TexasCHLforum.com

Found this while attempting to educate a friend today, thought I'd share.


Who is the Armed Citizen? (NRA Cover Story Written by Freeper)
America's First Freedom ^ | November 2009 | David Burnett

Researchers, both public and private, have estimated total defensive gun uses
at between 800,000 and 2.5 million times per year. To many, that's a difficult reality
to accept since we don't hear the hundreds of armed citizen stories that should be reported daily.

Mainstream news agencies focused on national news rarely bother
to report local shootings in Boise, Bismarck or Bozeman because
they see no relevance to the national perspective.
They're wrong, of course, but we're not in the control rooms so we can't change the coverage.

Instead, the solution is to spread the word when someone uses a firearm in self-defense—
to have a place where these stories are collected from local news outlets and reprinted for all to see.
That's what the "Armed Citizen" column in America's 1st Freedom and other NRA official journals
has done so well for many years, and is the most popular of all offerings to readers.

As such stories accumulate, the national perspective begins to emerge—
not only is there a Right to Keep and Bear Arms, but there is an urgent need.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2377994/posts" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I got flack yesterday from anti-gun people when I tweeted about the armed citizen in the Barber shop protecting the kids, and shooting an armed robber who already fired a shot

RPB wrote:I got flack yesterday from anti-gun people when I tweeted about the armed citizen in the Barber shop protecting the kids, and shooting an armed robber who already fired a shot

You will always get flak from anti gun people when a courageous citizen uses his constitutional right to self defense to save his life or the life of another. They consider themselves above using violence because they have "evolved" to a "higher level" than the rest of us. The fact that they've never seen real violence up close and personal keeps the absurdity of this position from becoming immediately apparent to them.

The solution they advocate for responding to criminal violence is to cringe, cower and submit to it, defending neither themselves, their spouses, nor their children. This is, in my opinion, the most naked form of cowardice.

From a darwinian standpoint,it should be obvious that any animal that fails to protect itself, its mate and its young is not well positioned to be fruitful and multiply. Nature will take its course when an unsuccessful solution is applied during a predatory attack, and the "less evolved" predator will be the one to procreate.

Excaliber wrote: From a darwinian standpoint,it should be obvious that any animal that fails to protect itself, its mate and its young is not well positioned to be fruitful and multiply. Nature will take its course when an unsuccessful solution is applied during a predatory attack, and the "less evolved" predator will be the one to procreate.

Excaliber: It that's the case, then why haven't the liberals died out? Seems like there's more of them now than ever. Not saying you're wrong, but imperial evidence suggests otherwise!

sjfcontrol wrote:

Excaliber wrote: From a darwinian standpoint,it should be obvious that any animal that fails to protect itself, its mate and its young is not well positioned to be fruitful and multiply. Nature will take its course when an unsuccessful solution is applied during a predatory attack, and the "less evolved" predator will be the one to procreate.

Excaliber: It that's the case, then why haven't the liberals died out? Seems like there's more of them now than ever. Not saying you're wrong, but imperial evidence suggests otherwise!

I would surmise this is because in this country we have become more "civilized" and given the number of "good shoots" on an annual basis compared to the number of people (310 million) and the hours in a day and the days in a year it is still a small number (albeit an important number) overall. That being said, most people in this country have not been exposed to true evil or even had to raise their hands in a fistfight to defend themselves. Look at South Sudan it is estimated that 2 million people died and another 4 million were displaced just to START that postage stamp country. It didnt happen because of a group of Birkenstock wearing tree huggin' libs having a discussion over a Chai tea. Some things ya JUST CAN'T HUG OUT!!!

There are those of us who have a mindset to defend what we see as morally and fundamentally right in under the auspices of basic human rights and preservation AND, if need be to also go on the offensive. Then, there are those who ... well... simply don't. And, if we ever should devolve as a nation to the point where we need to take up arms within our borders to protect and restore the basic tenets of the founding documents they will either find the will to defend the ideals that made us the greatest republic in history or they too be Darwinized and the gene pool will be purged for at least a generation or two.

when you look at those numbers, you have to realize that most uses of guns for self defense don't actually involve shooting. In the vast majority of cases, the display of a gun is sufficient to stop the BG.

sjfcontrol wrote:

Excaliber wrote: From a darwinian standpoint,it should be obvious that any animal that fails to protect itself, its mate and its young is not well positioned to be fruitful and multiply. Nature will take its course when an unsuccessful solution is applied during a predatory attack, and the "less evolved" predator will be the one to procreate.

Excaliber: It that's the case, then why haven't the liberals died out? Seems like there's more of them now than ever. Not saying you're wrong, but imperial evidence suggests otherwise!

At this time in our history there isn't so much violent crime that everyone is exposed to it. Many people go their entire lives being fully unprepared for a deadly encounter, but, since they never encounter one, their lack of preparation has no consequences. Unprepared persons who do encounter it usually don't fare very well, but because thinking about that is unpleasant, similarly unprepared persons who read about the incident go on about their business as if it never happened and don't change a thing.

It's sort of like the folks who never learn to swim, but never fall into deep water so it never affects them.

stroo wrote:when you look at those numbers, you have to realize that most uses of guns for self defense don't actually involve shooting. In the vast majority of cases, the display of a gun is sufficient to stop the BG.

It's not the display of the gun that causes criminals to break off the attack - it's their belief that the person behind it has the means, the skill and the will to use it.

Without all those elements, the criminal sees an opportunity to get himself a gun.

Excaliber wrote:

stroo wrote:when you look at those numbers, you have to realize that most uses of guns for self defense don't actually involve shooting. In the vast majority of cases, the display of a gun is sufficient to stop the BG.

It's not the display of the gun that causes criminals to break off the attack - it's their belief that the person behind it has the means, the skill and the will to use it.

Without all those elements, the criminal sees an opportunity to get himself a gun.

Yeah??? Seems the best way would be that they get 'em bullets first?

Medic624 wrote:

Excaliber wrote:

stroo wrote:when you look at those numbers, you have to realize that most uses of guns for self defense don't actually involve shooting. In the vast majority of cases, the display of a gun is sufficient to stop the BG.

It's not the display of the gun that causes criminals to break off the attack - it's their belief that the person behind it has the means, the skill and the will to use it.

Without all those elements, the criminal sees an opportunity to get himself a gun.

Yeah??? Seems the best way would be that they get 'em bullets first?

Agreed - but that doesn't happen with folks who can't bring themselves to shoot, thus providing the BG with a fine opportunity to pick up a nice loaded gun.

Display not backed by will to use it is a bluff - and the BG's are seasoned professionals at recognizing that.

If your gonna show it, you should be ready to use it.

Excalibur,

I pretty much agree with you. In my view, if you are going to carry, you need to be willing to shoot. And while we shoot to stop, you need to be prepared to deal with the fact that shooting someone may kill them.

That said, the fact still remains that the vast majority of defensive uses of gun in those studies do not involve shooting. For whatever reason, the display of the gun is sufficient in the vast majority of cases.

sjfcontrol wrote:

Excaliber wrote: From a darwinian standpoint,it should be obvious that any animal that fails to protect itself, its mate and its young is not well positioned to be fruitful and multiply. Nature will take its course when an unsuccessful solution is applied during a predatory attack, and the "less evolved" predator will be the one to procreate.

Excaliber: It that's the case, then why haven't the liberals died out? Seems like there's more of them now than ever. Not saying you're wrong, but imperial evidence suggests otherwise!

In a Hobbesian state of nature the outcome would be much different.

One of the important things to do before carrying is to weigh your willingness to shoot. How important is your life and your families?
You either have the conviction or you don't. It takes moral conviction and more importantly judgement in these situations to determine the appropiate response. If you decide to carry, as I'm sure most of us have, this is a decsion that must be made in advance so in the heat of a threat you do not hesitate.

Zoomie wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

Excaliber wrote: From a darwinian standpoint,it should be obvious that any animal that fails to protect itself, its mate and its young is not well positioned to be fruitful and multiply. Nature will take its course when an unsuccessful solution is applied during a predatory attack, and the "less evolved" predator will be the one to procreate.

Excaliber: It that's the case, then why haven't the liberals died out? Seems like there's more of them now than ever. Not saying you're wrong, but imperial evidence suggests otherwise!

In a Hobbesian state of nature the outcome would be much different.

What's often missed in a discussion of this type is that in a violent criminal attack, there are only two roles: predator and prey. There is no third role.

The intended prey either becomes the dominant predator himself, or he ends up as food.

Food does not get to reproduce.