why one should ALWAYS carry your weapon

[JB4310]

Island Tractor,
great question! At the range, having a silencer is less disturbing to other participants. In rural areas where you can shoot outdoors on your property the same thing applies. For defense in the home the same thing applies. The thugs, thieves and murders can and do get them illegally. Do you have an objection to law abiding, tax paying citizens being able to own and use them?

Good point, might be mandated someday, not just be a privilege. And I don't mean to protect the other shooters, but for the local population.

That's the number one complaint most people have of shooting clubs, the noise. Our club was hit with a class action lawsuit by all the new neighbors who built their McMansions within earshot of our range. Took several years but we prevailed after spending many many thousands of dollars fighting them.
Probably never would of been an issue if we didn't make so much noise.
This range/club allows class 3 too

I was wondering the same thing as Island myself, only thing I could think of was the lower environmental impact, could be a fair compromise between the crazy environmentalists and the sportsmen???

JB

 

[brin]

This is the most dangerous question regarding the 2nd Amendment - "I can think of no reason a law abiding citizen would have a use for a _________"

Ask the folks in the UK or Australia what happens when . . . . . .

I can think of no reason a law abiding citizen would have a use for a Semi Auto Rifle?

I can think of no reason a law abiding citizen would have a use for a Semi Auto Shotgun?

I can think of no reason a law abiding citizen would have a use for a Semi Auto Pistol.

I can think of no reason a law abiding citizen would have a use for a ANY Handgun?

I can think of no reason a law abiding citizen would have a use for a ANY FIREARM?

OK, points taken..I agree...Now I see the light....I damaged my hearing in the Army...MP using a 45 with no ear protection and other weapons as well and the point about noise in the country...all true as well as the points you make...It is indeed a slippery slope and I was sliding down the slope until you jerked me back into reality...Thank You...:thumbsup:

 

[IslandTractor]

This is the most dangerous question regarding the 2nd Amendment - "I can think of no reason a law abiding citizen would have a use for a _________"

Ask the folks in the UK or Australia what happens when . . . . . .

I can think of no reason a law abiding citizen would have a use for a Semi Auto Rifle?

I can think of no reason a law abiding citizen would have a use for a Semi Auto Shotgun?

I can think of no reason a law abiding citizen would have a use for a Semi Auto Pistol.

I can think of no reason a law abiding citizen would have a use for a ANY Handgun?

I can think of no reason a law abiding citizen would have a use for a ANY FIREARM?

Poor logic and an old rhetorical trick that is pretty easily dismissed.

I can put a drop of beer on my tongue.

I can put a sip of beer in my mouth.
I can drink a glass of beer.:licking:
I can drink five glasses of beer.
I can drink fifty glasses of beer but would then some dread thing would happen (maybe loose your gun).:confused2:

Therefore I should not put a drop of beer on my tongue.

Same (false) logical progression. Same false reasoning. False because the progression is not predetermined. You draw a line in the sand someplace that it matters and defend that spot. You make a decision to stop after 1 or 5 beers. Nothing logical says the progression must continue just because you can dream up something worse.

By your argument the gun owners have already lost because we are not allowed to have 50cal machine guns mounted on our SUVs.

 

[grsthegreat]

Poor logic and an old rhetorical trick that is pretty easily dismissed.

I can put a drop of beer on my tongue.

I can put a sip of beer in my mouth.

I can drink a glass of beer.

I can drink five glasses of beer.

I can drink fifty glasses of beer but would then some dread thing would happen (maybe loose your gun).

Therefore I should not put a drop of beer on my tongue.

Same (false) logical progression. False reasoning. False because the progression is not predetermined. You draw a line in the sand someplace that it matters and defend that spot. You make a decision to stop after 1 or 5 beers. Nothing logical says the progression must continue just because you can dream up something worse.

By your argument the gun owners have already lost because we are not allowed to have 50cal machine guns mounted on our SUVs.

very true. I dont believe there is a place for silencers...not at all. But i do want a mini gun on my truck...

 

[2LaneCruzer]

Poor logic and an old rhetorical trick that is pretty easily dismissed.

I can put a drop of beer on my tongue.

I can put a sip of beer in my mouth.
I can drink a glass of beer.:licking:
I can drink five glasses of beer.
I can drink fifty glasses of beer but would then some dread thing would happen (maybe loose your gun).:confused2:

Therefore I should not put a drop of beer on my tongue.

Same (false) logical progression. Same false reasoning. False because the progression is not predetermined. You draw a line in the sand someplace that it matters and defend that spot. You make a decision to stop after 1 or 5 beers. Nothing logical says the progression must continue just because you can dream up something worse.

By your argument the gun owners have already lost because we are not allowed to have 50cal machine guns mounted on our SUVs.

While it is true that the progression is not predetermined, the pattern is there, and if the history of gun control in other countries is of any comfort, the progression ultimately leads to confiscation. We are fortunate that in this country we do have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, a fact that has limited the progression, and of late, has reversed some of the laws that infringed on that right. The question is not whether or not a law abiding has the right to possess a firearm, but what are the limitations on that right.

 

[Dargo]

very true. I dont believe there is a place for silencers...not at all. But i do want a mini gun on my truck...

Really. I do have some neighbors about 1/4 to 3/8 a mile away from me. I built a large shooting range 20 some odd years ago when I built. Some of the most fun we have is having bowling pin shoot competitions. I have the proper class III stamps for the suppressors (there is no such thing as a silencer) on a few 9mm pistols. We don't have to wear ear protection and my neighbors never have to listen to us shoot.

I see no place for cars. Bicycles will get you where you need to go or you could possibly buy a scooter with that would get over 100 mpg.

 

[MikeD74T]

In PA, before Castle Doctrine became law, there were two justifications for using deadly force:
1) The person is in imminent danger from an assailant and cannot retreat
2) Prevent rape of yourself or another person

Of course, after one's use of deadly force, there will be questions and possible legal repurcussions...no matter how justified.

In the example:

That's a no win situation. You could be witnessing a crime, or a domestic dispute. Best course of action...get the car's tag number and call the cops.

"Dont' worry Mrs. Jackson, I got his number & will be calling the police!" ???????????? Advice still sound the same Roy ?? MikeD74t

 

[RoyJackson]

I wondered about that but thought everyone at a range wears hearing protection anyway (except Ted Nugent).

Actually, in some countries (Finland comes to mind), silencers are quite legal.
Although we, in the US, tend to equate them to criminals and assassins (we all watch too much TV and Hollywood crap); there are good reasons...mostly quiet target shooting.
They do reduce velocity somewhat...and, from what I've read, work better with subsonic bullets.

 

[brewdog]

The silencers are truly not silent, with but one exception - Hollywood movies.

Roy is right, subsonic ammo in 22 rimfire are pretty quiet, but not silent.

 

[RoyJackson]

"Dont' worry Mrs. Jackson, I got his number & will be calling the police!" ???????????? Advice still sound the same Roy ?? MikeD74t

Like I wrote...a no win situation...I'd like to say I have an absolute answer, but I don't.
Probably no good answer..you'd have to react using your best judgement.

As far as Mrs. Jackson...not too worry...he'd drop her off before he got out of the parking lot...nasty b*tch...

 

[RoyJackson]

By your argument the gun owners have already lost because we are not allowed to have 50cal machine guns mounted on our SUVs.

Well, one can own a 50 caliber machine gun...as far as mounting it on your vehicle...probably would depend on a state law.

The main hindrance to owning selective fire weapons is a ban passed in 1986 (I believe that was the year). Selective fire weapons produced before 1986 are legal to own and transfer. Do to the limited number of transerable weapons, the prices are astronomical (the 50 Cal will set you back tens of thousands)...so, the prices limit ownership.

As far as I know, that ban has never been taken to court to determine it's constitutionality. Current owners don't want the ban ended...their selective fire weapons would drop dramatically in value.

 

[brewdog]

When I was in Concealed Carry Class the instructor gave an example.

You are walking down the street and come across a homeless male in dirty clothes, filthy wrestling a guy in suit to the ground trying to get his brief case off of him. Do you pull your weapon and fire? Do you scream STOP and hope he doesn't come after you? You decided to pull your weapon and fire since the grungy male was a huge man. After the hit, he fell to the ground wounded in the leg but not a fatal shot. The police arrived out of nowhere and told you that the guy you just shot was an undercover officer arresting a known drug dealer. The dealer got away with the briefcase. Things aren't always as they appear.

Never pull your weapon unless your life is in danger. If you fire your gun or draw your weapon on someone, you will need an attorney to defend you. No doubt about it. Carrying a weapon is not for the foolish or dimwitted.

 

[deere755]

I guess I am luckey or just naieve but I don't feel the need to carry a weapon with me around my property. I live in an area where we don't lock our doors and leave the keys in everything. I don't advertise that. We have some crime and my shed was broke into a few years back. I go into Decatur everyday and they have had 7 murders so far this year and I believe if I lived there I would definately carry a gun. I do think Illinois should have concealed carry law. I have had one time when I felt a little uneasy on my property and that was last spring. I farm a piece of land that is really secluded. You get to the end of a dead end road and go down a field lane back in the woods to get to the back field. I was working back there this spring and an old beat up truck with 2 men pulled up. It was near dark and I got out of the tractor to see if I could help them. The 1st thing I noticed when I got out of the cab was a strong smell of anhyrous amonia. I knew then that they were looking for a place to cook meth. They said they were looking for a pond to go fishing but I didn't see any fishing poles just some propane bottles and some starting fluid in the back of the truck. I told them there was no pond and it was private property and they left with no problems. Now I close the gate when I am back there. I did let the police know about it and gave them a description of the truck. Hope my luck continues and I am in no way condemning anyone for carrying a gun. Most people I know don't carry or I don' think they do.

 

[RoyJackson]

Most people I know don't carry or I don' think they do.

Since Illinois is the only state in the US that doesn't have some kind of CCW system (meaning carrying a firearm is illegal), I doubt anyone would admit to carrying...not even to their friends.
I do see there has been a bill introduced to cede Chicago from the rest of Illinois...that would be a great thing for most Illinois citizens. Great precedent too...Beautiful NYS could dump that cesspool, NYC.

 

[Car Doc]

The whole idea of CCH is that nobody knows or can tell and thats the main deterrent to the bad guys and gives a person peace of mind no matter where they are legally carrying.

 

[MikeD74T]

Like I wrote...a no win situation...I'd like to say I have an absolute answer, but I don't.
Probably no good answer..you'd have to react using your best judgement.

As far as Mrs. Jackson...not too worry...he'd drop her off before he got out of the parking lot...nasty b*tch...

Point taken... you just can't be sure. :laughing: MikeD74T

 

[sailorman]

Poor logic and an old rhetorical trick that is pretty easily dismissed.

I can put a drop of beer on my tongue.

I can put a sip of beer in my mouth.
I can drink a glass of beer.:licking:
I can drink five glasses of beer.
I can drink fifty glasses of beer but would then some dread thing would happen (maybe loose your gun).:confused2:

That type of false logic sure worked well to institute prohibition . It is not the logic of the people who owns guns or the people who drink . It is the people who do not and force a law change by using the poor logic .

 

[two_bit_score]

I wondered about that but thought everyone at a range wears hearing protection anyway (except Ted Nugent).

Do I recall correctly that one of the things that happens with a silencer is that the bullet velocity is cut dramatically? Am I right? If so doesn't that diminish stopping power?

Seems very silly for defense in the home. Are you really worried about one or two shots once in a lifetime? The silencer would make the gun more awkward to handle so might defeat the primary purpose.

By the way, I don't have any objection to law abiding citizens owning them. I just wonder if you have to be an over the top gun weenie to want one badly enough to pay a few hundred bucks to have one. Really, I understand gizmos and sometimes you just gotta have one but I just wanted to know if there was a more practical reason. (By the way, that's a lot of beer money, I'd sit down and imagine the pleasure I'd get from 15-20 cases of Becks or Pilsner Urquel:licking: waiting for me in my garage before I blew that sort of money on a gadget I'd probably use twice and then stick in a drawer). But if having a silencer rocks your boat and you are not an assassin or highwayman then go for it!

Sometimes you never realize how handy something is until you get it. Then after using it awhile you don't remember how you got along without it.

 

[two_bit_score]

Poor logic and an old rhetorical trick that is pretty easily dismissed.

I can put a drop of beer on my tongue.

I can put a sip of beer in my mouth.
I can drink a glass of beer.:licking:
I can drink five glasses of beer.
I can drink fifty glasses of beer but would then some dread thing would happen (maybe loose your gun).:confused2:

Therefore I should not put a drop of beer on my tongue.

Same (false) logical progression. Same false reasoning. False because the progression is not predetermined. You draw a line in the sand someplace that it matters and defend that spot. You make a decision to stop after 1 or 5 beers. Nothing logical says the progression must continue just because you can dream up something worse.

By your argument the gun owners have already lost because we are not allowed to have 50cal machine guns mounted on our SUVs.

I think you are incorrect. The "slippery slope" argument is valid as long as you establish a valid process that leads to a significant effect.

The difference between his and your situations is that he has established a valid connection and you haven't.
.

 

[IslandTractor]

I think you are incorrect. The "slippery slope" argument is valid as long as you establish a valid process that leads to a significant effect.

The difference between his and your situations is that he has established a valid connection and you haven't.
.

No valid connection between excess beer consumption and bad decisions? Did you not learn anything in college?

Indeed, I'll turn it back on you. What is the organic link between banning 59cal machine guns on SUVs and a ban on deer hunting rifles? In your suggestion of a "connection" you have actually proposed a feedback mechanism that is probably negative. That is there are some people (most) who would vote to ban 50 cals on Escalades but the number who would vote to ban private ownership of an AR15 would be smaller, those who would vote to ban handguns smaller stll and the number who would vote to ban a deer rifle would be tiny. Thus the momentum to ban guns would either die or reach an equilibrium (much as we have today) where there might be controversy but relatively little action in either direction.

With beer you have a positive feedback loop. The more beer you drink the dumber you get and the dumber you get the more beer you drink until the system crashes.

Chew on that.