Why I support your right to carry a gun, but don’t carry one myself

Two men died in a shootout after a “road rage” incident last week.

“Initial investigation shows the Ionia men, ages 43 and 56, pulled into the car wash parking lot after a road rage incident. They exited their vehicles and eventually drew handguns and exchanged fire, police said. It wasn’t clear what the two men were arguing about.

Life EMS transported the men to Sparrow Ionia Hospital, where they were pronounced dead.

Police said both men, whose identities have not been released, held permits to carry concealed weapons.” [source]

Why I don’t carry

I support the right to carry a concealed weapon, but this story sums up why I choose not to carry a gun myself. Maybe I am naive, but it seems that a gun would almost always cause more problems than it would solve.

I imagine if just one of these guys would not have been carrying a gun they would both be alive.

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Why I support your right to carry a gun, but don’t carry one myself

  1. lwk2431

    “Maybe I am naive, but it seems that a gun would almost always cause more problems than it would solve.”

    When the concealed carry law was being debated in Texas the opponents used this exact scenario of road rage and people losing their temper and getting into gun fights. They said literally that “blood would run in the streets.” We’ve now had concealed carry in Texas since 1995, about 18 years.

    As it turns out this sort of incident is about as rare as hen’s teeth. Just about non-existent. Blood is not running in the streets and people with a concealed carry license have proven to be extraordinarily responsible and law abiding. Some may very rarely get arrested for a firearms violation, but not any more often than sworn police officers being arrested for firearms violations.

    So this one example is to use an old saying, “the exception that proves the rule.” Sure it can happen, but the fact is that happens so rarely proves just the opposite point than what it seems you are trying to make.

    Dr. Gary Kleck did research some years ago and based on that research Americans may use a firearm upwards of 2.5 million times a year in self defense or defense of property, and rarely ever fire that firearm. In most cases the threat sends the crook or aggressor quickly away to look for safer prey.

    lwk
    free2beinamerica2.wordpress.com

    Reply
    1. Atticus Post author

      I agree with you. But for me personally – I don’t want to be in a situation where I have to choose whether or not to use my gun. Whether it be a fight or a robbery. If I’m going to pull a gun out I have to be willing to use it – and in almost all circumstances I am not.

      I do have a gun at home. My feeling is that if someone is willing to enter my home while I’m there they probably want to hurt me or my family. In that case I am more than willing to use a weapon.

      Reply
      1. lwk2431

        “I don’t want to be in a situation where I have to choose whether or not to use my gun.”

        I agree that is a personal decision that everyone needs to make for themselves. I only object when some people try to use the law to prevent me from making that decision for myself. I am saying that rhetorically as you most certainly did not make that suggestion at all as you said you support that right (thank you).

        I am licensed to carry a concealed handgun in Texas and so far have absolutely zero reason to pull it. With any luck never will! 🙂

        “My feeling is that if someone is willing to enter my home while I’m there they probably want to hurt me or my family.”

        This concept is so old that it is mentioned in the Old Testament where it is lawful to kill a person who breaks into your house at night because the presumption is they knew the house was occupied and therefore you could reasonably assume that the person breaking in might intend to kill you.

        There is a book a lot of people should probably read. It is called “On Killing” by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman who studied killing in war for the U.S. military. It has some very surprising conclusions, especially in regards to who _can_kill and when. I doubt that anyone really knows the answer to that question, regardless of how tough they talk, until in fact they have had the opportunity.

        According to Grossman the majority of people cannot kill with full intention of doing so. Probably explains a lot about Kleck’s research of people almost always threatening attackers with guns, but very rarely actually shooting the gun.

        Once I read Grossman’s book it explained a lot of things to me, for example, stories of trained police officers missing a person shooting at them, and doing so over and over again (and even sometimes surviving!). The fact is they were not psychologically capable of killing no matter how much training.

        Grossman gives examples of rifles found at the battle of Gettysburg in the Civil War where soldiers had loaded their muzzleloading rifle 7-8 times but had never fired it (one load on top of the other). Anyway, sorry making this reply too long. Is a disturbing book if you get a chance to read it.

        regards,

        lwk

        Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s