Quote of the Day: I Am the Standard By Which All Gun Rights Advocates Should Be Judged Edition

Bob Cook (courtesy forbes.com)

“I’m not sure I would call myself anti-gun, because I understand the appeal (and utility) of hunting and hitting the shooting range. However, I don’t understand the mindset of feeling like I would need to carry a gun as I would carry my smartphone. I know the threat is out there, but so is the threat of tornadoes, and I don’t carry a storm shelter on my person at all times. Because I don’t live like I could be under attack at any moment, I don’t [see] how introducing more guns in a kids’ environment is better than showing them how to best get out of harm’s way. In fact, given the high emotion that runs at kids’ sporting events, I worry more that introducing guns into that environment brings a higher risk of some knucklehead brandishing a piece instead of speaking it. I’m not sure, even armed, we in the crowd would be able to stop a crazed shooter any more than we could stop a tornado.” – Bob Cook, Gun Rights Measures Include Carrying At Children’s Sporting Events [via forbes.com]

comments

  1. avatar ErrantVenture11 says:

    Not a terribly deep thinker, this Bob Cook character.

    1. avatar SD3 says:

      “I understand the appeal (and utility) of hunting and hitting the shooting range.”

      The “appeal (and utility) of…hitting the shooting range” is more that recreation. It’s preparation for using your firearm in a real-life defensive situation.

    2. avatar Chas says:

      I haven’t met a gun control freak yet who was.

    3. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

      And this isn’t a very deep comment on my part, but the guy just looks like a douche bag to me.

  2. avatar woody says:

    So he respects what a tornado shelter does, but dismisses what a gun can do against an armed individual….I think he should go back to tornado shelter and just stay there.

    1. avatar Paul G. says:

      I bet if a storm shelter were easily carried on his person, he WOULD carry one with him.

    2. avatar SD3 says:

      Indeed. I wonder if he keeps a fire extinguisher in his house?

      Because he secretly ‘wants’ his house to catch on fire.

      1. avatar Rad Man says:

        If he had a fire extinguisher it would just increase the likelihood that someone would set his place on fire.

        1. avatar Daniel S. says:

          This is great.

    3. avatar Michael in GA says:

      Just another bad analogy to make CCW people seem paranoid. Conditions favorable for tornadoes are routinely predicted. His phone will even alert him of a tornado warning. No such warning exists for criminals.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        And if his phone did warn him of an approaching tornado, would he use a shelter? For the children…

  3. avatar KingSarc48265 says:

    Well I sure would call you anti gun. The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with the right to hunt or shoot targets.

    1. avatar Michael in GA says:

      If you are 99% in favor of the 2nd amendment, you are anti gun rights by 1%.

  4. avatar Jerry says:

    “However, I don’t understand the mindset of feeling like I would need to carry a gun as I would carry my smartphone. I know the threat is out there, but so is the threat of tornadoes, and I don’t carry a storm shelter on my person at all times.”

    Well, for one, we almost always have an idea when, where, and what general path a tornado is taking. Can’t really say that in regards to an active shooter or the punk that decides to jack you and your loved one on your way to a nice restaurant for the evening. If this guy’s tornado “logic” is the argument here, then I give up. I can’t debate an idiot. Goodnight sir.

    1. avatar John L. says:

      Just because you don’t understand it, doesn’t make it not true.

      Like, say, calculus. Or gravity.

      And just because you make your choice one way, doesn’t make that automatically the best choice for everyone else. Like, say, wearing glasses vs contacts.

      1. avatar ropingdown says:

        I’ve regularly heard people say, when asked about their weak mathematical background, “I never needed calculus to settle accounts or brief a law case.” People who find carry an unwanted burden prefer to pay for cops, but not pay “too much.” Then when crime appears on their (or their child’s) doorstep, they started looking for the cop, the one who isn’t there.

        Of course people can attain a way of life that is so safe that they find carry to be unnecessary. All it takes is enough money and luck to live far away from the urban cores or to pass their days in very well-policed and guarded facilities, the safe urban zones. I can say, for example, that if Philadelphia would fence in its toughest neighborhoods with barbed wire, I would have very little reason to carry. However, they don’t, can’t, and won’t. Bob Cook simply doesn’t live near a zone of dense urban criminality. Should his life circumstances change, he’ll find it much easier to imagine carrying a little pistol as he would his cell phone.

        “I can’t imagine taking dangerous anti-malarial medicines as if they were aspirin!” Easy to say if you don’t live near a tropical swamp.

    2. avatar Alex Peters says:

      Ummmm…right…because the analogy between guns and tornados is such a good one. I mean there are somewhere between 1 to 2 million defensive gun uses in the U.S. each year, and about 1,200 tornados (most of which occur outside of populated areas). I hope Forbes didn’t pay this guy for his “work”.

    3. avatar ThomasR says:

      Bob says to himself; I wear a seat belt, have car insurance, a fire extinguisher in my home, know CPR, life insurance, health insurance, and I teach my kids stop, drop and roll. Yep,I’m a mature responsible adult; but carry a gun to protect against a mad man with a gun, what? I don’t believe in living in fear.

      1. avatar Fanfare_ends says:

        Winner.

      2. avatar Michael in GA says:

        He has the classic Liberal mentality which is the basis for all the stupid laws they support. He is not afraid of a criminal attacking him, he is comforted by “safety in numbers”. He is afraid of himself. He has no confidence in his ability to make the right decision or act appropriately, so he projects his perceived inadequacy upon the populace. He has lost his temper at a kids event and therefore he does not trust anyone to have a firearm present. He does not trust himself. Liberals do not trust themselves. That is why we have social security. That is why we have abortion on demand. That is why we have affirmative action. Liberal laws tell them what they are allowed to do. Conservative laws, laws of a republic, tell us what we can’t do. Murder, cheat, steal, lie, slander, rape, trespass, molest, assault, or violate the principles of our founding documents.

  5. avatar T says:

    No your not that standard. We carry because when something happens to us at that moment, with are tool we have a fighting chance to not be harm or others to be harmed. I think Bob didn’t think about people like this who carry.

    1. avatar T says:

      http://articles.philly.com/2014-01-14/news/46153194_1_robbery-victim-chester-bar-dead-man

      This is the story I meant to link but I put it in the website area. Sorry about.

  6. avatar Shwiggie says:

    Because carrying a firearm and a storm shelter are analogous. Hello, logical fallacy. Though I have no doubt he has plenty of room in his pants for concealed carry of such a thing…

    1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

      Cell phone, gun, storm shelter…

      Two items are portable, relatively cheap, and can be easily incorporated into daily life.

      One item is large, heavy, expensive, and most importantly stationary (hence why so effective during tornadoes.)

      Someone makes a cheap, portable, effective, and easy to conceal tornado shelter and I’m all over it.

    2. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

      “I’m not sure I would call myself anti-gun, because I understand the appeal (and utility) of hunting and hitting the shooting range.”

      You sound anti-gun, Bob, just not fully committed to it yet.

      1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

        Didn’t mean to put that there.

  7. avatar Brian says:

    As an Oklahoman, you’d better believe I’d carry a storm shelter inside my waistband if I could find a belt strong enough to hold it!

    1. avatar Sam Spade says:

      Like Brian, I’m 100% sure Mr. Cook does not live in tornado country. Every year there are people (usually newcomers) that die during tornado season because they don’t bother to learn anything about tornadoes–what the weather looks like, don’t listen to news updates, don’t bother to find out what to do, don’t have a plan, etc. Not that you and your family might not still die, but like with criminals, your chances improve considerably if you do what you need to do ahead of time.

      If you’re expecting to travel through Tornado Alley anytime, study before you go. One place: http://www.ready.gov/tornadoes

      1. avatar JR says:

        Luck favors the prepared.

  8. avatar jirdesteva says:

    Better to have and not need than to need and not have. Super storm Sandy hit and needed a generator had one for 3 years never needed it before, until I did. Carrying a firearm is easier than carrying a cop. When seconds count the police are minutes away……….

    1. avatar lolinski says:

      But you can use the cop like a shield, you can’t do that with your gun. Can you?

      1. avatar Gyufygy says:

        They get cranky when you use them as a shield unless you happen to be important.

  9. avatar Foster says:

    Please don’t compare lawful gun owners to criminals. Lawful gun owners that carry have jumped through so many hoops to do so. The thug he writes about is a criminal that has nothing in common with a responsible citizen exercising his/her 2 amendment right to self defense.

  10. avatar ninjaTED says:

    If anything, CCW holders should be LESS likely to act like meatheads at sporting events. They know they’re carrying, and know the consequences of pulling a gun for anything less than a genuine threat of being killed or gravely injured. Why do antis insist that legal carriers just NEED to pull their gats for no reason?

    1. avatar Sixpack70 says:

      They think that if we carry a gun we use it to solve our problems through violence, rather than with words. I have some friends who truly believe it.

      1. avatar Braenen says:

        Projection. They believe that if they were in such a situation they would pull the gun.

        1. avatar Michael in GA says:

          Best argument to support your thoughts were given here.
          http://youtu.be/H3R7Jvm6mnQ

        2. avatar Michael in GA says:

          That wasn’t the full video. This one has the best part when the host say he is afraid of anyone owning a firearm.
          http://youtu.be/ECxDvwObwZk

      2. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

        Aye. And no amount of crime stats will convince them otherwise because.

      3. avatar Joe says:

        Unfortunately for your friends, the statistics do not bear out their beliefs.

    2. avatar Bill says:

      I agree, when i walk around armed, which is most the time, I have an ever present reminder of the gravity of my actions, both their direct results as well as the potential response they may evoke in others. It certainly makes me seek to avoid hotheaded situations as I really don’t want to have to draw down and want even less the media circus and inviting the man into my life that a DGU would bring about.

    3. avatar James R says:

      But.. But… But… There was that time once or twice that someone did something bad while carrying and it got publicized really big! Lets use those isolated incidents to paint all CCW holders as whackos and completely ignore all the good DGU’s!

      1. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

        Unfortunately, it’s very effective. Confirmation bias is powerful.

  11. avatar peirsonb says:

    A storm shelter? Well, at least he’s original…

    1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

      A fire extinguisher would be more apt. We have police who can’t get there on time, we have firemen who can’t get there on time, but I’ve never heard of a local tornado prevention force.

      1. avatar NJ2AZ says:

        give our government time, i’m sure they can put one together!

        1. avatar Joe says:

          and it will run 500% over budget

        2. avatar Michael in GA says:

          They address it in the “climate change” formerly known as “global warming” bills that they want to spend gobs of money on.

  12. avatar racer88 says:

    “I don’t carry a storm shelter” = Reductio ad absurdum.

    Do you wear a seat belt, genius? Do you own a fire extinguisher? Carry life insurance? Wear a helmet?

    1. avatar Lucas D. says:

      Oh, I have no doubt the guy wears a helmet. Probably a leash, too.

  13. avatar Randy Drescher says:

    Your not sure bob so STFU & listen. Sandy Hook was a gun control failure, now try it our way.

  14. avatar Peter says:

    He’s right about one thing. Concealed carry isn’t for everyone. It’s clearly not for him. And that’s OK. It would be dangerous to have people out there carrying firearms who were not mentally prepared and physically ready to use the firearm when a sufficient threat presented itself.

    Here’s what I would ask him: No one know when crime strikes. If they did, presumably they would choose to be elsewhere. So, given the unpredictable nature of violent crime, would he rather have armed and prepared help closer to him (and his loved ones) or farther away? In that instance, when an armed threat is seconds or mere moments from indiscriminately striking the thing he holds most dear, will he care that the source or the armed assistance is a police officer or not?

    If not, than I think he should support concealed carry, even if he chooses not to personally exercise that right. If so, I question if he is being honest with himself, or simply putting his personal politics ahead of his good sense.

  15. avatar WTF says:

    This is a Fail on so many levels I don’t even know where to begin.

    1. The constitution says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, it does not say the right to keep and bear storm shelters shall not be infringed

    2. It saddens me that you lack the confidence as a man to even try to defend yourself against a crazed killer instead of just sitting their waiting to be slaughtered.

    3. Because you don’t understand something doesn’t mean it does not serve a purpose.

    4. By your logic we should eliminate all police officers from sporting events because they pose a risk and accidentally shoot people and commit crimes as well.

    5. Using your logic you shouldn’t wear a seat belt as well because that would mean you’re living in fear while driving your car

    6. You do live life to prevent being attacked, you just don’t know it. You wash your hands everyday as not to get sick from being attacked by germs. You lock the doors to your house to avoid being attacked by intruders. You go to work everyday and pay your rent to prevent being attacked by foreclosures.

    7. I hope you are never faced with a situation where someone is raping and killing your wife in front of you and that becomes the moment where you understand the importance of concealed carry.

    1. avatar peirsonb says:

      Using your logic you shouldn’t wear a seat belt as well because that would mean you’re living in fear while driving your car>

      I think this is going into my arsenal as a response to the standard guns=cars analogy….

  16. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    “I don’t [see] how introducing more guns in a kids’ environment is better than showing them how to best get out of harm’s way.”

    And that is a false dichotomy. Absolutely nothing stops us (society) from doing both: good people go about their business armed and able to stop violent criminals … AND we show children how to get out of harms way.

    1. avatar Gyufygy says:

      Options are good.

      1. avatar Michael in GA says:

        I think both options are equally important; however, only one is enumerated in the Constitution.

  17. avatar Tom from Georgia says:

    They do try. It’s just that central dumbness and fear of the unknown that they simply can’t deal with. All well and fine, everybody’s got a right to do what they want with their skin. Just don’t tell others what to do with theirs and this wouldn’t even be an issue in the first place.

    If someone is so afraid of the world out there, please stay home.

    Tom

  18. avatar Mediocrates says:

    I just never understood this “wild west” argument. Do they not realize how many places in which weapons are already present with zero issues? Seriously, they need a new argument.

    1. avatar Fred says:

      Unfortunately for their argument the “Wild West” period had a far lower homicide rate per capita. Historically homicide jumps whenever large gun-control or crime-control measures go through, like prohibition.

    2. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

      We do have the wild west today, it’s called Chicago.

      1. avatar Fred says:

        The Wild West was safer, Chicago is a warzone. In the Wild West anyone could carry, in Chicago effectively only criminals have guns, although that is slowly changing.

        1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          Well yes, and the wild west was never really that wild in the first place. But the wild west of fables where there were shootouts in the streets on a daily basis exists today in Chicago.

      2. avatar Mediocrates says:

        ah, but the scenario is the introduction of good guys with guns.

  19. avatar Roll says:

    Its about educating kids and people in the proper use of guns and what responsibilities come with owning and handling them.

    If you dont feel like carrying thats fine, its your choice. But dont try and tell me I cant carry b/c you dont want to.

  20. avatar Marcus Aurelius says:

    Let me know when they develop an active shooter siren that lets met know 5 minutes in advance, instead of the single second or so one currently had on such a scenario.

  21. avatar craig says:

    I bet he has an air bag in his car and wears warm clothes when it’s cold and has home owners insurance and gets physicals at the doctor and saves money in a 401k. All things that protect you and keep you safe

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      Naah – he doesn’t live in fear. Only absurdity.

  22. avatar Cyrano says:

    Yeah because there would be less knuckleheads in this world if we just had less guns. (*sarcasm)

    Maybe the knuckleheads would less likely throw their weight around if they knew they were on equal grounds in a fight. An armed society is a polite society.

  23. avatar Fred says:

    Same old memes. Gun owners go nuts with little provocation, in this case something they don’t agree with at a kid’s sporting event. On top of that he uses the “natural danger” concept comparing guns (or crime) to tornadoes, which is much like comparing guns and crime to disease, it doesn’t really work.

  24. avatar Logan says:

    We carry not because of the odds of getting attacked, but because of the stakes.

    1. avatar JR says:

      Oooo, well said. Very nice.

    2. avatar Model 31 says:

      very nice indeed.

  25. avatar RizzyG says:

    Well since you don’t understand why people carry, it must be wrong/evil right? Because you sir are the righteous

  26. avatar Dan R says:

    Starting a new company on Kickstarter

    CCSS Group – Conceal and Carry Storm Shelters

    Product Development Goal: Produce an extra dimensional space that can upon use warp reality and place an immediate storm shelter.

    Warning: Product not protected by the 2nd Amendment and should be regulated. Dangers include – Negligent Mass Displacement, Unlawful Imprisonment, and the worst possible crime Intentional Obstruction of Traffic.

    1. avatar peirsonb says:

      It’s bigger on the inside…

      1. avatar Gyufygy says:

        But does it have a swimming pool?

        1. avatar peirsonb says:

          Up the stairs, down the hall, left at the wardrobe, fifth door on the right.

    2. avatar peirsonb says:

      Tornado Approaching Rapidly, Danger Imminent Shelter

      (anyone else having troubles with editing comments?)

      1. avatar Retro says:

        TARDIS, huh…

        I hear they have an earthquake shelter option, but Kalifornia won’t let citizens carry one with a greater than 7 person capacity.

    3. avatar Joe says:

      will i be able to drink large capacity sodas inside of this?

      1. avatar rlc2 says:

        only after 16 hours of training and proof of good moral character

  27. avatar Calvin says:

    When I lived in tornado alley there was a tornado shelter in my backyard. Every house in our development had access to one. I could have been in that shelter as quickly as a night’s dash to the head. Then I moved to an urban area and I tooled up.

    When I used to commute I would see pathetic fools every day on the side of the road with flat tires they weren’t prepared to change. If you don’t make ready the tools needed to handle foreseeable threats then you are a fool.

  28. avatar Anonymous says:

    “I know the threat is out there, but so is the threat of tornadoes, and I don’t carry a storm shelter on my person at all times.”

    I had to stop reading after this….

  29. avatar GunGuyInNC says:

    So based on this logic, are we to assume, he does not wear seat belts and he has disabled the airbags (the threat of accidents is out there but why be prepared).

    How many car accidents kill kids, and car’s aren’t even designed specifically for killing (as the anti’s are fond of saying)… we should ban cars from schools and kids sporting events. It’s for the children !

  30. avatar JR says:

    I don’t understand the mindset of feeling like I would need to carry a gun

    Then don’t carry a gun.

    Done.

    What is with this childish need to have everyone to things your way? As Shannon Watts so wonderfully proved earlier this week, you don’t even know when law abiding concealed carriers are carrying, they don’t hurt you (will even pose for a smiling picture with you), so what is the problem?

    Don’t want to be responsible for your own life? Don’t do it. No one is forcing you to carry a gun.

    1. avatar Al says:

      I think it all boils down to aesthetics, the idea of people carrying guns just bothers him.

  31. avatar Tommycat says:

    Why is it that every time someone uses the word “but” everything before that is a lie.

    I support the second amendment, BUT here’s how I don’t support it.

    1. avatar Retro says:

      BUT = “Behold! Underlying Truth”

  32. avatar Doug says:

    Ok Bobby, suppose you and your wife and kids (hypothetical of course) were at a sporting event in a high school, all of the sudden a man very near you pulls a gun, he shoots the person in front of you and then takes aim at your kid. Even though you are in an establishment with a crowd how would you feel about watching this man take out your loved ones one by one and knowing that if you only believed in the right to self-defense your family may have stood a chance that day. That guy, the shooter, he is a criminal, and yes he knows the high school is a gun free zone, and he also knows that the average law abiding citizen will obey that law. The tornado thing is just to way out there to even give it a thought.

    1. avatar Fred says:

      He doesn’t understand the need because he hasn’t seen the need. He probably lives in a safe bubble and thinks nothing could happen to him or his family because nothing has happened before.
      If he wants to use the tornado analogy here’s how it goes: he is arguing when a tornado touches down on the middle of the field he and his family will sit perfectly still while others run to the tornado shelter because he doesn’t see the need for tornado shelters for the other 99.99% of games. In reality he would run toward the shelter too, just like if he were ever the victim of crime he would want to be carrying. He’s arguing it will most likely never happen thus is not required in a round-about way.

      Most likely he also can’t imagine carrying because he has no experience with firearms, just like when I was in elementary school I couldn’t really imagine driving. Guess what, I learned and so can he. It’s just something outside the norm and perhaps his comfort zone, but we can all learn. That’s a deficiency he probably doesn’t want to address, so he says “I’ll never need it” as an excuse.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        Point! Match!

  33. avatar Pascal says:

    I can only assume these people are unable to keep their feelings in check so they believe that no body else can keep their feelings in check either. While the world is full of hot heads, and kids sports seem to bring those hot heads out especially those true believers who think their kid will be the next (name your sport) super star, while it is not unheard of, it is a normal occurrence that you have fights in the stands between parents. If that were the case, you better take away the baseball bats, chairs and anything else you could use as weapon away from the parents or simply not allow parents to come watch their kids.

    I wonder sometimes if it is just an excuse these people use.

  34. avatar Model 31 says:

    Ladies and gentlemen, this is why I doubt I’ll ever use my weapon in a DGU of a non-family/friend member as long as I/we have an opportunity to escape the danger as its happening. This fool says “I know the threat is out there” but isn’t willing to do anything to prepare for the threat. I can see this guy leaving the scene after ccw holder defends him and his family because he doesn’t want to be involved, testify at their trial or much less contribute to their defense fund. Now don’t get me wrong. If I see somebody mowing down kids at McDonalds, I will attempt to stop it. However, adults that have the same opportunities I have but choose to live with their heads in the sand can live with the consequences of their decisions.
    For those that would defend a “stranger” with their weapon, I really hope it works out for you.

  35. avatar rlc2 says:

    Well I spent 20 min trying to logon at Forbes just to give him an honest annswer but that site was so bogged down with ads and popups that despite disabling all on the poor ole kindle i simply could not post a response. So Bob if you madd it here this is mh answer. Ive read some of your other posts at Forbes and thanks for bringing up school relared isues in the rational business sensibility of that forum. aThere are a lot of challenges in that stangant world og progressive top down political corrext speech control and I am sure you will be hearing from the priests of high religion there for daring to have an open mind. So welcome to TTAG wherd we can be a bit sharp elbowed and short of patience with the fact challenged and deliberate sockpuppets like MDA and Evolve.

    1. avatar rlc2 says:

      pg 2: on the laptop so my fat fingers can hit the right key and not be spell-checked into something weird.

      Bob. You seem like a nice guy, and your heart is in the right place, having read some of your other posts. Judging by your profile pic you got that “new young dad look” chasing rugrats around in various stages of mayhem, doing 3 things at once, your main job, your extra job writing, your third job sports volunteer coach for kids, and your fourth job helping out at home. Way too much coffee not enough sleep. Been there done that, got the baby vomit stained suit jacket.

      Heres the thing- I hope you were being somewhat tongue in cheek trying to find a delicate way to phrase your misunderstanding of risk control in regards to dangerous things, like guns and tornados. The good news is there has to be a couple of senior editors with business experience there, like Steves dad Malcolm, who had an uncanny ability to communictate with reason and facts with a sharp wit. Go find them and get some mentoring.

      This point is important- its too soon to be making light hearted comments about Sandy Hook. Its disrespectful at best, and an outright despicable abuse of the parents suffering to be “waving the bloody shirt” no matter WHAT your purpose.

      There are too many morally reprehensible anti-gun activists out there committing that crime in favor of their belief system- the MDAs, Evolves, and so on. Dont make the mistake of staining your reputation, or Forbes, with that kind of malice and thought-police mentality. Your job is not to stoop to the lowest common denominator, there in New York, but to inform and educate, nationally, using Forbes reach to smart independent thinkers.

      Keep up the good work.

  36. avatar Alan Longnecker says:

    Hopefully he’s married to a woman who’s man enough to take responsibility for their safety.
    I’ve owned guns since I was a kid, carried since I was an adult, and shot a grand total of 0 people.

  37. avatar Wes says:

    I’m sure flames will be inbound,…but here it goes anyway.

    Some of his reasoning is sound. We obsess about picking the right pistol, best ammo, etc. The reality is that we are very unlikely, on average, to be in a DGU situation.

    Most of us should instead stop smoking, exercise, drive safer cars, drive slower and wear a helmet while driving if we really wanted to put the survival odds in our favor. On average, more lives would be saved by people wearing helmets in cars than by carrying a sidearm everywhere we go. If you don’t want to die too soon, don’t carry a pistol, start exercising.

    People are very poor at understanding risks. Our perceived risk is often not realistic and we tend to be overly concerned about some very small risks and under concerned about very real risks. This is why many people won’t fly in an airplane, but won’t hesitate to drive across the country.

    I think it is fine to carry everywhere, but we should be realistic about what we are actually at risk for. Some of us are probably much more likely than others to be in a DGU situation and carry would make more sense. The off duty cop, inner city store owner and guy screwing someones wife are much more likely to be in a violent confrontation than someone like me. I’m a professional living in the country outside a small town. I have no enemies that I know of and live in a low crime area. I have a CCP but don’t feel the need to carry all the time. I personally worry a lot more about house fires, MVAs and dying from lack of exercise than being shot.

    Wes

    1. avatar Fred says:

      How likely are we to die unexpectedly? Not very likely at all. But the stakes are high enough to warrant life insurance if you have anyone that depends on you. Not having proper protection can devastate a family for generations. Having life insurance doesn’t mean you should change to a high-risk occupation and stop taking care of your health, just like having good car insurance doesn’t mean you should drive it like you stole it all the time.

      Yes, the risk is low, but the severity is high, high enough to justify carrying an extra 2lbs on my belt, just like my insurance is worth the annual premium.

    2. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      I agree that some people obsess about small risks while ignoring large risks.

      For example, many more children die by drowning than by gunshot wounds. So if Shannon Watts and others of her ilk really wanted to save children’s lives, they should dedicate themselves to banning swimming pools, or maybe just the black scary-looking ones, or perhaps limiting the water depth to 10 inches or less.

      1. avatar Wes says:

        Fully agree,
        The likelihood of your child dying in a mass school shooting is extraordinarily low. Not really worth even worrying about. Now your kid’s trampoline or 4-wheeler…that is another situation.

        1. avatar Jake says:

          This would require a scientific approach, as opposed to an emotional knee-jerk reaction.

          I carry everywhere I go because I like to diminish the risks that I can. I have absolutely zero control over space junk falling on my head or other drivers, so I like to take all the control I can get.

  38. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    “I’m not sure I would call myself anti-gun, because I understand the appeal (and utility) of hunting and hitting the shooting range.”

    You sound anti-gun, Bob, just not fully committed to it yet.

  39. avatar Kerry says:

    As posted as a reply to that article:

    Let’s try some better analogies here:

    Do you own a fire extinguisher?
    Do you wear a seat belt?
    Do you have lock your doors at night?
    Do you keep your money in the bank?
    Do you have a dog?
    Do you have an alarm system on your house?

    All of these things people do because they fear the repercussions of something going wrong that is outside of their control. A gun is simply another tool like any of those that can help us be safer. As someone with the ability to get an article posted to Forbes I would think you would have the sense and responsibility to fact check gun incidents with concealed carry holders before making the leap that concealed carry holders are likely to pop the coach for not letting Johnny play enough. To equate law abiding citizens with a lower incidence of bad behavior to criminals simply for wanting to protect themselves is an insult to all of us that would never do such a thing.

    In every case would an armed citizen be able to stop a shooter? Of course not, but do your research and see just how many times it happens every year and see if you would want those shooters to have gone on with their shooting sprees or be glad that a citizen stopped them.

  40. avatar CLarson says:

    A gun is exactly what would be effective against a crazed shooter. Isn’t that what a policeman brings with him when called? Why are so many of these anti-gun articles written in such a milquetoast tone? “I don’t live…I don’t know…I worry…I’m not sure…” Bob don’t worry about it, no one is expecting you to step up against the “tornado.” Go back to covering your youth sporting events. Try not to think about an crazed driver with a multi-ton pickup truck or SUV driving through the crowd. Can you stop an Avalanche?

  41. avatar Peter says:

    If a functional storm shelter could fit on your belt, uninhibiting your everyday travels, I’m sure some people would do it! Besides isn’t that one of the witty responses of some who carry – “because I can’t carry a cop”?

  42. Articulate thought…. He doesn’t has it.

  43. avatar Morgan Gatorsee says:

    “Because I don’t live like I could be under attack at any moment, I don’t [see] how introducing more guns in a kids’ environment is better ”
    How about
    “Because I don’t live like I could be under attack at any moment, I don’t why I should have a home security system…or lock my doors at night…or be afraid to give out my information to strangers when they call me, or be cautious when entering my credit card online, or anything else that is plain common sense when not living in a perfect world”

    “I know the threat is out there, but so is the threat of tornadoes”
    how about
    “Because even though I live in a tornado prone area and do not take the needed measures to live safely….I think everyone else should die right along with me.

    I don’t have a storm shelter in my pocket but would if I could especially when those tornado warning come out of nowhere, furthermore when I know a storm is coming I attempt to be as prepared as possible. Shelter, radios, supplies, ect.

    I respect your freedom to sit in the path of an oncoming tornado and only wish for you to respect my choice of being prepared and protecting what is mine.

  44. avatar Chris says:

    What a tool. Like what he thinks is justifiable is the same as what I think… Maybe I carry just because I feel like it, whatever the reason, it’s no one else’s business.

  45. avatar H.R. says:

    Here’s the most immediate flaw in that line of thinking…

    The bad guy is going to be carrying a gun whether you like it or not.
    He’ll be carrying one whether it is legal or not.
    He doesn’t care what you think or whether you like hunting and hitting the target range, but draw the line at concealed carry. He doesn’t care what you wrote on the internet.

    The safety of you and your family does not matter one bit to him.
    Get that through your heads people.

    (I know I’m preaching to the choir.)

  46. avatar Mike G. says:

    I’ve been driving for 20 years and I’ve never been into an accident. I don’t understand the mindset f feeling like I would need to have airbags in my car. I know there is a treat outthere but that is what the police is there for, preventing accidents. And if I get into an accident the police and EMT will be there to take care of me. Because I don’t want to live my life like I can be in a car crash at any moment. I’m not sure if even I put back the airbags in my car that it would stop an accident

  47. avatar Ed says:

    Tell THAT to this guy: http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/authorities-investigating-2-dead-on-milwaukees-west-side-b99224151z1-249911541.html

    Facts from law enforcement sources, or ahem, details not in the article: Shooter had a valid CCW permit without so much as a blemish on his record. Shooter sits in the Milwaukee County Jail right now.

    1. avatar Mister Fleas says:

      No, it a 21-year old who in jail. The article says the 39-year old maintenance man was taken to a hospital and released.

  48. avatar former water walker says:

    Yep…writing about kids sports gives you all kinds of insight on RKBA issues. My solution is to ban ALL spectators from little Billys basball game. Heck, they do it in Chicago high schools when the natives get restless. And we know what a gun free paradise Chicago is.

  49. avatar Fuque says:

    I dont put my smartphone that high on my list of valued objects.. But I do my 2a rights, and tools.

    Im sure he can find something/ someone to hide behind if the lead starts flying.

  50. avatar ropingdown says:

    I’m a professional living in the country outside a small town. I have no enemies that I know of and live in a low crime area.

    It is natural, when living in a safe area practicing a low-gun-risk profession, to focus on what are for you more probable risks. I think people carry most regularly when their daily life involves greater exposure. Such is the nation that most people live much nearer such risks than you do simply because most Americans live in urban or high-density suburban neighborhoods.

    It is the sensible habit of affluent professionals and executives to spend (or have spent on their behalf) much money on security-enhancing measures (an excellent PD, alarms, building security, living farther out on larger properties, surveillence systems, buying into an expensive exclusive neighborhood in which criminals can quickly be spotted). Once people achieve an affluent life in a safe place, their lives rarely lead them into crime-ridden areas. Their world not only feels safer. It is in fact safer, but at a non-negligible cost in money, mainly the purchase capital for their residence and rent for their offices. Such people haven’t avoided the cost and trouble of CCW, but rather have substituted other more expensive measures. Such people shouldn’t forget that a small $500 pistol and CCW permit is a much more affordable and portable solution than spending an extra half-million for their homes. Even in a low-crime neighborhood the small pistol can indeed disrupt the occasional Newtown or Aurora-type incident.

    As for wearing helmets in cars, I imagine this practice does not conflict with carrying a small pistol, though I have yet to try the combo.

    1. avatar JR says:

      I get your point, but I would like to point out that I think a lot of those folks who have purchased safety have, in many cases, merely purchased the illusion of safety.

      Depends on how you define it though, I guess.

      I concede that they live in lower crime areas…but not zero crime areas. Affluence did not protect Sharon Tate, for example (conveniently cherry picked example).

      I’ve been to a lot of crime scenes in very nice houses in very nice neighborhoods. There is an interesting article that discusses the relatively new issue of “mobile criminality” and taken on its face kind of shatters the illusion of “safe neighborhoods” vs “bad neighborhoods.”

      (Read beyond just the re-location element…)

      http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/american-murder-mystery/306872/

      I’m specifically talking about the suburban affluence effect as opposed to living in pure rural environments. In rural settings, there still exists (in some cases) real need to carry a firearm, though the source of the dangers might be different.

      I happen to believe the veneer of “civilization” is very thin, and people hiding behind the beliefs that the world does not in fact contain its dangers have polished their rose colored glasses to a high shine.

      1. avatar ropingdown says:

        I agree with you. They are not purchasing absolute safety. The point I was trying to make is that affluent Americans tend to spend a lot for security, but then fault others who actually live closer to dangerous people, and who, for whatever reason, are not willing or able to buy a safer neighborhood, more civilized and effective police force, more exotic alarms, and so forth. The same goes for work environments. Lots of limousine liberals call people who carry paranoid, yet themselves work in buildings with armed security and identification-checking security processes. They call the average person’s security-via-firearms excessive, when all they really mean is “why can’t everybody spend millions for secure homes and offices.” They are hypocrites.

        And yes, they really aren’t getting the security they imagine. I think Newtown and other incidents have proven that.

    2. avatar ropingdown says:

      This was a reply to Wes, not the day’s post.

  51. avatar David says:

    “However, I don’t understand the mindset of feeling like I would need to carry a gun as I would carry my smartphone.”

    When you really need to make that call, a good portion of those times you are trying to call a guy w/ a gun. Seriously, guns are harder to find when you need them. I can borrow a phone, pay phones are still around, most business have at least one land line . . . heck, I could even buy a track phone in a drawn out emergency. Not to mention the fact that few things get attention like discharging rounds in public places 🙂

    1. avatar Sam Spade says:

      Now that’s an idea for Double Tap. Dial 9-1-1 and a trigger pops out of your SmartGunPhone. Now, not only do you get to talk about your problem, you have two .45 rounds ready for down-range.

  52. avatar Patrick Hayes says:

    Like some others have said……You can always tell an anti when the equate guns with hunting or target shooting. They never acknowledge the legitimate self defense use or the balance of power between the government and an armed people.
    People like him put themselves and the families at risk. When something does happen they are the first ones crying “why!”. Simple….you were too stupid and delusional to protect yourself. You choose to be a victim. So be it. Only the strong survive.

  53. avatar Jeff S says:

    Bob is irrelevant. He just doesn’t know it. HE doesn’t feel like HE needs a gun, therefore, YOU don’t need one. Typical liberal illogic.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      And I don’t feel like Bob should be wearing glasses. The right to wear glasses is NOT in the Constitution. He doesn’t NEED glasses to see – he can get contacts.

      Lose ’em, Skippy. Right now…

  54. avatar Jake Tallman says:

    There was an excellent point a while ago in the weekly newsletter I get from USCCA (United States Concealed Carry Association. If you’re not familiar with them, you should look them up. TONS of good information), with the author saying that the six most dangerous words in the english language are as follows: “It will never happen to me”.

    And that’s absolutely true. People talk about how it’s not necessary to carry a gun because they don’t live in Detroit. All you have to do is look as Sandy Hook to see that evil things can happen to anyone. Just because you live in a low-crime area doesn’t mean bad things can’t happen. It it likely? No, probably not. But it’s still possible. I carry a gun because if, God forbid, something terrible were to happen to someone I care about and I couldn’t protect them because I failed to take the proper precautions, the guilt would crush me. I would feel like my own negligence directly led to their death, and that kind of crushing guilt is NOT a pleasant thing to live with.

    As for his remark about tornados, well, apples and oranges. You can’t stop a tornado. It’s a devastating example of the raw power of nature. The only thing you can do is to try to get to a shelter and hunker down until it’s gone. On the other hand, a villain with a gun can be easily stopped by someone else with a gun. And guns are not hard or inconvenient to carry. A good belt, good holster, and a compact or subcompact handgun, and you could almost forget you have it, so it’s not like you have to go through a ton of trouble to carry.

    1. avatar Jethro says:

      “God forbid, something terrible were to happen to someone I care about and I couldn’t protect them because I failed to take the proper precautions, the guilt would crush me. I would feel like my own negligence directly led to their death, and that kind of crushing guilt is NOT a pleasant thing to live with.”

      +1

      You don’t have the right to tell me I must stand on the shore and watch my kid drown because YOU cannot swim.

  55. avatar Dev says:

    It’s amazing how people justify the restrictions of our rights to protect ourselves because of the fear of potential danger by using the fear of potential danger to make their point.

  56. avatar Tama Paine says:

    “I don’t understand it. Therefore laws should be passed against it.”

    Imagine what he’ll want to do to emerging topics in particle physics and genomics.

  57. avatar Gw says:

    Given that — Positions, Perspectives, References…and of course, Opinions naturally vary:
    The most rudimentary solution available to Mr. Cook’s current dilemma is to simply ask his smartphone how it feels about being carried by a male of adult-age; and
    aware of the many potential and actual hazards of being in close proximity to other ‘humans’…But,
    in contrast to assuming personal responsibility for his own defense by providing himself with such a simple device as a ‘hand-gun’ — has instead, volitionally chosen to assume an irresponsible, logically and practically indefensible position.

    If the smartphone actually was ‘smart’ — which, given the nature of the Question it may well be slightly more intelligent than the current owner — the smartphone might be inclined to respond with something along the lines of: “I’m feeling vulnerable right now, and since I’m not capable of providing for my own defense, either do it for me, or give me to someone who will.”

  58. avatar Maineuh says:

    His message is so self-centered, you wonder how he ever manages to focus on the kiddies kicking soccer balls instead of himself. *I* don’t see the need for a gun, so why should anybody else? *I* don’t feel threatened, and that’s really all that matters. I think the very first comment here says it all: this dude is no deep thinker. I can’t imagine taking him seriously on any subject.

  59. avatar Stephen says:

    You can bet that if an effective and reliable tornado shelter weighed 2 lbs 2.6 oz and had similar dimensions to a Glock 19, I would carry one of those as well.

    The tornado analogy is ineffective and doesn’t compare.

  60. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    What this man can or cannot see is not the issue. Regardless his lack of eyesight or insight, the issue is my God-given right and my God-mandated duty to defend myself and my family. Any consideration of need, whether actual or by his estimation, is not only irrelevant, but an affront to my dignity and an assault on my personal sovereignty.

  61. avatar ALain says:

    Here is the thing, I’m avid gun owner and i conceal carry but ill be dead honest…90% of situations that arise where i “can” use my gun i probably won’t….Alot of gun owners fail to realize the consequences of actually shooting someone..Even though with laws like “Stand your ground” defends firearm use for self defense, the actual liability and cost of hiring a lawyer and dealing with court issues is enough for me to not want to shoot someone unless i absolutely have to…TO be honest if I’m getting robbed i will probably let the bad guy take w/e he wants because shooting someone is “legally” a pain in the ass, I rather loose material things than to take a life and deal with that shit storm..Sure Zimmerman got away with it but his life is ruined in a different way. …Unless I’m in a situation where someone wants to “kill” me, and not just rob or beat me up (I welcome a good fight), i probably will not use my gun…When i Conceal Carry i actually carry non lethals like a taser or pepper spray, for that reason when violence escalates i have more options other than just “kill”…sometimes u need to disable someone and just terminate him….My 2cents…

  62. avatar Dale says:

    I could go on for a while about the basis for Rights, but aside from that, I’d be willing to bet a significant amount of money that Mr. Cook wears a seatbelt, and insists that others do as well. I feel comfortable guessing that he carries fire and other insurance on his house, and probably medical insurance as well.

    I mean, why bother? None of those things -prevent- bad situations from happening.

    Oh but they sure do make it easier to deal with the consequences.

  63. avatar TStew says:

    “I’m not sure, even armed, we in the crowd would be able to stop a crazed shooter any more than we could stop a tornado.”

    Sounds like the words of a man who would trample over his partner or children to be the first to GTFO in such a situation or, alternatively, the words of a man who has not the intestinal fortitude to even comprehend putting himself into harm’s way to save someone else.

    I’d like to believe that most of us here would be more likely to at least TRY and end such an encounter, armed or unarmed, even if it means our own ass.

  64. avatar Neon says:

    I’ve tried to comment on the forbes website for an hour. It isn’t loading correctly for me even after i registered to post. but if the damn thing ever does work here is my comment:

    Oh I don’t know quite yet if you are completely anti-firearm, but you sure seem naive to me. You don’t seem to know squat about what the NRA does except for regurgitating the Bloomberg and Brady Campaign BS demonizing propaganda. The NRA is most assuredly not a tool of the sporting arms, clothing, hunting, camping, outdoor recreation industries, indoor and outdoor range shooting sports or the thousands of law enforcement organizations that avail themselves of the NRA’s professional instructional safety courses and lectures. The NRA is people, at this time well over 5 million of them and growing. Some of them own firearms and some don’t. Some members just support the right for others to possess them and support the Bill of Rights. No, the shooting sports industry has their own organization named the National Shooting Sports Foundation. They are the lobbying arm for the for the shooting sports industry.

    I would suggest your insecurity of being around lawfully armed people is a personal issue perhaps stemming from inexperience or a reluctance to trust your fellow citizens.
    Look around, the people with the CCW’s most often will be the ones drinking water or lemonade and not beer at events. They know they are entrusted with a higher sense of responsibility and take it seriously. The vast majority I’ve ever met seek to avoid confrontation at all costs but like any good Boy or Girl Scout are prepared only if the need arises. They know that when seconds count, the police cannot be everywhere and are often minutes away. I believe you need to become more experienced in the shooting sports before passing judgment.

    1. avatar Michael in GA says:

      Any grown man that has to use a “selfie” picture, must be an unhappy lonely soul. He doesn’t just want to get away from people carrying guns, he wants to get away from everybody.

  65. avatar Michael in GA says:

    I just went on Forbes and replied to Mr. Cook’s comment about gun carriers living in fear. This was my reply:

    Walk a mile in my shoes before judging me. I am personally offended by your prejudice attitude toward concealed weapon carriers. I am 48 years old. I have always understood the value of weapons in the hands of law abiding citizens, but until one year ago, I never owned a firearm. Partly due to your fellow anti 2nd amendment activists, but mainly because after the Aurora shooting, I decided to get my CCW. Many people were saying “If just one person had carried a gun to that movie theater they could have saved some lives”. That is true, but who’s responsibility is it to carry a gun? Everyone’s. If I am not willing to be the one person that brings a gun in for protection, then I can’t wish anyone else would.
    I carry a Glock19 every day and everywhere that I don’t pass through a metal detector. I do not live in fear. I don’t even think about my gun. I live my life just like you do. The only difference is, I am prepared to meet lethal force with lethal force. I also am more aware of my surroundings. You are most likely oblivious. You might as well be because you won’t be able to do anything about it but run or die, both of which are options I have but I have a third option.
    I challenge you to do this. Get your CCW. Buy or borrow a gun and carry it for one year. After the novelty wears off, you won’t even remember you have it on you. After one year, tell your readers if you feel like you are walking around in fear. Tell them if you have more or less situational awareness. Tell them if you are less happy. Tell them the truth. Right now you are not qualified to tell the truth about me.

  66. avatar David T says:

    Idiot

  67. avatar Smaj says:

    Meet Bob Cook, the face of the Oprahfied New American Male. Scared of his own shadow.

  68. avatar Scott says:

    I did a thorough search, and cannot seem to locate the passage “keep and bear storm shelters” in the BoR. I must have a defective copy….

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email