Agreeing to Disagree

[TXcougar8000]

Well, let me start off with: 1) The less people in this world that know I CC, the better. Concealed means concealed. I don't like talking about it to anyone outside of this forum or outside of my circle of friends that CC. 2) It is not my mission in life to convince people that they too need to CC. I am a huge 2A supporter, and the more responsible citizens that are armed the better, but until one feels compelled either by internal or external factors to CC, I believe there is no forcing the issue.

So - to my point. I had a conversation with a co-worker yesterday regarding CC (keep in mind the topic of guns, pro 2A, CC, and otherwise are FAR from taboo at my workplace), and while he supports the notion of self-defense within the home, he believes that CC is pointless because "unless the situation is perfectly in your favor, drawing and firing is not a feasible option" and "there is no optimal way in which someone can CC and have ready access to their weapon regardless of body position or circumstance". I know I could have spoken about many instances when a person had been accosted, and despite not having the situation "perfectly in their favor" they were able to defend life with deadly force, as well as the MANY options available for CC (guns, holsters, clothing, etc...), but he would not budge from his standpoint. As I said, it's not my purpose in life to convince people they need to CC, but how would you guys have addressed the conversation? What "talking points" do you employ in conversation with people that believe that situational awareness is not necessary in commonplace areas during regular times of the day (i.e. Kroger @ 1:30 pm)? What could I have told him that would make him think a little harder about CC and the importance of it? Thanks all.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[ErnieNWillis]

He will come around after he has been victimized.

[varob]

I have no talking points whatsoever. Like you, I have no desire to convert or convince any one of any thing.

I do my speaking at the ballot box. I Vote.

[yoyomeng]

send him to thearmedcitizen.com

[yoyomeng]

although that might not help as it is mostly articles dealing with home invasions

[cad424]

I don't care what other's views are so I wouldn't have partaken in the discussion.

I don't understand why so many people get worked up about this issue. You obviously don't like it when someone pushes gun control so why would it bother you that someone doesn't agree with concealed carry?

[yoyomeng]

I agree with cad, unless I know someone is semi curious I don't bother. Just causes problems.

[oakchas]

"unless the situation is perfectly in your favor, drawing and firing is not a feasible option"

The only word that makes the statement wrong is "feasible"... which should probably be replaced with prudent

"there is no optimal way in which someone can CC and have ready access to their weapon regardless of body position or circumstance"

The only thing missing here is ... So I open carry in my hand ALL THE TIME.

Okay, here's my reasoning...

Feasible vs prudent examples:

1. If you are a bad shot, drawing and firing in public, with people other than the bad guy around is not a good idea (not prudent).
2. If the BG is 12 years old, alone, and unarmed; drawing and firing is not prudent.
3. And honestly, unless things are perfectly in your favor... you may suffer horrible consequences from your acton... You may shoot an innocent person (collateral damage) You may shoot but not kill the BG and his lawyer is better than yours. You may shoot and kill the BG and his family has his lawyer (two previous not true in no retreat anywhere states). Some folks, I am one, believe that the prudent thing is to try to stay ALIVE... If I have to use my weapon in a manner which is imprudent in order to do so, I will if it's feasible (which is defined as: capable of being done with means at hand and circumstances as they are).

There is no optimal way to draw any weapon, concealed or otherwise... In a perfect world, we would just look at a BG and he would fall.

his arguments are semantic. And the way he states them is almost accurate.

The truth is:
Carrying a concealed weapon is like having a fire extinguisher in your house. It gives you a chance that you would not have otherwise.

I have always had a fire extinguisher in my kitchen. That did not stop my house from blowing up while I was at work and being totally destroyed. I have rebuilt, on the same property... (true story)

I have a new fire extinguisher.

If "a bad thing" happens; it may not be feasible (or prudent) for me to use it. If "a bad thing" happens, it may happen in the bedroom or basement and I may not be optimally able to get to the fire extinguisher to stop it from happening or even reduce the potential damage. But I still have the fire extinguisher, and know how to use it, in case the opportunity arises for me to use it to save my life and or property.

There CAN be times when we have our weapon concealed on us, that we cannot use it. There CAN be times when it would not be wise to even if we could. There MIGHT be a time when we CAN use it and SHOULD use it, and doing so will save our lives or the lives of loved ones. I want to have the opportunity then TO use it.

And, I also really don't carewhat he thinks... but I do love to argue for agument's sake.. so ... that's what I'm thinking and saying.. If he is enjoying the discourrse, and you are, I say, engage... have a reasonable discussion/argument about it... and in the end if you can just agree to disagree ... no harm, no foul... and since the discussion was reasonable and rational, noone will think those CCer's are a whacko bunch of gun totin' dangers to society.

[SIGguy229]

Reality is a cure for ignorance...if he wants to remain blissfully ignorant, he should stop reading the news

[shockwave]

Might want to point out, if this subject comes up again, that the defender in a CCW situation may have to take a bullet or two, or some stabbing wounds, before getting the weapon into play.

There is no assumption that you have to "win the draw" in order to use a firearm. And of course, there's always stuff like this - and you might want some options..

[bladenbullet]

turning it into a battle of wits and examples will make it look like you are trying too hard and drive a wedge in between the 2 of you that may make the debate stronger...that might end up being counterproductive in the long run...

sometimes its best to regroup and let time pass...as an example pops up now and again it might warrant mentioning for reinforcement....but a continued assault may just make you look like a gun nut who wont accept that there are those who dont believe what you believe...

[ctsketch]

He will come around after he has been victimized.

If he's lucky to live if he is.

[Texas solo]

, there's always stuff like this - and you might want some options..

I don't think any such work enviorment would allow it's employees to CC

As for the co-worker discussion, I would simply say:

"Thanks for letting me know where you stand on this issue. I won't waste a bullet saving your butt."

[farronwolf]

Get a blue gun and ask him to work through some scenarios with you. If your able to get to your gun and get some shots off before he is able to deliver what would equate to a death sentence for you, then you will have made your point.

If he wants to simply walk up to you and shoot you in the back of the head, no this won't support your possition, but those instances are extremely rare in the real world. Most self defense situations have a progression up to the point where you either decide to defend yourself, or remain a victim.

Of course all this would have to be done with the understanding that if you're able to demonstrate that you can draw your weapon and get some shots off on target, then he will have to reconsider and agree to take some pistol training or other self defense courses. Doubt he would be willing to take the challenge.

[Glockanista]

The only taking points I would offer are these:

Since 1991, the nation’s violent crime rate has decreased 40 percent (murder, 45 percent; rape, 31 percent; robbery, 47 percent; and aggravated assault, 37 percent. From 2007-2008, the violent crime rate decreased 3 percent (murder, 5 percent; rape, 2 percent; robbery, 2 percent; and aggravated assault, 3 percent.) States with Right-to-Carry laws have lower violent crime rates, on average, compared to the rest of the country: total violent crime by 31 percent, murder, 39 percent; robbery, 55 percent; and aggravated assault, 19 percent. States that have the most restrictive gun control laws tend to have the highest ratios of robberies (confrontational violent crimes) to non-confrontational property crimes. (source was NRA web site)

U.S. Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., reports that FBI data from 2007 showed lower rates of homicide (30 percent less), robbery (46 percent less) and aggravated assault (12 percent less) in states with liberal carry laws versus those without them. Overall, the violent crime rate in right-to-carry states is 22 percent lower.

After Florida enacted its concealed carry law in 1986, the violent crime rate dropped 32 percent and the murder rate dropped 58 percent. Another interesting datum: 40 percent of felons interviewed for one research project said that fear of an armed victim deterred their crimes.

Criminals want compliant, helpless victims. Helpless, of course, is how some on the left see Americans, one reason they target Americans who pack heat.

The data on guns and crime justify liberal carry laws. Society is safer when government does not impede the right to own a gun.

Other than that, I don't have much to say.