Weren't there a rash of posts recently, about how gun ownership was just going to die out with all the old white men?

AA and Hispanics weren't interested in gun ownership and saw it as a bad thing?

I guess the memo didn't reach Gage Park yet.

who own firearms and several have a Florida concealed weapons permit.

I also know a good number of women who own firearms. Many own handguns for self defense and some have a license to carry.

Gun control advocates often live in gun unfriendly cities and states where gun ownership is somewhat uncommon. They usually don't know many people who actually own and use firearms. It's easy to form misconceptions about firearms and those who own them when you live in such an environment.

Removed all privately-owned guns, then simply say that since no criminals have guns, then there is no need for non-criminals to own guns either.


And of course, when criminals have a lot of guns, then non-criminals can't have guns so we can dry up the supply of guns going to criminals.

Many gun crimes like these start with the weapon being concealed. Makes it kind of difficult to differentiate between those with good intentions and those with bad intentions. However, if all guns were illegal, you could safely assume a gun carrier's intentions were bad because we all know every single gun advocate respects and obeys the law, right?

And you wonder why you and your ilk aren't trusted by firearm owners?
How about a post with out the name calling?

I think you'd find that gun owners would be perfectly happy to do away with concealed carry laws. It would mean that they could open carry! Concealed carry was only ever implemented to allow the general public go blithely along -- see no evil kind of thing.

...make the criminals obey the law then...

...wait...

...they are called criminals for a reason.

were law abiding citizens until they committed a crime. It isn't like Bonnie and Clyde days. There are gangs sure but it's not like criminals running around with guns committing multiple crimes and getting away with them.
That criminals and their guns argument is stale I think.

Do you really think that doing away with guns would stop the threat of violent crime? Handguns in the hands of criminals are ultimately a terror weapon. I think you need to look at crime in Great Britain as it exists today. Most violent crime is committed with knives in Great Britain. Does that make you feel more comfortable? A knife actually is more likely to kill you than a gun shot from a handgun. It is simply a question of the amount of damage that can be caused by a bullet vs. a knife. The only advantage a gun has is stand off range. Another example are the knife attacks in Israel (please no Israeli <--> Palestinian craziness needed here!)

Here is why you should like a licensed CCW holder and why they don't compare to a run of the mill criminal with a gun. A licensed CCW holder will typically train obsessively because first, they enjoy shooting and second, because they want to ensure they are competent and safe gun owners. A CCW license holder will go to a range and practice, easily throwing 500 rounds down the range in one session.

Your typical criminal will get a gun, not train, and in essence run up to victims going oogieboogieboo! If a nasty person runs up to Gladys and shakes a gun at her she will scream; if he starts jabbing the air with a nice 8" Chefs knife, Gladys will be deeply concerned but not terrified.

Small comfort if you are shot, but getting stabbed is actually a lot more dangerous. Without hitting a critical structure in the body (a very narrow range in a whole body, something a CCW licensee trains to do) your biggest risk in either a gunshot from a handgun or a knife attack is exsanguination. A knife will cause more basic damage to the circulatory system, simple as that.

Firearm owners protecting themselves from thugs with firearms.

An attacker doesn't need a gun to be a deadly threat to me. I'm quite small, and even if I had the time and inclination to pursue martial arts, I'd probably never be able to prevail against the statistically-probable (that is, young, relatively fit male) attacker. I simply don't have anywhere near the size and strength, regardless of training. I'm fit (serious cyclist...), but nothing special as a sprinter, and if I get run down in the first 50 meters, my greater endurance is useless.

What do you propose I do, carry a whistle? Can of beans? Positive thoughts?

I wouldn't want to try to actually touch her if she didn't want me to. And she doesn't have to fumble with whatever method of carry you prefer to do it. And it can't be taken away from you and used against you.

If you're all that frightened I suggest American Black Belt Academy.

Besides it's a life long fitness program and the Master at this school is in his late 60s and can stand on one foot in the side kick position for many minutes.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong here...


Didn't some martial arts come into existence as an answer to weapons being taken away from a populace?

...which means open hand.

I have a high regard for martial arts and have trained in both Shotokan and, later, Ninpo.

I have no respect whatever for those who seek to disarm the lawful so that the small percentage of those who have an abject and phobic fear of firearms may feel some odd purity from the spread of some vague and false sense of security.

A long time ago I read this:

...it's definitely a good thing for people with the right combination of physical ability and mindset to learn. I've never trained in any hand-to-hand combat form, but I have gotten some instruction in breaking holds and weapon retention. I'm not sure how much that would help against someone bigger and stronger than I am (statistically highly likely: I'm small and the statistically-probable attacker is a young-ish, reasonably fit male with a violent record). And in situations where the attacker has the element of surprise, martial arts (or my sidearm) probably won't help. But it's definitely better than no training at all.

I've thought about jujitsu or judo training (probably the former, as I have no interest in competition). My workouts tend to be really leg-oriented (former bike racer and still a pretty serious cyclist...), but not much for my spindly little chicken-wing arms. A leverage-oriented style would seem to make the most sense for me, as even with additional strength training, I'm never going to pack a big punch.

statically your are much more in danger of being assaulted by someone who calls you Honey. Meaning that the vast majority of violence against women cases involve intimate partners or close associates.

Have you seen that the SCOTUS will hear an appeal from two domestic abusers who want to get their gun rights back? I call it the 'Bitch wouldn't shut up' defense.

I'm a "one strike and you're out" advocate on 2nd Amendment rights: commit a violent crime, you're done owning weapons, period.

more likely that you'll be a victim of gun violence. You didn't know that? It's quoted in a study performed by the Bloomberg School of Public Fraud....

Or, as Glock says, sometimes they pick the wrong girl.

We are a Glock household.

violence are assaulted by someone who calls them Honey.

Nice fantasy video tho.

Not that this remotely means that I wouldn't use force against an acquaintance who tried to rape me, but it certainly reduces the likelihood of doing so successfully (because it increases the probability of being caught unawares).

even more advantage.

And without victims their power is eroded.

We need to arm ourselves because there are so many violent, armed people out there who want to kill us. Of course, the 2nd Amendment guarantees them access to firearms, so we can't let down our guard. Because there are so many guns out there pointed at us, we have to point back.