Pro Gun Quote

[Thai]

A warning to the gun control groupie...this quote may offend your liberal mind, but that is the price you pay...so suck it up! If you don't like it, then move on...title of thread is enough warning!

"There are wolves among us. Pulling the teeth of the sheepdogs will do nothing to protect the sheep. Statistics show that we live in a very violent society, but that violence has nothing to do with the implements used to achieve that violence. Until we can transform our society into one that has more respect for human life and human dignity, the best we can do is allow the sheepdogs among us to stand in defiance of the wolves. We’ll never be able to do that if every time a wolf steals a sheep, we de-fang the dog." -- Jeremy Choate

 

[RandyDaytona]

A warning to the gun control groupie...this quote may offend your liberal mind, but that is the price you pay...so suck it up! If you don't like it, then move on...title of thread is enough warning!

"There are wolves among us. Pulling the teeth of the sheepdogs will do nothing to protect the sheep. Statistics show that we live in a very violent society, but that violence has nothing to do with the implements used to achieve that violence. Until we can transform our society into one that has more respect for human life and human dignity, the best we can do is allow the sheepdogs among us to stand in defiance of the wolves. We’ll never be able to do that if every time a wolf steals a sheep, we de-fang the dog." -- Jeremy Choate

I would argue that the main point behind individual concealed carry is self-defense - not societal-defense. If someone wants to do the latter, there's an avenue for that. The idea of being a "sheepdog" simply by virtue of carrying a gun sounds romantic and helps this guy with his argument, but I don't think he's considering the massive liability issue that goes with it.

BTW, not everyone who disagrees with whatever stand a pro-gun person happens to be taking at a given time is necessarily a "gun control groupie" OR a "liberal."

 

[Thai]

Societal defense?? Are you saying that the guy is wanting/intending to form a posse and start breaking down the doors of bad guys?? I am an immigrant...so, i may not know any better...but that is not how i read it.

 

[RandyDaytona]

The way I read it, his quote was that the "sheepdogs" - those "standing up to" the wolves in defense of all - were the armed citizens. I got that not just from the quote, itself, but the context he was using it in (i.e. the argument he was trying to support with it).

I agree with him as far as society being violent, regardless of the means used.

 

[Thai]

I think that you miss the point.

 

[hube01]

There are gun owners and there are kooks who own guns.....

 

[RandyDaytona]

I think that you miss the point.

I think it's pretty clear. In response to to Jason Alexander's rant for more gun control, the author said that we shouldn't be "pulling the teeth of" the "sheepdogs" (i.e. making it harder to have/carry/get guns or otherwise restricting those who already have them) because it will not help "protect the sheep" (those without guns, aka, the rest of us, which equals society).

It has nothing to do with encouraging people to form posses or break down doors. I never said that. I DID say he's talking about the role of the individual gun-carrier as being more than just for self-defense. And while the quote is poetically-worded and may resonate with many gun owners on an emotional level, the author is clearly missing the importance of the liability involved with using a firearm to protect anyone but yourself or your immediate family.

 

[Thai]

Do you have CHL?? CHL in my state does allow for protection of others' lives (and property) in immediate danger, such as this theater shooting. It is not recommended but allowable.

Yeah, I do think that you miss his point.

 

[-JD-]

Do you believe the right to arms is an american right, or a universal right in all parts of the world?

 

[Trevloc]

Blaming people who own firearms for the violence in this world is like blaming mcdonalds for making us fat.

Criminals make the decision to go through with the crime, not the weapon they use.

No ones getting my teeth.

 

[rebelbowtie]

Do you have CHL?? CHL in my state does allow for protection of others' lives (and property) in immediate danger, such as this theater shooting. It is not recommended but allowable.

Yeah, I do think that you miss his point.

You missed the point by a mile, Randy couldn't be more on point. As reficulously easy as it is to obtain a CCW license just about any yahoo can walk around with a weapon. And while I am all for that for that yahoo's own personal safety but I definitely don't want that person trying to be a vigilanty and protect other people. If that's what they want in life then join one of the 5 branches of military or become a law enforcement officer.

 

[RandyDaytona]

Do you have CHL?? CHL in my state does allow for protection of others' lives (and property) in immediate danger, such as this theater shooting. It is not recommended but allowable.

Yeah, I do think that you miss his point.

OK use-of-force expert: please explain "the point" to me.

No, I don't have a "CHL" (whatever that is), but I have been a cop for 17 years, so I just *may* know a tad bit more about liability and use-of-force than you do.

It may be "allowable" for a concealed weapon carrier to use their weapon to help others. But it's a VERY thin piece of legal ice you'll be standing on by taking any action. That was my point. That's the point you're missing. Both you and the quote's author, who seems to care more about how cool his analogies are than the reality of following what they're clearly encourages.

And I just HAVE to address this one: to protect "property?!?" Are you really going to risk your life and/or a lawsuit to protect property?" Think about that.

If you really want to be a "sheepdog," become a cop, because then you'll not only be trained in the enforcement of your state's laws, but as long as you act within the scope of your duties, you'll be covered by whatever agency your work for in the event you have to take action. As a citizen, you're covered by exactly squat, and every ambulance-chasing attorney on the planet will be lining up to hammer you if you shoot some guy robbing a 7-11 - whether you were justified or not. Ever had an attorney crawl up your a$$ and second-guess every decision you've ever made in your life? I have. It sucks.

If you actually believe that carrying a firearm means it's OK for you to be a one-man anti-crime task force, you probably shouldn't be carrying at all.

 

[RandyDaytona]

You missed the point by a mile, Randy couldn't be more on point. As reficulously easy as it is to obtain a CCW license just about any yahoo can walk around with a weapon. And while I am all for that for that yahoo's own personal safety but I definitely don't want that person trying to be a vigilanty and protect other people. If that's what they want in life then join one of the 5 branches of military or become a law enforcement officer.

Exactly.

 

[calikev]

I had my concealed carry permit in Florida for many years and unfortunately reside in Ca and can no longer carry. When arming yourself with lethal capabilities we must always remember that the use of deadly force is A LAST RESORT! The author is seeming to imply that the "sheepdogs" should have some aggression. I disagree with this mentality.

I, (like most gun owners and concealed carry approved, law abiding citizens), am a peaceful man UNTIL provoked. I do not seek confrontation and won't meet a person wielding a stick, knife or fists with my gun. You can only use deadly force when being confronted with deadly force.

I have never shown my weapon to another person outside of my home and those were my closest of friends. If it were to ever be seen it would be because I have the need and intentions of saving MY life. I am not an officer and have no desire to make citizens arrests or protect the masses...this IS the job of law enforcement.

I would NOT kill a human for my property much less my neighbors. I would however rectify a life threatening situation with use of deadly force without even a moments thought. If another person has forced me to choose between my demise or his, he will have to go. This is the reason for having a concealed carry permit and/or owning a weapon. NONE OTHER in my opinion.

This is somewhat of a mantra that I believe and live by. It's never gotten me in trouble in all my years of gun ownership.

 

[Thai]

Of course, it is a legal matter, ANYTIME that you use a gun. Yes, even COPS get into legal troubles if they use their firearm for good or bad ("administrative leave"). No one is immune to anything. Was that the point of the quote? Nope. I have no idea why that was brought up.

Is using a gun to protect someone else or property legal?? Yes, it is in my state. I don't claim to be a 17 yr veteran cop that knows all laws in all states...because that would be foolish.

Whether a person gets sued or not is NOT the point of the quote. I am in the medical field...sure, i can get sued EVEN if i did the right thing. Does that make what i did illegal? No. Does it make it unlawful? No.

Now, whether i will use my firearm to protect property, you're right...i will not. In fact, i will ONLY use it to defend myself and my family against deadly force. I have repeatedly posted that view on this forum. Like you, i am fairly educated and understand the basic laws.

Why do i need to become a cop to know my state laws? Hell, i bet most cops don't know all of it! Certainly, they don't know other state laws where they do not reside. hint hint.

The fact that an attorney crawled up your a$$ means that your career path did not really protect you all that well...certainly not much better than the average law-abiding citizen.

The point that you're missing is that this guy did not mean that one should bear arms to be a protecting force. The sheeps? Could that mean the immediate folks in the proximity? Could that mean my family? Who are you to determine who the sheep is in the quote?? Only the author knows what he meant, right? Sure, from my viewpoint, the sheeps are my family...and if i am with others who lives are being threatened, then i guess the sheeps are the folks near me. But, i will be using my weapon solely to protect myself (and family) primarily. If that saves other people, then good for everyone. Will i get sued? Maybe. Will the law protect me? I hope so. But will i not bear arms to protect my family simply because i fear the lawsuits? No. Your views may differ...but, as i stated above, i don't really care and not really the point of the quote.

BTW #1: I do make sure that i know how to use my guns. My wife also knows how to handle a firearm. And when my kids are old enough, i will also teach them the proper ways.

BTW #2: CHL = conceal handgun license. I thought that this was universal, but i stand corrected. My state cops know it. CHL classes teach me about MY STATE laws.

 

[rebelbowtie]

Concealed Carry Weapon is what I see most people use when referring to a license. It doesn't have to be a hand gun, you have to have a license to carry certain knives as well.

 

[calikev]

The sheeps? Could that mean the immediate folks in the proximity? Could that mean my family? Who are you to determine who the sheep is in the quote?? Only the author knows what he meant, right?

VERY good point! Like most that responded I defined the author's statements as meaning the public in general were the sheep. He actually didn't say that. I still do think it's implied, based on the tone of the paragraph and the mental pictures he is forcing the reader to have by using wolves, sheep and sheepdogs.

Just my opinion though

 

[Thai]

VERY good point! Like most that responded I defined the author's statements as meaning the public in general were the sheep. He actually didn't say that. I still do think it's implied, based on the tone of the paragraph and the mental pictures he is forcing the reader to have by using wolves, sheep and sheepdogs.

Just my opinion though

But again, this guy is NOT saying that CHL/CCW is not enough of a defense against the wolves. I think that most educated person will know that you cannot, as a citizen, take up arms to defend your neighborhood (for instance). We, as citizens, are not cops...nor do many want/care to.

What do sheeps do in the field? I am far far away from being a sheep expert, even though i work in the country. Sheeps crowd together, at least they do on films. So, if a sheepdog is there, then he/she is there with the sheeps in the same group. I understand the confusion with this quote, but it is just not sensible to say that the sheeps have fangs to defend against the wolves. It is the sheepdogs that have the fangs. So, i guess (from my viewpoint) that the sheepdogs are sheeps with fangs among the sheep herd. And if there is a lethal threat (such as wolves), then the sheeps with fangs can help protect other sheeps without fangs.

I have no idea if what i wrote makes sense...but that is my view of it.

 

[calikev]

But again, this guy is NOT saying that CHL/CCW is not enough of a defense against the wolves. I think that most educated person will know that you cannot, as a citizen, take up arms to defend your neighborhood (for instance). We, as citizens, are not cops...nor do many want to.

What do sheeps do in the field? I am far far away from being a sheep expert, even though i work in the country. Sheeps crowd together, at least they do on films. So, if a sheepdog is there, then he/she is there with the sheeps in the same group. I understand the confusion with this quote, but it is just not sensible to say that the sheeps have fangs to defend against the wolves. It is the sheepdogs that have the fangs. So, i guess (from my viewpoint) that the sheepdogs are sheeps with fangs among the sheep herd. And if there is a lethal threat (such as wolves), then the sheeps with fangs can help protect other sheeps without fangs.

I have no idea if what i wrote makes sense...but that is my view of it.

I read it to mean that the sheepDOGS...key word DOGS, should protect the sheep from the wolves. Meaning people with guns should take arms against crime and protect those without the means (weapons) This is a vigalante attitude and is EXACTLY the last thing we need in society. This isn't the wild west any longer. We have precincts of officers that do this in every local, the national guard and other means if necessary. It is not my, nor your responsibilty, to police/protect others. I did not take an oathe to do so, nor have I been trained to do so. If everyone that was armed walked the streets protecting others we would have 3x the crime we have now.

Officers are trained to see what is ACTUALLY occurring and act/react based on facts. The average citizen would misunderstand what they see and take action at times that lethal force was far from warranted because of their lack of training.

BTW...the sheepDOGS are not part of the flock of sheep..they are not sheep. They are separate because they are dogs. Sheep have no fangs, only the dogs and wolves. This was the authors point...again, this is just MY opinion.

BTW 2... I received a great private college education and agree with some of what you're saying. I just don't subscribe to having a gun and being the aggressor. I consider that person the perpetrator.

EX: Little ol' lady getting robbed...let me step in and help...WITH MY GUN! Hell no, call the cops.

EX: Man being carjacked...let me step in and help...WITH MY GUN! Hell no, call the cops.

EX: Neighbors home being robbed...let me step in and help...WITH MY GUN! Hell no, call the cops.

The author implies the armed sheepdog should step in and help the sheep defend themselves from the wolves. This is how it reads to me. None of these scenarios warrant a weapon unless one has been presented. Would your average citizen react properly? Not likely in my opinion.

"THAI" I am discussing the author's viewpoint NOT yours. This is what I get from the article, not your statements.

 

[Thai]

I understand and agree with most (if not all) of what you said.

BUT, a sheepdog also does not roam the land to protect other sheeps nor other herds of sheeps. A sheepdog only protects his sheeps, his small group of sheeps. From the quote, i view it as me being the sheepdog, while my family is the sheep(s). I don't go and protect other sheeps from other herds...and neither does the sheepdog.

Or to a lesser extent, what if i am at the movie theater and the gunman who is sitting right in front of me pulls out his machine gun. I get down on the floor while he fires his weapon at the crowd. I pull out my little handgun and shoots him dead from close range with no risk of anyone being caught in a crossfire. Would i not be the sheepdog and the crowd be my sheeps in this example??

For both examples, taking away my fangs (lawfully obtained weapon and CHL via strict gun control) would put my family (and people in theater) at deadly risk against a lethal evil force.

THAT is the point of the quote IMO. It has nothing to do about taking up arms to defend your city or neighborhood against the bad guys.

BTW, I think that i have finally thought of a good way to explain my thoughts...so, disregard my prior post!