Atlanta Airport Bans Guns

[MJS]

One who has jumped through the numerous legal hoops required to obtain a concealed weapon's permit is a pretty safe bet as far as law abiding goes.

So how are we going to tell who is law abiding and who isn't? By looking at them? Unless we ask each and every person who may be carrying, to see the proper documentation, prolonging the boarding process a little more, we won't know.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Not sure the exact date, but years before 9/11/2001 the Detroit Metro airport had signs up stating firearms and knives were not allowed at the airport terminal or on a plane.

I would like to have my options open to me, but I am not sure how to do this, unless I go back to my old gun control argument. I believe everyone has to carry a weapon and everyone gets 'x' number of bullets, and that is that. If everyone knew that everyone else had the same as them, then they might be polite under the fear of having others take action against them. If this was the case then I would prefer that the pilots had a separate entrance and their cockpit area was bullet proof/resistant to the level of approved firearm.

Of course this would not work, as some prefer a larger caliber while others prefer a smaller gun, and others prefer revolver to ACP style.

I think that some common sense could be applied here. Safety to prevent the loss of pressure in the cabin and the life of the pilot and co-pilot.

 

[Archangel M]

So how are we going to tell who is law abiding and who isn't? By looking at them? Unless we ask each and every person who may be carrying, to see the proper documentation, prolonging the boarding process a little more, we won't know.

Plenty of people probably shouldnt drive either, but as long as they pass their drivers test thats all we can do until they have their license yanked. unfortunately someone MAY get hurt or killed before that happens. BUT thats the price we pay for living in a free society. You dont deprive someone based on what they or another MAY do or not do.

 

[MJS]

Plenty of people probably shouldnt drive either, but as long as they pass their drivers test thats all we can do until they have their license yanked. unfortunately someone MAY get hurt or killed before that happens. BUT thats the price we pay for living in a free society. You dont deprive someone based on what they or another MAY do or not do.

Well, thats true. We are very fortunate to live where we do, as I'm sure there are other countries that don't have it half as easy. On the other hand, there needs to be some sort of law, control, etc., in place, wouldn't you think? I mean, if there wasn't you could end up with the Wild West.

So, going on your analogy above, let everyone who is "Law Abiding" carry whatever they choose. If they happen to be present in a bank, and it gets robbed, those people should be required or obligated to use their weapon? And if the time comes, when they make a mistake, such as in the case with a DL, then we can yank the CCW permit, just like we'd yank the DL?

Of course, regardless of whether or not someone is able to carry everywhere vs. certain areas, wouldn't the situation still need to warrant the use of the gun?

 

[CoryKS]

I guess I don't understand the problem that they are trying to solve with this ban. How many gun-related incidents have there been in ATL? In order to determine if the ban is effective and not just another pointless exercise for the pols to justify their paycheck, you would have to look at the number of incidents pre- and post-ban. If ATL has a problem, they should handle it but the last airport shoot-em-up I remember hearing about was the d-bag who shot up the El Al section of LAX a few years back.

 

[MBuzzy]

I guess I don't understand the problem that they are trying to solve with this ban. How many gun-related incidents have there been in ATL? In order to determine if the ban is effective and not just another pointless exercise for the pols to justify their paycheck, you would have to look at the number of incidents pre- and post-ban. If ATL has a problem, they should handle it but the last airport shoot-em-up I remember hearing about was the d-bag who shot up the El Al section of LAX a few years back.

I don't know if this is a matter of preventing incidents as much as a CYA drill. I really think that the airport is covering themselves. Let's be perfectly honest here, if the average person is in an airport and happens to see a glimpse of someone carrying a gun...it will cause problems. Whether it is complete panic or not, who knows...but in today's mind frame, I would think that anyone who saw someone else carrying a gun would alert TSA and probably get pretty freaked out - they obviously will not know whether the person has a permit or not.

On top of that, I really see this as just closing the loop. Guns are already not allowed on 90% of airport property....so why not just complete the circle and make it everywhere. Easier to enforce, easier to deal with. This way there are no exceptions.

I agree that we have to be careful about where we allow and do not allow guns and particularly be wary of sliding down the slope of too much control....but this one really just doesn't violate the common sense rule. In today's mindset, it makes sense to disallow guns on airport property. And simply saying "If we allow this, who knows what they'll take away next" is not a good argument for why not to regulate something. Each incident would be looking at and evaluated on its own merit.

 

[MJS]

I don't know if this is a matter of preventing incidents as much as a CYA drill. I really think that the airport is covering themselves. Let's be perfectly honest here, if the average person is in an airport and happens to see a glimpse of someone carrying a gun...it will cause problems. Whether it is complete panic or not, who knows...but in today's mind frame, I would think that anyone who saw someone else carrying a gun would alert TSA and probably get pretty freaked out - they obviously will not know whether the person has a permit or not.

On top of that, I really see this as just closing the loop. Guns are already not allowed on 90% of airport property....so why not just complete the circle and make it everywhere. Easier to enforce, easier to deal with. This way there are no exceptions.

I agree that we have to be careful about where we allow and do not allow guns and particularly be wary of sliding down the slope of too much control....but this one really just doesn't violate the common sense rule. In today's mindset, it makes sense to disallow guns on airport property. And simply saying "If we allow this, who knows what they'll take away next" is not a good argument for why not to regulate something. Each incident would be looking at and evaluated on its own merit.

This post makes alot of sense!! A few posts down, I linked a few articles of unruly passengers on airplanes. Many were people who were drunk. Do we want a drunk on a plane with a gun, who is upset because he was denied another drink? I'm still curious as to how one can tell whether or not someone is "Law Abiding" just by looking at them. Unless you see some paperwork or something that is proof that they are legal to carry, we will not know. Are we going to stop and frisk and question everyone that has a gun? Could this lead to stereotyping?

Another question is....why the need or fixation to carry? I mean, the days of the wild, wild west are long gone. I think that, as you said above, we need to take other peoples feelings into consideration as well. The family sitting in the restaurant having dinner, may not feel comfortable with the guy sitting across from them, with a gun. And as I had asked in another post, I would think that just because you carry, it does not mean that its ok to pull it out at any time. You better have a pretty good reason to draw down on someone. Even a cop gets put under the microscope when they pull their gun and in the event they do shoot.

 

[Jdokan]

the laws will only curtail the honest law abiding individuals....the criminals will continue to have a disregard for law and continue to use whatever tools they find best allow them to control a situation....

At what point do we allow take away a persons right to defend themselves...Will there be enough (forgive me here) liberals to warant that unarmed combat is to violent and people can't train in it anymore....?? Far fetched maybe....where do you draw the line...at what point is enough enough....alot for thought/discussion....great post...

 

[Kreth]

And simply saying "If we allow this, who knows what they'll take away next" is not a good argument for why not to regulate something.

Ask the British what happened not long after a "reasonable" mandatory registration for all guns was put in place in their country...

 

[MBuzzy]

Ask the British what happened not long after a "reasonable" mandatory registration for all guns was put in place in their country...

Which is why I'm not saying that we shouldn't question, but again....choose your battles. Saying you can't carry in an airport - as I said....logically, what is really being taken away? A very small portion of the property. I just don't see this as even being worth opposing. I mean, it makes sense to me.

Now, if the law was made that you can't have them in the streets....or all concealed carry permits are being taken away, etc there is reason for concern. I idealistically tend to think that we as a culture have enough experience and intelligence to determine when we are starting down the "slippery slope." I really just don't see this as it...maybe a lateral step, but not downward.

But then, look at some countries who have completely eliminated guns. In South Korea, even the criminals can't get guns.....That would make me feel more safe. I mean, I would personally (again, just my opinion, I realize that this is far from being shared by others!) give up my personal right to own if it would ensure that no criminal could get a gun.

Because seriously - I own a gun, I have a permit.......but I have NEVER carried outside my home, except when I'm going target shooting. There is no reason. Really, what do I have to defend myself against. Even if I was in a convenience store that was getting robbed, chances are, I would never draw...it would only escalate the situation. But that is part of the larger issue.

We are talking about a ban of guns in a very small percentage of one airport's property. What is being lost? How many people really take their guns to the airport anyway?? And if so....why??? Think of it objectively, what is the target at the ticket counter of an airport that you need to defend yourself from?

 

[Archangel M]

Well, thats true. We are very fortunate to live where we do, as I'm sure there are other countries that don't have it half as easy. On the other hand, there needs to be some sort of law, control, etc., in place, wouldn't you think? I mean, if there wasn't you could end up with the Wild West.

So, going on your analogy above, let everyone who is "Law Abiding" carry whatever they choose. If they happen to be present in a bank, and it gets robbed, those people should be required or obligated to use their weapon? And if the time comes, when they make a mistake, such as in the case with a DL, then we can yank the CCW permit, just like we'd yank the DL?

Of course, regardless of whether or not someone is able to carry everywhere vs. certain areas, wouldn't the situation still need to warrant the use of the gun?

Well. Carrying a weapon wouldnt "obligate" anybody to act in a bank robbery.

Other than that, I dont know. Honestly. As I said upthread, Im not really FOR anybody and everybody carrying weapons in an airport, gvt. building etc. But I do think of all those sad mass murder cases..the Cali. McDonalds shooting in the 80's, the Post office rampages, School Shootings, VT, 9/11 and on and on where unarmed people were shot down like sheep by single people with guns. I cant help but wonder what would have happened if just 1 or 2 people had been armed at those times. The few examples I can recall...that off duty cop in the mall that managed to hold back a killer from killing more people till the cavalry arrived...that security guard at the church who shot down that rampaging gunman. To honestly respond in those situations you need a weapon of your own.

If I were unarmed in a mall and a killer started shooting..I wouldnt worry if the citizen who responded with his own weapon was "highly trained" or not. Saying that it would be better if nobody had a gun to deal with the killer, rather than an untrained person seems...well...resigning yoursef to fate. I would be ideal if he was a former Delta operator, sure, but even "joe average" would at least take up the BG attention for a while.

While unrestricted carry may not be the best idea on planes (but is it? are we safer than in the 50's when it was allowed?), its the concept of "unarmed is safer" that I have my doubts about. Its looking like unarming those who need unarming is far from a 100% cure all. Those who seem to pay are those who should have been armed.

I dont know the answer. I admit that.

 

[MJS]

Came across this link, as it goes along with the thread.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25680821/

 

[Cryozombie]

Another question is....why the need or fixation to carry? I mean, the days of the wild, wild west are long gone. I think that, as you said above, we need to take other peoples feelings into consideration as well. The family sitting in the restaurant having dinner, may not feel comfortable with the guy sitting across from them, with a gun.

MJS, thats the second time you referred to the Wild West in this thread. Thats actually a fairly common argument for gun control, "if we allow people to have guns it will be like the wild west all over again" however, none of these so-called Wild West situations can really be pointed to in places where carry is allowed. I'm not saying YOU are claiming they do, only that your use of the wild west analogy is pretty common.

And while its true we don't have bandits riding down the street on horseback shooting in the air and robbing banks and saloons, we do have nutcases on Subways and Ferryboats attacking people with swords and machetes. We do have women who leave their gun in the car watching everyone in the restaraunt including their families murdered because they didn't bring the gun in with them, like the LUBBY'S MASSACRE... and I have to wonder how many of the 23 people killed there would have rather been uncomfortable that Suzanna was armed rather than be dead today... or even the 20 who were only wounded. I would cite those types of incidents as "reasons" to carry, if not needs.

I'm not saying these are reasons to carry on a plane, mind you, just reasons that even tho it's not the wild west, *I FEEL* carry is still applicable.

Plus, in the case of concealed carry, those people sitting across from the carrier should never be aware the carrier has the weapon unless they NEED to use it.

 

[FearlessFreep]

MJS, thats the second time you referred to the Wild West in this thread. Thats actually a fairly common argument for gun control, "if we allow people to have guns it will be like the wild west all over again" however, none of these so-called Wild West situations can really be pointed to in places where carry is allowed. I'm not saying YOU are claiming they do, only that your use of the wild west analogy is pretty common.

The Wild West of romantic thought is no more how the west actually was then Die Hard is an example of your average corporate Christmas party...

 

[thardey]

MJS, thats the second time you referred to the Wild West in this thread. Thats actually a fairly common argument for gun control, "if we allow people to have guns it will be like the wild west all over again" however, none of these so-called Wild West situations can really be pointed to in places where carry is allowed. I'm not saying YOU are claiming they do, only that your use of the wild west analogy is pretty common.

You beat me to it.

Yeah, the dime-store novel version of the "Wild West" is gone, but were they ever really here in the first place? What makes you think that it is really that different? There was the same fight in Tombstone when the Earps decreed that no guns were allowed in town. You had to check them at the sheriff's office. Sure, guns are blued, matte-finished, and concealed, instead of chromed, pearl-handled, and displayed as jewelry, but the myth of the "wild west" never was, and the only thing that has really changed is the introduction of television, video games, and violent deprogramming.

As for "what is the difference it's just the last 10%", it depends a lot on your style and beliefs of carrying. Is the parking area also gun-free? Or just inside the terminal. What about picking up people? Some states make it illegal to leave your gun in the car. Other people simply won't. Me, I ride a motorcycle in the summer, which means there's no place to secure my gun. That means, if I have to go to the Post office, I have to plan ahead, and leave my gun at home that day.

It's common for me to drive my parent's truck to pick them up at the local airport. Should I have to leave my gun in their truck in some parking lot, so that I can go inside the terminal to welcome them home, and pick up their bags? For some people, it's not a big deal, for others, it is.

Okay, if you are the traveler, and you want to take your gun, you check it, and go through the proper procedure. But what if you're there to pick up or drop off others? I've carried my gun into our airport before, for exactly those reasons, I was riding with someone else, and I didn't want to leave my gun in their car.

It's the same problem you run into when malls or specific stores are legally declared "gun-free" zones. If you're not able, or comfortable with leaving your gun in the car (how many people use alternative transportation, after all? Bikes, subways, MAX trains?) You either have to break the law by carrying the gun into these places, or you have to leave the gun at home for the entire day, because of that "little" 10% of your total daily errands.

Suddenly it does become a big deal.

 

[MJS]

Regarding the Wild West comment that I made. IIRC, I had asked a few times in this thread, what the need is to carry, every place someone goes, as well as if someone is carrying, will they act or should they feel that they have to act, should a situation, such as the ones others have mentioned, come up?

Where I live, I can go to the mall and watch people for an hour, and I'd bet that I don't see one that is carrying. It'd be interesting to know out of the people that I do see in that time, that are able to carry and if they are, why are they not? The only people that you may come across would be a CT. State Trooper, even if they are off duty. Technically, the Troopers here, are on duty even when they are on days off.

 

[Cryozombie]

It'd be interesting to know out of the people that I do see in that time, that are able to carry and if they are, why are they not?

Well, I think this is like asking if people are able to train in martial arts, why don't they... and the answers are broad and many-fold.

If I could make some examples of reasons some people who may have the ABILITY to carry but make the choice not too... and bear in mind these are just a few, and by no means all encompasing...

Some people will deny that anything bad could happen to them. "THOSE" things happen far away and to other people, you see it on the news, but it's never going to happen to ME.

Some people believe that IF it happens, dialing 911 will save them, so they dont NEED to carry.

Some people feel that if THEY carry, their gun will just be stolen, or used against them in the commission of a crime.

Some people hate guns. Or even just dislike them.

Some people don't have what it takes to stand up and act if the time comes when they need to, and they may or may not recognize this fact.

Like I said... There are any number of reasons for a person who is able NOT to carry despite being able to. Just like there are a number of reasons that a person who can might just carry.

Self defence, because the person realizes it CAN happen here, to me... its NOT just somthing that happens on the news.

Some people have "tough guy" syndrome, and fantasize about using their gun to "save the day"

Some people enjoy the peace of mind/sense of security having the gun on them gives them, even if they hope they never have to use it.

Various reasons, various mindsets.

 

[thardey]

Another question is....why the need or fixation to carry? I mean, the days of the wild, wild west are long gone.

If they ever were, no, they are not gone. Okay, so "duelling" is no longer an accepted way of settling disputes. But the self-defense aspect is the same as it was, and, according to the research by D. Grossman, the only reason it is not 10 times worse than the "Wild West" is that medical technology is 10 times better than it was.

I think that, as you said above, we need to take other peoples feelings into consideration as well. The family sitting in the restaurant having dinner, may not feel comfortable with the guy sitting across from them, with a gun. And as I had asked in another post, I would think that just because you carry, it does not mean that its ok to pull it out at any time. You better have a pretty good reason to draw down on someone. Even a cop gets put under the microscope when they pull their gun and in the event they do shoot.

Fine, keep it concealed. I don't think anybody is arguing for "open carry" at airports. What's the difference between a restaurant in the Airport, outside of the "security zone" and a restaurant at, well, a restaurant?

What about church? Do you think that there would be people who are uncomfortable with the idea of someone sitting next to them with a gun? Of course! Yet, many pastors secretly encourage CCW holders to bring their guns. At any given Sunday, I could identify at least 3 other people with guns, not including me. (The pastor once mentioned 6.) That's why we keep them concealed - so that people won't be bothered.

And you need a damned good reason to pull the gun out, let alone even show that you have one, even if it is still in the holster, let alone point it at someone. That's "menacing" and is illegal. You can justify it in court, but it's still illegal.

Regarding the Wild West comment that I made. IIRC, I had asked a few times in this thread, what the need is to carry, every place someone goes, as well as if someone is carrying, will they act or should they feel that they have to act, should a situation, such as the ones others have mentioned, come up?

For the first question, how would you decide when or when not to carry? Once you decide to carry, there is a definite aversion to putting yourself in a position where you might have to use it. (I know that sounds backwards, but it's true!) It's a whole different feeling when you see a potential conflict, knowing that it might have to be solved by a bullet. Carrying the gun itself "ups the ante" in any physical encounter, which means that any fight could end up costing a life. That means you spend most of the rest of your life in places that probably won't need a gun.

Then the gun becomes a part of your daily life, like a wallet, or a watch. You stop thinking "I don't expect to need the gun at the mall today, so I don't think I will carry it." Instead, you simply keep it with you. Unless there is some specific reason not to take the gun with you, say you have to go to the Post Office, or into a Federally-controlled building, the default is to have it.

Where I live, I can go to the mall and watch people for an hour, and I'd bet that I don't see one that is carrying. It'd be interesting to know out of the people that I do see in that time, that are able to carry and if they are, why are they not? The only people that you may come across would be a CT. State Trooper, even if they are off duty. Technically, the Troopers here, are on duty even when they are on days off.

In the mall, probably yes, very few people are carrying. But then, most people in the mall are teenagers. Of course, I once went to the mall to buy a suit, I tried on several, while being checked for proper fit. Neither my wife, or the saleslady ever had a clue that I had a gun. (And was a full-sized .45 auto.)

On the street, however, I would easily guess that where I live, 1 in 20 cars has a gun in it. Or at least, most people who have a CCW at least carry in their car, and many who do not.

There are many people who buy a gun for the feeling of security, put it in their closet, and never touch it again. There are people who do the same thing with a CCW (depending on how hard you have to work to get it.) When I first got licensed, I had no intention of carrying in town - it was more for hiking and hunting, where I wanted to be able to have the advantages of concealing. Later, as my training developed, I realized that I had the responsibility to be an armed citizen (not everybody has that responsibility), and it was time to be a part of that.

For the second part of the question - it depends on the individual, and the circumstances.

Some situations will require you to "hole-up" to protect your family, and to not fire until you have a clean, close shot (which would require the bad guy to be way too close to your family.) Sometimes you have the choice of drawing on the guy, and hoping that is enough to stop him. (92% of crimes prevented by firearms are from simply brandishing the weapon.) Or do you quick-draw, and shoot him before he even realizes you are a threat? Can you escape? Or are others also in danger?

One thing a gun is not, is a "dealer of justice" when you get that mentality, you get into "vigilante" mode. You simply can't keep that mentality for long, though, and still carry -- you burn yourself out. For most people who carry, the gun is for them like the rattle and poison is for a rattlesnake. It's a last-ditch means to protect themselves and those close to them. It's not a tool to go out and pay back the bad guys.

 

[MJS]

Well, I think this is like asking if people are able to train in martial arts, why don't they... and the answers are broad and many-fold.

I'd have to say yes and no to this. Comparing a gun to MA training is IMO, apples to oranges. MA training is something that we do take with us everywhere we go. Unless we actually say something, nobody will know that we train. A gun is something that we have an option to take with us. Taking it into an airport...well, there is a very good chance it'll be detected.

If I could make some examples of reasons some people who may have the ABILITY to carry but make the choice not too... and bear in mind these are just a few, and by no means all encompasing...

Some people will deny that anything bad could happen to them. "THOSE" things happen far away and to other people, you see it on the news, but it's never going to happen to ME.

Some people believe that IF it happens, dialing 911 will save them, so they dont NEED to carry.

Some people feel that if THEY carry, their gun will just be stolen, or used against them in the commission of a crime.

Some people hate guns. Or even just dislike them.

Some people don't have what it takes to stand up and act if the time comes when they need to, and they may or may not recognize this fact.

Like I said... There are any number of reasons for a person who is able NOT to carry despite being able to. Just like there are a number of reasons that a person who can might just carry.

Self defence, because the person realizes it CAN happen here, to me... its NOT just somthing that happens on the news.

Some people have "tough guy" syndrome, and fantasize about using their gun to "save the day"

Some people enjoy the peace of mind/sense of security having the gun on them gives them, even if they hope they never have to use it.

Various reasons, various mindsets.

Points taken. Of course, it could be argued that while the gun does provide some security, its something that can really only be used in an extreme circumstance. Are you going to pull it on someone who is yelling at you for cutting them off in traffic? If people say that there is a very slim chance that we'll ever use our MA training, that IMO, speaks alot for the gun as well. Unless you're a LEO or bouncer who may rely on that training, how often does the average citizen rely on it? The same can be said for the gun.

 

[MJS]

If they ever were, no, they are not gone. Okay, so "duelling" is no longer an accepted way of settling disputes. But the self-defense aspect is the same as it was, and, according to the research by D. Grossman, the only reason it is not 10 times worse than the "Wild West" is that medical technology is 10 times better than it was.

Fine, keep it concealed. I don't think anybody is arguing for "open carry" at airports. What's the difference between a restaurant in the Airport, outside of the "security zone" and a restaurant at, well, a restaurant?

What about church? Do you think that there would be people who are uncomfortable with the idea of someone sitting next to them with a gun? Of course! Yet, many pastors secretly encourage CCW holders to bring their guns. At any given Sunday, I could identify at least 3 other people with guns, not including me. (The pastor once mentioned 6.) That's why we keep them concealed - so that people won't be bothered.

And you need a damned good reason to pull the gun out, let alone even show that you have one, even if it is still in the holster, let alone point it at someone. That's "menacing" and is illegal. You can justify it in court, but it's still illegal.



For the first question, how would you decide when or when not to carry? Once you decide to carry, there is a definite aversion to putting yourself in a position where you might have to use it. (I know that sounds backwards, but it's true!) It's a whole different feeling when you see a potential conflict, knowing that it might have to be solved by a bullet. Carrying the gun itself "ups the ante" in any physical encounter, which means that any fight could end up costing a life. That means you spend most of the rest of your life in places that probably won't need a gun.

Then the gun becomes a part of your daily life, like a wallet, or a watch. You stop thinking "I don't expect to need the gun at the mall today, so I don't think I will carry it." Instead, you simply keep it with you. Unless there is some specific reason not to take the gun with you, say you have to go to the Post Office, or into a Federally-controlled building, the default is to have it.

In the mall, probably yes, very few people are carrying. But then, most people in the mall are teenagers. Of course, I once went to the mall to buy a suit, I tried on several, while being checked for proper fit. Neither my wife, or the saleslady ever had a clue that I had a gun. (And was a full-sized .45 auto.)

On the street, however, I would easily guess that where I live, 1 in 20 cars has a gun in it. Or at least, most people who have a CCW at least carry in their car, and many who do not.

There are many people who buy a gun for the feeling of security, put it in their closet, and never touch it again. There are people who do the same thing with a CCW (depending on how hard you have to work to get it.) When I first got licensed, I had no intention of carrying in town - it was more for hiking and hunting, where I wanted to be able to have the advantages of concealing. Later, as my training developed, I realized that I had the responsibility to be an armed citizen (not everybody has that responsibility), and it was time to be a part of that.

For the second part of the question - it depends on the individual, and the circumstances.

Some situations will require you to "hole-up" to protect your family, and to not fire until you have a clean, close shot (which would require the bad guy to be way too close to your family.) Sometimes you have the choice of drawing on the guy, and hoping that is enough to stop him. (92% of crimes prevented by firearms are from simply brandishing the weapon.) Or do you quick-draw, and shoot him before he even realizes you are a threat? Can you escape? Or are others also in danger?

One thing a gun is not, is a "dealer of justice" when you get that mentality, you get into "vigilante" mode. You simply can't keep that mentality for long, though, and still carry -- you burn yourself out. For most people who carry, the gun is for them like the rattle and poison is for a rattlesnake. It's a last-ditch means to protect themselves and those close to them. It's not a tool to go out and pay back the bad guys.

Bold part mine. So it goes back to what I've said before. If we take our MA training, it can be adapted to whats presented to us at the time. We can use something as mild as a controlling technique all the way to a killing or maiming. How can that be done with a gun? Shooting the person in the leg? The very same thing that people say about LEOs, and the reply is they shoot center mass.

So, if the situation has to fit the part you said which I bolded, even if it is carried, its still something that may not be able to be used. Someone pulls a gun on me during a simple verbal argument, they better plan on using it or prepare for a long court battle.