Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Open carrying AR15 at Tulsa Gathering Place
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ethan N" data-source="post: 3235715" data-attributes="member: 29267"><p>If someone’s carrying a rifle and for some reason they only had the use of one hand during an attack, nothing is forcing them to fire the gun if it wouldn’t be safe. Everyone who carries has to know their limitations and the limitations of their weapon and not try to overreach if it would be dangerous to do so. That’s like saying you shouldn’t carry a pistol because you might get mud in your eye and that would make it extremely difficult to shoot. How about you carry a pistol on the off chance your vision is clear, and maybe the gal who can’t effectively grip a pistol because of arthritis can carry a rifle on the off chance she has both hands free.</p><p></p><p>This isn’t entirely hypothetical. It’s story time. A very dear friend had great trouble late in life gripping and managing recoil of handguns but could still handle a rifle practically as well as ever, even if it was painful. He had pretty bad arthritis in his hands, which I assumed was the source of the problem, but I never really analyzed it much at the time. He survived some pretty bad situations earlier in life, like his shop being robbed at gunpoint multiple times (with pistol whips just for fun), and a home invasion where he was tied up and tortured so he would give up cash in his home waiting to be deposited at the bank after the weekend. For most of his life he didn’t feel safe unless he was armed (and even then, I think). Anyway, for the last few years before he died I’m certain not being able to effectively use a pistol kept him at home more than he wanted to be. He loved nature and used to spend a lot of time by fields and streams in rural Oklahoma watching wildlife and enjoying sunrises and sunsets. He stopped doing that as much, and I assumed it was just because he was getting tired in his late 80s. Nope. He said he felt exposed knowing if some depraved person set upon him he probably wouldn’t be able to defend himself. If rifle carry had been lawful then, I believe the last few years of his life would have been happier than they were, and it would easily have been worth some soccer mom’s eyes growing wide while driving by a crazy-looking old man sitting across the ditch with a rifle slung over his shoulder watching deer in a field or even eating at his favorite grocery store deli “in town.”</p><p></p><p>Didn’t my grandpa deserve to be able to carry a weapon suited to his abilities? Or should only those who can carry a gun neatly out of view have the means to defend themselves?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ethan N, post: 3235715, member: 29267"] If someone’s carrying a rifle and for some reason they only had the use of one hand during an attack, nothing is forcing them to fire the gun if it wouldn’t be safe. Everyone who carries has to know their limitations and the limitations of their weapon and not try to overreach if it would be dangerous to do so. That’s like saying you shouldn’t carry a pistol because you might get mud in your eye and that would make it extremely difficult to shoot. How about you carry a pistol on the off chance your vision is clear, and maybe the gal who can’t effectively grip a pistol because of arthritis can carry a rifle on the off chance she has both hands free. This isn’t entirely hypothetical. It’s story time. A very dear friend had great trouble late in life gripping and managing recoil of handguns but could still handle a rifle practically as well as ever, even if it was painful. He had pretty bad arthritis in his hands, which I assumed was the source of the problem, but I never really analyzed it much at the time. He survived some pretty bad situations earlier in life, like his shop being robbed at gunpoint multiple times (with pistol whips just for fun), and a home invasion where he was tied up and tortured so he would give up cash in his home waiting to be deposited at the bank after the weekend. For most of his life he didn’t feel safe unless he was armed (and even then, I think). Anyway, for the last few years before he died I’m certain not being able to effectively use a pistol kept him at home more than he wanted to be. He loved nature and used to spend a lot of time by fields and streams in rural Oklahoma watching wildlife and enjoying sunrises and sunsets. He stopped doing that as much, and I assumed it was just because he was getting tired in his late 80s. Nope. He said he felt exposed knowing if some depraved person set upon him he probably wouldn’t be able to defend himself. If rifle carry had been lawful then, I believe the last few years of his life would have been happier than they were, and it would easily have been worth some soccer mom’s eyes growing wide while driving by a crazy-looking old man sitting across the ditch with a rifle slung over his shoulder watching deer in a field or even eating at his favorite grocery store deli “in town.” Didn’t my grandpa deserve to be able to carry a weapon suited to his abilities? Or should only those who can carry a gun neatly out of view have the means to defend themselves? [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Open carrying AR15 at Tulsa Gathering Place
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom