You are totally correct, Cobra. Most conflicts that would involve the use of a firearm probably could be avoided. That is the #1 rule: be aware of your surroundings and avoid situations where you know your safety can be compromised.

However, you cannot predict all times when your life may be in danger. In fact MANY people's lives have been saved due to the fact that they were carrying a concealed weapon. These stories often do not make the mainstream media but do make it to local media outlets.

Here are some videos. The first one documents a man who was attacked at gunpoint by two thieves. The second one is about the right to carry. Both are very informative.

Video
YouTube - The Truth About the Right to Carry

People carry or have quick access to firearms both inside and outside the home for the same reason that one owns a fire extinguisher. One doesn't buy a fire extinguisher thinking that there will be a fire in the house, but if one does happen, you will be grateful that you have it.

I read a quote somewhere that went like this, "A firearm is like an ambulance, you don't need it often, but when you do, you need it immediately." Not having a gun for personal safety is one's own decision. In a stationary location, such as a home, one cannot choose whether or not an criminal will try and enter, however the risk is always there. Especially in crime-ridden areas, it would in fact be wise to have a backup plan if anything bad were to happen. If I had the choice, I would want the option of defending myself rather than not having it. It's not being paranoid because the risk is really there.

__________________
Make it so...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6oUz1v17Uo
I am Locutus of Borg. You are Borg. www.thehighroad.us

First, thank you for not flaming as that is what I expected posting "anti-gun" thoughts in a Tippmann forum. Second, I completely understand the instances that need a firearm, and the places where someone might need to defend themselves to the point that a firearm is needed. I guess I (probably wrongfully) think that most situations that need a firearm could be diffused with another form of defense. There seems to be this idea that the only way to defend yourself is if you have a firearm, which I think is a little stretch of the imagination. Yes, it is much easier to defend yourself, however I think that the argument for the right to own handguns should not be based off of this idea that you are defenseless without one.
I know it's not being paranoid, but thinking the only way to defend yourself is with a weapon is pushing the envelope of paranoia a little bit.

Either way, I'm glad with the decision they made. It keeps pro-handgun people happy and anti-handgun/firearm people in the same position they have been.

__________________
Pump Love: Chrome Freeflow Lotus pump: clear CCM pump w/ A/T, black frame, chrome CP, Scepter 14"

I didn't see anyone say the only way to defend yourself is with a gun, but if you have to deal with armed gang bangers, then you have little other choice for self defense.

The way I see it, my life is valuable enough to defend it with the most efficient tools that I have at my disposal. Of course I might be able to use something less effective, but in the heat of the moment, is it really worth the risk?

Human beings have used tools since the beginning of time, creating new ones to replace the old ones. What reason, logically, is there that would support using something inferior, especially when dealing with the most precious thing that I have, my life.

A firearm is only a tool, nothing more.

That reminds me of something I saw:

__________________
Make it so...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6oUz1v17Uo
I am Locutus of Borg. You are Borg. www.thehighroad.us

I like the refence to Demolition Man, Zulu!

And my 2 cents. I feel that anyone should be allowed to own a gun LEGALLY. I do not disagree with the background checks that go with buying a gun in the state of Nebraska. I want it to be as difficult as possible for some people to get a gun of any kind, like felons, rapists, the mental ill, etc. My guns are used mainly for hunting and enjoyment (target shooting), but I also keep them accessible at home for the small chance I will need them for self defense. You never know when some meth-head will try breaking into your home at night ( or even during the day). My guns are easily accessible, but are also put away when I have my nieces and nephews in my home. I do not have kids, so this is more easily done.

__________________
Kody

I agree Disturbed. The laws prohibiting the carry of firearms make no sense at all. They try to use the law to prevent something that cannot reasonably be prevented because they are trying to judge intent to commit a crime. Because of this mindset, carrying for self defense in some states has become the intention of shooting someone, rather than looking at it as having the intention of preserving one's own life. Laws should only condemn actions that are harmful to others, not actions that can be used for a good. A person carrying a firearm is not harmful to society. The act of threating others with that firearm is and should be considered the criminal action.

Many of the problems with these gun laws is that lawmakers want to diminish personal responsibility and try to replace laws that would prevent the crime before it happened. If the punishment of the crime isn't enough to prevent that wrongful act, then adding 15 other lesser punishments to the list will not do a darn thing. This works of this can easily be seen through the fact that gun control laws do not work to reduce crime.

So what am I saying? I am saying that much of society has gotten the laws all wrong. Laws regarding the carry of firearms, mainly, but also other unenforceable laws based on the "honor system" which try to control people that have no honor.
(e.g. Criminal shootings in Chicago. Stupid criminals, don't you know Chicago has had a handgun ban since the 80's? You guys are breaking the law!)

We need to enforce the laws already in the books and rethink many of the laws that we currently have.

Sorry for the rant and forgive me if it went off-topic.

__________________
Make it so...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6oUz1v17Uo
I am Locutus of Borg. You are Borg. www.thehighroad.us

For any that are interested, here is the Amicus Brief from the Supreme Court case proving the effectiveness of civilian ownership of firearms.

For anybody not too keen on the idea of firearms for self-defense, this might change your mind.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-cont...trainers. pdf

__________________
Make it so...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6oUz1v17Uo
I am Locutus of Borg. You are Borg. www.thehighroad.us

While that might be true in a high-crime area (really, do you want to be unarmed in what is essentially a war-zone), in a more general sense I would not feel safe if I didn't have the "possibility" of having a working firearm. It's pretty easy pickings when a criminal has a gun and takes a safe gamble that a law-abiding citizen lives in a given home and therefore does not have a gun because of a ban. Luckily I don't live in DC or some other such area, so there's a chance that I might have a gun (even tho I don't currently) and that is deterence enough to keep me much safer than I would be otherwise.

From the amicus brief Picard posted below:

"Interestingly, because burglars do not know

which

deterrent effect from the homes that do keep arms."

It's one free-ride I'm happy to take!

__________________

Well said Hwyman. I can say first hand the cockiness of some of the gang bangers is unbelievable. They only fear other gang bangers, and to a lesser extent the cops. They know no citizen is a real threat to them.