Do guns give a false sense of security?


Reba

Sinner saved by grace
I fully support and encourage gun ownership, carrying and use.

Something I've noticed is that many (not all) gun owners seem to believe that if they carry guns all the time that they are safe from just about any kind of attack. I wonder if this produces a false sense of security.

I've read some even say that if passengers in Belgium could carry guns that they could have prevented the carnage at the airport and on the subway. Huh? Bringing a gun to a bomb fight?

What do you think? Are we putting too much faith and dependence into carrying guns?
 

I do not consider my openly carried sidearm as a magic talisman that will keep all the bad guys at bay but I do consider my open carry sidearm and concealed carry BUG as tools I can use to protect myself and my loved ones from bad guys. Nowhere in there is any feeling of "safety". In fact, one of the reasons I started carrying was to address the real world inescapable fact that no one is "safe" anywhere no matter what they carry or don't carry.

But I have met a few folks who puffed up their chests and said the bad guys better look out because if the bad guy attacks they will whip out their super secret ninja hidden concealed carry element of surprise and open a can of whup arse all over that bad guy.
 
All I can say is that I've experienced too many life threatening situations in my day when living in a state that restricted carrying a firearm. Do I have a false sense of security now that I'm living in a state that allows me to carry? Nope, the security that I now experience is very real.

~ Fight Crime - Shoot Back ~
 
If you happen to be in the immediate area of the detonation, only luck is going to help. If, on the other hand, the terrorists are intent on blustering and posturing as a preliminary to the big bang, there's a chance a citizen with a weapon could upset the plans and turn the tables. That citizen needs to be capable and prepared to carry through once the action begins. This capability will be seriously compromised by the CCW who packs a 2 shot derringer, insufficient ammo, or a pipsqueak caliber.
 
Why does almost every thread on this forum become an open carry pissing contest?

I don't see anyone pissing. It is simply a, yes sarcastic, statement that it seems like many people place more value on their "element of surprise" than they do actually being prepared to use the gun should the bad guy not simply faint at the presentation of the gun. And the same is probably true on the other side as well - many people who open carry probably place more value on the deterrent aspect of the visible firearm than they do actually being prepared to use the gun should they be attacked anyway. I've also heard people tell how they like to keep a shotgun beside the front door to deal with intruders - ummm- when the bad guy kicks in your front door and enters your house - where is the shotgun?
 
Why does almost every thread on this forum become an open carry pissing contest?
The subject of this thread is:

"Do guns give a false sense of security?"

And I mentioned how some folk seem to get a false sense of security with the following on topic comment:

Originally posted by Bikenut
But I have met a few folks who puffed up their chests and said the bad guys better look out because if the bad guy attacks they will whip out their super secret ninja hidden concealed carry element of surprise and open a can of whup arse all over that bad guy.

So now I'm wondering why you see almost every thread on this forum as an open carry pissing contest?
 
I fully support and encourage gun ownership, carrying and use.

Something I've noticed is that many (not all) gun owners seem to believe that if they carry guns all the time that they are safe from just about any kind of attack. I wonder if this produces a false sense of security.

I've read some even say that if passengers in Belgium could carry guns that they could have prevented the carnage at the airport and on the subway. Huh? Bringing a gun to a bomb fight?

What do you think? Are we putting too much faith and dependence into carrying guns?

A gun is an inanimate object it can't give you anything. If you( generally speaking) are dumb enough to think that mere possesion of a handgun renders you invulnerable that's your fault not the gun's
 
Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
So now I'm wondering why you see almost every thread on this forum as an open carry pissing contest?
Because I read them.
Interesting how people put their own perspective upon the context of a post.

Be that as it may I am very interested in what on topic responses there might be to Reba's question.
 
I fully support and encourage gun ownership, carrying and use.

Something I've noticed is that many (not all) gun owners seem to believe that if they carry guns all the time that they are safe from just about any kind of attack. I wonder if this produces a false sense of security.

I've read some even say that if passengers in Belgium could carry guns that they could have prevented the carnage at the airport and on the subway. Huh? Bringing a gun to a bomb fight?

What do you think? Are we putting too much faith and dependence into carrying guns?

I suppose as with most things, some do and some don't, which, if true, would mean that some also put exactly the right amount of faith and dependence on guns, though I don't view anything I carry as worthy of faith or dependence - I have faith and dependence on my own prudent/responsible/appropriate/effective uses of the tools I carry. The tools are useless without my brain kicking in at the right time to implement them for their intended purposes.

Soldiers take guns to bomb fights all the time, and are quite successful. A sniper sees an enemy combatant through his scope from 1,000 yards away with an RPG leveled against his brothers in arms and takes that RPG out before the trigger can be pulled. Same concept on a smaller scale at airports and train stations and other heavily populated publicly accessible areas. If a bomber can be identified by a carrier (concealed or otherwise), they can be taken out before they activate their payload. The truth of that statement is irrefutable, just as is the statement that not all bombers will be careless enough to be identified and not all publicly accessible areas will be populated by armed civilians capable of reacting immediately to such an immediate threat.

I know this for sure; If I don't carry, I will never be prepared to defend mine or anyone else's life in any life-threatening situation. That someone *may* not be prepared psychologically or physically at the precise right moment even though they are carrying, is not a valid argument against encouraging the general population to be armed at all times. The more who are armed, the greater the likelihood that someone who is both mentally and physically capable of defeating such an ominous threat as a terrorist (bomber or shooter) will be among them. Even if a terrorist attack goes off without a hitch (from the terrorist's perspective), there is no logical argument that can stand that says more people being armed increased the chances of that happening, so for me it's kind of a "so what?" if some people are unrealistic about the safety carrying a gun actually provides.

Blues
 
I fully support and encourage gun ownership, carrying and use.

Something I've noticed is that many (not all) gun owners seem to believe that if they carry guns all the time that they are safe from just about any kind of attack. I wonder if this produces a false sense of security.

I've read some even say that if passengers in Belgium could carry guns that they could have prevented the carnage at the airport and on the subway. Huh? Bringing a gun to a bomb fight?

What do you think? Are we putting too much faith and dependence into carrying guns?
Anything can, like Teddy Bears and blunkies.
 
But I have met a few folks who puffed up their chests and said the bad guys better look out because if the bad guy attacks they will whip out their super secret ninja hidden concealed carry element of surprise and open a can of whup arse all over that bad guy.[/QUOTE]

Never thought I'd be sayin" this but Bikenut, I agree with you.
 
Do I feel safer if I'm carrying? Yes I do! Frankly, I couldn't care less whether or not it's a false sense of security. Self-centered as it may be, my personal sense of security is all that matters. I don't carry to make others feel safe or safer even though that may be the case when a legally armed person is among them.
 
Originally posted by Bikenut
But I have met a few folks who puffed up their chests and said the bad guys better look out because if the bad guy attacks they will whip out their super secret ninja hidden concealed carry element of surprise and open a can of whup arse all over that bad guy.

Never thought I'd be sayin" this but Bikenut, I agree with you.
I've said many times that if folks who support the right to keep and bear arms yet fervently disagree on one issue were to sit down and talk over a dinner they would find that they agree on lots more than they disagree regardless of how contentiously they disagree on that one thing.

Oh.. fixed the quote for clarity only.
 
"If you carry a gun, people will call you paranoid. That's ridiculous. If I have a gun, what in the hell do I have to be paranoid for."

Clint Smith
 
. . .

Soldiers take guns to bomb fights all the time, and are quite successful. A sniper sees an enemy combatant through his scope from 1,000 yards away with an RPG leveled against his brothers in arms and takes that RPG out before the trigger can be pulled. Same concept on a smaller scale at airports and train stations and other heavily populated publicly accessible areas. If a bomber can be identified by a carrier (concealed or otherwise), they can be taken out before they activate their payload. The truth of that statement is irrefutable, just as is the statement that not all bombers will be careless enough to be identified and not all publicly accessible areas will be populated by armed civilians capable of reacting immediately to such an immediate threat.
Your average concealed/open carry citizen isn't a sniper soldier carrying a rifle with scope to the airport or train station. The bomber probably will not be recognized before the explosion. In the case of the Brussels airport bombers, they were using dead-man switches. If they had been shot and killed the bombs would have gone off. Depending on the type of explosive being used, a shot to the torso could also end up in an explosion. That's what I mean by taking a gun (handgun) to a bomb (covert terrorist) fight.

I know this for sure; If I don't carry, I will never be prepared to defend mine or anyone else's life in any life-threatening situation. That someone *may* not be prepared psychologically or physically at the precise right moment even though they are carrying, is not a valid argument against encouraging the general population to be armed at all times. The more who are armed, the greater the likelihood that someone who is both mentally and physically capable of defeating such an ominous threat as a terrorist (bomber or shooter) will be among them. Even if a terrorist attack goes off without a hitch (from the terrorist's perspective), there is no logical argument that can stand that says more people being armed increased the chances of that happening, so for me it's kind of a "so what?" if some people are unrealistic about the safety carrying a gun actually provides.
I make no argument against carrying or encouraging carrying. :)
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,542
Messages
611,255
Members
74,961
Latest member
Shodan
Back
Top