Leadslugga
Well-Known Member
So in discussing concealed carry with the uninitiated I sometimes come across the argument/belief that carrying a gun is too inconvenient/uncomfortable and not worth the hassle, considering that the chances of being victimized aren't that great. And then you have the people that carry little bitty guns for the same reason, figuring the extra ease of carrying outweighs the lack of firepower.
It makes me think of a hypothetical question to probe the mentality of the armed citizen. If guns did not exist (for good guys or bad guys), would you carry a sword? If not, would you carry a knife or go unarmed?
I like to think of a sword as the big handgun and a knife as the small handgun, but obviously carrying a sword is much more inconvenient than carrying a large handgun. So the question is, if there were no guns, would you be willing to carry a sword for the great advantage it would give you over a knife wielding or unarmed opponent, despite the hassle?
I would carry a saber, personally. I think of this sometimes because I have always thought that if the government decided to ban all guns I would start carrying a sword as a protest. Maybe call the protest group "next best thing."
It makes me think of a hypothetical question to probe the mentality of the armed citizen. If guns did not exist (for good guys or bad guys), would you carry a sword? If not, would you carry a knife or go unarmed?
I like to think of a sword as the big handgun and a knife as the small handgun, but obviously carrying a sword is much more inconvenient than carrying a large handgun. So the question is, if there were no guns, would you be willing to carry a sword for the great advantage it would give you over a knife wielding or unarmed opponent, despite the hassle?
I would carry a saber, personally. I think of this sometimes because I have always thought that if the government decided to ban all guns I would start carrying a sword as a protest. Maybe call the protest group "next best thing."