont buy the whole protect the against tyrant argument, as I believe in our democracy and political system. However, I do believe in Natural disasters, or other situations that could lead to temporary anarchy and lawlessness, and there, it would be really nice to have a shot gun in your house to protect yourself and your family. Now, if I could only convince my wife.