You people really ARE arguing like antis, go ahead read your own posts, and imagine you were talking about anybody carrying anywhere, and see if you don't see the derp.

What are you not understanding?  You are trying to pretend like I have no concept of situational awareness, and don't ever carry anything but a gun, and use it like a magic fucking talisman, none of that is true, it's the exact opposite.  I simply refuse to go anywhere where my going there is conditional on my being disarmed, and as helpless as possible, that demand is neither reasonable, or acceptable.  I understand that in some places the people are complete idiots, and think that they are somehow safer unarmed with a rape whistle, but it is not reasonable to impose that same nonsense on me, or anyone else with more than 3 brain cells.  Sorry I'm not interested in "experiencing the culture" of victimhood.

Your also missing what I have said several times now, that of almost as much importance if not more than simply not wanting to be disarmed is the indignation of bowing down before the irrational fears of hoplophobes.  Think about it, it's not simply that they want me disarmed, that is bad enough, but if I were to ignore them, and carry any way I would be thrown in prison, thrown in prison for having the GALL, the AUDACITY of carrying a gun to protect myself, how dare I?  Why didn't I just carry a rape whistle, and tube of KY like the good little local sheep?  Fuck those mother fuckers.  I will not subject myself to that, and I will not reward that tyrannical behavior by going their, and spending money.  Want my money?  I want to see your communist leaders swinging from the lamp posts with there intestines piled at their feet.  I have zero tolerance for dictatorial left wing idiots like that.  I will not travel anywhere where I would be arrested for simply choosing to defend myself.  They can burn in hell.  It's not that difficult to understand.

In fact if they simply politely REQUESTED that I not carry (meaning I could refuse them without fear of being arrested, fined, imprisoned, or otherwise penalized in anyway whatsoever), I would still think they were hoplophobic idiots, but out of respect both for their borders, and that they made it a request rather than a demand I probably WOULD disarm.  But no, they want to hold the threat of prison over my head, so fuck them, the horse they road in on, and their entire extended families, they can have a pineapple shoved up their ass sideways in hell.

I respect them, and I'm even willing to submit to whatever bullshit permitting process they can dream up for me provided it's shall issue, but they do not respect me, it's that simple.

If you ban my gun, you ban me.

Get it?

OK so why carry at all then?  It's unlikely so don't prepare for it at all?  Again you are using the same arguments of the antis, do you not realize that?

I won't not go somewhere just because I can't carry. Hell, I don't even carry now, plan on getting my CCL soon though.

These aren't anti arguments.  Carrying a firearm fits into the "I take steps to mitigate risk" category.  I also wear my seat belt and make sure my car has airbags, etc.  Risk mitigation.  These are positive steps taken towards mitigating risk, in the sense that you are doing something.

Refusing to ever go anywhere without a gun, on the other hand, isn't simply mitigating risk.  It's a negative step, in the sense that you are refusing to do something.  In doing so, you are placing a hard line on your risk.  You are effectively stating that you are not willing to engage in an activity which carries X% risk, where X is the chance of being injured/killed in a situation where a firearm would have prevented that risk.  

The problem is that you are being wildly inconsistent with this risk management.  The odds of being injured/killed in a car accident are significantly higher than the odds of needing a firearm to not be killed/injured , yet you're not taking precautions to get those car accident injury odds down to the same level as your gun injury odds.  Based on your posts, this almost certainly applies to every other area of you life as well.

Saying we argue like anti's is your easy button way of dismissing everything we say.

Again, since you missed it:

-Nobody here is arguing against carrying
-We ARE arguing against letting carrying rule your life, like you do.

That part in red? Yeah. Equating not having a gun with being disarmed and helpless IS treating it like a magic talisman. Your black and white approach is not reasonable, and you are missing out on life.

The blue part? A sure sign you never really cared to travel in the first place. You are so unbelievably ignorant, I'm actually glad you refuse to travel because it's people like you that give Americans a bad name.

Stay home and enjoy your "superior" culture.

Using your own car example, this would be the equivalent of the place you are traveling to banning seat belts, and air bags.

"Your also missing what I have said several times now, that of almost as much importance if not more than simply not wanting to be disarmed is the indignation of bowing down before the irrational fears of hoplophobes. Think about it, it's not simply that they want me disarmed, that is bad enough, but if I were to ignore them, and carry any way I would be thrown in prison, thrown in prison for having the GALL, the AUDACITY of carrying a gun to protect myself, how dare I? Why didn't I just carry a rape whistle, and tube of KY like the good little local sheep? Fuck those mother fuckers. I will not subject myself to that, and I will not reward that tyrannical behavior by going their, and spending money. Want my money? I want to see your communist leaders swinging from the lamp posts with there intestines piled at their feet. I have zero tolerance for dictatorial left wing idiots like that. I will not travel anywhere where I would be arrested for simply choosing to defend myself. They can burn in hell. It's not that difficult to understand.



Wow. You have serious issues.


Try debating without cursing and talk of lynching people, you know, like an adult.

Note the part where I said "as helpless as possible" which you even highlighted.  CAN you use a knife, pointy stick, hot sauce, a club, or your bare hands for defense?  Sure.  Are they anywhere close to being as effective as a gun? No.  Your same argument is used by the anti's when arguing against ALL carry, do you really not see that?  "Why do you need a gun when you can just use a knife?"  That's an argument they make, and it's one your making "If you were REALLY serious about self defense you would be just like the ninjas on TV, and not need one."  That's what you sound like.  Do I NEED a gun to defend myself? No, but it's a hell of a lot more effective than a rape whistle.  That's why I carry, that's why I have a fire extinguisher, that's why I have a spare tire, it's better to have it, and not need it than to need it, and not have it.

Not even close. Look at the statistics and likelyhood of getting in a wreck, then come here and tell us it's equivalent.



You need to learn how to mitigate risk without it running your life.


In the military we do something called Operational Risk Management. We all hate it, but it is a good example for this.

The purpose of ORM is not to take away all risk, or to prevent training from taking place, instead the goal is to continue on with training while taking reasonable steps to ensure safety.
For example, we're running a range on a 100 degree day. We could cancel it to ensure 100% safety, but that wouldn't accomplish the training. So, we ensure there's water and corpsmen.
We're doing an airborne op. Safest this to do would be to not jump at all (that shit is dangerous amirite?) But no, we're not pussies, and we're going to fucking train. So, we make sure we have a jump master and protective equipment and that we do refresher training.



YOU...you have decided to cancel training. The rest of us have decided to continue on with life and take reasonable precautions whenever we can- seatbelts, carry when possible, knife/spray/SA when not able to.
You fail.

LOL.

No it's not the same argument, and you're delusional if you think that. You know why? Because WE FUCKING ADVOCATE CARRY WHENEVER POSSIBLE. But also recognize that sometimes you can't, and you shouldn't let it run your life. The reason it's different is because WE ARE NOT ARGUING AGAINST ALL CARRY. It's not that fucking complicated.

You only deal in black and white.

Only sith deal in absolutes.

They want to imprison me simply for carrying a gun for no other reason then THEY don't want to, and it scares them, they deserve what they get.  They are the ones not acting like adults.  Anyone who wants me in prison for simply exercising my human right of self defense for no other reason than they personally do not like it deserves to swing from a lamp post.  Liberty, or death, it works both ways.

No, it wouldn't.  Address the actual point that is being made.  You are refuse to do something because it places your odds of injury/death at X, but continue to do things which place your odds of injury/death at values much, much greater than X.

Why the inconsistency?

You'll also get imprisoned for not paying taxes which are used to curtail your own rights. YOUR money funds the ATF.

Liberty or death, put your money where your mouth is. What are you going to do about it?

Ok, no.  I take this back.  PLEASE never leave the country.  In fact, I'm now considering petitioning the state of Georgia to remove Michigan from the list of states whose permits we will honor.

That is a component, but read what else I have posted, a great deal of it is indignation, resentment, and hatred.  They would imprison me for simply carrying to defend myself, that behavior is unacceptable to me.

Your missing it again.  Please re read your posts, and pretend for a second that you did not write them, and that it is an anti advocating not carrying at all.  Because that is what they sound like.  I never said that is what you were advocating, I said that is what it SOUNDS like you are advocating.

So your saying that it is perfectly acceptable to lock people up simply for exercising their rights?  That such people that would do that do NOT deserve to swing from a lamp post?

Although you THINK it's the same argument, it's NOT...because that's NOT WHAT I'M ADVOCATING AT ALL. It's a different argument, because...well, I'm arguing something different. I don't know how else to explain that to you. That apple isn't an orange...well...just because it's a fucking apple. Do I have to break out the crayons?

How the fuck is saying "carry when you can, but live life regardless of having a gun" the same as an anti saying you shouldn't carry at all?

You should respond to this SAC.

You need to learn how to mitigate risk without it running your life.


In the military we do something called Operational Risk Management. We all hate it, but it is a good example for this.

The purpose of ORM is not to take away all risk, or to prevent training from taking place, instead the goal is to continue on with training while taking reasonable steps to ensure safety.
For example, we're running a range on a 100 degree day. We could cancel it to ensure 100% safety, but that wouldn't accomplish the training. So, we ensure there's water and corpsmen.
We're doing an airborne op. Safest this to do would be to not jump at all (that shit is dangerous amirite?) But no, we're not pussies, and we're going to fucking train. So, we make sure we have a jump master and protective equipment and that we do refresher training.



YOU...you have decided to cancel training. The rest of us have decided to continue on with life and take reasonable precautions whenever we can- seatbelts, carry when possible, knife/spray/SA when not able to.
You fail.

Would you refuse to ride in a car if it didn't have airbags?

If you wanted to go somewhere, and the options were to 1. not go or 2. take a car without airbags, no fire extinguisher, no first aid kit etc what would you do?

Mitigating risk is a good thing. Letting one specific aspect of mitigating one specific risk completely dominate your life is silly.

Again, go back, and read some of your own posts, and the posts of others, and pretend for a moment that you were NOT talking about refusing to travel, but rather attacking carrying at all, you wouldn't have to change a single word in most of those posts because you are trotting out the same arguments that the antis use.  You may be applying them differently, but it does not change the fact that they are the same arguments.

Again, re read my other posts in this thread, mitigating risk is A factor, at play here, but it is not the ONLY factor.  It's not just about not having an airbag, seat belts, or a first aid kit, it's that where your going would imprison you if you did, and they see nothing wrong with that.

Once again I would actually be willing to travel unarmed (to SOME places), but they would lock me up, if I chose to anyway, THAT is what is upsetting me possibly even more than the unarmed part, it's that there hoplophobia is so bad they would imprison me for carrying for no other reason than they personally do not approve.  I would actually be WILLING to disarm in most cases if they simply REQUESTED that I do, it's that they DEMAND that I do under threat of imprisonment if I do it anyway that is sending me in to a blind rage.

Seriously dude. You have severe mental health issues. Please seek professional help.

And now I'm done with this thread, before I get subpoenaed to testify after our rotund little friend with the anger management issues caps a meter maid for the tyranny of parking laws.

The mere fact that I"m not advocating the same thing means it's different though. Re read that a couple times. THE FACT THAT I'M ADVOCATING SOMETHING DIFFERENT MEANS IT'S DIFFERENT. But first, let's actually go back and let's hash out the argument:

I say:
1. Don't let it run your life
2. Mitigate the risk in other ways when you go places you can't carry
3. Carry when you can then see #2
4. See the world, and be safe as possible about it

Antis say:
1. Nobody needs a gun
2. The streets will run red
3. Lot's of other bullshit not on the "I said" list (expect for maybe paranoia...but you ARE overly paranoid so...)

Answer the question, would you ride in a car without an airbag or not?

It is your right as an individual to choose to never experience the world beyond the contiguous United States. In my opinion, what you are actually doing is allowing circumstances throughout the world to limit your ability to explore, learn, and experience our planet. There are many hundreds of unique cultures that you will never be able to experience because of your zero tolerance "always armed" policy. Good luck seeing Alaska, by the way...you will be disarmed during all conventional means of travel to that beautiful state!

Respond to these 3 things without changing the subject:

Sure, but your missing where I have a CHOICE to ride in a car with an airbag, or one without.  They want to REQUIRE that I do under threat of imprisonment if I do not, that is what I truly find repugnant, and why if not given the choice I would answer with a resounding NO!

So why are you obeying "their rules" about carrying guns? They are obviously not acting like adults and "they" are obviously in the wrong. Why don't you just embrace your inner anarchist and thumb your nose at "their" society?

You are the one who is giving "them" the power over your life. You have allowed "them" to limit your freedom of travel...

Fair enough, now respond to my question about your funding of the ATF.

Because he doesn't want to go to jail exactly like everyone else in the United States.

Liberty or death indeed.

So, basically he will take a hard line stance on safety and freedom, as long as it's easy.

That would describe 99.9% of all "patriots" who beat their chest about defending liberty and the American way of life...

2 Reasons:

1: Traveling is not worth the prison risk.
2: Even if I did, I will not reward them with giving them tax money, or contributing to their economy in any way, which is what would happen if I traveled their, further my presence would only serve to legitimize their hoplophobic commie laws as they would have no idea i was breaking them.

I may take a trip to Nevada next summer, I will have to go several hundred miles out of my way just to avoid passing through the state of Illinois.  I will either have to travel south until I have cleared the tip before I go west, or travel North then through Wisconsin before traveling South West.

Like wise I wouldn't mind a trip to Maine some day, but I will have to charter a boat as I refuse to travel through New York.  It is not worth the risk, and I will not buy gas there even if it were, and I would probably have to fill up at least once.

LOL, where do you guys travel? I have traveled extensively in the US over the past 40 years and never encountered a situation where I felt nervous about not having a firearm with me. I remember once being lost in Cincinatti on a Saturday night in the summer and ended up in the 'hood. I didn't linger, but was not concerned because I didn't have a gun. But then, I'm not one to mouth off in a bad situation. Use a little discretion about what parts of a city you go to.

And this is why you suck at risk assessment.

The risk of arrest, not the risk of attack.

Still waiting for a response. I cut out the one you actually responded to:

I carry almost everywhere I go whether legal or not.  When I travel, same thing.  When I go to somewhere firearms just aren't available, I hit the market, mercado, Ginza, souk, whatever, and buy the best kitchen knife I can find, improvise a sheath, and carry that.  If it comes down to it, I make sure I have a good sturdy pen.

You pay federal taxes. You have already supported "them" in "their" efforts to curtail all gun rights in general. If you are so adamant about your beliefs, why are you not willing to risk your freedom and life to defend you position?

Let me guess, you also deny women your essence.

You're the one who fails at risk mitigation.  Risk vs reward.  The reward of going to places that do not respect my individual liberty is not worth my money, much less surrendering my right to self defense.  If I had a full on secret service detachment for a week of vacationing in CA I wouldn't go, because I wouldn't want to leave money there.  And, If I got a free all expense paid trip I would sell it on e-bay.  Forget any place that requires me to submit to the TSA.  I've done it because it is a very rare part of my job, but I dislike it immensely.  I see no reward, plenty of places I can go without supporting liberal states, my family travels all the time.

Or maybe you hold your own opinions in such high regard that that you just can't bear the idea that people might not weigh things the same way you do.

Pretty sure that's it.

Oh as for your other arguments.  I act to pay as little taxes as possible, much more effort than NOT going to commie states or out of the country.  I pay only what I have to because I value my freedom.  Risk vs reward.  You seem so concerned about other people's vacation plans that you fail to apply your own logic to your argument.

I eat healthy, wear my seat belt and exercise regularly as well.  All in a measured attempt to ensure my freedom and survival.

Eight pages of derp. Awesome OP.

Oh boy, I feel silly. It thought we were on a discussion board where we discussed things? I can certainly bear the fact that people weight things differently than I do, but when I'm on a DISCUSSION board I'm going to DISCUSS the fact that I believe refusing to see the world, living in a bubble, and believing all other cultures have nothing of value to add, is nothing more than small thinking and terribly sad. In some misguided attempt to remain "safe" and boycott governments you guys miss out on one of life's great pleasures.
So yeah, I can bear it. And you have to bear me stating my opinion on your backwards thinking.

It's all your choice, but maybe you don't see the reward part and only the risk because you live in a tiny bubble and have never been out of it in order to see the world and what you're missing.

You still have a right to self defense- you just can't carry a gun. Don't confuse the two. Oh, and though you can justify it by saying you pay as little as you can, the fact remains that you financially support the government's efforts in infringing on your rights. You can refuse to support states and other countries I guess if that makes you feel better, but the fact remains is that your rights remain just as trampled in your so called "free" states.

As far as me failing at risk mitigation..yeah, if you say so buddy. You're the one that refuses to ever leave the gun at home. I'm the one that looks at given circumstances and makes a prudent decision about whether or not it's too risky to go without a gun.

Well today I learned what hoplophobia is.  Thanks OP.

I think the other issue here is that some of the crazy never travel to can't carry place posters is that they think they're some big VIP Target..... "if I could have a SS detail I'd visit CA".

Their

There



Also….

Speak for yourself.