That's perfectly ok. Given the ridiculous number of gun laws on the books in this country (20,000+)it is probably impossible for any one person to keep track of them all.

Unfortunately, when making a threat assessment of an situationstatistically it does.
Assorted links

I'm not saying it's fair or good, only that statistically Izzy has a point. Adding the race detail wasn't vital to his story and in fact probably detracted from it. However, the race of the man did influence his feelings of and response to the situation.

I'm assuming I'll now be branded a racist. Think of it this way, not all clouds bring rain but it's pretty easy to identify which are more likely to. Does that make a person a "weatherist"? Doing a threat analysis means exactly that, being aware of all threats whether it be a strange dog, a white Enron CEO, or inclimate weather... Don't go all Imus on Izzy for stating the facts of his story.

-Blast the Scientist (or heretic?)

C'mon, I don't really think Izzy's notation of the guy's race had anything to do with his post or his response to the threat. It seems he was just completing the mental picture for us. Does anyone really assess some guy's race against a potential threat when you catch him looking in your windows and then he charges at you? If you do, you're wasting valuable time.

When I had to fend off some white guy trying to break into my dorm room in college, I only observed his race so the campus cops would know what to look for. I sure didn't think, "How odd, as a white male he doesn't fit the statistical analysis of a burglar..." My post is silly, I know, but this whole argument is just silly.

Maybe it is just because I'm a chick, and as a chick I have to regard all strange men on the same level: white male, black male, brown male... they ALL could be rapists!

As far as being prepared to defend myself, [i]I consider it no different than being prepared to build a fire or purify water.

That is exactly the point I was trying to make .

On the surface, Samhain's arguments seem conclusive. They do not, however follow a logical conclusion.

No one here and I would say with confidence no one in the justice system or pro-gun crowd would ever advocate generally arming the public any more than a reasonable person would advocate wholesale disarmament. I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone of sound mind that would argue that point. Likewise, it is just as ridiculous to assert that because some people are not capable of responsible firearms handling and use, all should be disallowed the privilege.

It is not the age of the attendees, but the mental/psychological state that they posess which would disqualify them as mature, responsible firarms carriers. We happily and enthusiastically arm 18 year olds and have done so for 250 years when it suits our countries needs, without much concern for how they will act with the firearms they are issued once they have been appropriately conditioned. This education used to be something that was practiced by parents with their children up until about 50 years ago. Sad to see that some good ideas wither and die.

It has been my sad fate to have encountered a fair number of young LEOs that I would deem wholly unsuited to the task of protect and serve. Given enough time on the beat, they eventually discover the reality of their duties and either get out or become legitimate peace officers. Some don't learn in time, and become statistics. Putting great faith in one set of humans over another without proofing that they are deserving is inviting folly.

Past about 16 years old, the only relevence age has is the propensity that a given individual has been exposed to the proper experience that would make them suitable for packing heat. There are plenty of 50 year olds out there that will never have what it takes, and hopefully at least have enough knowledge to know this is the case and thus refrain from participating, though there is damned little to prevent them from doing so anyways.

It is, however, wholly irresponsible for any person to reject taking it upon themselves the necessary means of defending their person and property. To abdicate such responsibility to law enforcement is a gross misinterpration of the purpose of such services and the intentions of our lawmakers. For a parent to not take the time and effort to properly raise their children into responsible, law-abiding, competent adults is reprehensible, and represents probably the single greatest threat to liberty, our social growth, and our domestic stability.

"I currently don't carry a gun (but my hubby and I are looking into training courses), but I don't consider myself defenseless at all. As I've explained in earlier posts, I don't consider guns to be the be-all, end-all of personal defense, nor would I ever assume that those who carry a gun would be successful, or even willing, to deploy their weapon against an assailant."

1. I'm glad to see that you and hubby are looking into training courses . Very important IMO .
2. I don't consider guns to be-the be all
end-all of personal defence either . IMO , mindset , situational awareness and some sort of self defence training are equally important . However , I do think that having a firearm and the knowledge of how to use it are a very important part of the overall preparedness package .

I read all these responses that say the "kids" attending collage are not responsible enough to carry a weapon because they are so young and don't have the mind set or how ever you want to put it. Why is it we can take Children the same age and place them in harms way. If we can trust our children to defend this country and our way of life why is it such a stretch to allow the to protect themselves. Quit complaining about the ones who want to carry a weapon to protect themselves, and do something about those who want to cause harm to others. Before you start telling the world how much safer it would be without them the world has already heard it. ”This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead.” (Chancellor’s Speech, 1935 by Adolf Hitler) Every body was safe them.

For those of you who, legally or not, carry a concealed handgun, to school, and are forced to use it, please keep this in mind: The police will arrive. Maybe soon, maybe a tad later than that, but they will come, and they are looking for a person with a gun. If you have taken the bad guy out, great, but then get rid of the weapon (as in out of your hands/waistband, etc, but do not just toss it where someone else can get it), and try to make sure that you have friends/fellow students to help ID you as a good guy. If you are barracaded in a safe spot and the police arrive to save the day, immediately lay the weapon down (don't drop or toss it, bad things might happen if it should go bang when it hits the floor), hopefully before they see you with it. Throw your hands up as high as you can get them, fingers spread, and let them know verbally that you are a good guy and have a gun between your feet (or where ever). Have those friends and fellow students help with this. Expect to be handcuffed until the whole mess can be straightened out. Being mistaken for a bad guy with gun in hand by responding officers is not a good thing...

Do nothing. The bank has lots of money, and can get more. You, on the other hand, only have one life. What if you try something and miss? And he doesn't. Or you didn't notice the second bad guy by the door (right behind you maybe). No sense getting killed to save money, anyones money. If, on the other hand, the bad guy starts shooting, fire for effect...

Volunteer force- the guys who join either do it for college money or because they don't fit into normal society but do in the military. You can make a soldier, but a good soldier is born. Many of them already have just a different mind set from their peers before they join the service.

It's the same kind of mindset that leads to guys becoming fire fighters and paramedics. They are just a different breed of cat than the majority of the people today.