What is your "Every Day Carry" or EDC?

[chilledwarmth]

For me

• Android phone, I have an In Case Of Emergency app with all medical info about me, and contact info for people I'd want emergency services to notify. That one specific app can be accessed without having to unlock the phone

• Glock 19 and spare mag

• Leatherman Wave

• Wallet with ID, credit card, and a bit of money

• Fenix TK15 flashlight

• Protein Bar

• Waterproof notebook and pen

• Lighter

• Keys (car and house)

I agree with what you have said about Paris. When I read about the Tunisian beach resort attack, there was stories from people who had resorted to throwing objects at the terrorist to try and slow him down or escape. And in the Bataclan, people weren't able to do anything other than hide. Now it's not like saying that if they had guns they would absolutely have all survived, but it would have given them a better chance to survive and it would have made it more likely that the terrorists would be stopped much sooner. I don't understand why people would still want to be unarmed. I can see I'm not going to win any argument about firearms zombiesarecoming.

I think guns are a VERY bad idea for the general population.

I prefer talking about being prepared for bad weather, natural events, getting stranded somewhere and so on.

Yep. A crowded arena full of frightened people with handguns. Nobody's going to get shot except the terrorists......

No problem. Thank you in return for you politeness Kacie123. I would say though if you read this before you leave, that those colleagues and friends are already capable of causing death if they want, not with a gun but with anything else. You wouldn't be changing anything because if they decided to kill you it wouldn't make any difference to you whether they did it with their bare hands or with a gun.

I do call what you have fear because it seems like you are afraid that if someone has a gun they might shoot you with it. You're not afraid that everyone you walk past will strangle you with their bare hands, so why worry that if they have a different way of killing you they will use that? It's the same principle, and I just don't understand why you have no fear of one, but are almost terrified by the other. Why are you so afraid of their gun? Are you planning on doing something to them which will necessitate them using it? If not, why worry? I guess I just don't get your mindset the same way you don't get mine. But thanks for talking about it and let me reply to your thanks with thanks of my own as you were also polite to me. :)

I think that perhaps the title 'Preppers' might have been a bit misleading for everyone. A sticky thread is going up soon to explain what the board is about.

As far as I know guns have not been talked about elsewhere so please don't get the wrong idea about the rest of the threads......

BertrandRussell if you have decided in your mind that the public being armed would somehow have made things worse at the Bataclan then nothing I can say will change that decision you've made. We're not going to agree so is it ok if we just drop all of this and let this go back to EDC?

Well, I would actually quite like you to explain why the people in the Bataclan having handguns would have made things any better. Unless they were trained marksman. Because the gun lobby is always saying things like that and usually refuse to be anything but vague on why and how.

My problem would be that there is so much other shite in my handbag that I can never find anything.
I can imagine asking an assailant to hold on while I ferret through my bag for my gun!

I am American, so I'll make all the bazooka jokes I like thanks.

Most concert venues in America, especially those in big cities, would have a ban on hand guns anyway and it would be enforced by metal detectors and bag searches. Metal detectors and bag searches prevented the Stade de France bombers from getting inside, by the way.

It is deeply offensive to suggest that the Bataclan victims, or anyone else, could have prevented what happened to them by acting differently. But there has been a lot of offensive nonsense posted about Paris in the last ten days (and I include that crazy thread here in Preppers that tried to claim Paris descended into chaos in that - I was in the 6ieme all weekend, every shop and restaurant and bar opened as normal and far from panicking or being cowards, Parisians incredibly bravely woke up and immediately began getting on with getting back to normality).

Please don't think that every American thinks that carrying a glock in your pocket is a good idea. Many millions of Americans support much greater gun control, and there is an ongoing debate about the laws.

Ok. Having a gun means they could have fought back. It might not have saved them, they might not have used it, they might have missed. But they might have, they might have used it, and they might have hit on target. Without a gun you make it a certainty that they won't, with one you at least give them a chance. That's why I think it would have made things better.

You said they would need to be a "marksman" to have a chance, but I'm struggling to see any justification you have for this claim. Why bring precision rifle accuracy ratings into this discussion when we are talking about a different situation. You don't need to be competent at long distance shooting to shoot someone at close range.

You can definitely continue a discussion if you chose but I made this topic to discuss EDC, not as a platform for various firearm views. If you decide you'd like to discuss it more then I guess you can make another topic but can we just make this about EDC?

There was another thread about what to put in a bag. It might help to look at that one.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/preppers/2509755-What-to-put-in-a-Bug-Out-Bag

Zetetik thanks for link:)

So everyone pulls out their handguns and, in semi darkness and panic, fires them in the general direction of the men with the semi automatics. I cannot imagine- unless somebody got very lucky indeed and killed or completely disabled the gunman- how that could not have made a hideous, nightmare situation even worse.

I can understand why you don't want to talk about it- the minute logic enters the discussion the case for handguns in situations like this melts away.

In what other circumstances do you see yourself using this particular part of your EDC?

Genuine question - not trying to be goady - are there any cases of attacks etc being stopped by a civilian with a gun?

The point about worrying about your work colleagues strangling you being the same as worrying about them shooting you. Your hands aren't primarily a device for causing injury/ killing, you'd have to want to do it.
A gun is designed to hurt someone, firearms can go off by accident, children can get hold of the., people panic, you can muss your target and get innocent bystanders. It also makes it easier for unhinged people to get hold of them.

I would say though if you read this before you leave, that those colleagues and friends are already capable of causing death if they want, not with a gun but with anything else. You wouldn't be changing anything because if they decided to kill you it wouldn't make any difference to you whether they did it with their bare hands or with a gun

Except for the fact that it is quite difficult to go into a public place and strangle large numbers of bystanders with your bare hands in the same time that it would take someone to empty their Glock 19 and spare mag into them.

There's a reason that the US has a much higher number of gun related deaths per 100,000 of population than the UK and it's not because the UK's choice of mass murder is strangulation.

46 people have been killed in mass shootings in the uk (including hunger ford and dunblane not NI).

11000 people were killed in shootings in the us this year.

I can see why it's much safer when everyone is carrying guns.

The example of someone killing you anyway is bloody silly though. If someone came up to me and try to strangle me I'd have a good go at fighting back and it would take him a while. It's really not quite the same as 50 dead with an automatic gun in a minute.

cross post with Mama

Pip- apparently the holocaust wouldn't have happened if those crazy Jews had had guns (- Ben Carson republican presidential candidate).

He wouldn't have said something like that without any evidence, surely?

BertrandRussell again you've made a scenario where you decided in advance that the outcome would be negative. If that's what your mind is set on then it won't be open to attempts at logic and reasoned challenging. You've decided that if the civilians at Bataclan were armed it would have ended badly. I dispute that but as your mind is set on believing that, I can't say anything that will change your mind.

Pipbin there are many documented cases where an armed civilian stopped an attack. Here's a link to some

www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-uber-driver-shoots-gunman-met-0420-20150419-story.html

www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Man-Shot-in-the-Chest-Inside-West-Philly-Barbershop-297176271.html

www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/26/official-suspect-in-deadly-hospital-shooting-had-lengthy-history-gun-arrests/

citizensvoice.com/news/police-plymouth-homicide-suspect-shot-by-patron-1.1370815

Thinks of homicide rate in western Europe.

Compares it with homicide rate in US.

Boggles at idea that routinely carrying a firearm reduces the crime rate.

(Incidentally does anyone have the link to that fascinating ABC news piece where they put a bunch of ordinary Americans - one of whon even practiced down the firing range every week - in a faked up campus shooting situation? Even the regular shooter couldn't get his weapon out the holster before the fake terrorist got a double tap to the head - with paint balls I hasten to add.)

"BertrandRussell again you've made a scenario where you decided in advance that the outcome would be negative. If that's what your mind is set on then it won't be open to attempts at logic and reasoned challenging. You've decided that if the civilians at Bataclan were armed it would have ended badly. I dispute that but as your mind is set on believing that, I can't say anything that will change your mind"

Yes you could. All you have to do is explain how it could have had a positive outcome. I am completely open to logic and reason, try me

I already did. I explained that while there might not have been a positive outcome, there was a higher chance of a positive outcome if others had been armed. You demand certainty, you want to know for sure there would be a better outcome. I can't give you that certainty, I can only say their chances would have been higher. There may ultimately have been the same number of deaths. All I know is that them being armed would have given them a chance.

Being open to logic and reason is subjective. You might really think you are, but in my opinion you've demonstrated that you are not open to neither of them. There's no more argument to be had, you've said your piece and made it quite clear what you think as have I, and zombies said I'm not going to win an argument about it, so can we let it drop and go back to what the topic is about?

Hey OP. I also totally disagree with civilians carrying guns, but can I just say you have taken the criticism on the chin very well. I've enjoyed reading the debate. I guess we are never going to convince you to ditch the gun (though id love to debate it further!) so I'll stick to the question.
I normally have phone, keys, purse, water, hand sanitiser, paracetamol, tissues and a mini sewing kit. I guess if the emergency is anything more than a broken off button I'm screwed.

"You demand certainty, you want to know for sure there would be a better outcome."

No I don't. I just want to see the circumstances where there is any chance at all of it being a better outcome. What do you see happening that would make a better outcome?