[downeaster]

Originally Posted by Yoda

Just as a point of interest, in both England and Australia, when guns were restricted and banned, gun assaults and home invasions increased dramatically.

Yoda

Ownership is banned. They can not even have them in their homes.

I have no problem having a gun in one's home. I have one in mine.

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by redwitch

I was taught to aim to kill (chest, shoot at least twice). Period. If I feel the need to use my gun, I better have a dang good reason. I was told that any "amateur" who carries should be prepared to kill another human being. Wounding sounds good but may just end up getting you killed instead. So, if you're going to use it, use it for the purpose it was made -- to kill another human being. (Sickening thought, isn't it? Something created to simply kill another person.)

I carry for one reason only -- because I had someone try to kill me and he's made it abundantly clear that he is still obsessed with me. I am not going to use my gun to protect my neighbor's property or even my own property. I am going to use it if I perceive my daughter, my grandson, my neighbor or me in true GRAVE physical danger and, if that happens, I'm not going to worry about just hurting that person -- I'm going to do my best to bring that person down. This is not being a vigilante. A vigilante goes after someone after the crime has been committed, not during and most certainly not to protect another.

Believe it or not, I am actually anti-handguns. I was given no choice. I had a judge (of a serious liberal bent), a DA and 3 police officers all tell me to start carrying and to be prepared to use it because my stalker was never going to stop until one of us was stopped permanently. The second this saga has ended, I turn my handgun in and I'll be happy to never handle a weapon again.

I honestly don't understand those who carry for no reason other than a strange sense of security and that it might be useful in certain incidents. I don't feel the least secure in having a handgun. I worry about my purse being stolen with it in it. I worry that someone may grab it. I even worry that it might discharge accidently, even though that possibility is very remote. If I only had to protect myself in my home, I would much rather use a shotgun -- really hard to miss with it.

Your explanation clarifies why you carry...and is much different than others who post on here advocate carrying a gun. Your last paragaraph sums up your feelings regarding them.

[MelZ]

Originally Posted by redwitch

I was taught to aim to kill (chest, shoot at least twice). Period. If I feel the need to use my gun, I better have a dang good reason. I was told that any "amateur" who carries should be prepared to kill another human being. Wounding sounds good but may just end up getting you killed instead. So, if you're going to use it, use it for the purpose it was made -- to kill another human being. (Sickening thought, isn't it? Something created to simply kill another person.)

I carry for one reason only -- because I had someone try to kill me and he's made it abundantly clear that he is still obsessed with me. I am not going to use my gun to protect my neighbor's property or even my own property. I am going to use it if I perceive my daughter, my grandson, my neighbor or me in true GRAVE physical danger and, if that happens, I'm not going to worry about just hurting that person -- I'm going to do my best to bring that person down. This is not being a vigilante. A vigilante goes after someone after the crime has been committed, not during and most certainly not to protect another.

Believe it or not, I am actually anti-handguns. I was given no choice. I had a judge (of a serious liberal bent), a DA and 3 police officers all tell me to start carrying and to be prepared to use it because my stalker was never going to stop until one of us was stopped permanently. The second this saga has ended, I turn my handgun in and I'll be happy to never handle a weapon again.

I honestly don't understand those who carry for no reason other than a strange sense of security and that it might be useful in certain incidents. I don't feel the least secure in having a handgun. I worry about my purse being stolen with it in it. I worry that someone may grab it. I even worry that it might discharge accidently, even though that possibility is very remote. If I only had to protect myself in my home, I would much rather use a shotgun -- really hard to miss with it.

Red:

So you have the right to protect yourself but don't agree others can. That is the definition of hypocrisy.

[golf2140]

I would rather be judged by 12 then carried by six!!!!

[redwitch]

Mel, I totally disagree with you on this one. I don't think I'm being the least bit hypocritical. I think anyone in a situation where they know (not think, KNOW) their life is threatened should have the right to a concealed weapon. It has been proven that restaining orders don't work. I also think someone who carries large amount of valuables should be able to have a concealed weapon for protection purposes. Police officers who have taken several gun classes and can truly shoot (I've seen some that are lucky to hit the side of a barn) should be able to carry. But for the "just in casers," sorry, I don't think they need a concealed weapon. Have a gun in your home for protection if you must, but carry it on the street. No, sorry.

[MelZ]

Originally Posted by redwitch

Mel, I totally disagree with you on this one. I don't think I'm being the least bit hypocritical. I think anyone in a situation where they know (not think, KNOW) their life is threatened should have the right to a concealed weapon. It has been pr oven that re staining orders don't work. I also think someone who carries large amount of valuables should be able to have a concealed weapon for protection purposes. Police officers who have taken several gun classes and can truly shoot (I've seen some that are lucky to hit the side of a barn) should be able to carry. But for the "just in causers," sorry, I don't think they need a concealed weapon. Have a gun in your home for protection if you must, but carry it on the street. No, sorry.

Of course you disagree, applying a right selectively would be the height of discrimination, and you would never do that. And you even want to disarm the police, wow.

[BobKat1]

This is one of those discussions that will probably go on forever.

I've yet to see someone on either side of this debate say, "ah yes I see and now I agree with you and have now changed my thinking on the matter".

[Bill-n-Brillo]

Bill

[redwitch]

Um, where did I say anything about disarmimg the police? If they're on duty, I think it would be insane for them not to have weapons, especially in this day and age. I just want them better trained if they're going to carry and it really would be nice if they could hit what they're aiming at. What I really don't want them is to have them carrying off duty if they're going to be drinking. But, then, I don't want them driving and drinking, either. Do you?

And if my viewpoint that I don't see the need for a concealed weapons license to be handed out to every one who "qualifies" is hypocritical, so be it. As I said, if there is a true, proven need, then I understand why someone would carry. I still don't understand why someone would want a gun in their home, in their car or on their body if they didn't have to.

[Pturner]

Originally Posted by BobKat1

This is one of those discussions that will probably go on forever.

I've yet to see someone on either side of this debate say, "ah yes I see and now I agree with you and have now changed my thinking on the matter".

Hi BobKat,
Has reading this thread changed your thinking on the matter?

[BobKat1]

Originally Posted by Pturner

Hi BobKat,
Has reading this thread changed your thinking on the matter?

Hi Pturner. No my thinking on the matter hasn't changed.

[Tbugs]

Maybe just to end this long, long thread - we can all agree that the Villager who opened his jacket to show a pistol he was carrying will definitely regret the incident. It will cost him several thousand dollars in lawyer fees and fines.

Maybe he felt he had a valid reason to be carrying a pistol in The Villages but I am sure he now realizes what a big mistake he made that day.

I believe (not sure though) that it is illegal to carry a firearm into a bar or place that serves alcohol. I am sure the police gave a breathalyzer test to the man to make sure he had not been drinking (and carrying a weapon).

Even though there are obviously many Villagers who carry a pistol, I know that if any of them show a weapon in a public place, there are many fingers going to be hitting 911 on the cell phone.

Is it going to worth several thousand dollars to carry that pistol when just catching the sight of it in public will result in a call to the police?

[Yoda]

Originally Posted by redwitch

I was taught to aim to kill (chest, shoot at least twice). Period. If I feel the need to use my gun, I better have a dang good reason. I was told that any "amateur" who carries should be prepared to kill another human being. Wounding sounds good but may just end up getting you killed instead. So, if you're going to use it, use it for the purpose it was made -- to kill another human being. (Sickening thought, isn't it? Something created to simply kill another person.)

.

Same motivation, different intent. Semantics.

Yoda

[Yoda]

Originally Posted by redwitch

Mel, I totally disagree with you on this one. I don't think I'm being the least bit hypocritical. I think anyone in a situation where they know (not think, KNOW) their life is threatened should have the right to a concealed weapon. It has been proven that restaining orders don't work. I also think someone who carries large amount of valuables should be able to have a concealed weapon for protection purposes. Police officers who have taken several gun classes and can truly shoot (I've seen some that are lucky to hit the side of a barn) should be able to carry. But for the "just in casers," sorry, I don't think they need a concealed weapon. Have a gun in your home for protection if you must, but carry it on the street. No, sorry.

So Red, let's see if I have this right. I have the right to self protection as long as I stay home. You and those of whom you approve may walk among the living and protect themselves?

Bull....

Yoda

[Tbugs]

Yoda,
Do you honestly feel threatened when you walk around the streets and town squares in The Villages to the extent of having to carry a pistol?

The Villages has to be one of the most peaceable places in the USA.

However, when I was at the Christmas tree lighting ceremony at Lake Sumter Landing, I did see one man poke another man with his cane in order to get his attention to ask him to not stand in front of his chair (blocking the view). Would that have been enough for the "pokee" to show a pistol if he had one? No way! Would you have shown your pistol in that case? I hope not!! I just hope your personal liability insurance has a million dollar limit on it. You certainly would get your butt sued off (and you would lose) if anyone catches a glimpse of your pistol in public. It would be your word versus their word if you showed the pistol in an aggressive way - and your posts would be damaging to your case.

There is NO reason for anyone to carry a pistol in The Villages.