Thanks, PhotoFeller! You, also, write well; in fact, your prose almost achieves poetry! (It flatters me to know that you agree with, at least, some of my viewpoints.)
I, also, miss David Armstrong. David knew how to present interesting comments on important relevant subjects; and he always expressed himself well. David had a gift for knowing how to challenge others to think while at the same time avoiding outright rancor in his replies. (NOT an easy thing to do!)
OK, Iíll try to sort some of this out for you: ĎDo I ever carry in C-1?
í Well, Iíve often posted comments to the effect that I USUALLY carry in C-3. Which is NOT to say that I never carry in C-1.
How do I determine: need, exposure, and experience? (ĎWhyí did you omit personal skill?) I was paraphrasing.
You might as well ask me how I know if itís raining outside? Actually, Iím a little surprised by some of your remarks: This isnít really about me or my prerequisites; instead itís about other people and theirs. ACCURATE determinations of subjective: need, exposure, experience, and personal skill sets are your responsibility to provide correct answers to - NOT mine.
I was asking what YOUR requirements were for choosing c-1 or c-3.
I already know - and have occasionally demonstrated that I understand - what Iím supposed to do when threatened with physical violence. What is more, on those occasions when Iíve been either mentally or spiritually, Ďasleep at the wheelí ÖÖ. well, quite frankly, The Good Lord has always seen me safely through. You might not believe this; but, I do: ĎOí Lord, well do I know, it is not even to the man that is walking to direct his own steps.
í (Jeremiah 10:23) Therefore, by a serendipitous combination of BOTH acquired personal acumen, and eventful circumstance I have, somehow, managed to achieve my present age. Perhaps as you, yourself, grow in knowledge and experience youíll be able to do the same?
ĎI would think if you felt the "need" to go condition 1, you wouldn't go there anyway. (kinda like those who only carry their guns to places they think are bad)í
I donít believe you really said that! Why is that shocking? I thought it was a good analogy. Are you being difficult or just plain peevish? I guess that's for you to decide. I meant neither to be honest.
Do I really need to say that I carry a pistol, or two pistols, around with me all day long, 365 days a year, AND sleep with one underneath my pillow every night? (Iíve made this remark, over and over again, on Glock Talk since all the way back in 2003!) I donít do this because Iím irrationally paranoid. Iím not paranoid; Iím a Christian and have no need to be obsessively afraid. I do this because the neighborhood in which I live requires me to remain alert and to behave in this way.
(Remember what I said about my next door neighbor taking 5 rounds through his dining room window at 1:30 in the morning? This is an event which actually happened and not that long ago, either. In fact the bullet holes have never been removed from that window. I could walk across the street, right now, and take a picture of them. Then, again, I might end up getting shot, myself, if I were to try!)
Does any of this sound to you like a guy who only carries his gun to places that he thinks are bad?
When you assert that I tend to personally condemn other civilian gunmen who routinely carry their pistols around in C-1, you are correct. It is my considered opinion that this, ĎC-1 loopholeí in many state firearm carry laws has been allowed to creep into current gun legislation in order to induce an increased frequency of ND/AD events and, thus, arouse the general publicís ire against all forms of civilian firearm carry.
(In other words: If you canít beat your political opponents then frustrate them, instead; and offer increased opportunities for them to hurt, both, themselves and others. Perhaps when you get older all this will make more sense to you; but, in my experience
, this is one of the ways in which subtle men think; AND, in this day and age, there are a great many, 'subtle men' interested in destroying our invaluable Second Amendment Rights. All they really need in order to succeed is for general public opinion to significantly swing their way. Once that happens, your Second Amendment Rights are finished!)
It's a little frustrating being demeaned by someone who thinks their opinion has more value because they are older in years.
Finally, I donít condemn the Internet; I treat it with a great deal of circumspection and suspicion, instead. As for me, Ďgetting my point across
í in cyberspace? Realistically, people being people, that doesnít happen very often! I consider myself lucky if Iím merely able to successfully encourage other people TO THINK about what it is that they are trying to do. Generally speaking, people are largely creatures of emotion; and, as such, they very seldom change their minds of their own free will. Being right or wrong doesnít really matter; and would you like to know, ĎWhyí? Because the human mind cannot not see, and will not consider, whatever the mortal heart finds repulsive and refuses to accept.
Internet, or not, I have absolutely no illusions about my presumed effect on others. No matter what, ĎArc Angelí thinks, no matter what he says, writes, or does, Ďthe worldí around me is going to hold on fast to its own predestined course. Iím old enough (and, hopefully, wise enough) to realize that only a few people are ever going to benefit from whatever I have to say. Thatís people; and, thatís people on the Internet, too. Sometimes ideas get exchanged; but, more often, all they ever get is argued over - C'est tout!