Thread: AD or ND in this situation?

I certainly hope that others here agree with us.

Nebraska tried for years to get a CCW law on the books, but one of the issues that kept it from being passed was the attitude of many supporters that there should be no training requirement.

Many voiced the view that they knew enough about guns and should not have to take a class to prove that they could be trusted to carry one. That pretty much killed the bills in committee each year along with other stuff like individuals making statements in public hearings about wanting the right to carry a weapon to protect themselves against the "corrupt governments of the United States and the state of Nebraska." I am sure you can guess how well that went over.

As gun owners, we must show that we can be trusted with the great responsibility of possessing a firearm, and statements like "I know what I am doing" often become famous, or infamous, last words. I think most of us have seen the video of the DEA agent who was "the only one professional enough" to handle a Glock model 22 that he then proceeded to fire, hitting himself in his leg or foot.

I always thought moderators were supposed to mediate and dampen conflict, rather than go out of their way to incite it.

+1

It’s a tough forum to go against the majority and mods. Especially the administrator.

Originally Posted by nelskc

It’s a tough forum to go against the majority and mods. Especially the administrator.

I respectfully disagree. With the fear of sounding like a suck-up, I think that js is very tolerant of views that differ from his. That was tested a great deal during the weeks leading up the election.

Everyone I am aware of who have been banned or "corrected" since I have been a member here were given plenty of opportunity to turn things around. Some more than I personally felt was deserved.

I served as a moderator on another gun forum, and it is not an easy task. I think the mods here do a great job.

Ptarmigan,

Those are fine stories, and I don't disagree with the sentiments contained within them, but you are merely changing the subject.

I made what I thought was an innocent comment in the first thread, which was intended to simply mean that the LCP problem only made it the approximate equal of millions of other guns that have been and still are being used for self-defense.

I am a stickler for safety, and resent comments that suggest otherwise. If someone wants to argue my reasoning, they should simply state their case, and apply some facts, or at least some logic, rather than merely changing the subject to me being an arrogant old fool.

I took the time to describe my use of this 'dangerous' gun. Why don't you tell me where my judgement is wrong, instead of giving me stories.

Originally Posted by nelskc

It’s a tough forum to go against the majority and mods. Especially the administrator.

You can go against the mods, js, or anyone else here as long as you're disagreeing about the topic. Also, PM me a real example of js abusing his power as the administrator and not allowing someone to express their opinion on a topic. I'll be the blue guy in the corner holding my breath waiting. I think we're pretty damn tolerant about allowing differing opinions. We have in fact lost members here because we allowed people to voice their opinions that were not in line with what people thought should be the views of a "traditional conservative gun owner". Where we draw the line is where people start violating the forum rules, one of them being:

• CRITICISM OF MODERATORS AND ADMINISTRATORS: The forum is an inappropriate venue for publicly discussing any problems you may have with the rules or the administration of the forum. Please contact the moderators or administrators privately by email or PM if you have concerns about rules and administration. In order to respect the privacy of our members we do not discuss disciplinary actions with anyone but the member concerned.

Bisley,

I was trying to make a point without directly "targeting" you.

Since you asked, however, I feel that you are being irresponsible for keeping and carrying a firearm that is not working correctly. If it does not fuction as it was designed to, please get it fixed.

Also, if you know the weapon may fire if dropped, you should not carry it around loaded. No matter how much experience you have, you may still drop it and thereby endanger not only yourself but people around you.

If the weapon may fire if dropped, then it may also fire if struck hard enough in the right place. There is a good chance you cold be injured if the weapon is fired while in your pocket or in a holster on your person.

Bottom line is that as a repsonsible gun owner you should not use a weapon that is unsafe for anything other than to look at, in my opinion.

There, how was that?

By the way, I think your claim of anyone calling you "an arrogant old fool" is a bit over the top. No one called you that.

Originally Posted by Ptarmigan

By the way, I think your claim of anyone calling you "an arrogant old fool" is a bit over the top. No one called you that.

Well, of course not. That would be a personal attack, which is not allowed.

Look, I honestly do not even want to be having this 'debate.' I reacted to sneering remarks from an unexpected source, and as a result, ended up trying to defend against all the straw-man arguments. I thought everyone got their kicks in the other thread, and it was all over. Now here we are, again, because someone wanted to beat a dead horse.

In a lot of circumstances, I would not carry the gun, for the same single reason that you guys keep repeating over and over and over - that it might go off, if dropped - period. But I have made the judgment that it is safe for me to carry it in the circumstances I have described. I have made the rationalization that because there are probably more guns out there without modern safety features than there are with them, and that a lot of them are being carried for self-defense, that I, too, can do it, for a short period of time, and with extreme care being given to not dropping the gun on a hard surface. The alternative is to not carry in certain circumstances.

All of you have just dug in your heels to say it's not safe, and you are not hearing arguments to the contrary. This is not as big of a deal as you all seem to think it is.

Bisley,

I must confess that I did not read the other thread, and I was not aware that this had alread been discussed. No dead horse beating intended from my end.

I do see your points, and they do make sense. I do, however, agree with you that I am saying it is unsafe and that is that. That is exactly what I am saying. When it comes to gun safety there is only black and white, no gray areas. I realize that this is a purist view, but yet, it is the one I choose to take.

One point you make has got me thinking. Carrying an unsafe gun or no gun at all. To be honest, I don't know what I would do. It would be easy for me to sit here and claim that I never would, but of course there would be times where it may be the only option.

Please do not feel that I am coming down on you, or questioning your level of experience etc. I do not know you, and based on your posts here on this forum I have read, you seem to be a level headed person who respects firearms.

Let me ask you this: Is the weapon in question designed that way or is there something wrong with it? If it does nto work correctly, how difficult would it be to have it excahnged or repaired?

Originally Posted by Bisley

I have made the rationalization that because there are probably more guns out there without modern safety features than there are with them, and that a lot of them are being carried for self-defense, that I, too, can do it, for a short period of time, and with extreme care being given to not dropping the gun on a hard surface.

So because all the people are doing it, it's OK for you? As a responsible gun owner, it's your duty to ensure that your firearms, especially the ones you carry in public, are in their optimal condition and function as the manufacturer intended. The other people that are carrying unsafe guns be damned! A gun that is not functioning properly belongs in a safe, in display case, or at the gun smith; not in a holster out on the street!

Originally Posted by Bisley

This is not as big of a deal as you all seem to think it is.

Carrying a gun with a known defect is not a big deal?!?! Wow! I honestly never thought I would see a statement like that made here. I don't know if I should be shocked or pissed.

EDIT: After further thought, I'm closing this tread. I don't want some new member, or worse, a new gun owner, to get the impression any member here condones the use or carry of a defective gun.