Should I get a C.C.w right away

[Mikej]

0) why is the thought of carrying concealed scary to you? You NEED to understand this before you take the next step.

If it's concealed it means nobody knows you have it so it should not attract unwanted attention.

If you are scared that you might do something stupid, then STOP. It would be a mistake to proceed.

A gun is the absolute last resort in defense of life or harm. I'd personally rather get the bubblegum kicked out of me than be forced to kill someone.

Once you have your fears worked out then follow these steps in addition to getting your CHL/CHP

1) get training
2) get range time
3) get more training
4) get more range time

How about "Intimidating", when first carrying a gun in public?
Those feelings of confidence aren't so easily realized when a full on adult starts to carry a firearm. It's going to be much easier for those that grew up around firearms to put on one your side and go out in public. It's not been that long since the wife and I started, by getting our permits, and carrying in public. It was intimidating for awhile.
Do some reading on Washington gun laws regarding carrying canceled weapons.
Do some carrying out and away from people. Go on a hike. I believe it's legal to carry concealed when you out of cities, out of the car, hiking or fishing. Check to be sure though. I know Oregon laws not Washington gun laws.


People come hear for help. I guess it's sad for them they may not be real discussion forum savvy either. A bunch of comments that would have been better kept to yourselves rather than act like smart as punks.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

I'm thinking it might be a good thing to learn to carry . It was a little scary first, but now im getting one. However it would be cool to get my application filled out on the second.

What do u mean by "get my application filled out on the second"? One permit/license covers all concealed carry firearms.

 

[titsonritz]

If you require anyone's permission or blessing than maybe it's not for you.

 

[3MTA3]

How about "Intimidating", when first carrying a gun in public?
Those feelings of confidence aren't so easily realized when a full on adult starts to carry a firearm. It's going to be much easier for those that grew up around firearms to put on one your side and go out in public. It's not been that long since the wife and I started, by getting our permits, and carrying in public. It was intimidating for awhile.
Do some reading on Washington gun laws regarding carrying canceled weapons.
Do some carrying out and away from people. Go on a hike. I believe it's legal to carry concealed when you out of cities, out of the car, hiking or fishing. Check to be sure though. I know Oregon laws not Washington gun laws.


People come hear for help. I guess it's sad for them they may not be real discussion forum savvy either. A bunch of comments that would have been better kept to yourselves rather than act like smart as punks.

Honestly I was trying to be helpful to the OP. It's pretty obvious he or she is inexperienced and somewhat uncertain.

Hopefully intimidated best describes what they are feeling. I sometimes miss that since I grew up around guns, and apart from treating them with the utmost respect and attention to detail, are simply tools to me - not much different than a screwdriver or pair of pliers.

 

[Xaevian]

You don't even need to own a handgun to apply for your WA CPL.

 

[Camelfilter]

I'm thinking it might be a good thing to learn to carry . It was a little scary first, but now im getting one. However it would be cool to get my application filled out on the second.

Have you filed your application yet?

 

[Roadkill Bill]

0) why is the thought of carrying concealed scary to you? You NEED to understand this before you take the next step.

If it's concealed it means nobody knows you have it so it should not attract unwanted attention.

If you are scared that you might do something stupid, then STOP. It would be a mistake to proceed.

A gun is the absolute last resort in defense of life or harm. I'd personally rather get the bubblegum kicked out of me than be forced to kill someone.

Once you have your fears worked out then follow these steps in addition to getting your CHL/CHP

1) get training
2) get range time
3) get more training
4) get more range time

So your okay with being beat 1/2 to death or even 3/4 to death. When exactly does that become serious physical injury? Does a curb stomp qualify?
I understand that no one wants to kill someone, until they need killing, but if the reasonable fear of serious injury is there. Why would you not be willing to take action before that occurs?

 

[Mark W.]

I don't have a speeding ticket.

Do you want one I've got any number of them from my youth I'd be glad to give to you

 

[Yarome]

Personally, I don't see any reason for anyone not to get their permit while it's still relatively easy to do so. Having one doesn't mean you must carry. It simply means that you are exercising the right and option to do so.

For the OP I would answer, absolutely!

 

[3MTA3]

So your okay with being beat 1/2 to death or even 3/4 to death. When exactly does that become serious physical injury? Does a curb stomp qualify?
I understand that no one wants to kill someone, until they need killing, but if the reasonable fear of serious injury is there. Why would you not be willing to take action before that occurs?

If my life or the life of another is in imminent danger I will use deadly force. Until that point I will do everything possible to avoid that.

The taking of a life is a serious event, and even as a justifiable last minute resort most people will suffer regrets and wonder if there was something they could have done differently to prevent it.If a black eye or bloody nose would be the alternative I'll take that every time. You may feel different and that is your prerogative. It's really about where you draw the line where deadly force is needed.

 

[Yarome]

If my life or the life of another is in imminent danger I will use deadly force. Until that point I will do everything possible to avoid that.

The taking of a life is a serious event, and even as a justifiable last minute resort most people will suffer regrets and wonder if there was something they could have done differently to prevent it.If a black eye or bloody nose would be the alternative I'll take that every time. You may feel different and that is your prerogative. It's really about where you draw the line where deadly force is needed.

I agree with the principle that it's up to each to decide those things for themselves, and not everyone will draw the line in the same place, but just keeping it in perspective, you can never rely on an attacker to be reasonable or act rationally. Their decision making processes is already in question and their motivation is not likely to fall within "normal" parameters.

IE., While beating you unconscious is more than sufficient to meet their goals of stealing your wallet, there is nothing limiting them from going beyond "sufficient force".

Once you start taking said beating, you have already lost any inititive/advantage that you might have had. Your options are now limited and your ability to respond effectively is greatly diminished.

Personally, relying on an attackers good decision making and mercy to not go "too far" doesn't play a part in where I chose to draw the line.

 

[Member 53328]

I agree with the principle that it's up to each to decide those things for themselves, and not everyone will draw the line in the same place, but just keeping it in perspective, you can never rely on an attacker to be reasonable or act rationally. Their decision making processes is already in question and their motivation is not likely to fall within "normal" parameters.

IE., While beating you unconscious is more than sufficient to meet their goals of stealing your wallet, there is nothing limiting them from going beyond "sufficient force".

Once you start taking said beating, you have already lost any inititive/advantage that you might have had. Your options are now limited and your ability to respond effectively is greatly diminished.

Personally, relying on an attackers good decision making and mercy to not go "too far" doesn't play a part in where I chose to draw the line.

You can't shoot someone if they only throw a punch…. I mean you can but….

More than likely if you find yourself in a scenario like that you messed up long before catching hands.

Death or SERIOUS bodily harm. Unless you wanna spend the rest of your life in jail you may wanna make sure certain elements have taken place to LEGALLY allow you to neutralize a threat through deadly force.

 

[Camelfilter]

You can't shoot someone if they only throw a punch…. I mean you can but….

More than likely if you find yourself in a scenario like that you messed up long before catching hands.

Death or SERIOUS bodily harm. Unless you wanna spend the rest of your life in jail you may wanna make sure certain elements have taken place to LEGALLY allow you to neutralize a threat through deadly force.

Disparity of force. An attacker need not be armed with a weapon for the use of deadly force to be justified.

Granted, such seems harder to prove. However it MAY be justified nonetheless.

Easy exemplar being: an elderly 80lb innocent vs a 250lb assailant.

Ad intoxicants in the mix and weight/size MAY not matter...

 

[Member 53328]

Disparity of force. An attacker need not be armed with a weapon for the use of deadly force to be justified.

Granted, such seems harder to prove. However it MAY be justified nonetheless.

Easy exemplar being: an elderly 80lb innocent vs a 250lb assailant.

Ad intoxicants in the mix and weight/size MAY not matter...

Never said you had to have a weapon….

But good luck in any court validating your choice for shooting an unarmed individual after a single punch.

Unless (like you said) it's a 250 pound male hitting a female or elderly.

You are correct though. There are scenarios/characteristics that allow one to jump to force continuum faster than others.

 

[3MTA3]

I agree with the principle that it's up to each to decide those things for themselves, and not everyone will draw the line in the same place, but just keeping it in perspective, you can never rely on an attacker to be reasonable or act rationally. Their decision making processes is already in question and their motivation is not likely to fall within "normal" parameters.

IE., While beating you unconscious is more than sufficient to meet their goals of stealing your wallet, there is nothing limiting them from going beyond "sufficient force".

Once you start taking said beating, you have already lost any inititive/advantage that you might have had. Your options are now limited and your ability to respond effectively is greatly diminished.

Personally, relying on an attackers good decision making and mercy to not go "too far" doesn't play a part in where I chose to draw the line.

At what point did I say I was going to just stand there and take a beating? I fight dirty and I fight to put an opponent out of action as quickly as possible. Charging me is pretty bubbleguming stupid and I will use your own force against you. I'll avoid that fight as long as I can and pretty much any way that I can, but if I can't then I'll do what I need to do.

As I get older the point where I need to resort to deadly force becomes more and more likely, but will still avoid it if at all possible.

 

[Yarome]

More than likely if you find yourself in a scenario like that you messed up long before catching hands.

Death or SERIOUS bodily harm. Unless you wanna spend the rest of your life in jail you may wanna make sure certain elements have taken place to LEGALLY allow you to neutralize a threat through deadly force.

I would heartily disagree. Crime against persons are more often than not unpredictable and difficult to avoid at all times and in all places. Criminals don't typically attack face on and against victims that are obviously alert to their presence and in a defensive posture.

Making sure that "certain elements have taken place" to legally allow your use of force does increase your ability to argue under self defense, however, the only legal criteria is that, you, in that moment, had genuine reason to believe there was an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm.

You don't even have to take a punch before that can apply.

 

[Member 53328]

Another thing I would add -

A gun is a tool. That's it. With that being said if it's your only tool that you know how to use to in a conflict scenario then you're wrong and it's time to go back to the drawing board.

Physical fitness
Situational awareness
Verbal Judo
Etc.

 

[Member 53328]

I would heartily disagree. Crime against persons are more often than not unpredictable and difficult to avoid at all times and in all places. Criminals don't typically attack face on and against victims that are obviously alert to their presence and in a defensive posture.

Making sure that "certain elements have taken place" to legally allow your use of force does increase your ability to argue under self defense, however, the only legal criteria is that, you, in that moment, had genuine reason to believe there was an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm.

You don't even have to take a punch before that can apply.

So what you're gunna shoot every individual who squares up to you and says he's going to beat the sh!t out of you……

Deadly force means that force which a reasonable person would consider likely to cause death or serious bodily harm. Its use may be justified only under conditions of extreme necessity, when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed.

Objective vs Subjective.

 

[Yarome]

I'd personally rather get the bubblegum kicked out of me than be forced to kill someone.

At what point did I say I was going to just stand there and take a beating?

If I misunderstood, my apologies, but that previous statement seemed to be saying that.

 

[Yarome]

So what you're gunna shoot every individual who squares up to you and says he's going to beat the sh!t out of you……

Deadly force means that force which a reasonable person would consider likely to cause death or serious bodily harm. Its use may be justified only under conditions of extreme necessity, when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed.

Objective vs Subjective.

You don't have to put things into irrational extremes to try and make or justify your points... ya know.

I was simply disagreeing with the premise that you have to take more than just a punch to the face before you can justify lethal force.... and I would disagree too that walking around dropping people for spouting off an idle threat is correct or reasonable either.