New gun control push because of Tucson shooting [Archive]

FArchivist

01-15-2011, 07:49 AM

Really? bolded are what the US currently has going on

Forthwith do I counter:

Supposition: civil unrest attributed to Marxist groups

Counter: The majority of 'civil unrest' that has occurred has been shown to come from extremist Christian groups or far-right white nationalists. There have been no insurgencies from Marxist groups. Furthermore, there hasn't actually BEEN civil unrest. All of the loud protests you've seen, from anti-war activists to Tea Parties, comprise NORMAL action and protest on the American scene, no different than any other decade. We just have better media coverage now.

Supposition: the global Great Depression of the 1930s

Counter: The recent financial drop that is being called the Great Recession (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-2000s_recession)has little resemblence at all to the Great Depression of the 1930s and falls very short of it. Differences explicitly pointed out between the recession and the Great Depression include the facts that over the 79 years between 1929 and 2008, great changes occurred in economic philosophy and policy, the stock market had not fallen as far as it did in 1932 or 1982, the 10-year price-to-earnings ratio of stocks was not as low as in the '30s or '80s, inflation-adjusted U.S. housing prices in March 2009 were higher than any time since 1890 (including the housing booms of the 1970s and '80s), the recession of the early '30s lasted over three-and-a-half years, and during the 1930s the supply of money (currency plus demand deposits) fell by 25% (where as in 2008 and 2009 the Fed "has taken an ultraloose credit stance"). Furthermore, the unemployment rate in 2008 and early 2009 and the rate at which it rose was comparable to most of the recessions occurring after World War II, and was dwarfed by the 25% unemployment rate peak of the Great Depression

Supposition: hyperinflation

Counter: There has been NO hyperinflation. We are not having to pay $100,000 for a loaf of bread, as Germany did in the Great Depression. Our currency has not been devalued in any way, shape, or form similar to that which occurred in Germany back then.

Supposition: supporting far right-wing and far left-wing political parties,

Counter: There are no far-right OR far-left political parties being broadly supported in the USA. The Democrats under Obama are centrist-left, being more center than anything else. Don't believe it? Look and see what the rest of the world considers left to be.

As for far-right, not even the Tea Parties meet that equation. Conservatives are more right at this time than they have been at the past, but they haven't stepped towards fascism at all. The Tea Parties are, at worst, regressive Libertarian & Social Conservatives, with a large dollop of loudness.

The Nazis used lists of registered firearms to confiscate them from legal owners, that can't happen in the US? Guess what, it already has, it took Lawsuits to get law-abiding citizens property that was ILLEGALLY SEIZED returned. In a few cases it took YEARS.

I'm sorry, but your example is actually very weak. Reasons why:

1) The "martial law" that was declared was actually an State of Emergency ordered by the state government. Mayor Nagin of NOLA interpreted that as "martial law" and ordered the law enforcement in the area under his control (which included US Marshals and National Guard seconded to his command) to stop to observing civil rights and Miranda rights in stopping the looters and to begin a confiscation of privately-held firearms. This was in accordance with Louisiana state law in regards to his powers during a state of emergency, but was contrary to federal law.

2) After that, the Senate voted and put into law a ban on emergency gun confiscation in a state of emergency or martial law (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0714-06.htm), which supersedes and nullifies the LA state law on the subject.

Mytical

01-15-2011, 07:55 AM

People are surprised that they call for stricter gun control? Really? Wow. I expected it as soon as I heard about the shooting. Forget that as mentioned only non-criminals will be affected, people are kinda sheepish. The bleating for gun control was inevitable. I do not own a gun, not sure I could use one if I had it. I am a very peaceful person, but gun laws do not make things safer.

Gravekeeper

01-15-2011, 08:46 AM

Forthwith do I counter:

Are you mad? Facts have no place on the Internet!

I'm with std in that being Canadian, I just don't and can't understand the American thing with guns. But by the same measure, I don't think any legislation should be done in a kneejerk response to tragedy.

Frankly its not gun control that failed here, its Arizona's mental health services. If no gun was available to him, he still would have walked up and shanked her with a kitchen knife. Because he's crazy. Remember he was thrown out of two colleges for acting like a lunatic in class. One college even declared he couldn't return unless he got a report from a doctor stating he was not a danger to himself or others. Needless to say, he didn't get said report.

Andara Bledin

01-15-2011, 09:07 AM

Maybe if we stopped jailing people for victimless crimes, we'd have more resources to spend on helping those who are ill.

Yeah, I know, makes too much sense...

^-.-^

protege

01-15-2011, 04:51 PM

When you research these kind of issues through doing research on your own through reading books and the internet and other alternative sources, and compare what you hear through the mainstream media, doesn't it paint a completely different picture to you?

It does, at times. Mainly, because I try to see through the bias, the rhetoric, etc. and attempt to uncover the truth. For example, when the Messiah was constantly making speeches about how bad the economy was...I took it with a grain of salt. Mainly, because even though I work in the financial services industry, we didn't take a huge hit like he was claiming. In fact, because people were changing their investment needs...we had our best year ever. Things have slowed down now though, which is typical for us. It always tends to slow down a bit over the winter, and pick up again later. I've always felt that my own observations is the best "research" ;)

Back on topic here, mental health care is what it is in many areas. Doesn't help with things like this place (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennhurst_State_School_and_Hospital) either. I'm sure everyone has heard of Pennhurst, and the abuses that went on there. In those days, from what I understand, people were dumped into mental hospitals by force. All of it done legally...since (at least in PA) laws weren't passed to protect against abuse...until 2010 :eek:

Hyena Dandy

01-15-2011, 08:58 PM

Tyrants also had czars. Guess who has had and who else currently has czars today? Oh, but that doesn't count because that's in the past, I'm sure there's a logical reason to explain that, or I'm just totally wrong here.

It doesn't count because the word 'Czar' in this context is pretty much completely divorced from the historic meaning of the word 'Czar'. The closer term would probably be 'Minister of *thing*'. Saying that our 'Car Czars' are like historic Czars because they're both called Czars is like me asking people to address me as 'Your Majesty' because I'm a queen. Word's the same, meaning's completely different.

ditchdj

01-17-2011, 11:55 PM

From the "No Shit Sherlock" Department.........

"I don't think it really changes anything," Republican state Sen. Ron Gould said of the mass shooting. "I don't see how gun control could have prevented that shooting unless you take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens."

First thought that came through my mind after reading this quote????

There's bound to be someone in the British Isles saying, "Oy, what a bloody Yankee idiot!" :D

Rapscallion

01-18-2011, 01:28 PM

There's bound to be someone in the British Isles saying, "Oy, what a bloody Yankee idiot!" :D

Seeing as you mention it, yes.

The point is not to take them out of the hands of law abiding citizens. It's to stop them being used by irresponsible or those who mean harm.

Can you say that your system works? This whole thread is testament to how it didn't. Nothing in the articles I've read suggested that sensible citizens using guns for self defence and the defence of others stopped him. Instead he was ... clubbed around the head with a fold-up chair. (source - wikipedia)

Hmm, I think a rather good organisation should be one that protests for chair wielding rights for law abiding citizens. "You can have my chair when you can pull it from under my cold, dead arse."

Instead, the pro-gun lobby such as yourself are trying to say this is a reason to not put any sort of controls on guns.

How many deaths are acceptable?

Put a number on it. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/41065148)

Rapscallion

ditchdj

01-18-2011, 09:07 PM

Rapscallion

01-18-2011, 11:39 PM

Banning guns in the UK certainly has NOT led to a "Gun-free paradise".

While I'd love to go through your claims and point out inaccuracies (four hundred thousand a year springs to mind from previous entanglements), I'm away to bed.

However, I'd like to ask where I claimed we have a 'gun free paradise'.

Somehow, it feels as if words are being put into my mouth.

Also, you didn't answer the points I raised.

Rapscallion

Rebel

01-18-2011, 11:50 PM

Banning guns in the UK certainly has NOT led to a "Gun-free paradise".

------Since 1998, the number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales increased by 110%,[36] from 2,378 in 1998/99 to 5,001 in 2005/06

------However, in late 2009 The Telegraph reported that gun crime had doubled in the last 10 years, with an increase in both firearms offences and deaths.

------Chris Grayling, the Shadow Home Secretary (an opposition party spokesperson), attributed the rise to ineffective policing and an out-of-control gang culture.

------Compared with the United States of America, the United Kingdom has a slightly higher total crime rate per capita of approximately 85 per 1000 people, while in the USA it is approximately 80

-------The number of homicides per year committed with firearms has remained between a range of 49 and 97 in the 8 years to 2006. (it didn't plunge after 1997 legislation????)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom

Hey buddy. You forgot to add this quote from the statistics site you just mentioned.
DEFINITION: Note: Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence.
I'm sure it was just an oversight.

But if you really feel the need to quote this site so much in your arguments against gun restriction then its only fair to point out;
Murder with Firearms:
USA = 9369 (0.028 per 1000 people)
UK = 14 (0.001 per 1000 people)
Total Crime (what exactly does this encapsulate?):
USA = 11,877,218 (80.06 per 1000 people)
UK = 6,523,706 (85.55 per 1000 people)

But then again, anything this website says is pure bullshit. Particularly because going by the total crimes per 1000 people statistics then you really don't want to live in New Zealand, but living in Colombia is perfectly safe. Also, Australia apparently has so little crimes that it doesn't even get a mention for the most part. And have you even read the comments at the bottom of each page? This site is about as reliable as Wikipedia for unbiased and true statistics.

Also, no-one has ever called the UK a 'Gun-Free Paradise" except for you. The UK has guns. Most everywhere has guns. It's just that certain people are not allowed to own guns in these other countries. People like convicted criminals and those with mental health issues. And that you can't use a weak excuse as 'self defense' as your only reason to own a gun.
The main thing that I think should be addressed in this situation is the access people with known serious mental health issues have to guns, as well as the broken health system that allowed them to be left untreated.

No-one is saying that a reasonable person can't have access to guns if they have an actual need for them, just that some people should never be allowed near guns, and that it should be possible to lose your right to guns (ie. if you have been convicted of a serious offence or have shown to be dangerous to the general public). But I'm pretty sure all you're gonna do is quote the 2nd Amendment at me and not actually address the issue at all.

ditchdj

01-19-2011, 12:03 AM

And that you can't use a weak excuse as 'self defense' as your only reason to own a gun.

It's only a "weak excuse" if you haven't been in that situation, pal.

But I'm pretty sure all you're gonna do is quote the 2nd Amendment at me and not actually address the issue at all.

Well, yeah. That's because most people like you think that ALL guns should be banned that when we're in a situation where we're being robbed or attacked we should simply call 911 and cower somewhere and hope that the police will show up on time to save us.

I could come up with more sources. But since they aren't from the mainstream media, you'll simply dismiss it as BS. :rolleyes:

Because you know that if the BBC or CBS or Fox News didn't report it then it didn't happen. :rolleyes:

Besides, some of the stuff you quoted as showing that gun control in the UK works is questioned itself, claiming that some of the numbers were cooked on the books.

Total Crime (what exactly does this encapsulate?):
USA = 11,877,218 (80.06 per 1000 people)
UK = 6,523,706 (85.55 per 1000 people)

Well...........did gun control reduce crime????

Here's another one........

http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/02/high-cost-of-gun-control.html

And in another case an elderly man living alone had his home broken into repeatedly. And in his area there were no regular police. During one break in he shot the two men robbing him. He went to prison for life and the government gave one of the attackers legal assistance to help him sue the victim.

If YOU can defend THAT, how can you a keep a straight face???? If you think that's fine you have a pretty perverted version of "justice".

Rebel

01-19-2011, 02:01 AM

It's only a "weak excuse" if you haven't been in that situation, pal.
Guns should always be a last resort, pal, not the first thing you think of, pal. There are thousands of other ways of keeping yourself safe without needing a gun, pal. Man, I hope I put enough 'pals' in there to help make my response have a much deeper impact for my argument.

Well, yeah. That's because most people like you think that ALL guns should be banned that when we're in a situation where we're being robbed or attacked we should simply call 911 and cower somewhere and hope that the police will show up on time to save us.
Oh, cool. So could you just show me where I said that ALL guns should be banned? You're just making crap up to support your argument now. And, as I said before, there are always other options available to keep yourself safe. I always had large dogs growing up and we were never robbed once despite living in a high crime area. Other people just take precautions to avoid putting themselves in situations like these (staying on main well-lit streets, avoiding dangerous areas, walking in groups, etc).
Prevention is far better that your cure.

I could come up with more sources. But since they aren't from the mainstream media, you'll simply dismiss it as BS. :rolleyes:
A well thought out and well executed argument there. Bringing up the idea that there are more sources that support you, but because you know me so well you see no point in providing them. And because of the sarcastic eyeroll you gave me, I shall of course just take you at your word. Well played good sir.

Because you know that if the BBC or CBS or Fox News didn't report it then it didn't happen. :rolleyes:
Because apparently I watch those news sources and no others, and never once do I think to do further research myself towards the subject or event to get a well rounded account of the entire situation. No, because I only watch these news stations and take them as the gospel. And a brilliant point that didn't address any of the points that go against you main argument at all. And it's emphasized by the rolling eyes of doom yet again.

Besides, some of the stuff you quoted as showing that gun control in the UK works is questioned itself, claiming that some of the numbers were cooked on the books.
I pointed out that the site that you love to use to show the levels of crime actually tells you that these statistics are only showing the prevalence of people to report a crime, not the prevalence of the crime itself. And in the total crime section, it doesn't say what sort of crime is included, and whether it's the same crimes accounted for in each country.
For example,
New Zealand (http://www.police.govt.nz/sites/default/files/services/statistics/00-national-09-10-official-stats_asoc.pdf) has a high rate of burglary, vehicle theft, harassment, property damage, and disorderly conduct.
Colombia (http://www.insightcrime.org/insight-latest-news/raw-feed/item/395-colombia-by-the-numbers-2010) has a high rate of murder, injuries resulting from domestic abuse, and robberies.
Which country would you rather live in?

Well...........did gun control reduce crime????
What sorts of crime? Crime will always be committed in every country you go to. It's the severity of the offense that is not the same.

Here's another one........

http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/02/high-cost-of-gun-control.html

If YOU can defend THAT, how can you a keep a straight face???? If you think that's fine you have a pretty perverted version of "justice".
It's another pro-gun website that doesn't cite or link to its sources. The only links it had on it led to other pro-gun websites that also did not cite or link their sources. I tried to find the official story about the elderly man sent to prison for life for shooting a burglar on google. Couldn't find it. If you could find it, thus proving the point you're trying to make, that would be great!

Anyway, you never did address the main point I was trying to make. So I'll pose it again.
I personally believe that gun control regarding convicted criminals and people with serious mental illnesses should be addressed. Also, that the adequacy of the mental health system in the USA should be addressed.

And look at that. You didn't address any point I put forward, just like I predicted. Wow. How did I see that coming?

ditchdj

01-19-2011, 02:42 AM

You didnt address much of mine either. You pretty much just put words into my mouth to feed your ego, pally pal pal. ;)

Rebel

01-19-2011, 02:52 AM

You didnt address much of mine either. You pretty much just put words into my mouth to feed your ego, pally pal pal. ;)

What point of yours did I not address?

Rapscallion

01-19-2011, 12:21 PM

------Since 1998, the number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales increased by 110%,[36] from 2,378 in 1998/99 to 5,001 in 2005/06

As addressed previously, we're in a different legal jurisdiction and what gets counted has changed. If a gun is present and not used, yet someone is injured, it's now counted as a gun crime.

I suggest you look at previous discussions on this topic for information.

------However, in late 2009 The Telegraph reported that gun crime had doubled in the last 10 years, with an increase in both firearms offences and deaths.

Please supply link to this. I'll see if it's the same link we were able to point out was inaccurate last time.

------Chris Grayling, the Shadow Home Secretary (an opposition party spokesperson), attributed the rise to ineffective policing and an out-of-control gang culture.

OMGWTFBBQ! An opposition spokesman saying that the people he's opposing aren't doing a good job? Summon the pale horses!

Not exactly factual. It's opinion.

------Compared with the United States of America, the United Kingdom has a slightly higher total crime rate per capita of approximately 85 per 1000 people, while in the USA it is approximately 80

We have a different legal system over here. Different levels of discerning what is a crime. Try factor that in.

-------The number of homicides per year committed with firearms has remained between a range of 49 and 97 in the 8 years to 2006. (it didnt plunge after 1997 legislation????)

I'm trying to work out if you have a point here. Please clarify if you do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom

Gun politics (http://www.fratching.com/wiki/Gun_politics) in the United Kingdom (http://www.fratching.com/wiki/United_Kingdom) generally places its main considerations on how best to ensure public safety and how deaths involving firearms can most effectively be prevented. Despite its largely urbanised population, the United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world (http://www.fratching.com/wiki/Gun_crime#Homicides_by_country)

Did you even read that piece you linked?

I did.

By way of international comparison, in 2004 the police in the United States reported 9,326 gun homicides.[31] (http://www.fratching.com/#cite_note-30) The overall homicide rates per 100,000 (regardless of weapon type) reported by the United Nations for 1999 were 4.55 for the U.S. and 1.45 in England and Wales.[32] (http://www.fratching.com/#cite_note-31) The homicide rate in England and Wales at the end of the 1990s was below the EU average, but the rates in Northern Ireland and Scotland were above the EU average.[33] (http://www.fratching.com/#cite_note-32)

Bear in mind that Northern Ireland has gang violence left over from the sectarian violence (IRA etc), and suicides to get away from kilts and bagpipes.

Rapscallion

Boozy

01-19-2011, 12:30 PM

Guns should always be a last resort, pal, not the first thing you think of, pal. There are thousands of other ways of keeping yourself safe without needing a gun, pal.

You didnt address much of mine either. You pretty much just put words into my mouth to feed your ego, pally pal pal. ;)

Knock this shit off, please. Its getting a little tense, and more than a little annoying for the rest of us.

protege

01-19-2011, 01:31 PM

Here's something else to think about. I seem to recall that Washington DC banned handguns in 1975. Yet, they still have a huge problem with gang violence...including crimes committed with handguns. That ban, was overturned in 2008, because it was found to violate the Second Amendment. Logically, if handguns were banned, how are these crimes still happening? Simple...the guns are coming in from other areas. Another example of how guns are being taken from lawful owners...and how only criminals have them.

Rapscallion

01-19-2011, 01:46 PM

As covered in other threads as nauseum, there's a far easier availability of guns in the US than the UK. Hop over the state or county border and just bring it in.

Then you've also got a culture that demands guns, so they'll go to greater lengths than people over here would use.

Rapscallion

Rebel

01-19-2011, 06:59 PM

Knock this shit off, please. Its getting a little tense, and more than a little annoying for the rest of us.

I do apologize. I hate people who use pet names for me and I let it get to me. Won't happen again.

I am still confused as to why it doesn't seen like a good idea to bring in legislation to limit the possibility of people who are seriously mentally ill, and those who have shown themselves to be a danger to the public (convicted criminals), from acquiring a gun.
Granted your 2nd Amendment allows all citizens from the ability to 'bear arms', but surely it would be a lot safer for the rest of society if people like those I've mentioned were disqualified from this right?

protege

01-19-2011, 08:05 PM

People like this douchebag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Baumhammers)? What about the rest of the nuts (http://blogs.sites.post-gazette.com/index.php/home/archives/8059-editorial-wanted--a-society-that-can-protect-against-crazed-gunmen)? Right now, I don't think there's anything to stop someone, even a crazed someone...from getting a firearm, and doing harm to the rest of us. Baumhammers himself...had a pretty easy time getting a gun. Drive down to the store near Washington, PA, pick one out, wait a few months, then start the body count.

Rapscallion

01-20-2011, 11:49 AM

What's coming out of this debate for me is that the US isn't really in need of gun control, but people control.

Rapscallion

Gravekeeper

01-20-2011, 12:33 PM

What's coming out of this debate for me is that the US isn't really in need of gun control, but people control.

Rapscallion

Heh. >.>

Are we having the Gun Debate(tm) again? Glee! Really, should just keep all the links and references on file so you can just copy paste them all again in any new thread. <cough>

Mikkel

01-20-2011, 02:21 PM

Really, should just keep all the links and references on file so you can just copy paste them all again in any new thread. <cough>
No need, the last 16 page thread is here (http://www.fratching.com/showthread.php?t=3080). Pick your side and start copying ;).
I probably won't understand why people would feel safer when everyone wear guns this time either.

Rapscallion

01-20-2011, 03:51 PM

Are we having the Gun Debate(tm) again?

Thread title suggests so, but generally speaking I feel along the same lines of this old chestnut again.

Rapscallion

Wingates_Hellsing

01-21-2011, 07:45 PM

The only reason this guy was taken down as quickly as he was is his own ineptitude. That and the fact that a number of people simultaneously recognized an opening and jumped on it all at once. Neither of which are things that can be counted on to occur or really work at all.

There are plenty of instances where physical attempts were made to stop gunman and very, very few of those ended successfully. Fact of the matter being that your average nut on a killing spree is far more methodical and substantially less fazed by a whack on the head than this guy was.

Something that's worked a hell of a lot more reliably has been the implementation of firearms, either using the threat of death as a means of garnering submission or just killing the shooter.

And in more mundane self-defense situations a firearms is one of the two ultimate tools, the other being a tazer representing less than lethal force. And while lot's of people like to sit there and parrot out 'a gun is the last resort' as if it's a catch-all rebuttal, they seem to forget that there's more to a gun than killing people.

Lethal Force is the last resort, and that in no way means it's not the first thing you turn to in a given situation. If anyone's life and limb is under direct threat and submission or flight have either failed or aren't options the very next step is resistance and there's no reason why that shouldn't be armed resistance.

Gravekeeper

01-22-2011, 04:41 AM

Something that's worked a hell of a lot more reliably has been the implementation of firearms, either using the threat of death as a means of garnering submission or just killing the shooter.

Your average wing nut shooter fully intends to take his own life after he's done, or commit suicide via police. Lethal force isn't much of a threat to them to be honest.

Lethal Force is the last resort, and that in no way means it's not the first thing you turn to in a given situation. If anyone's life and limb is under direct threat and submission or flight have either failed or aren't options the very next step is resistance and there's no reason why that shouldn't be armed resistance.

The problem, again, is two fold. Problem number one is crossfire. If there's a guy in any sort of crowd or populated area shooting people, anyone shooting back risks doing just as much damage. The human body is extremely poor at stopping bullets. They go *through* soft tissue like butter. Even if all of your shots are on the target, if anyone is behind him, you've just shot innocent bystanders yourself. And thats if all your shots are on target. Which is unlikely. If everyone as armed as such, all of a sudden you're in a warzone.

Second of all, and I can't stress this enough, I do not trust the judgement of every random jackass to know when or when not to threaten or use lethal force. Police officers are trained in the proper use of lethal force. Gun owners aren't.

Wingates_Hellsing

01-22-2011, 07:46 AM

Your average wing nut shooter fully intends to take his own life after he's done, or commit suicide via police. Lethal force isn't much of a threat to them to be honest.
Some, but not all. There have been numerous instances of shooters giving up when confronted with armed resistance. People are complicated and while a shooting spree seems like the sort of thing that no one would expect to come out of alive there's often a lot more to it.

Besides, if they really didn't care about dying in the process they wouldn't go to so much trouble to find places where no one can fight back.

The problem, again, is two fold. Problem number one is crossfire. If there's a guy in any sort of crowd or populated area shooting people, anyone shooting back risks doing just as much damage. The human body is extremely poor at stopping bullets. They go *through* soft tissue like butter. Even if all of your shots are on the target, if anyone is behind him, you've just shot innocent bystanders yourself. And thats if all your shots are on target. Which is unlikely. If everyone as armed as such, all of a sudden you're in a warzone.
First of all, I very much doubt that a few over penetrating shots, which will have dumped a substantial amount of their energy and are rapidly dropping off trajectory could possibly do 'as much damage' as deliberate fire aimed towards bystanders.
Second, that's exactly why practical shooting courses, the very same that are often but sadly not always utilized by law enforcement agencies as well as civilians, emphasizes awareness of your target's backstop as well as potential courses of action to remedy problems (which all boil down to creating a new angle). LE faces all the same problems and short of a SWAT team it's almost as much of a dice roll as to whether or not a given officer is trained to deal with these sorts of situations as a civilian.
Third, to minimize the problem, if not eliminate it altogether, it's important to use hollow point or better yet, fragmenting ammunition, the former of which won't make it through most bodies with much punch and the latter of which won't make it through in less than a few dozen pieces (I.e. far from lethal at that point.)
Which is why it's all the more retarded that some jurisdictions ban those types of ammo.

Second of all, and I can't stress this enough, I do not trust the judgement of every random jackass to know when or when not to threaten or use lethal force. Police officers are trained in the proper use of lethal force. Gun owners aren't.
Outlining the applications of lethal force is a very small part of law enforcement training and is dwarfed in volume by general knowledge of arrest and legal procedure. The hard and fasts are quick to communicate, easy to understand and remarkably simple to apply. It's really only when you get into the arena of tactics and strategy that things get particularly complicated, and even then it's really just icing on the cake.

Believe it or not the average person is very much capable of making reasonable decisions even under stress and above all: know when they're in over their head. While basic law enforcement training isn't a bad thing, it doesn't go nearly as far to root out bad lemons or ensure high levels of competency in extreme situations as you seem to imply. When you average it all out concealed carriers are on par if not advanced ahead of basic security just below uniform cops. To get up into the "Ideal for situation" area you need U.S. Marshals, Tactical Response Teams or SWAT. Problem being that those are all arriving in 10 minutes at the very, very best. If wishes were horses they'd be everywhere at once, but here in real people land you've got to make do with what you've got.

Gravekeeper

01-23-2011, 04:44 AM

Besides, if they really didn't care about dying in the process they wouldn't go to so much trouble to find places where no one can fight back.

Unless your goal was maximum damage, which it would be if you had reached such a point of no turning back. In which case yes, you're going to go for a place with the easiest targets.

First of all, I very much doubt that a few over penetrating shots, which will have dumped a substantial amount of their energy and are rapidly dropping off trajectory could possibly do 'as much damage' as deliberate fire aimed towards bystanders.

The Arizona shooter only had a 9mm. It still went clean through Gifford's, and in fact over penetration is what ironically saved her life. Had the round dumped more of its energy passing through her brain, she would be dead. And thats through the skull, which takes quite a bit of force to penetrate.

Even just the standard 9mm round has an average penetration of 13-14 inchs into soft tissues. Thats enough to go through me quite soundly. Unless your plan is to dive behind someone portly whenever you hear gun fire.

Second, that's exactly why practical shooting courses-

-are totally irrelevant unless they are being legally mandated. Which they are not. Arizona does not even require a training course unless you want a conceal carry permit.

Third, to minimize the problem, if not eliminate it altogether, it's important to use hollow point or better yet, fragmenting ammunition, the former of which won't make it through most bodies with much punch and the latter of which won't make it through in less than a few dozen pieces (I.e. far from lethal at that point.)

Both of which are more lethal as well and would have killed Gifford outright. You're basically trading 10 victims hit by direct and indirect fire with a chance of survival, for 5 victims being killed with no chance of survival. Or worse case scenario, the shooter aware of his ammunition type and measures his shots accordingly, racking up an even higher count.

Both ammunition types make a mess internally.

Outlining the applications of lethal force is a very small part of law enforcement training and is dwarfed in volume by general knowledge of arrest and legal procedure.

US police sound woefully undertrained if this is the case. >.>

Believe it or not the average person is very much capable of making reasonable decisions even under stress and above all: know when they're in over their head.

No, I don't believe it. I work in customer service. I don't trust the average person to open a bag of chips. I've seen the sort of ape men that are most fervant about gun rights and I would not trust them with a god damn butter knife. Sure they're not the norm, but it doesn't matter, because they're out there WITH the norm. And probably more heavily armed.

When you average it all out concealed carriers are on par if not advanced ahead of basic security just below uniform cops.

Ugh, not this argument again. You're not special because you can carry a gun under your jacket rather than outside of it. Nor does you carrying a gun under your jacket negate the guy just walking around with one for the fuck of it because thats perfectly legal too.

If wishes were horses they'd be everywhere at once, but here in real people land you've got to make do with what you've got.

Here in real people land I don't have to worry about being shot in the street because every random asshole can buy a gun at Walmart with little more than a 3 day grace period. Here in real people land I can rest assured that if some guy is wandering around with a gun he's going to end up dealing with the cops regardless of what he's doing with said gun. Here in real people land I can rest assured no one's bringing an assault rifle to a political rally just to prove a point.

Here in real people land I feel safe. Because we don't all fucking have guns. >.>

Andara Bledin

01-23-2011, 05:32 AM

I've seen the sort of ape men that are most fervant about gun rights and I would not trust them with a god damn butter knife. Sure they're not the norm, but it doesn't matter, because they're out there WITH the norm. And probably more heavily armed.
You've seen the fringe element that the news loves because they're freaks. Most of us fly completely under the radar because we don't make for high ratings.

^-.-^

Gravekeeper

01-23-2011, 05:40 AM

You've seen the fringe element that the news loves because they're freaks. Most of us fly completely under the radar because we don't make for high ratings.

^-.-^

I know, as I said though, they're out there *with* you and probably carrying more ammo. >.>

Wingates_Hellsing

01-23-2011, 12:57 PM

The Arizona shooter only had a 9mm. It still went clean through Gifford's, and in fact over penetration is what ironically saved her life. Had the round dumped more of its energy passing through her brain, she would be dead. And thats through the skull, which takes quite a bit of force to penetrate.

Even just the standard 9mm round has an average penetration of 13-14 inchs into soft tissues. Thats enough to go through me quite soundly. Unless your plan is to dive behind someone portly whenever you hear gun fire.
All of this is when using ball-type ammunition, the wrong tool for the job when it comes to self-defense. Even if you are using Ball type ammunition, while it may perforate your target, by then it's lost a substantial amount of it's energy because pistol rounds don't have a lot of energy to to start with and it's most likely deformed and definitely not traveling properly. Over-penetrating pistol caliber rounds only travel a short distance before falling off trajectory and impact far from optimally, in short, a hell of a lot less of a threat than you might think.

-are totally irrelevant unless they are being legally mandated. Which they are not. Arizona does not even require a training course unless you want a conceal carry permit.
Many jurisdictions do require courses, and on top of that, many if not most of those who choose to carry avail themselves of some basic training requirements or not. Dismissing something as irrelevant because it's not applied in every case is remarkably fallacious. Especially since it often is applied in every case within certain jurisdictions.

Both of which are more lethal as well and would have killed Gifford outright. You're basically trading 10 victims hit by direct and indirect fire with a chance of survival, for 5 victims being killed with no chance of survival. Or worse case scenario, the shooter aware of his ammunition type and measures his shots accordingly, racking up an even higher count.
Try and concentrate here buddy, we're talking about the rounds used against the shooter, not by the shooter. In which case the added lethality that comes with reduced penetration is a good thing. We're fortunate in that the shooter was thickheaded enough not to select better ammunition, but even if it were illegal for concealed carry users, if he wanted it, he could've gotten it without all that much hassle and from there there's nothing stopping him from loading them in contravention of said law.

Both ammunition types make a mess internally.
Precisely where we want the mess to be, given the circumstances.

US police sound woefully undertrained if this is the case. >.>
Very few police in the world are trained to deal with active shooter scenarios. They represent a minuscule part of everyday threat to society and as such fall under the preview of specialized response teams and to an extent, patrol officers at most. Altogether a small portion of any areas total LE force.

No, I don't believe it. I work in customer service. I don't trust the average person to open a bag of chips. I've seen the sort of ape men that are most fervant about gun rights and I would not trust them with a god damn butter knife. Sure they're not the norm, but it doesn't matter, because they're out there WITH the norm. And probably more heavily armed.
Because you're routine encounters with people who are, by definition, less than the sharpest tools in the drawer accurately represents the population as a whole :rolleyes:
If you don't trust the general populace with weapons than you should also not trust most members of any countries military, police force, etc. The fact of the matter is that for the most part armed conflict is very much a 'by the seat of your pants' affair. If you're willing to throw out an entire group of potential protectors because not all of them are going to be elite tactical gurus I'd suggest you find yourself a third world nation where anarchy rules the day and the standing army is one guy chilling on some street corner. After all, what could be worse than having less-than-absolutely-ideal people working to protect you?

Ugh, not this argument again. You're not special because you can carry a gun under your jacket rather than outside of it. Nor does you carrying a gun under your jacket negate the guy just walking around with one for the fuck of it because thats perfectly legal too.
Open carriers are few and far between, and most of them have concealed carry permits and just occasionally choose not to make use of them. Fact of the matter is that most people who consider concealed carry an option are also recreational shooters and as such, log a healthy amount of range time. Which is more than you can say for rent-a-cop Steve in more cases than would be ideal.

Here in real people land I don't have to worry about being shot in the street because every random asshole can buy a gun at Walmart with little more than a 3 day grace period. Here in real people land I can rest assured that if some guy is wandering around with a gun he's going to end up dealing with the cops regardless of what he's doing with said gun. Here in real people land I can rest assured no one's bringing an assault rifle to a political rally just to prove a point.
I don't think you're living in real people land so much as the land of sitting ducks. It's been shown pretty damn conclusively that the amount of violence is linked directly to factors like poverty, gang activity and illegal drug trafficking. But feel free to buy into the group think that is the casual dismissal of a FBI background check, the assumption that inanimate objects are somehow evil, and that a point proven by someone harming no-one is also evil just because it's associated with that same inanimate object.

Here in real people land I feel safe. Because we don't all fucking have guns. >.>
Is it more important to feel safe? or to be safe?

If you are fortunate enough to live in an area with very little violent crime, good for you. However, you have no right to restrict the rights of people in more dangerous situations. They know their situation better than you, so it's best if you mind your own damn business. You don't want a gun? don't buy one, don't want to be around people who have guns? avoid them. May not always be possible, but you're just going to have to deal.

Boozy

01-23-2011, 01:05 PM

Is it more important to feel safe? or to be safe?

Feeling safe leads to being safe.

When the entire population is walking around in fear, hugging their concealed weapons to their chests because by-god-the-king-of-england-could-kill-them-any-second, all it takes is a car backfiring before the whole powder keg explodes.

Gravekeeper

01-23-2011, 02:46 PM

Many jurisdictions do require courses-

Just because some do, doesn't negate those that don't and frankly I fail to believe your standard gun safety course includes a "How to engage in a firefight" section.

Dismissing something as irrelevant because it's not applied in every case is remarkably fallacious.

Yet declaring it fine because its applied in some cases is alright?

Try and concentrate here buddy, we're talking about the rounds used against the shooter, not by the shooter.

If you put them into play by making them legal, that means they get them too. Unless they're going to come labeled "Do not sell to bad guys" for the clerk? So yes, you have to entertain the possibility of by the shooter as well.

if he wanted it, he could've gotten it without all that much hassle and from there there's nothing stopping him from loading them in contravention of said law.

Wait, how does that point *help* your argument?

Very few police in the world are trained to deal with active shooter scenarios.

Any Canadian police officer thats a supervisor or patrol sgt or higher for example. Or any RCMP cadet, they have basic training for it. Still, as you helpfully suggested, you're going to call a specialized response team anyhow.

Because you're routine encounters with people who are, by definition, less than the sharpest tools in the drawer accurately represents the population as a whole.

No offence, but don't near half of Americans reject evolution, and a fifth of Americans think the sun revolves around the Earth? So yes, I don't much trust the general public. >.>

If you don't trust the general populace with weapons than you should also not trust most members of any countries military, police force, etc.

Why, exactly? A soldier or officer is going to have training and likely experience on top of that. Does a gun from Walmart come with 6 months of training?

If you're willing to throw out an entire group of potential protectors because not all of them are going to be elite tactical gurus

But the same mechanisms that enable you to think of yourself as a "protector" also enable that which you are trying to protect against.

I'd suggest you find yourself a third world nation where anarchy rules the day and the standing army is one guy chilling on some street corner.

What, like Canada? I'm not even sure what you're talking about now. >.>

After all, what could be worse than having less-than-absolutely-ideal people working to protect you?

Working to protect me? What are you even talking about? Protecting me isn't your job just because you own a gun.

Which is more than you can say for rent-a-cop Steve in more cases than would be ideal.

Why does poor Steve even factor into this? Does every business in the US have security guards with orders to engage any potential gunman and lay down their lives for the sake of their just above minimum wage? Are you really calling Steve when this happens? Man, sucks to be Steve. Up here he would have just had to throw kids out of the mall and patrol construction sites.

I don't think you're living in real people land so much as the land of sitting ducks.

Sitting ducks from who? From what? Who is supposedly coming to get me?

It's been shown pretty damn conclusively that the amount of violence is linked directly to factors like poverty, gang activity and illegal drug trafficking.

So its not the guns, its the fact you live in third world anarchy? ;p

But feel free to buy into the group think that is the casual dismissal of a FBI background check, the assumption that inanimate objects are somehow evil, and that a point proven by someone harming no-one is also evil just because it's associated with that same inanimate object.

Who are you talking too? Seeing as I said nothing of that nature.

Is it more important to feel safe? or to be safe?

But I *am* safe, and I don't need to carry lethal force around on my hip to *feel* safe as you seem too.

If you are fortunate enough to live in an area with very little violent crime, good for you.

Yeah, whew, good thing I live where I do. The rest of Canada is an apocolypic wasteland full of guns and pirates ( of the Saskachewan ) after all. Why I'd be shot the moment I stepped outside of Vancouver.

However, you have no right to restrict the rights of people in more dangerous situations. They know their situation better than you, so it's best if you mind your own damn business. You don't want a gun? don't buy one, don't want to be around people who have guns? avoid them. May not always be possible, but you're just going to have to deal.

O...k, yeah, sorry, I got confused and thought you were talking to me. But you seem to be arguing with someone else entirely. My mistake. Where I live, its actually quite possible weirdly enough. Wait, right, third world anarchy. I need to get back to huddling under my desk apparently.

Rapscallion

01-23-2011, 04:00 PM

Try and concentrate here buddy,

Can we knock off the personal stuff, please? We've currently got one fewer poster as a result of similar stuff recently. I'd prefer not to lose someone else for the same.

Rapscallion

Wingates_Hellsing

01-23-2011, 09:20 PM

You'know, this would be a hell of a lot easier if you didn't fly wildly off-context as the majority of your retorts are already addressed in other parts of my posts, that said, here we go again.

You basically proved my point along with me when you said that only upper-tier Canadian LE is trained to respond to mass shootings and the like. I suppose you also don't want to sack the entire Canadian LE force over it, which is exactly my point.

Nowhere have I said that all concealed carriers are SWAT-level operatives, just that they are by and large on the same level as the majority of other armed people you may run into on a day-to-day basis. Just because those people wear a uniform doesn't automatically make them more trustworthy or competent, but you seem to assume that a police or security badge automatically denotes the wearer as supremely responsible compared to anyone else and that couldn't be further from the truth. Within any group or organization there is going to be a number of bad apples and incompetent twats, it's unavoidable. But, as a society we realize that the good of the whole outweighs the inevitable shortcomings but when we get to concealed carriers, suddenly that small portion becomes massively more important for no reason anyone's been able to adequately explain.

If I were to find myself in this sort of situation and a police officer or armed security guard were there with me only a small portion would be especially trained for the situation and that portion is most likely not going to be wandering around the mall. However, time and again we see examples of people with no training for dealing with emergencies rise to the occasion. Be it military, law enforcement or civilian, some people freeze, some people panic, and some people square their shoulders to the task ahead. Al in all it's better to have someone around with the capability and will to fight back.

Hollow points are legal more or less across the board due to their use in hunting, and seeing as how fragmenting rounds are basically just hollow-points-plus, they enjoy the same freedom from restriction. Yet somehow, hollow points are almost never used in either mass shooting or violent crime in general. Even if they were illegal for civilian sale, they would still be available on the black market if there were actually any demand for them among criminals. In Arizona hollow point ammo is as widely available as anywhere else, and is the round of choice among Law Enforcement and Self Defense communities. Keeping good guys from having access to the right tool for the job just because that tool might work it's way into the hands of some bad guys is ridiculous. If they want it they'll get it whether a piece of paper says they can or not. So, how about we let those so inclined to resist the efforts of murderers and psychopaths get on with it armed suitably?

Even if those numbers weren't inflated to hell and back, there's a large and important difference between educated, and smart. Academic education in no way enhances your ability to think logically any more than a practical education.

Furthermore, police officers and military personnel don't train for 6 months to carry a weapon and use it in the presence of bystanders. They train for 6 months to be cops and soldiers, the former of which has mostly to do with writing tickets and memorizing policy and the latter of which has mostly to do with doing what you're told and building muscle. 'Basic" training when it comes to armed conflict around civilians is basically a few hours of going over some basic concepts of recognizing valid and invalid targets, the concept of over penetration, and one or two other concepts. Not only is this widely and easily available to civilians, it's also not exactly rocket science. There's really very little reason to trust a police officer or soldier more than a CCW holder in situations like this, with any of them there exists the possibility that you'll end up with an incompetent Rambo wannabe or a high-speed low-drag badass. Most of all you're likely dealing with someone who's got a basic understanding of the factors in play and a moderate competency level, which, more often than not, is all you really need to make a positive difference.

Who are you talking too? Seeing as I said nothing of that nature.
Check again:
Here in real people land I can rest assured no one's bringing an assault rifle to a political rally just to prove a point.
So a guy takes on object that he's legally allowed to carry in public, to a public place, to make a statement. At no point is anyone physically harmed or endangered, but because that object's a gun, that's all somehow recklessly irresponsible? If it was a chainsaw or gallon of gasoline or any number of other potentially dangerous items I doubt you'd think twice. So what is it about a gun that makes the person possessing it suddenly and inexplicably dangerous?

Why does poor Steve even factor into this? Does every business in the US have security guards with orders to engage any potential gunman and lay down their lives for the sake of their just above minimum wage? Are you really calling Steve when this happens? Man, sucks to be Steve. Up here he would have just had to throw kids out of the mall and patrol construction sites.
Do I really have to outline for you that the reason you arm a security force is so that they have the capability to deal with lethal threats?
Security guards, police officers and CCW holders aren't doing what they're doing for the money. It's absolute crap pay, pretty fucking bad pay, and an enormous personal expense respectively. Consider for a moment that those who select to carry weapons in the event they might have to use them are risking their lives because it's the right thing to do, as opposed to any material benefit. The only thing that divorces CCW holders from cops and soldiers is that they're doing it on their free time as part of their lifestyle in the same way some people take first aid classes and travel with first aid kits without being paramedics.

If wishes were horses there would be a full SWAT, paramedic and firefighting team on every block. In reality you very rarely get the ideal thing in a timely manner. Until you do, it's best to make do with what you have, all the better if what you have is something more than nothing.

Sitting ducks from who? From what? Who is supposedly coming to get me?
If you're intense mistrust of the populace at large is any indicator, for you, it's probably everyone with a driver's license or access to sharp and or heavy objects. After all, any one of them could just randomly decide to start offing people right?
In actuality? Nuts like the shooter in Tuscon and any number of other incidents, common thieves and violent criminals. I shouldn't have to prove to you that they're out there, the evidence is everywhere. While an encounter isn't particularly likely in the grand scheme of things, they nevertheless happen, and when they do, it pays to be prepared.

Yeah, whew, good thing I live where I do. The rest of Canada is an apocolypic wasteland full of guns and pirates ( of the Saskachewan ) after all. Why I'd be shot the moment I stepped outside of Vancouver. ... O...k, yeah, sorry, I got confused and thought you were talking to me. But you seem to be arguing with someone else entirely. My mistake. Where I live, its actually quite possible weirdly enough. Wait, right, third world anarchy. I need to get back to huddling under my desk apparently.

I don't think I've ever seen a larger non-argument, but there it is. You really don't think it's hypocritical for someone living in relative safety to tell those who don't that they can't protect themselves from danger?

All those people who defend themselves with firearms every year, all the assault, robbery, rape and homicide victims that prevent themselves from becoming victims, they should all just have sucked it up and crossed their fingers hoping that they'd just get lucky. After all you don't see the point, so they're all just misguided.

Doesn't take Einstein to see that that argument adds about as well you're average Sasquatch sighting.

Gravekeeper

01-23-2011, 10:43 PM

You'know, this would be a hell of a lot easier if you didn't fly wildly off-context as the majority of your retorts are already addressed in other parts of my posts, that said, here we go again.

...*I'm* the one flying horribly off context? ><

You basically proved my point along with me when you said that only upper-tier Canadian LE is trained to respond to mass shootings and the like.

An RCMP cadet isn't precisely what I would call upper tier LE. The RCMP are our national police force and are more common than local police are as the RCMP cover all municipalities, even those that don't have or can't afford their own police force. So you're going to have RCMP anywhere you have police, which means you're going to have someone responding that has at least some relevant training. There is no place in Canada that has police that does not have RCMP, and when both are present they have integrated task forces to handle different special occasions.

So yes, if a mass shooting occurs, someone, somewhere is going to have the training to deal with it and they'll be the one getting the call. I'm not sure which police force only sends its most undertrained, unexperienced members to deal with with such a scenario.

Nowhere have I said that all concealed carriers are SWAT-level operatives, just that they are by and large on the same level as the majority of other armed people you may run into on a day-to-day basis.

But the only armed people I run into on a day to day basis are the aforementioned law enforcement agencies, which again, have 6 months training ( 12 for RCMP ). The entirety of which is not spent learning how to write parking tickets.

Just because those people wear a uniform doesn't automatically make them more trustworthy or competent, but you seem to assume that a police or security badge automatically denotes the wearer as supremely responsible compared to anyone else and that couldn't be further from the truth.

I said absolutely nothing about a security badge. You're the one that keeps bringing security guards up for some reason. And yes, it *does* make them more trustworthy and compentent, because they're trained to be. In a choice between you and the guy with a year's worth of training, guess who I'm going with?

Within any group or organization there is going to be a number of bad apples and incompetent twats, it's unavoidable.

A small number yes, a number that managed to get through the filter designed to filter out bad apples and incompetent twats. A filter which has not been applied to the public at large.

If I were to find myself in this sort of situation and a police officer or armed security guard were there with me only a small portion would be especially trained for the situation and that portion is most likely not going to be wandering around the mall.

Again, that officer has more training than you and does this on a day to day basis. How is a gun owner an equal or superior option just because he has similar ardament?

However, time and again we see examples of people with no training for dealing with emergencies rise to the occasion. Be it military, law enforcement or civilian, some people freeze, some people panic, and some people square their shoulders to the task ahead. Al in all it's better to have someone around with the capability and will to fight back.

Yes, I would rise to the occasion, and you know what? I have training! Even if I didn't, I would still rise to the occasion, but I'd be lacking sorely needed knowledge. An officer is trained to try and control panic and control a situation. They're trained in crisis management, its their job. Your scenario seems to require that any present law enforcement wet itself and run away. Which is highly unlikely.

Keeping good guys from having access to the right tool for the job just because that tool might work it's way into the hands of some bad guys is ridiculous.

You're the one that said the Good Guys(tm) would have such ammo, but the Bad Guys(tm) would not. I only said if one side has it, you have to accept the possibility the other side will too.

So, how about we let those so inclined to resist the efforts of murderers and psychopaths get on with it armed suitably?

The murderers and psychopaths that are, again, armed with equal tools by the same culture and mechanisms that arm you to supposedly resist them.

Even if those numbers weren't inflated to hell and back, there's a large and important difference between educated, and smart.

Yeah, Gallup, those bastards, always inflating their polls to hell and back for.....some reason?

Academic education in no way enhances your ability to think logically any more than a practical education.

Yeah, cept for the all those pesky acamedics that offer courses in critical thinking. Though to be fair, I question the quality of said practical education if you leave it rejecting evolution and thinking the sun revolves around the Earth. >.>

They train for 6 months to be cops and soldiers, the former of which has mostly to do with writing tickets and memorizing policy and the latter of which has mostly to do with doing what you're told and building muscle.

Hrmf, odd, guess that 373 hours RCMP cadets spent on problem solving skills and scenarios, the 75 hours on defensive tactics and risk assessment and 64 hours specifically on firearm usage, firearm decision making and judgement in scenarios where fire arms are involved is really writing parking tickets.

I guess if we look at police, wait, no, they're actually required to complete 8 and a half months of training in Canada. My bad, thought it was 6. Out of which, lets see, 5 of 34 weeks are spent learning to "write tickets" as it were.

Yeah, I'm still gonna take the Constable over you. -.-

There's really very little reason to trust a police officer or soldier more than a CCW holder in situations like this, with any of them there exists the possibility that you'll end up with an incompetent Rambo wannabe or a high-speed low-drag badass.

Again, the possibility of ending up with Rambo or Bad Ass is magnified in a CCW holder as they have not undergone months and months of training. So there are tons of reasons to trust a police officer over a CCW holder. Sorry.

I don't know if you just have really really shitty cops down there or what to be so vehement about this.

So a guy takes on object that he's legally allowed to carry in public, to a public place, to make a statement.

I don't recall saying "evil" at any point.

At no point is anyone physically harmed or endangered, but because that object's a gun, that's all somehow recklessly irresponsible?

Walking into a crowd with an assault rifle? Yes, that's irresponsible. End of story. If you can't grasp that, we truly have nothing to discuss. Which is, honestly, how pretty much every one of these gun debates seems to end between Team US and Team The Rest Of Us Stratching Our Heads.

If it was a chainsaw or gallon of gasoline or any number of other potentially dangerous items I doubt you'd think twice.

Actually I would still think twice. Wtf are you doing at a political rally with a chainsaw?

So what is it about a gun that makes the person possessing it suddenly and inexplicably dangerous?

The fact they feel they need a gun to wander around in public. They may not be actually dangerous, but I'm going to err on the side of caution because this is a person that thinks they need a gun to wander around in public.

Do I really have to outline for you that the reason you arm a security force is so that they have the capability to deal with lethal threats?

I don't know what the hell is going on down there, but up here it's not the job of a security guard to deal with a lethal threat.

Security guards, police officers and CCW holders aren't doing what they're doing for the money. It's absolute crap pay, pretty fucking bad pay, and an enormous personal expense respectively.

Actually up here yeah, security guards do what they do for the pay. Because its just a job. Its actually pretty good pay up here if you don't mind working off hours. Police officers up here make pretty good money too. 55k a year for the Vancouver PD for a 1st year constable. Thats the PD too, not the RCMP.

CCW holders don't get paid, because they're not doing a job. I'm not sure how they got included in your sentence there.

Consider for a moment that those who select to carry weapons in the event they might have to use them are risking their lives because it's the right thing to do, as opposed to any material benefit.

Bullshit. Every person that has chosen to carry a gun is not some sort of superhero. It's not the "right thing to do". You're essentially declaring yourself a vigilante now. It's not your job nor your responsibility, and frankly the mentality you're displaying *does* make me distrust you with a firearm.

The only thing that divorces CCW holders from cops and soldiers is that they're doing it on their free time as part of their lifestyle in the same way some people take first aid classes and travel with first aid kits without being paramedics.

Also bullshit. Again, you're not a hero because you own a gun. I have first aid training all the way up to industrial where I'm trained to recover pieces of you ( and by god that's a vivid course ). I am not a hero because of it. It's not part of my "lifestyle." And when I need to use it, I don't run the risk of randomly injuring or killing bystanders.

If you're intense mistrust of the populace at large is any indicator, for you, it's probably everyone with a driver's license or access to sharp and or heavy objects.

Getting a tad personal? Thanks for the free psych assessment.

While an encounter isn't particularly likely in the grand scheme of things, they nevertheless happen, and when they do, it pays to be prepared.

I have a better chance of being struck by lightning. Doesn't mean I wander around in a rubber suit every day.

You really don't think it's hypocritical for someone living in relative safety to tell those who don't that they can't protect themselves from danger?

Really, where is this warzone you seem to live in where you have to carry a gun every day to protect yourself from danger?

All those people who defend themselves with firearms every year, all the assault, robbery, rape and homicide victims that prevent themselves from becoming victims, they should all just have sucked it up and crossed their fingers hoping that they'd just get lucky.

Because they're completely incapable of defending themselves in any other way aside from a firearm, so they may as well just roll over and suck it up? Sorry, that's nothing more than bullshit rhetoric.

Doesn't take Einstein to see that that argument adds about as well you're average Sasquatch sighting.

I wish you'd read as much into your own argument as you apparently are into mine.

This discussion is completely pointless obviously. As it always is with this topic. I should have just copy pasted from the last gun thread and saved myself the headache.

Rapscallion

01-24-2011, 12:00 AM

Actually I would still think twice. Wtf are you doing at a political rally with a chainsaw?

Well, if it was advertised that the candidate was a zombie, then...

Rapscallion

Boozy

01-24-2011, 12:20 AM

Well, if it was advertised that the candidate was a zombie, then...

Oh, Raps. Everyone knows that melee weapons are a bad idea in the event of a zombie apocalypse. :D

Rapscallion

01-24-2011, 12:27 AM

Bad idea as first choice, but as ammunition dwindles (and by ammunition I mostly mean folded chairs) they become more acceptable.

Rapscallion

Boozy

01-24-2011, 12:30 AM

Good point. Shovels work well in a pinch, too.

Ipecac Drano

01-24-2011, 12:43 AM

*cough* Crowbar *cough*

Gravekeeper

01-24-2011, 01:00 AM

Are we talking undead zombies or infection zombies? Undead zombies sure, but infection zombies you need to keep at arm's length so definately shovel. It's got reach.

Wingates_Hellsing

01-24-2011, 01:20 AM

...*I'm* the one flying horribly off context? ><[quote]
Basically inevitable with all these damned quote-ladders, was trying to get away from that but to hell with it. If that's the way you want to go.

[quote]An RCMP cadet isn't precisely what I would call upper tier LE. The RCMP are our national police force and are more common than local police are as the RCMP cover all municipalities, even those that don't have or can't afford their own police force. So you're going to have RCMP anywhere you have police, which means you're going to have someone responding that has at least some relevant training. There is no place in Canada that has police that does not have RCMP, and when both are present they have integrated task forces to handle different special occasions.
So basically they're like the federal police down here, who are also all patrol officers i.e. meant more for dealing with emergent situations.

So yes, if a mass shooting occurs, someone, somewhere is going to have the training to deal with it and they'll be the one getting the call. I'm not sure which police force only sends its most undertrained, unexperienced members to deal with with such a scenario.
We're not talking about the people who are sent to deal with a situation, we're talking about the people who are caught in it. Regardless of how specially trained and professional a response team is, they are minutes away, in many cases as much as twenty to thirty minutes away. Same goes for firefighters and paramedics. Specialized response teams are all good and well, but you're best chance for surviving situations like these is if there are people in the immediate area who can do something. Time and again killing sprees are ended early, and violent crimes are stopped because the victims were fortunate enough for there to be someone, be it law enforcement, private security, or civilian with the tools, skills and will to do something.

But the only armed people I run into on a day to day basis are the aforementioned law enforcement agencies, which again, have 6 months training ( 12 for RCMP ). The entirety of which is not spent learning how to write parking tickets.
The entirety? no. The grand majority? yes. When you get right down to it, the amount of time spent on preparing police officers for active shooter scenarios and ongoing violent crime is a very small portion, more in the order of hours perhaps spread over a few days.

I said absolutely nothing about a security badge. You're the one that keeps bringing security guards up for some reason. And yes, it *does* make them more trustworthy and compentent, because they're trained to be. In a choice between you and the guy with a year's worth of training, guess who I'm going with?
By the looks of it it was a pretty accurate inference, again, you're making the mistake of interpreting my argument as being about the specialized personnel who are sent to these emergencies. You're blowing right past the fact that I'm not talking about special responders, or even first responders (LE generally sends every available unit to try and help while SWAT's getting their shit together. They understand that while the experts are ideal, getting even an amateur on-scene as quickly as possible can and does do a lot of good.) I'm talking about the people who are out and about who find themselves in these situations.

A small number yes, a number that managed to get through the filter designed to filter out bad apples and incompetent twats. A filter which has not been applied to the public at large.
If you think about it, the most substantial filters against police misconduct are even stronger as applied to civilians. Perhaps the single most important of which is just the sheer hassle involved. Between all the varying local ordnance and restrictions, to say nothing of the number of areas in which even a licensed concealed or open carrier cannot go, the amount of effort involved tends to weed out the uncommitted pretty fast. Add onto that the enormous weight of legal liability should a CC fuck up, if anything worse than that leveled towards law enforcement because they lack the sort of protections LE enjoys when shit hits the fan.
It therefore true that, training mandates and permits aside, CCW holders are already a group that's been thinned from the herd. Add those in and I'd say you've gotten well within the ballpark of refinement that basic LE training provides.

Again, that officer has more training than you and does this on a day to day basis. How is a gun owner an equal or superior option just because he has similar ardament?
First of all: not necessarily. For a relatively small amount of money any civilian can avail themselves of training equal to and even greater than the baseline required for LE status. Remember again, we're talking about CCW permit holders who are, due to a number of factors, a much different breed of person than the average gun owner.
Even so, there's really only three things one needs to have to make a difference:
-A working (aka basic) understanding of the situation, pretty easy to acquire.
-Proper equipment, the centerpiece of this debate, as without it, you're practically hamstrung.
-The will to act, probably the most important. By itself it can work out in some situations, such as the above titled incident. The more it's augmented by the other two, the better the outcome.

Yes, I would rise to the occasion, and you know what? I have training! Even if I didn't, I would still rise to the occasion, but I'd be lacking sorely needed knowledge. An officer is trained to try and control panic and control a situation. They're trained in crisis management, its their job. Your scenario seems to require that any present law enforcement wet itself and run away. Which is highly unlikely.
Knowledge is even easier to acquire than training. This is the information age, shouldn't be too hard. Your scenario requires that law enforcement be omnipresent, problem being that it isn't. LE is a very small sector of society and just by the law of averages shit's going to hit the fan when they're not around more than when they are. More so given that those who wish to do us harm go out of their way to make sure LE is nowhere to be seen when they strike. I'd point out that the heroes that saw the opening in Tuscon and took had no training either, as well as the armed civilian who arrived late. Yet they all rose to the occasion without any training whatsoever. A prime example if ever there was one that training is preferable, but far from required.

You're the one that said the Good Guys(tm) would have such ammo, but the Bad Guys(tm) would not. I only said if one side has it, you have to accept the possibility the other side will too.
Nowhere did I say that only good guys would have it, merely that it's what the good guys should be using. Again, in practical application the bad guys are either too cheap or too ignorant to select the better ammo. While some inevitably do, it's ultimately more important for the good guys to be properly outfitted than it is for the bad guys not to be, especially since they have a nasty tendency to defeat even the strictest disarmament measures.

The murderers and psychopaths that are, again, armed with equal tools by the same culture and mechanisms that arm you to supposedly resist them.
I like the 'supposedly'. As if armed resistance is not, by definition, resistance. But what's equally humerus is your casual dismissal of an extensive system dedicated to disarming murderers and psychopaths, both of whom again have a nasty tendency to arm themselves in spite of provisions against it, scarcity, etc.

Yeah, Gallup, those bastards, always inflating their polls to hell and back for.....some reason?
I would've imagined that by now it would be common knowledge that opinion polls need no tampering to be inaccurate. Guess, not.

Yeah, cept for the all those pesky acamedics that offer courses in critical thinking. Though to be fair, I question the quality of said practical education if you leave it rejecting evolution and thinking the sun revolves around the Earth. >.>
Yeah, solving math problems amply prepares you for critically observing anything.
By practical education, I refer to the skills and knowledge gained through life experience, which more than any academic field deals with critical thinking and problem solving. Hands-on skillsets that rely heavily on observing a situation, considering options, and choosing a course of action.
Your average person learns more about critical thinking during a rousing game of paintball than a history class.
Academics are all good and well, but they're just that, academic. Critical thinking as does pertain to history and math is an entirely different beast than critical thinking in terms of practical application, the latter of which is not dealt with at all in academic settings.

Hrmf, odd, guess that 373 hours RCMP cadets spent on problem solving skills and scenarios, the 75 hours on defensive tactics and risk assessment and 64 hours specifically on firearm usage, firearm decision making and judgement in scenarios where fire arms are involved is really writing parking tickets.

I guess if we look at police, wait, no, they're actually required to complete 8 and a half months of training in Canada. My bad, thought it was 6. Out of which, lets see, 5 of 34 weeks are spent learning to "write tickets" as it were.

Yeah, I'm still gonna take the Constable over you. -.-
You keep going back to parking tickets, and the RCMP which is anything but basic which is the point of debate here.
More to the point, you're again fallaciously equating the needs of being a police officer with the needs of a CCW holder. The latter of which, doesn't have to worry about the majority of things an officer of the law does. Arrest procedure, grab attempts, taking hostile suspects into custody, all that stuff is way outside the preview of civilian self-defense. All a civilian self-defense situation needs is a basic knowledge of proportional force and basic gun safety.
You're still assuming that you have the liberty of choosing who the people around you are when someone starts shooting. You don't, no one does. The Constable, while quite possibly preferable, is only as likely to be there as people like me are. You've faced with a decision of one or both, not either or, and the data is pretty conclusive in that both is the superior option.

Again, the possibility of ending up with Rambo or Bad Ass is magnified in a CCW holder as they have not undergone months and months of training. So there are tons of reasons to trust a police officer over a CCW holder. Sorry.

I don't know if you just have really really shitty cops down there or what to be so vehement about this.
Vehement? try realistic. Police officers are just as human as the rest of us. Some people just aren't cut out for it and the training quite often fails to eliminate them when it comes to practical application.
You keep going back to the months and months of training. As if all of it is directly relevant with LE and not CCW holders.
As you so helpfully pointed out, the minimum a purpose-trained police officer has in training time is a number of somewhat relevant weeks worth and a maximum of months and months of directly relevant training for those individuals who avail themselves of it voluntarily.
At the very worst a CCW holder has 0 weeks of hands on training, but in my experience even the lowest common denominators still have the equivalent of a few days worth of knowledge just by virtue of their own research leading up to acquiring the permit. However, CCW holders also have a maximum of months and months as well.

My point, one that seems to have been lost in the deluge, is that in both communities you have individuals who are ideal, damn near perfect, and less than ideal. (CCW holders and LE at large, that is) Given the choice you'd naturally want the better prepared individuals and more of them, but the fact of the matter is that even with the less ideal they're better than nothing and stand to make a contribution in addition to the ideal, so it's a good thing to have both as it increases the likelyhood that some one of them is immediately available.

Walking into a crowd with an assault rifle? Yes, that's irresponsible. End of story. If you can't grasp that, we truly have nothing to discuss. Which is, honestly, how pretty much every one of these gun debates seems to end between Team US and Team The Rest Of Us Stratching Our Heads.
Yeah, because assault rifles have magical minds of their own, and often go off all by themselves. What's more, they insidiously take over the minds of bystanders and incite them to turn into raving psychopaths at the drop of a hat.

Those are the prime examples of what people have told me their worried about (in humerous terms, anyway) and not only have neither of them come to pass, but it's the perfect example of the sort of irrational fear that leaves team pro gun scratching their heads. As much as anti-gunners like to blither on and on about how CCW holders are motivated only through irrational fear, their the ones who're content to trample all over a basic right practiced by a significant portion of the population, for the exact same reason.

As if the collective rest of the West even comes close to making up the sort of overwhelming majority they seem to think they do. Perhaps it's that the US isn't so arrogant as to believe that the world is some how different than it used to be, nor so self centered as to have forgotten how we got as far as we have.

Actually I would still think twice. Wtf are you doing at a political rally with a chainsaw?
If you're afraid that someone is going to randomly decide that the Texas Chainsaw massacre wasn't quite realistic enough for them just by virtue of having one and being near people, that's more than a little paranoid. As to what point they could be making? I don't know, something about logging, deforestation... use your imagination.

Actually, come to think of it, the anti-gunners who parade weapons about at their rallies are more worrying than the pro-gunners. Probably has something to do with the average anti-gunner's complete lack of gun safety knowledge:
http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m307/Vash113/anti-gun-politicians-democrat-republican-politics-obama-bush-demotivational-poster-1250003553-1.jpg

Wingates_Hellsing

01-24-2011, 01:21 AM

The fact they feel they need a gun to wander around in public. They may not be actually dangerous, but I'm going to err on the side of caution because this is a person that thinks they need a gun to wander around in public.
And what about those paranoid bastards who buy fire extinguishers? Obviously they're irresponsible nuts who light their homes on fire all the time.
Preparedness =/= Paranoia
You've said as much that you know the distinction, how about some execution?
By all means, err on the side of caution, just don't see how that necessitates throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I don't know what the hell is going on down there, but up here it's not the job of a security guard to deal with a lethal threat.
So armed security is, what, just for show?
I don't know what's going on up there, but down here we don't carry weapons we don't intend to use if we have to. Moreover, there's the idea that as a person there's a certain obligation to intervene in a bad situation provided you have what it takes to do so.

Actually up here yeah, security guards do what they do for the pay. Because its just a job. Its actually pretty good pay up here if you don't mind working off hours. Police officers up here make pretty good money too. 55k a year for the Vancouver PD for a 1st year constable. Thats the PD too, not the RCMP.
If anything that's a reason not to trust them to protect you. Last time I checked, people chose their professions because it's something they see as worth doing. If all it is to them is money, there's really no reason why they should do anything for you now is there?

CCW holders don't get paid, because they're not doing a job. I'm not sure how they got included in your sentence there.
The, part of the sentence where I talked about how they're doing it in their free time and of their own volition and stuff. Kinda hard to miss, really.

Bullshit. Every person that has chosen to carry a gun is not some sort of superhero. It's not the "right thing to do". You're essentially declaring yourself a vigilante now. It's not your job nor your responsibility, and frankly the mentality you're displaying *does* make me distrust you with a firearm.
Way to blow everything out of proportion. You're honestly telling me that when a police officer takes action to protect you from some threat, the only thing that legitimizes it is the fact that they're paid to do it. As if the cop who's about to blow away the junkie raping you is doing it for the $20 and not because it's the right thing to do, the reason he chose the job he did.

You're basically making the argument that anyone who takes it upon themselves to intervene on behalf of others is flawed and that the only reason why anyone should help someone in need is for the money. That right there is where this all falls apart.

Protecting the innocent from those who wish us harm, upholding law and order, helping people who need help, these are all noble things regardless of your profession. They're why police officers become police officers. But if I believe in all those things and choose to prepare myself to contribute to them it's suddenly insidious because I'm not being payed to do it.

Words cannot describe how backwards that is.

Also bullshit. Again, you're not a hero because you own a gun. I have first aid training all the way up to industrial where I'm trained to recover pieces of you ( and by god that's a vivid course ). I am not a hero because of it. It's not part of my "lifestyle." And when I need to use it, I don't run the risk of randomly injuring or killing bystanders.
Anyone who does good things is a good person. In extraordinary situations those good people become heroes. If saving someone's life, hell, even just helping to save someone's life isn't heroic, nothing is.
Moreover, there's plenty of situations in which poorly applied first aid can do more harm than good, doesn't mean we forbid people from trying their best until the experts arrive.

Getting a tad personal? Thanks for the free psych assessment.
You yourself used your distrust of the population at large as an argument. You can't then complain when I respond to that argument.

I have a better chance of being struck by lightning. Doesn't mean I wander around in a rubber suit every day.
A valid argument if compared to the prospect of perhaps wearing level 4 body armor everywhere and lugging around a SAW. The situations don't line up at all, as there's nothing you can really do for yourself once lightning strikes, no tool you can carry to deal with it once it's happened. In this case prevention is the only option, the same cannot be said for violent assault.

Really, where is this warzone you seem to live in where you have to carry a gun every day to protect yourself from danger?
South-central DC, the Bronx, more or less all of Detroit, etc. in the US. Going abroad, really anywhere in Israel or for that matter most of Africa, most of Cuba, that sort of thing.
The US has a unique problem with violence among so-called 'civilized' nations, but it's far from a unique problem in the world.

Because they're completely incapable of defending themselves in any other way aside from a firearm, so they may as well just roll over and suck it up? Sorry, that's nothing more than bullshit rhetorical.
No one wins a stabbing competition, nor for that matter can you outrun a bullet, or for that matter neither can most people outrun determined pursuers. Nowhere have I said that firearms are the only option, merely that their the pinnacle. Even as such there are situations so stir crazy that nothing at all with help. If they could just GTFO they would have done it, but that's all too often no more an option than blocking bullets with your face.

I wish you'd read as much into your own argument as you apparently are into mine.
Funny, I was about to say the exact same thing, funny, isn't it? I suppose the most civilized course of action between two groups like yours and mine where a fundamental disconnect is all but inevitable would be to just agree to disagree. You live your life your way, I live my life my way. If that were what your side proposed I'd be down with it, but nope, not good enough. We've all your way or the highway.

This discussion is completely pointless obviously. As it always is with this topic. I should have just copy pasted from the last gun thread and saved myself the headache.
I can't say this is the very best debate I've had on the topic, stuck as it was in a miasma of differing definitions, outlooks, and secondary opinions and so forth. As thick as the controversy is, it's far too important to give up on.

Andara Bledin

01-24-2011, 01:44 AM

I know, as I said though, they're out there *with* you and probably carrying more ammo. >.>
Considering I don't currently have a gun (don't want one while in an apartment), that is absolutely correct.

Of course, my last firearm was a muzzle loader, so while I had a ton of ammo for it, it wasn't particularly efficient, even when the powder was in pre-measured packets. :p

I find it amusing how for some the gun debate has a similar emotion-fueled base as a religious debate, and a similar 'one size fits all' mentality.

^-.-^

Gravekeeper

01-24-2011, 02:02 AM

Ok now you've jumped the shark the pic. What *decade* is that even from?

But you're still arguing that an extremely unlikely scenario could be possibly resolved ( without additional injury or loss of life ) if there was just a miracle gun hero or three somewhere in the crowd with perfect aim, great judgement and who had the foresight to pack hollow point ammunition today because dog gone it! You never know! This is a fantasy scenario. You're living every day like you're going to be struck like lightning, and convinced that unlike everyone else, *you* are made of rubber.

It therefore true that, training mandates and permits aside, CCW holders are already a group that's been thinned from the herd. Add those in and I'd say you've gotten well within the ballpark of refinement that basic LE training provides.

How so? In Arizona for example, you attend a general fire arm safety course, pay a fee, submit a finger print, 60 days later you get a permit if you're not a felon or insane. Yeah thats a hell of a filter. And since the permit really just allows you to zip up your jacket over said gun, its not exactly a factor in everyone else that could just have it out on their hip. Who have not gone had to go through this ardous legal gauntlet that supposedly filters out the twattery as effectively as 8 months of LE training.

Remember again, we're talking about CCW permit holders who are, due to a number of factors, a much different breed of person than the average gun owner.

They had to wait 60 days instead of 3? Much different breed, yes. Definately. >.>

But what's equally humerus is your casual dismissal of an extensive system dedicated to disarming murderers and psychopaths, both of whom again have a nasty tendency to arm themselves in spite of provisions against it, scarcity, etc.

The extensive system that kept it out of the hands of the Arizona shooter? Who was clearly bat shit insane for years before hand? Who armed himself by just walking into the store and buying it 3 days earlier?

I would've imagined that by now it would be common knowledge that opinion polls need no tampering to be inaccurate.

I wouldn've imagined that by now it would be common knowledge that opinion polls always allow for and often state the margin of error.

Yeah, solving math problems amply prepares you for critically observing anything.

.......you...have no idea what critical thinking is do you?

All a civilian self-defense situation needs is a basic knowledge of proportional force and basic gun safety.

We're not talking a self defence situation.

You're still assuming that you have the liberty of choosing who the people around you are when someone starts shooting. You don't, no one does. The Constable, while quite possibly preferable, is only as likely to be there as people like me are. You've faced with a decision of one or both, not either or, and the data is pretty conclusive in that both is the superior option.

Even if the stars align and lightning were to strike near me, I would consider you just as dangerous as the shooter, frankly. It doesn't matter what your intentions are. Someone started shooting, and you started shooting back. Now there's cross fire. Hopefully everyone knows not to run between you, or behind you, or behind him. In their panicked desperate attempts to escape in the confusion with gunshots going off in two different directions.

Given the choice you'd naturally want the better prepared individuals and more of them, but the fact of the matter is that even with the less ideal they're better than nothing and stand to make a contribution in addition to the ideal, so it's a good thing to have both as it increases the likelyhood that some one of them is immediately available.

Given the choice I wouldn't want any guns near me at all. Especially guns held by people overconfident in their ability to use said gun to save the day.

Yeah, because assault rifles have magical minds of their own, and often go off all by themselves. What's more, they insidiously take over the minds of bystanders and incite them to turn into raving psychopaths at the drop of a hat.

You *seriously* can't see how irresponsible that is? Seriously? By your logic the Arizona shooter could have wandered around in the crowd with a gun and anyone who noticed should have just gone "Oh, hey, I bet he's here to protect us!" and not "Oh shit! He he has a gun! Run for it!" which might have actually saved some lives.

But really, seriously. That pic is a shark jump. ;p

Gravekeeper

01-24-2011, 02:10 AM

And what about those paranoid bastards who buy fire extinguishers? Obviously they're irresponsible nuts who light their homes on fire all the time.
Preparedness =/= Paranoia

....did you seriously just equate a fire arm with a fire extinguisher? Yeeeaah there's no point talking to you about this in all blunt honesty.

I can't say this is the very best debate I've had on the topic, stuck as it was in a miasma of differing definitions, outlooks, and secondary opinions and so forth. As thick as the controversy is, it's far too important to give up on.

No its not, actually. Its an argument on the Internet. That sets its importance right around "rooster tit" level. It's also fire and water. So this is beyond pointless and certainly not important. ;p

I feel trapped in a particular XKCD comic and really should just stop.

BlaqueKatt

01-24-2011, 03:44 AM

the only thing I'm going to ad is that in my state WI, I can legally open carry a firearm. I don't, it stays at home(and locked), however I am a better shot than the "trained Law Enforcement" officers that only need one proficiency test and then less than 5 hours a year range time(with no proficiency rating-armed security guards have higher standards than LE here), as evidenced by the officer shooting at a suspect less than 10 feet away, out of 14 shots, none hit, from 10 feet-and people trust that rather than my ability to hit a target(human shaped) center body mass and headshots, 12 out of 14 shots at 50 feet because they're "trained"?

I cannot even own the following, they are illegal:
a collapsible baton
a kubaton
a taser
rubber bullets
pepper spray
Mace

so nothing at all that is non lethal is even an option for self-defense, I'd rather have a non lethal option, but my state says it's too dangerous, but I can carry a firearm, and apparently that's not as dangerous.

they still have not caught or have any leads on the murder that occurred less than 6 blocks from where I live, where the 911 call from the victim screaming for help while being stabbed (http://articles.cnn.com/2008-12-16/justice/grace.coldcase.zimmerman_1_serial-killer-fiance-joel-de-spain?_s=PM:CRIME), was ignored and not followed up on, until her fiance found her body and called 48 minutes later. My stepbrother was murdered, along with three of his friends. I had someone attempt to break into my apartment while I was sleeping, found the prybar embedded in the wooden window frame. I look off my back balcony and hey there's a halfway house for sex offenders-AWESOME! So yeah I'm a bit paranoid.

Wingates_Hellsing

01-24-2011, 03:46 AM

Ok now you've jumped the shark the pic. What *decade* is that even from?
The decade of funny.

But you're still arguing that an extremely unlikely scenario could be possibly resolved ( without additional injury or loss of life ) if there was just a miracle gun hero or three somewhere in the crowd with perfect aim, great judgement and who had the foresight to pack hollow point ammunition today because dog gone it! You never know! This is a fantasy scenario. You're living every day like you're going to be struck like lightning, and convinced that unlike everyone else, *you* are made of rubber.
It seems the further we get the more you resort to strawman fallacies. Nowhere did I claim that this particular scenario is likely to occur, nowhere did I claim that armed citizens are miracle warriors, that they had perfect aim or any of that. No one is, not even the highest-speed lowest-drag SWAT officer in history.

My position is that someone with the right tool, the right skills, a little knowledge and the will to act can save lives, happens every day. Sometimes the person in question is a cop, sometimes a soldier, a paramedic and sometimes just a regular person doing their best.

Believe it or not, and I'm guessing not, this exact scenario has actually happened a number of times. But oh-freaking-no, that doesn't count because of 'what if' this and 'what if' that. So far, neither of us has brought actual events into the argument besides the Tuscon shooting, yet you conveniently ignore that.

Furthermore, there's a subtle but important difference between living your life like something is bound to happen and living it prepared for something that might happen. Violent crime, multiple murders and other emergencies happen every day and when they do it pays to be prepared.

Besides, if something being extremely unlikely meant we shouldn't at all worry about it, why should we ban guns to try to prevent it? It's extremely unlikely! who cares?!

How so? In Arizona for example, you attend a general fire arm safety course, pay a fee, submit a finger print, 60 days later you get a permit if you're not a felon or insane. Yeah thats a hell of a filter. And since the permit really just allows you to zip up your jacket over said gun, its not exactly a factor in everyone else that could just have it out on their hip. Who have not gone had to go through this ardous legal gauntlet that supposedly filters out the twattery as effectively as 8 months of LE training.
And yet, CCW holders are five times less likely to commit violent crimes, and despite rising permit levels, none of the doomsday scenarios have come to pass. Your argument boils down to "Because it's not as much it counts for nothing."

Bullshit, it is exactly what you listed there, a number of things which, individually aren't much, but all together, plus the practical concerns is a hell of a lot more than nothing.

They had to wait 60 days instead of 3? Much different breed, yes. Definately. >.>
Because the printing, background checks, costs, statistics and philosophies are just made-up.
Is it really that hard to comprehend that when you go from a very general group definition to a much more specific one, one that entails a number of additional practical concerns and responsibilities to say nothing of applications, the type of people are going to change too?

The extensive system that kept it out of the hands of the Arizona shooter? Who was clearly bat shit insane for years before hand? Who armed himself by just walking into the store and buying it 3 days earlier?
No system is perfect, I've said as much already, you know, many many times. Which is exactly why we need to move forward with improving the system and not just sweeping it under the rug.
The primary fault here is a disconnect between firearms background checks and mental health databases. Something that numerous jurisdictions have done plenty to rectify and the rest need to get off their asses and do it. This is probably the single most important legislative step that would actually work towards preventing incidents like this, but it seems everyone is too busy jumping on the ban-wagon to think about pesky little things like real-beneficial results.

I wouldn've imagined that by now it would be common knowledge that opinion polls always allow for and often state the margin of error.
And yet they still admit that they're more a measurement of how much people are willing to express themselves than they are about sincerely held beliefs.

.......you...have no idea what critical thinking is do you?
"purposeful reflective judgment concerning what to believe or what to do."
Prove to me that problem solving doesn't qualify as judgment concerning what to do.

We're not talking a self defence situation.
Self Defense situations make up the grand majority of all defensive firearm uses and therefore outweigh any impact on mass killings. Self Defense situations are thus a reason not to disarm the public, which is the topic of debate here.

Even if the stars align and lightning were to strike near me, I would consider you just as dangerous as the shooter, frankly. It doesn't matter what your intentions are. Someone started shooting, and you started shooting back. Now there's cross fire. Hopefully everyone knows not to run between you, or behind you, or behind him. In their panicked desperate attempts to escape in the confusion with gunshots going off in two different directions.
Typical firefights last for a matter of seconds and involve the exchange of only a handful of rounds before one or both sides are incapacitated. The minimal amount of danger caused by the mere fact that shots are being fired for that amount of time pales in comparison to an extended execution spree. This is why cops bring guns with them to active shooter scenarios and ever since columbine many departments changed their doctrine from surround and secure to seek and engage.

You also discount entirely incidents in which intervention occurs at some point after the initial shots were fired, when any crowds have largely dispersed and a responder is more able to gain a valid angle of attack.

Given the choice I wouldn't want any guns near me at all. Especially guns held by people overconfident in their ability to use said gun to save the day.
No one claimed to be able to take the head off of a BG from 100 yards with a 9mm. At best this is an unfounded assumption.

You *seriously* can't see how irresponsible that is? Seriously? By your logic the Arizona shooter could have wandered around in the crowd with a gun and anyone who noticed should have just gone "Oh, hey, I bet he's here to protect us!" and not "Oh shit! He he has a gun! Run for it!" which might have actually saved some lives.
Every day thousands of armed civilians, off-duty law enforcement and undercover law enforcement walk among the general populace armed. And yet, only a fraction of a percent of people who carry weapons start shooting people, and most of them are breaking laws to do it anyway.

The fact of the matter is that a person with a gun is by that virtue no more likely to kill you than a person without one. Furthermore, even if concealed carry was illegal in that area, no one would've known so it's really a moot point anyway. You ban concealed carry and the only ones who're going to follow that rule are the ones on your side. Not exactly a winning strategy.

But really, seriously. That pic is a shark jump. ;p
Not really. It's the perfect example of how someone carrying a weapon responsibly is far less threatening than some douche waving a gun around with their finger on the trigger to make their point. The funny part is that it's the anti-gunners being irresponsible.

I see you're falling back on the classic "the internet doesn't matter" cop-out. I suppose that means the first amendment should be the next to go, because who needs free speech?

Note:
Fire Extinguisher = Tool to handle something dangerous, a fire, rarely used.
Defensive firearm = Tool to handle something dangerous, a violent attacker, rarely used.

Both of them cost money, both of them are for handling something before the 911 fellahs get there. I could also go into how both of them are heavy and made of metal, but firearms are actually pulling ahead there so fire extinguisher designers better get with the times or risk looking lazy by comparison :cool:

crashhelmet

01-24-2011, 04:08 AM

I cannot even own the following, they are illegal:
a collapsible baton
a kubaton
a taser
rubber bullets
pepper spray
Mace

so nothing at all that is non lethal is even an option for self-defense, I'd rather have a non lethal option, but my state says it's too dangerous, but I can carry a firearm, and apparently that's not as dangerous.

It's because in all of the many translations of the 2nd Amendment, no one has lobbied for "Arms" to include these items.

So people find loop holes. Those are brass knuckles/rings, it's a "Belt Buckle." That's not a kubaton, it's a "Key Chain"

crashhelmet

01-24-2011, 04:34 AM

I keep reading on and on about how legal Gun Owners are responsible and not the threat we have to worry about.

Then I see signs like This One (http://newsjunkiepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/912-TeaParty-DC-We-came-unarmed-this-time.jpg)
Tweets like This One (http://www.plunderbund.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Springboro-Tea-Party-Tweet.png)

And my 2 favorite signs, This One (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_XLsmYse0MCw/S6VUzwxxwmI/AAAAAAAAB50/fqwAUeHMuoM/s1600-h/TEA+PARTY+PROTEST!.jpg) and This One (http://mjcdn.motherjones.com/preset_16/bullet-ballot.jpg)

Gravekeeper

01-24-2011, 09:03 PM

I keep reading on and on about how legal Gun Owners are responsible and not the threat we have to worry about.

Rooster tits, remember. Rooster tits. There's not much point in this "discussion". Hell, the goal posts have already been moved. -.-

Wingates_Hellsing

01-24-2011, 11:59 PM

Rooster tits, remember. Rooster tits. There's not much point in this "discussion". Hell, the goal posts have already been moved. -.-

So sorry the issue is a complicated one, if it wasn't we wouldn't be having this "discussion." at all.

Maybe there'd be more of a point to debating this topic if fewer people didn't dismiss it as hopeless. :rolleyes:

crashhelmet

01-25-2011, 12:26 AM

So sorry the issue is a complicated one, if it wasn't we wouldn't be having this "discussion." at all.

Maybe there'd be more of a point to debating this topic if fewer people didn't dismiss it as hopeless. :rolleyes:

It's only complicated because too many people on both sides are too fearful and/or too stubborn to be reasonable.

Gravekeeper

01-25-2011, 01:17 AM

So sorry the issue is a complicated one, if it wasn't we wouldn't be having this "discussion." at all.

Maybe there'd be more of a point to debating this topic if fewer people didn't dismiss it as hopeless. :rolleyes:

Dude, really, in all honesty, what point is there in debating? You're completely adamant in your position, you're moving the goal posts, using rhetoric and wavering into the personal now and then. That's not a debate, it's just a headache.

Do you seriously think anyone in this thread is going to change their mind on anything? Nope! So ya, rooster tits. ( I need a rooster tit emoticon ).

Wingates_Hellsing

01-25-2011, 03:12 AM

Dude, really, in all honesty, what point is there in debating? You're completely adamant in your position, you're moving the goal posts, using rhetoric and wavering into the personal now and then. That's not a debate, it's just a headache.

Do you seriously think anyone in this thread is going to change their mind on anything? Nope! So ya, rooster tits. ( I need a rooster tit emoticon ).

I, personally, believe in the scientific method and apply it to as many of my opinions as I can, as best I can. I'd be perfectly willing to change my views on the impact of gun availability on violent crime rates were I to be given sufficient evidence in the form of qualified, peer-reviewed studies. I'd be happy to question my interpretation of the 2nd Ammendment were I to see a well argued decision from the Supreme Court, whose job it is to interpret constitutional law. I would consider the threat of things like crossfire and over-penetration to be significant if, in reality, they had proven themselves to be anything other than minimal. I'd be happy to discuss the idea of CCWs as applied to active shooter scenarios specifically if it weren't for the fact that the anti-gunner's proposed solution drags the entirety of self-defense along with it. I'd entertain the idea that my arguments are comparatively tainted by personal bias, over-emotionalism, intense mistrust, and even paranoia if those weren't the very things that I see strewn throughout anti-gun arguments.

In short, there's plenty of reasons to continue to believe what I believe, and the only thing that will change that is a set of reasons that are better supported and altogether stronger. This has not yet come to pass.

As it stands, poverty has been shown to be the single greatest indicator of violent crime, armed or otherwise. The supreme court ruled in support of an individual right to bear arms. Despite searching high and low, I couldn't find a single instance in which shots over-penetrated intended targets and seriously injured bystanders. To support a ban on firearms, all of the implications must be addressed. If anyone's overly emotional and paranoid it's the pundits who, following every tragedy, can't seem to keep themselves from dancing in the blood before it even hits the ground.

This thread's been going on for a little while, and plenty of words have been exchanged with only the smallest section of any of this actually seeing daylight. It ain't over till the fat lady sings, and she hasn't yet made it to the theater much less the stage.

Andara Bledin

01-25-2011, 06:02 AM

I'd be perfectly willing to change my views on the impact of gun availability on violent crime rates were I to be given sufficient evidence in the form of qualified, peer-reviewed studies.
Ditto.

So far, however, the vast majority of anti-gun sentiment is spoken from a position of fear, not one of knowledge.

As it stands, poverty has been shown to be the single greatest indicator of violent crime, armed or otherwise.
There's a study that some guy did of various refugee camps a while back.

Turns out, it's not poverty that can be found at the root of violence. Rather, it's the perceived disparity of wealth that is most likely to lead to violence.

If everybody in a camp were dirt poor, there would be little reason to be violent, because there is nothing to gain and no reason to be angry because everybody is in the same position.

If 80% of the people in a camp were poor, and 5% had most of the power, there was a lot more violence. Strangely, a good portion of that violence came from the 15% that were not poor, but not powerful.

^-.-^

Mytical

01-25-2011, 12:01 PM

We really need a name for this effect, but here is how it basically works. People see a gun law passed, and a few months later reports that violence/crime/etc has dropped. OOOO gun law MUST be responsible.

Forget that said violence and crime had been dropping in that area for years before said gun law, or that an influx of jobs/income/ or something else might be responsible. It HAS to be the gun law. Right now I am going to call it the 'logical fallacy' effect. Just for my amusement. Could it have played a part..absolutely, but to assume it was a 'magic' pill is just .. :confused:

Criminals do not operate by the law..that is why they are called criminals. Passing a law affects criminals as much as eating a hotdog affects carrots growth. Its putting your finger in a dam that is ready to collapse.

Are you ready to give up your rights so that the government can come in to your house, search everything you have, and thus get rid of all the guns in America? If not, then a gun law is a joke, and only criminals would have guns. It's a bit too little, too late.

Edit : People love to blame things/others/etc. Maybe one day taking personal responsibility will be the normal. Chances are I will have been taking a dirt nap for hundreds if not thousands of years by then..but a guy can dream.. right?

Greenday

01-25-2011, 12:09 PM

Do you seriously think anyone in this thread is going to change their mind on anything? Nope! So ya, rooster tits. ( I need a rooster tit emoticon ).

Fratching has changed my opinions on gun control.

Rapscallion

01-25-2011, 01:28 PM

You have my interest. In what way?

Rapscallion

Greenday

01-25-2011, 01:39 PM

You have my interest. In what way?

Rapscallion

Well, I used to basically think people don't even have a reason for needing guns. Now I know how insanely dumb that sounds.

Andara Bledin

01-25-2011, 04:17 PM

Well, I used to basically think people don't even have a reason for needing guns. Now I know how insanely dumb that sounds.
My boyfriend used to be anti-gun as well.

But after reading through and taking part in a number of gun debates on another forum and doing research himself in order to be informed while participating in gun debates, he now talks about learning how to handle a gun and getting one of his own.

^-.-^

Mikkel

01-25-2011, 05:16 PM

My boyfriend used to be anti-gun as well.

I'll admit that I understand the mentality of the "gunslingers" a bit better after what you wrote here (http://www.fratching.com/showpost.php?p=75781&postcount=7). No wonder you don't feel safe without being armed.
Have you ever been in Canada or Europe? Did you feel endangered because people there went around unarmed?

Andara Bledin

01-25-2011, 05:45 PM

I'm not actually armed. And I don't feel particularly unsafe.

However, I want the option to be able to even the playing field should that situation change.

I've actually been to Canada twice, the Vancouver area both times. Were I ever to leave the US (unlikely), I can see myself settling into southern British Columbia quite comfortably.

Also, another part of the gun debate that gets forgotten in regards to the Constitution is that part of the reason they wanted the people to be able to arm themselves was also to protect themselves from the government. And this is one of the many reasons governments like to keep their people unarmed; it's a form of oppression. It's really no burden when everything is going peachy, but if the government decides to overstep it's bounds, it can make all the difference in the world.

Anyone who cares to can find a plethora of quotes from a variety of well-regarded individuals that amount to just that. This quote from Jefferson is pretty plain and strait-forward:
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

^-.-^

Greenday

01-25-2011, 07:07 PM

Along with your quote, can't forget when the Russians or North Koreans take over.

Mikkel

01-25-2011, 07:48 PM

Along with your quote, can't forget when the Russians or North Koreans take over.

:D The Russians are capitalist now, their Mafia may try but not by invasion. I doubt that the North Koreans have resources to attack that far away.

Gravekeeper

01-25-2011, 09:02 PM

And this is one of the many reasons governments like to keep their people unarmed; it's a form of oppression. It's really no burden when everything is going peachy, but if the government decides to overstep it's bounds, it can make all the difference in the world.

This is another argument that honestly makes me shake my head. If it really came down to it, what do you think you're going to do against the government with small arms? Especially the US government? ( holy carp on that one with the gear they have ). Best you could hope for is an insurgency. Do you have any states with vast areas of uninhabited hills full of caves? >.>

Its completely implausible both for it to happen in the US and to be able to confront the military's hardware with anything save guerilla tactics. Which are effective, but more of an annoyance than any sort of step to realistically taking down the government. Its more likely you'd devolve into civil war than have any sort of Us vs Them between the government and the people. But even civil war is rather improbable.

It's just not a realistic scenario. And when it comes to world politics, arming civilians to destabilize Unapproved(tm) governments ( which was popular in the Middle East and Africa during the Cold War ) has had horrific results. Where do you think most of the groups causing trouble got the guns they're using on us to begin with?

You can't not draw parrallels between gun availability/gun culture and gun related violence. If the tool is availlable, it will be used and misused. More so if its culturally acceptable. That much is undeniable and even a brief glance at the many statistics and surveys done will tell you that much. Which is where the crux of the issue between both sides of the debate starts ( before evolving into a completely unsexy cat fight ).

I mean technically speaking, Vancouver has the highest rate of firearm related violent crime in all of Canada. That's it, we're the top. It doesn't get any "worse" than this. That said, Canada still has a firearm homicide rate 6 times that of England. 6 times! So think of how supposedly bad it is in Canada, and realise that's 6 x England. Which, for the record, you can't own shit in England for a firearm. Canada still lets you own rifles and shotguns. ( because BEARS ).

If you're wondering where the US sits, it's about 6 times that of Canada. >.>

It's really hard to get shot here.

BlaqueKatt

01-25-2011, 09:15 PM

This is another argument that honestly makes me shake my head. If it really came down to it, what do you think you're going to do against the government with small arms? Especially the US government? ( holy carp on that one with the gear they have ).

Armed populace of the US=160 million
US military forces=2 million
They're outnumbered about 80-1, I guess it is hopeless /sarcasm

Best you could hope for is an insurgency. Do you have any states with vast areas of uninhabited hills full of caves?

Missouri

crashhelmet

01-25-2011, 09:39 PM

I am pro-gun control, but not anti-gun. I guess you could call me "Anti-Specific Gun."

I believe that people should have the right to own a firearm for self defense or even sporting reasons, like hunting. However, there should be limits to those weapons. There's no reason a civilian needs to have military grade or fully-automatic weapons. There is no reason a civilian needs to have high capacity magazines or even certain types of ammunition.

Add in further restrictions of being convicted of any type of violent crime or found to have psychological disorders voids you of that right.

Add in required classes and certifications on an annual basis to ensure that the owner is still capable of owning the weapon.

the_std

01-25-2011, 09:42 PM

Armed populace of the US=160 million
US military forces=2 million
They're outnumbered about 80-1, I guess it is hopeless /sarcasm

This assumes a few things. That all 160 million armed Americans would rise up against the government (HIGHLY unlikely unless The Government was walking around shooting people point blank for no reason). It also assumes that all 160 million have enough training to actively resist your gigantic army. It also assumes that 160 million rifles, handguns and shotguns would be effective against the staggering array of death equipment your military can get its hands on. Which it simply wouldn't be.

An armed populace is just not an effective threat against a massive infrastructure and military mindset, like the one that the US harbors.

Gravekeeper

01-26-2011, 12:34 AM

An armed populace is just not an effective threat against a massive infrastructure and military mindset, like the one that the US harbors.

This ^

Numbers don't matter when you're working with modern military weapons. They flick a switch miles away and you die. I don't even mean just bombing you either. Smart weapons are a bitch. You owning an AK-47 isn't going to do you much good when a gunship flies a guided missile through a window into your house. Or a warship off shore levels your house, and just your house, from so far aware its not even a dot on the horizon. And this is only if they feel like following the Geneva Conventions mind you.

Best get to Missouri and pray. -.-

BlaqueKatt

01-26-2011, 01:05 AM

It also assumes that all 160 million have enough training to actively resist your gigantic army.
quite a few like myself are former military.

An armed populace is just not an effective threat against a massive infrastructure and military mindset, like the one that the US harbors.

ya know I seem to remember a few groups that thought that:
first that comes to mind is England during the revolutionary war-odds there were only 3(untrained civilians) to 1 british troop
Second is the US in a nice little skirmish that we lost in a tiny country called Vietnam.
third was the Russians that had their asses handed to them in Afghanistan.

Militiamen were lightly armed, had little training, and usually did not have uniforms. Their units served for only a few weeks or months at a time, were reluctant to go very far from home, and were thus generally unavailable for extended operations. Militia lacked the training and discipline of soldiers with more experience, but were more numerous and could overwhelm regular troops, as at the battles of Concord, Bennington and Saratoga, and the siege of Boston.

Wingates_Hellsing

01-26-2011, 02:18 AM

Come to think of it, outside support weapons, the Millitary doesn't have any need for fully automatic weapons either.

People go on and on about how devastating automatic fire is when really, outside a very small number of circumstances, it's just wasteful. It is far more efficient and just as deadly to pick your shots which is why the grand majority of the US Millitary's small arms go through entire tours without ever coming off of safe/semi.

IMO, when you get into the arena of "This gun makes sense but not that one, so go ahead and ban it." it's not only splitting hairs it's also missing the point. There are thousands of registered fully automatic firearms in the ownership of US civilians, which includes registered Drop-In Auto Sears (DIAS) compatible with -some- AR and AK etc. pattern weapons. Interestingly enough, none of them have been used in any violent crimes.

All of the automatic weapons in the hands of criminals are illegally modified from semi-auto derivatives. The process of which despite popular ignorance actually takes a substantial amount of knowledge and effort to perform in most cases. Honestly I don't know why they bother as not only does it incur cost (as the person performing this service sure as hell isn't going to do it for free) and provide dubious advantage, but the increase in fire rate of an automatic weapon over a quick trigger finger doesn't really amount to all that much.

The problem with restricting 'high-capacity' magazines is similar. Criminals that are found with them are basically always doing so not out of any preference so much as happenstance, and even so 95%-99% of firefights don't even come close to using the standard capacity. I'd be amenable to regulation on high-capacity magazines similar to the title2 regulations on transferring automatic weapons, SBSs, SBRs, and DDs, thing being that the people proposing the bans can't seem to make up their minds. One minute it's anything over 30, then it's anything over 10, then it's anything over 5 or detachable... it just never ends. A regulation that might make sense is a new provision of title 2, IE if you have a title 2 license you can pay the usual tax stamp and are held to the same requirements for a given number of magazines. Perhaps go by total collective rounds held, or a set number or whatever as long as it's based off of a model-dependent standard, like, whatever the factory-issued magazine holds for that model.

That would be reasonable, but I've yet to hear anything other than 'OMG!!! HIGH-CAPACITY CLIPS*!!!1!!!one!1! BAN THEM NOOOOOOW!' and 'YOU don't NEED them!'

Bullshit, I don't have to prove that I need them, you need to prove that their availability presents a significant threat to the public at large proportional to the proposed regulation. They're more dangerous for sure, but the available data indicates that any additional threat following from that is minimal. Probably because the vast majority of criminals don't select their weapons so much as grab anything that's available.

Also, an idea many people don't seem to come up with is this: what makes you think that, in the event that the government oversteps it's bounds and begins oppressing the population that every single soldier and police officer would be on the government's side?

*: They're magazines dammit! Magazines, say it with me!

crashhelmet

01-26-2011, 03:03 AM

I think we have to worry more about than just "criminals."

Feb. 2, 1996 Moses Lake, Wash.
Two students and one teacher killed, one other wounded when 14-year-old Barry Loukaitis opened fire on his algebra class.

Feb. 19, 1997 Bethel, Alaska
Principal and one student killed, two others wounded by Evan Ramsey, 16.

Oct. 1, 1997 Pearl, Miss.
Two students killed and seven wounded by Luke Woodham, 16, who was also accused of killing his mother. He and his friends were said to be outcasts who worshiped Satan.

Dec. 1, 1997 West Paducah, Ky.
Three students killed, five wounded by Michael Carneal, 14, as they participated in a prayer circle at Heath High School.

Dec. 15, 1997 Stamps, Ark.
Two students wounded. Colt Todd, 14, was hiding in the woods when he shot the students as they stood in the parking lot.

March 24, 1998 Jonesboro, Ark.
Four students and one teacher killed, ten others wounded outside as Westside Middle School emptied during a false fire alarm. Mitchell Johnson, 13, and Andrew Golden, 11, shot at their classmates and teachers from the woods.

April 24, 1998 Edinboro, Pa.
One teacher, John Gillette, killed, two students wounded at a dance at James W. Parker Middle School. Andrew Wurst, 14, was charged.

May 19, 1998 Fayetteville, Tenn.
One student killed in the parking lot at Lincoln County High School three days before he was to graduate. The victim was dating the ex-girlfriend of his killer, 18-year-old honor student Jacob Davis.

May 21, 1998 Springfield, Ore.
Two students killed, 22 others wounded in the cafeteria at Thurston High School by 15-year-old Kip Kinkel. Kinkel had been arrested and released a day earlier for bringing a gun to school. His parents were later found dead at home.

June 15, 1998 Richmond, Va.
One teacher and one guidance counselor wounded by a 14-year-old boy in the school hallway.

April 20, 1999 Littleton, Colo.
14 students (including killers) and one teacher killed, 23 others wounded at Columbine High School in the nation's deadliest school shooting. Eric Harris, 18, and Dylan Klebold, 17, had plotted for a year to kill at least 500 and blow up their school. At the end of their hour-long rampage, they turned their guns on themselves.

May 20, 1999 Conyers, Ga.
Six students injured at Heritage High School by Thomas Solomon, 15, who was reportedly depressed after breaking up with his girlfriend.

Nov. 19, 1999 Deming, N.M.
Victor Cordova Jr., 12, shot and killed Araceli Tena, 13, in the lobby of Deming Middle School.

Dec. 6, 1999 Fort Gibson, Okla.
Four students wounded as Seth Trickey, 13, opened fire with a 9mm semiautomatic handgun at Fort Gibson Middle School.

Feb. 29, 2000 Mount Morris Township, Mich.
Six-year-old Kayla Rolland shot dead at Buell Elementary School near Flint, Mich. The assailant was identified as a six-year-old boy with a .32-caliber handgun.

March 10, 2000 Savannah, Ga.
Two students killed by Darrell Ingram, 19, while leaving a dance sponsored by Beach High School.

May 26, 2000 Lake Worth, Fla.
One teacher, Barry Grunow, shot and killed at Lake Worth Middle School by Nate Brazill, 13, with .25-caliber semiautomatic pistol on the last day of classes.

Sept. 26, 2000 New Orleans, La.
Two students wounded with the same gun during a fight at Woodson Middle School.

Jan. 17, 2001 Baltimore, Md.
One student shot and killed in front of Lake Clifton Eastern High School.

March 5, 2001 Santee, Calif.
Two killed and 13 wounded by Charles Andrew Williams, 15, firing from a bathroom at Santana High School.

March 7, 2001 Williamsport, Pa.
Elizabeth Catherine Bush, 14, wounded student Kimberly Marchese in the cafeteria of Bishop Neumann High School; she was depressed and frequently teased.

March 22, 2001 Granite Hills, Calif.
One teacher and three students wounded by Jason Hoffman, 18, at Granite Hills High School. A policeman shot and wounded Hoffman.

March 30, 2001 Gary, Ind.
One student killed by Donald R. Burt, Jr., a 17-year-old student who had been expelled from Lew Wallace High School.

Nov. 12, 2001 Caro, Mich.
Chris Buschbacher, 17, took two hostages at the Caro Learning Center before killing himself.

Jan. 15, 2002 New York, N.Y.
A teenager wounded two students at Martin Luther King Jr. High School.

October 28, 2002 Tucson, Ariz.
Robert S. Flores Jr., 41, a student at the nursing school at the University of Arizona, shot and killed three female professors and then himself.

April 14, 2003 New Orleans, La.
One 15-year-old killed, and three students wounded at John McDonogh High School by gunfire from four teenagers (none were students at the school). The motive was gang-related.

April 24, 2003 Red Lion, Pa.
James Sheets, 14, killed principal Eugene Segro of Red Lion Area Junior High School before killing himself.

Sept. 24, 2003 Cold Spring, Minn.
Two students are killed at Rocori High School by John Jason McLaughlin, 15.

March 21, 2005 Red Lake, Minn
Jeff Weise, 16, killed grandfather and companion, then arrived at school where he killed a teacher, a security guard, 5 students, and finally himself, leaving a total of 10 dead.

Nov. 8, 2005 Jacksboro, Tenn.
One 15-year-old shot and killed an assistant principal at Campbell County High School and seriously wounded two other administrators.

Aug. 24, 2006 Essex, Vt.
Christopher Williams, 27, looking for his ex-girlfriend at Essex Elementary School, shot two teachers, killing one and wounding another. Before going to the school, he had killed the ex-girlfriend's mother.

Sept. 27, 2006 Bailey, Colo.
Adult male held six students hostage at Platte Canyon High School and then shot and killed Emily Keyes, 16, and himself.

Sept. 29, 2006 Cazenovia, Wis.
A 15-year-old student shot and killed Weston School principal John Klang.

Oct. 3, 2006 Nickel Mines, Pa.
32-year-old Carl Charles Roberts IV entered the one-room West Nickel Mines Amish School and shot 10 schoolgirls, ranging in age from 6 to 13 years old, and then himself. Five of the girls and Roberts died.

Jan. 3, 2007 Tacoma, Wash.
Douglas Chanthabouly, 18, shot fellow student Samnang Kok, 17, in the hallway of Henry Foss High School.

April 16, 2007 Blacksburg, Va.
A 23-year-old Virginia Tech student, Cho Seung-Hui, killed two in a dorm, then killed 30 more 2 hours later in a classroom building. His suicide brought the death toll to 33, making the shooting rampage the most deadly in U.S. history. Fifteen others were wounded.

Sept. 21, 2007 Dover, Del.
A Delaware State Univesity Freshman, Loyer D. Brandon, shot and wounded two other Freshman students on the University campus. Brandon is being charged with attempted murder, assault, reckless engagement, as well as a gun charge.

Oct. 10, 2007 Cleveland, Ohio
A 14-year-old student at a Cleveland high school, Asa H. Coon, shot and injured two students and two teachers before he shot and killed himself. The victims' injuries were not life-threatening.

Feb. 8, 2008 Baton Rouge, Louisiana
A nursing student shot and killed two women and then herself in a classroom at Louisiana Technical College in Baton Rouge.

Feb. 11, 2008 Memphis, Tennessee
A 17-year-old student at Mitchell High School shot and wounded a classmate in gym class.

Feb. 12, 2008 Oxnard, California
A 14-year-old boy shot a student at E.O. Green Junior High School causing the 15-year-old victim to be brain dead.

Feb. 14, 2008 DeKalb, Illinois
Gunman killed five students and then himself, and wounded 17 more when he opened fire on a classroom at Northern Illinois University. The gunman, Stephen P. Kazmierczak, was identified as a former graduate student at the university in 2007.

Gravekeeper

01-26-2011, 04:12 AM

quite a few like myself are former military.

...and what? That makes you immune to tactical strikes? >.>

ya know I seem to remember a few groups that thought that: first that comes to mind is England during the revolutionary war-odds there were only 3(untrained civilians) to 1 british troop

Irrelevant. You can't possible think military technology then has any bearing on what we have now. You're not going to *see* a soldier to fight him. You're going to get picked off by a drone. ;p

Second is the US in a nice little skirmish that we lost in a tiny country called Vietnam.

Not a domestic war for starters. You're not trying to support troops across oceans. They're already all here, ready to fight you, with all their gear. Second of all, the US "lost" yeah, but military and civilitian casualties inflicted were incredible. Third of all, the US was one of several armies in Vietnam and it was not the largest ( South Vietnam had more troops than you did ). Fourthly, the US suffered 59,878 KIA and MIA. North Vietnam and the Viet Cong suffered 1,176,000.

So your point is totally irrelevant, sorry.

Russians that had their asses handed to them in Afghanistan.

Yet again, not a domestic war. Yet again, Russia lost 14,453 vs the Mujahideen's 1 million plus and again civilian casualties numbered at least 600,000. Yet again, your point does not stand.

AdminAssistant

01-26-2011, 04:56 AM

Ah, but crash, if only the teachers had been armed, they could have engaged in a firefight with the shooters and everyone would have been saved! Or, more likely, would have injured more students in the crossfire.

Wingates_Hellsing

01-26-2011, 05:03 AM

@Crashhelmet:
Violent crime is by a gargantuan margin more of a problem than mass-killings, and therefore any impact of a given approach on violent crime is more important than the impact on mass-killings. Both of which have been going down across the board and quite independently to gun regulation or lack thereof.

That said, that's a semi-impressive list of anecdotes about criminals killing people with guns, I could drum up equal lists of criminals killing people with edged weapons, blunt objects or simply by beating them to death. The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.

@Gravekeeper:
You seriously think that every enemy killed in Iraq and Afghanistan was killed by UAVs? Air strikes are all good and well, but outside relatively limited AC130 and UAV strikes on established hostile strongholds, there has to be boots on the ground as well. In order to secure territory you need near-complete ground dominance and you can't get that with aircraft.

Domestic wars are also more difficult for a variety of reasons. Perhaps first and foremost being that government forces will be actively engaged in destroying the labor and infrastructure that enabled them to operate in the first place. innumerable vital facilities will essentially be in hostile territory that aren't set up for it (mostly intelligence and supply centers.) The industrial apparatus that makes modern armies possible will most likely grind to a halt in the turmoil.

Ah, but crash, if only the teachers had been armed, they could have engaged in a firefight with the shooters and everyone would have been saved! Or, more likely, would have injured more students in the crossfire.
Again, while on paper a valid concern, it hasn't been found to be the truth. Armed resistance, even in cases where numerous shots are fired, has consistently failed to produce these results.
Armed resistance has and continues to save lives and instead of doing anything to prove otherwise, all you can come up with is a lame 'what if' that supposedly is 'most likely'? On what do you base this?

Government forces will most likely be compromised to an incredible degree as the people their fighting against are essentially the same people working for them. Just by starting the war the government would lose a number of units and many more would be combat ineffective and that's just a civilian-driven rebellion, a military coup could easily take place instead of/in addition to a civilian rebellion.

All in all, by the end of it the military would be badly depleted, the infrastructure and workforce would be devastated and it would be years before the resulting insurgency could be eliminated. That is what makes the possibility of an armed overthrow of the government a deterrent far more than the small chance that they would lose. The government therefore stands to lose far, far more than it stands to gain be instigating a situation like this.

crashhelmet

01-26-2011, 05:24 AM

Wingates_Hellsing

01-26-2011, 06:00 AM

To quote my opposition.
As expected, you're missing my point.

All of your posts have been about how we need to let the people be armed because the criminals are going to be armed. I just showed you 43 separate instances within 12 years and 12 days where it was not a matter of worrying about the criminal element being armed. These were all crimes committed with legally owned weapons by by the people that owned them. If they didn't own them, their families did and they had full access to them.
The second these people decided to kill someone to say nothing of any act towards achieving it these people became part of the criminal element. 43 instances in 12 years? drops in the homicide barrel. How many gang members kill people each year? How many rapists? How many people are killed by things other than guns?

These were instances where one or more people attacked and killed another person(s). Career-criminal or not, guns or no guns, people attack and kill other people every day, and every day potential victims save themselves by fighting back, the better armed they are, the more likely they are to succeed.

Nothing any of us can do will stop murderers from being murderers, we can't recognize bad people on sight. The best any of us can hope to accomplish is to recognize that something bad is about to happen, and when it does, take action. Every human being has a right to prepare themselves to do exactly that.

No law will change this. No amount of good intentions will alter it. Like it or not, when faced with someone or something that is trying to end your life you have two options: fight or flight. There are no guarantees, and the cops are ten minutes away. Who are you to force people to choose only one just because you aren't comfortable with the other?

Greenday

01-26-2011, 07:24 AM

No law will change this. No amount of good intentions will alter it. Like it or not, when faced with someone or something that is trying to end your life you have two options: fight or flight. There are no guarantees, and the cops are ten minutes away. Who are you to force people to choose only one just because you aren't comfortable with the other?

This is basically the biggest argument that has made me more in favor of guns.

Vash113

01-26-2011, 07:35 AM

Alright well I've decided I can't let Wingates have all the fun here so I've decided to jump in and I'm bringing a slew of actual data with me.

First and foremost I will point to one of the best sources and research minds on the subject, Gary Kleck. You can find a full and complete essay of his data, conclusions and arguments here (http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck2.html).

To simplify things I'll post here some quotes and data from his article:

"At least 12 national and 3 state-wide surveys have asked probability samples of the general adult population about defensive gun use. The surveys differ in many important respects. The two most sophisticated national surveys are the National Self-Defense Survey done by Marc Gertz and myself in 1995 and a smaller scale survey done by the Police Foundation in 1996."

"The National Self-Defense Survey indicated that there were 2.5 million incidents of defensive gun use per year in the U.S. during the 1988-1993 period. This is probably a conservative estimate, for two reasons."

"The authors concluded that defensive uses of guns are about three to four times as common as criminal uses of guns. The National Self-Defense Survey confirmed the picture of frequent defensive gun use implied by the results of earlier, less sophisticated surveys.

A national survey conducted in 1994 by the Police Foundation and sponsored by the National Institute of Justice almost exactly confirmed the estimates from the National Self-Defense Survey. This survey's person-based estimate was that 1.44% of the adult population had used a gun for protection against a person in the previous year, implying 2.73 million defensive gun users."

"Most uses of guns for either criminal or defensive purposes are less dramatic or consequential than one might think. Only 3% of criminal gun assaults involves anyone actually being wounded, even nonfatally, and the same is true of defensive gun uses."

"Data from the National Self-Defense Survey indicate that no more than 8% of the 2.5 million annual defensive gun uses involved a defender who claimed to have shot their adversaries, or about 200,000 total."

"Nonfatal gun woundings are far more frequent than fatal shootings. In 1985 Cook reviewed data that indicate that about 15% of assault-linked gunshot wounds known to the police are fatal, implying a ratio of about 5.67 (85/15) reported nonfatal assaultive gun woundings to each fatal one. Assuming the same applies to legal civilian defensive shootings, there were between 6,300 and 15,300 reported nonfatal, legally permissible woundings of criminals by gun-armed civilians in 1990. Combining the defensive killings and nonfatal woundings, there are about 7,700 to 18,500 reported legal shootings of criminals a year, which would be less than 1% of all defensive gun uses."

"A 1989 national survey found that 27% of gun owners have a gun mainly for protection, and 62% said that protection from crime was at least one of the reasons they owned guns. This translates into about 16 million people in 1993 who had guns mainly for protection, and about 36 million in 1993 who had them at least partly for protection.

Further, many gun owners, and almost certainly a majority of those who own guns primarily for protection, keep a household gun loaded. The 1989 survey found that 24% of gun owners always keep a gun loaded, and another 7% had a gun loaded at the time of the interview although they did not do so all the time, for a total of 31%. Guns were most commonly kept in the bedroom, where they would be ready for nighttime use."

"A December 1989 CNN/Time national survey of 605 U.S. gun owners asked the following question: "Does having a gun in your house make you feel more safe from crime, less safe, or doesn't it make any difference?" Of the gun owners, 42% felt more safe, 2% felt less safe, and the rest said it made no difference. Results were virtually identical in a May 1994 survey for U.S. News and World Report. When asked "Overall, do you feel comfortable with a gun in your house or are you sometimes afraid of it?," 92% of gun owners said they were comfortable, 6% were sometimes afraid, and 2% were not sure.

In sum, most gun owners, including many who do not even have a gun for defensive reasons, feel comfortable with guns, feel safer from crime because of them, and believe their guns actually do make them safer."

"An August, 1994 Gallup poll asked: "Suppose a law were passed which you were certain would remove all handguns from the possession of all citizens other than the police. Would you feel more safe, less safe, or wouldn't it make any difference?" While 32% said they would feel more safe, 41% said they would feel less safe, and the remainder felt it would make no difference. Since there are more who would feel less safe than who would feel more safe, the net effect on the population as a whole of eliminating guns would be to make the population feel less safe."

"National Crime Victimization Survey estimates indicate that 83% of Americans will, sometime over the span of their lives, be a victim of a violent crime, all of which by definition involve direct confrontation with a criminal. Although it cannot be stated what share of these incidents will transpire in a way that would allow the victim to actually use a gun, it is clear that a large share of the population will experience a violent victimization."

"Incidents in which householders shoot family members mistaken for burglars and other criminals have occurred, but they are extremely rare. Studies indicate that fewer than 2% of fatal gun accidents involve a person accidentally shooting someone mistaken for an intruder. With 1409 fatal gun accidents in 1992, this implies that there are fewer than 28 incidents of this sort annually. Compared with about 2.5 million annual defensive uses of guns, this translates into about a less than 1-in-90,000 chance of a defensive gun use resulting in this kind of accident."

"In the 1979-1985 National-Crime-Victimization-Survey sample, it was possible to identify crime incidents in which the victim used a gun for protection and lost a gun to the offender(s). At most, 1% of defensive gun uses resulted in the offender taking a gun away from the victim. Even these few cases did not necessarily involve the offender snatching a gun out of the victim's hands. Instead a burglar might, for example, have been leaving a home with one of the household's guns when a resident attempted to stop him using another household gun. Thus, the 1% figure probably represents an upper limit."

And now Gleck's own summary of his article's major points:

"Defensive gun uses by crime victims are three to four times more common than crimes committed with guns;

Victim gun use is associated with lower rates of assault or robbery victim injury and lower rates of robbery completion than any other defensive action or doing nothing to resist;

Serious predatory criminals perceive a risk from victim gun use that is roughly comparable to that of criminal-justice-system actions, and this perception may influence their criminal behavior in socially desirable ways.

A deterrent effect of widespread gun ownership and defensive use has not been conclusively established, any more than it has been for activities of the legal system. Given the nature of deterrent effects, it may never be convincingly established. Nevertheless, available evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that civilian ownership and defensive use of guns deters violent crime and reduces burglar-linked injuries.

Economic injustice, a history of racism, and other factors have created dangerous conditions in many places in America. Police cannot realistically be expected to provide personal protection for every American, and indeed are not even legally obliged to do so. Although gun ownership is no more an all-situations, magical source of protection than the police, it can be a useful source of safety in addition to police protection, burglary alarms, guard dogs, and all the other resources people exploit to improve their security. These sources are not substitutes for one another. Rather, they are complements, each useful in different situations. Possession of a gun gives its owner an additional option for dealing with danger. If other sources of security are adequate, the gun does not have to be used; but where other sources fail, it can preserve bodily safety and property in at least some situations.

People sympathetic toward gun control yet skeptical about its likely impact sometimes note that although a world in which there were no guns would be desirable, it is also unachievable. The evidence raises a more radical possibility--that a world in which no one had guns would actually be less safe than a hypothetical one in which nonaggressors had guns and aggressors did not.

If gun possession among prospective victims tends to reduce violence, then reducing such gun possession is not, in and of itself, a social good. To disarm noncriminals in the hope that this might indirectly help reduce access to guns among criminals is a very high-stakes gamble, and the risks will not be reduced by pretending that crime victims rarely use guns for self-defense."

I would also point you to John Lott's article here (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/01/14/arizona-shootings-gun-violence-research-facts-vs-new-york-times/).

His most pertinent point I think is thus:

"Of all the multiple victim shootings around the country in public schools, the Appalachian Law School, on city streets, churches, or in malls that have been stopped law-abiding citizens with concealed handguns, none, not a single one has resulted in innocent bystanders being shot. Indeed, rarely do the citizens with the concealed handguns actually pull the trigger, simply brandishing the gun stops the attack. Permit holders do not endanger others."

Next we move to the National Rifle Assossiation's news podcast. The podcast features a segment titled Hero of the Day about individuals who have successfully used firearms for self-protection. There are currently 197 such video segments, several of which contain more than one incident of defensive gun use. Here (http://nranews.com/#/nranews) is a link to the NRA News blog.

For more information on the subject I direct readers to the blog of the renowned and highly respected Massad Ayoob (http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/). A decorated police officer and experienced practitioner of concealed carry on the job and off he is a major proponent and expert in the area of Gun Rights. He is also among the most frequently called upon experts in the area of self-defense in the nation.

Lastly I will point everyone to the youtube channel of acting Air Force Pilot nutnfancy, particularly his video on The Concealed Carry Protocol (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ei8OK4WdoW0).

nutnfancy is an experienced military veteran, gear tester and gun owner with a great many videos on the subject of gun rights and the philosophies of gun ownership. For all those who think avid gun rights advocates are all crazy yahoo hicks his videos might well widen some perspectives and change some minds.

As for me personally, I live in a very low crime area and have no real need or reason to protect myself from anything other than drunk college students, but I nevertheless am an avid proponent of Constitutional Rights and acknowledge the needs and concerns of others who do not live in such a priviledged environment. The 2nd Ammendment gives all Americans the right to bear arms and nearly 60 Million of us choose to do so. I would no more wish to see that right violated than our right to free speech, equality under the law or freedom of religion.

Irrational fear of an inanimate object of metal and plastic is no justification to trample over our rights as American Citizens.

Besides, as Wingates said, Cops do not really protect us from crimes that are in progress, they merely respond to crimes after they have happened. When it is time for fight or flight I'd much rather be able to fight. Studies have shown it is simply more effective and less likely to result in injury or loss of property and frankly a gun is the best way to go about it.

Wingates_Hellsing

01-26-2011, 07:46 AM

Vash, this was supposed to be a couple hundred posts worth of poking anti-gunners with a stick! why bring all your logic and evidence!?! /sarcasm

On a more serious note, I'd also like to point people towards some more of nutnfancy's excellent productions:
"Close to Engage" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oH3GV7EmzI4) "The Sheepdog Concept" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OW8BZ7pRt28) and "Dangerous Things" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dE4UgY7lgI)

EDIT:
He also has a number of great backpacking videos such as "Where the Air is Thin" (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=where+the+air+is+thin&aq=f)
Tactical shooting videos such as "Sledgehammer" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqZWVwPWNEc)
and gun/gear reviews such as his review of the Kel-Tec PF-9 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNRbkOdUgms) and the Condor Softshell Jacket (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vf7JgVasyhY)
You'know, for those so inclined :)

protege

01-26-2011, 02:52 PM

"Of all the multiple victim shootings around the country in public schools, the Appalachian Law School, on city streets, churches, or in malls that have been stopped law-abiding citizens with concealed handguns, none, not a single one has resulted in innocent bystanders being shot. Indeed, rarely do the citizens with the concealed handguns actually pull the trigger, simply brandishing the gun stops the attack. Permit holders do not endanger others."

I have to agree with that. Take the average gang-land shooting. These assholes simply spray the entire area with bullets. They simply either don't know how to handle a firearm, or don't care that they'll take someone else out.

As for me personally, I live in a very low crime area and have no real need or reason to protect myself from anything other than drunk college students, but I nevertheless am an avid proponent of Constitutional Rights and acknowledge the needs and concerns of others who do not live in such a priviledged environment.

I too live in a very low crime area. We've had one murder in the past 25 years and yes, I do know where it happened. From what I understand, the guy got promoted at work...over several people who didn't like him. One of them, broke into his house, and surprised him when he got home. He was shot and killed. Still, crime in the area doesn't live in a vacuum--we've seen a steady increase because of the Section 8 complex nearby. Those assholes have been breaking into local houses...and yes, several of my neighbors are armed.

Besides, as Wingates said, Cops do not really protect us from crimes that are in progress, they merely respond to crimes after they have happened. When it is time for fight or flight I'd much rather be able to fight. Studies have shown it is simply more effective and less likely to result in injury or loss of property and frankly a gun is the best way to go about it.

But, guns aren't always available. Back in '94, my grandmother was in a serious auto accident. She was in the hospital, and I was living with her while going to college. One night, someone attempted to break into the house :eek: because they thought it would be an easy score. Little did they know that I heard it, and wasn't going to let it happen. I grabbed the nearest thing I could find (a pitchfork), went after the son of a bitch...chasing him into the darkness.

Had I called the cops, they would have taken their good old time getting there. Rural area, with the nearest police department being the state police 5 miles away. I knew that they'd show up about 10-15 minutes later, and if the train was at the crossing at Route 218, they'd be even later.

PepperElf

01-26-2011, 04:03 PM

As covered in other threads as nauseum, there's a far easier availability of guns in the US than the UK. Hop over the state or county border and just bring it in.
that might be because the UK is an island. :)

it's much easier to cross state borders than it is to cross UK borders ;)

Gravekeeper

01-26-2011, 06:33 PM

You seriously think that every enemy killed in Iraq and Afghanistan was killed by UAVs?

That's not what I said. This is why I stopped trying to argue with you.

Domestic wars are also more difficult for a variety of reasons. <snip>

We're not honestly talking a realistic scenario. I already pointed out it was much more likely to devolve into a quagmire of civil war. BlaqueKatt is the one that brought up a straight up Us vs Them where both sides take perfectly aligned teams. If conflict were to seriously break out in the US, it wouldn't be between the people and the government + military. As inevitably many in the military would defect, equipment and facilities would be seized, and it would be a gigantic clusterfuck without clearly marked combatants.

The industrial apparatus that makes modern armies possible will most likely grind to a halt in the turmoil.

You are correct, this would be an inevitable eventuality though for more reasons then you indicate. But a lot of damage is going to get done before the military runs through its stockpiles and BlaqueKatt didn't specify what side non-military forces such as defense contracters and "security firms" are going to fall on.

Ironically, much of the damage would probably be done by Canada cutting off trade with the US.

All in all, by the end of it the military would be badly depleted, the infrastructure and workforce would be devastated and it would be years before the resulting insurgency could be eliminated.

But again, we're not talking why the government shouldn't attack. We're talking BlaqueKatt's Us vs Them scenario. Yeah, you would get an insurgency, but it wouldn't be an insurgency that has a civilian population to hide behind or amongst as the civilian population in this scenario has been declared the enemy. Which is the heart of the problem with effectively dealing with a group such as the Taliban in Afghanistan.

First and foremost I will point to one of the best sources and research minds on the subject, Gary Kleck.

Ignoring the fact Gary has a pretty blatant agenda, and this study is over a decade old and at points he uses data over 20-30 years old, and thus this entire study is woefully out of date. And that his study, and the entire topic of defensive gun use is a massively conflicted shitstorm between several different studies and universities that squabbled over it for years. And that your second reference, John Lott, can't produce any of the survey data he used, his sample sizes were too small and that he use to write phony reviews on Amazon some of which bash your first reference, Gary... >.>

First of all, of course you're going to have a lot of defensive gun use. As I said earlier, if the tools are available, they will be used. And if the culture embraces, even applauds their use, damn straight they're going to be whipped out whenever possible.

The problem is they will be used by everyone. Again, you have more defensive gun use than criminal use? Ok, but you still have far more criminal use than countries with a lower rate of firearm ownership, availability and/or stricter gun control laws too. Its an escalating cycle.

I'm not even going to touch his study & summary too be honest. I read it and started writing up a big ass discussion, but there's not much point is there? His study is outdated, criticized, debated, makes leaps of logic to support his view and is just one of many in a larger academic conflict between several universities over the entire topic.

As for John, he can't even produce the original survey data he supposedly used for peer review and when he repeated the study, his sample size was too small to produce accurate results.

bara

01-26-2011, 07:51 PM

I dont think we need more legislation for gun control. I just think we need to actually enforce what we do have.

You know.. do silly things like have more/better trained police actually out patrolling areas that are more likely to have crimes committed that need to be stopped rather than working as revenue generators for cities/townships/counties by writing tickets for people commiting victimless crimes so they can meet a quota... it says PROTECT and SERVE. Not collect and serve.

The Arizona shooting was a tragedy. But this guy was a nut job that just cracked. He probably would have managed to get a gun and shoot people no matter how many laws get passed.

To that end though. I dont think I would mind if hand guns were banned altogether as seriously.. they only have one purpose.

You cant go deer hunting with a glock. Shoot bambi with a pistol and hes just going get mad and kick your ass.

Wingates_Hellsing

01-26-2011, 08:36 PM

That's not what I said. This is why I stopped trying to argue with you.
*ahem*
You're not going to *see* a soldier to fight him. You're going to get picked off by a drone. ;p
That's what you said, right there, so unless you have something to actually refute my conclusion...

We're not honestly talking a realistic scenario. I already pointed out it was much more likely to devolve into a quagmire of civil war. BlaqueKatt is the one that brought up a straight up Us vs Them where both sides take perfectly aligned teams. If conflict were to seriously break out in the US, it wouldn't be between the people and the government + military. As inevitably many in the military would defect, equipment and facilities would be seized, and it would be a gigantic clusterfuck without clearly marked combatants.
So basically you're agreeing with me. okay.

You are correct, this would be an inevitable eventuality though for more reasons then you indicate. But a lot of damage is going to get done before the military runs through its stockpiles and BlaqueKatt didn't specify what side non-military forces such as defense contracters and "security firms" are going to fall on.
Probably because there's no way of knowing, really, but since they're technically civilians they'd more likely than not side with civilians in more cases than the gov if they sided with anyone at all.

Ironically, much of the damage would probably be done by Canada cutting off trade with the US.
I probably wouldn't sell to people who're shooting at each other either, they're preoccupied and your merchandise ends up with all these holes...

But again, we're not talking why the government shouldn't attack. We're talking BlaqueKatt's Us vs Them scenario. Yeah, you would get an insurgency, but it wouldn't be an insurgency that has a civilian population to hide behind or amongst as the civilian population in this scenario has been declared the enemy. Which is the heart of the problem with effectively dealing with a group such as the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Actually we are talking about why the government shouldn't attack, most of the power behind a deterrent is the creation of a scenario where the deterred action becomes a bad idea/worse idea than before.

Ignoring the fact Gary has a pretty blatant agenda,
Not really, his conclusions are pretty consistently derived from the data, and unless you can point to an instance in which he exercises a bias this is a non-argument at best.

and this study is over a decade old and at points he uses data over 20-30 years old,
I see no reason why the same study would find anything different now than it did then especially since, as you so helpfully pointed out, actual hard data on this area is pretty hard to find. So you take what you can get.

and thus this entire study is woefully out of date.
Possibly, as with all things. But in the end, all of the data we've got indicates that the idea of gun control is fallacious and the concept of self defense via firearms is very well grounded. Unless you have stronger data that demonstrates the opposite we've got no choice but to go by what we do have.

And that his study, and the entire topic of defensive gun use is a massively conflicted shitstorm between several different studies and universities that squabbled over it for years.
Irrelevant to the veracity of this article. You must demonstrate that these studies and these conclusions are fallacious not controversial. Plenty of pretty simple shit was/is controversial, doesn't mean no one's right.

And that your second reference, John Lott, can't produce any of the survey data he used, his sample sizes were too small and that he use to write phony reviews on Amazon some of which bash your first reference, Gary... >.>
Again, neither have you, so I'm tempted to hold this lack of listed sources in what is, after all, a tiny article on one news site as being inconsequential. His conclusion that no innocent bystander has ever been injured by CCW holders engaging mass-shooters isn't derived from a wealth of data so much as a lack of it. All you have to do is come up with one instance in which this has happened to disprove him. I didn't spend much time on it, but I wasn't able to so far.

Also, the last time I checked Lotts disagreements with Gary are far from 'bashing' label-worthy, and in academia it's important to remember that disagreement isn't a sin.

First of all, of course you're going to have a lot of defensive gun use. As I said earlier, if the tools are available, they will be used. And if the culture embraces, even applauds their use, damn straight they're going to be whipped out whenever possible.
Which is great because, judging by the numbers, it also works pretty well. So this whole "aw but what about all the ones that don't actually get used?" thing I keep hearing from anti-gunners is therefore bullshit, after all, people use it all the time.

The problem is they will be used by everyone. Again, you have more defensive gun use than criminal use? Ok, but you still have far more criminal use than countries with a lower rate of firearm ownership, availability and/or stricter gun control laws too. Its an escalating cycle.
Ignoring one important point here. While hardly slam-dunk the data so far indicates that this so called 'escalating cycle' is actually more along the lines of a normal cause-effect series as violent crime falls a bit more in areas where gun ownership and carriage are higher. Which means that, while the criminals are armed more than in other countries, there's also fewer of them or at least they're less active. So the problem is actually de-escalating. What we really need is a study comparing the number of victims that are injured or lose property when the criminal has a gun to the number of victims that are injured or lose property when the criminal has anything else, just can't seem to find one...

I'm not even going to touch his study & summary too be honest. I read it and started writing up a big ass discussion, but there's not much point is there? His study is outdated, criticized, debated, makes leaps of logic to support his view and is just one of many in a larger academic conflict between several universities over the entire topic.
There's plenty of point. In fact, I'd be eager to get some specific references to flaws and explanations and proof thereto instead of what you've given us so far: largely unsupported generalizations. If you can demonstrate any of those things, more power to you, if not, then obviously there's no point listening because it's mighty hard to hear an argument that isn't being made!

Again, controversy =/= inability to be correct. Demonstrate that it's incorrect and that it's because of controversy.

As for John, he can't even produce the original survey data he supposedly used for peer review and when he repeated the study, his sample size was too small to produce accurate results.
Actually, with a simple google search the data he used is widely available, just takes a little effort. As to whether or not the limited follow up was big enough to 'count' I'll leave that up for the experts, but at the very least it was consistent with the rest of the data he gathered for the original, so it's definitely not proof against his study's veracity.

crashhelmet

01-26-2011, 09:16 PM

So about these "Defensive Gun Use" statistics...

How many of the incidents were against another person with a gun and not someone shooting at a possible burglar/mugger, someone invoking the Castle Doctrine and shooting someone that steps onto their property, or someone that's paranoid and simply thinks they're in danger?

Wingates_Hellsing

01-26-2011, 10:06 PM

That's a good question, unfortunately there's not really any data on it that I've been able to find.

Nevertheless, in lieu of direct info, we do know that armed civilians and LE have exhibited basically equal ability to discern the nature of situations and act under stress elsewhere, so it's therefore likely that the number of civilian over-reactions are on par with the number of LE over-reactions etc. etc.

The only exception is implementation of the Castle Doctrine, which equates less than well with any specific LE situation outside vehicle invasions and the Active Shooter Protocol. In the end there's little reason that any of those scenarios are more common amongst civilians than LE.

Hard data would be better, so if anyone comes across any that would be great.

Gravekeeper

01-26-2011, 10:36 PM

*ahem*
That's what you said, right there, so unless you have something to actually refute my conclusion...

And you extrapolated my sarcastic comment ( hence the emoticon ) into "every enemy killed in Iraq and Afghanistan was killed by UAVs". Which is not what I said. If I was to list every possible example of how the military would blow your arse up that didn't involve a firefight with ground troops it would take some time.

So basically you're agreeing with me. okay.

Yes I am. But I was talking to Blaque about her Us vs Them scenario. Not a realistic scenario.

I probably wouldn't sell to people who're shooting at each other either, they're preoccupied and your merchandise ends up with all these holes...

Quite. Also we have one of the largest oil reserves in the world. So we'll be busy securing our border >.>

Actually we are talking about why the government shouldn't attack, most of the power behind a deterrent is the creation of a scenario where the deterred action becomes a bad idea/worse idea than before.

No, we're not. We're talking about Blaque's Us vs Them scenario which she framed as purely a numbers game.

Not really, his conclusions are pretty consistently derived from the data, and unless you can point to an instance in which he exercises a bias this is a non-argument at best.

The contested data you mean? Also, if you can't spot biased in that, look harder. >.> He frames some conclusions that are only technically correct by the barest margin. For example he conluded that the populace would feel less safer without guns around. But the actual numbers he use indicate only by a margin of 9% and don't mention that the majority would feel as safe or safer with without them.

I see no reason why the same study would find anything different now than it did then especially since, as you so helpfully pointed out, actual hard data on this area is pretty hard to find.

If you're going to base a study on statistics, you get the most current statistics you can get. Especially if its something to do with population, crime rates and the like. A fuck of a lot can change in 20-30 years. The populations larger, laws may have changed, crime rates have most certainly changed, gun ownership could have gone up or down, etc etc.

So you take what you can get.

No you don't actually. Because you can't be sure its accurate and thus can't be reliably referred too. If his study was peer reviewed and everyone said "Yep, that all checks out" sure. But it didn't.

Possibly, as with all things. But in the end, all of the data we've got indicates that the idea of gun control is fallacious and the concept of self defense via firearms is very well grounded.

Think you're missing some rather key thoughts in that sentence. Specifically, a "idea of gun control in the US is fallacious" perhaps. Because its working just fine elsewhere.

Unless you have stronger data that demonstrates the opposite we've got no choice but to go by what we do have.

....that's not how this works. If research doesn't hold up, but its the only research we've got it doesn't mean it's right and automatically disproves opposing viewpoints. Besides, like I said earlier, to claim there's no correlation between gun violence and gun culture/availability is staggering ignorant. Even the briefest glance at world wide rates of gun related violence vs gun availbility to its populace will tell you that.

I'm not disputing that you can't successfully use a gun for self defence. Of course you can, it's a weapon. That's what it does. I'm disputing that the availability of such a lethal weapon is somehow a good thing because it works in a cycle of escalation. They have a knife, you get a gun, you have a gun, they get a gun. Or that everyone having such weapons would help avert tragedies such as Arizona, which it wouldn't. Its just introducing yet more dangerous factors into an already chaotic situation.

If anything, a gun owner in such a situation in the crowd with good judgement wouldn't open fire at all because of the risk. Which I believe is what actually with the one gun owner that ran to the scene, wasn't it?

But yet again, I point to the very first thing I said in this thread. Which was that I didn't believe any new policy should be drafted as a reaction to the Arizona shooting. I have at no point made any such call for any new laws. Nor am I now.

Irrelevant to the veracity of this article. You must demonstrate that these studies and these conclusions are fallacious not controversial.

....aren't you listening? >.>

Also, the last time I checked Lotts disagreements with Gary are far from 'bashing' label-worthy, and in academia it's important to remember that disagreement isn't a sin.

Dude, he created fake Amazon accounts so he could leave shitty reviews for books written by his peers and go around Amazon and Usenet telling people how awesome *he* was. He also has none of his data anymore and says it was lost in a hard drive crash. But can't remember the names of any of the students he had do the survey for him. When he repeated his studies, he use a sample size too small to be conclusive and his results conflicted with Gary's research. These two disagree with each other. That's not a sin, no, but it certainly undermines the credibility of the results.

Which means that, while the criminals are armed more than in other countries, there's also fewer of them or at least they're less active.

.....What? Go take a look at US crime rates. >.>

What we really need is a study comparing the number of victims that are injured or lose property when the criminal has a gun to the number of victims that are injured or lose property when the criminal has anything else, just can't seem to find one...

Yes, we *do* need more study and research done. That's sort of my point with the two references Vash gave. But very little has been done on defensive gun usage and what has been done is fiercely contested. Not by others, but between the researchers themselves. ><

Largely unsupported generalizations.

Speak for yourself.

If you can demonstrate any of those things, more power to you, if not, then obviously there's no point listening because it's mighty hard to hear an argument that isn't being made!

....ok. See this is why I went with rooster tits. You're....elsewhere, in your own little echo chamber.

Actually, with a simple google search the data he used is widely available, just takes a little effort.

The 30 year old data? Or the inconclusive sample size data?

As to whether or not the limited follow up was big enough to 'count' I'll leave that up for the experts

It was the "experts" that said his sample size was too small.

So it's definitely not proof against his study's veracity.

Yes it is.

Gah, why am I even bothering. This is still just rooster tits.

Wingates_Hellsing

01-27-2011, 12:49 AM

And you extrapolated my sarcastic comment ( hence the emoticon ) into "every enemy killed in Iraq and Afghanistan was killed by UAVs". Which is not what I said. If I was to list every possible example of how the military would blow your arse up that didn't involve a firefight with ground troops it would take some time.
Not really, the grand majority of support strikes require ground units with LOS to call them in which means at the very least they have to get within a certain distance depending on terrain.

The contested data you mean? Also, if you can't spot biased in that, look harder. >.> He frames some conclusions that are only technically correct by the barest margin. For example he conluded that the populace would feel less safer without guns around. But the actual numbers he use indicate only by a margin of 9% and don't mention that the majority would feel as safe or safer with without them.
9% is a hell of a lot of people, over nine times the number of people with CCPs just for some frame of reference. His conclusion that more people feel safer with guns than without them is direct from the data and the people who don't care are irrelevant as they're an argument for neither side. Most people feel as safe or safer with them by a margin of 9% over people who feel as safe or safer without them.

If you're going to base a study on statistics, you get the most current statistics you can get. Especially if its something to do with population, crime rates and the like. A fuck of a lot can change in 20-30 years. The populations larger, laws may have changed, crime rates have most certainly changed, gun ownership could have gone up or down, etc etc.
All indications are that crime rates are down, gun ownership has gone up as well as CCP issuance. In other words, from what we know from more recent data, the trends that he noticed then from the data he had are still trending that way. Fresh data would be better but that doesn't change the fact that this data is basically unopposed. Old or not it's still the best we've got and whether or not any of those things have changed is something that needs to be established by a new study, not just taken for granted because it's old. So far the anti-gunners have utterly failed to provide any. So who's more likely to be right? the ones with some moderately old data? or the people with no data at all?

No you don't actually. Because you can't be sure its accurate and thus can't be reliably referred too. If his study was peer reviewed and everyone said "Yep, that all checks out" sure. But it didn't.
All listing that I came across listed this study as being peer reviewed, I found no proof that it wasn't. If you want to prove that this study is false, or that some dynamic that it found to be true then is no longer true now, feel free to come up with that. Nevertheless, that's not how science works, to disprove their conclusions you need to either find a flaw in their methodology, which no one has, or use the same methodology or improved methodology and come up with a disagreeing result.

Think you're missing some rather key thoughts in that sentence. Specifically, a "idea of gun control in the US is fallacious" perhaps. Because its working just fine elsewhere.
Most countries in the world have gun problems, and so far there's been no indication that gun control has worked in nations that have enacted such measures (incidents of gun violence before legislation in the UK look to be about the same after, with some reports a bit lower, others a bit higher)

Armed civilians are also proving themselves to be quite useful in other areas, such as in Israel where the government actively supports them.

....that's not how this works. If research doesn't hold up, but its the only research we've got it doesn't mean it's right and automatically disproves opposing viewpoints. Besides, like I said earlier, to claim there's no correlation between gun violence and gun culture/availability is staggering ignorant. Even the briefest glance at world wide rates of gun related violence vs gun availbility to its populace will tell you that.
You're staggeringly missing the point here. The research is sound, just old. Old =/= unsound. At the very least it was true then, what makes you think it isn't true now? What significant social shift do you think has occurred that would reverse the situation?

I'm not disputing that you can't successfully use a gun for self defence. Of course you can, it's a weapon.
Every time you harp on about how an armed civilian couldn't help in situations such as Arizona that's exactly what you're saying. Self Defense also applies to defending others.

I'm disputing that the availability of such a lethal weapon is somehow a good thing because it works in a cycle of escalation.
So far all you've done is said that it works in a cycle of escalation, not at all proven it. Ultimately, if the amount of violent crimes goes down either because of deterrence or the fact that they are thwarted, isn't that more important than what the criminal is armed with? Criminals will take anything that's available and law or no law guns are going to be available sooner or later, until then there's still plenty of options that are almost as lethal and therefore just as serious.

<snip, see above>Or that everyone having such weapons would help avert tragedies such as Arizona, which it wouldn't. Its just introducing yet more dangerous factors into an already chaotic situation.
Weapons have on many occasions averted tragedies exactly like the Tuscon shooting, and if adding guns into that situation is a bad thing than I'd hardly think that law enforcement, whom you seem to trust as the sole experts and the only persons to be trusted, actively practice ASP which states that any officer responding to this situation should close with the shooter as fast as possible and engage them until it's over. The professionals have learned that the best way to stop a gunman is to shoot him, and this is far, far more practical than you assume.

If anything, a gun owner in such a situation in the crowd with good judgement wouldn't open fire at all because of the risk. Which I believe is what actually with the one gun owner that ran to the scene, wasn't it?
Incorrect, gun owners who found they did not have a clean shot have behaved exactly as law enforcement officers do, which is to say they "close to engage"

The armed civilian in question arrived late to the party, after the other sheepdogs had taken the shooter down. He saw someone with a gun, noticed that they didn't seem to be the shooter, and investigated this to determine it and once he did: he chipped in as necessary. Is sounds extraordinary to some, but it really isn't.

But yet again, I point to the very first thing I said in this thread. Which was that I didn't believe any new policy should be drafted as a reaction to the Arizona shooting. I have at no point made any such call for any new laws. Nor am I now.
Arguing in criticism of the current system from the direction of an alternative is endorsement of that alternative, endorsement of something is support for it. Therefore you are supporting that alternative.

....aren't you listening? >.>
Are you debating? because the grand majority of what I've heard so far has been "No it's not!, it's like this!" with no actual proof.

Dude, he created fake Amazon accounts so he could leave shitty reviews for books written by his peers and go around Amazon and Usenet telling people how awesome *he* was. He also has none of his data anymore and says it was lost in a hard drive crash. But can't remember the names of any of the students he had do the survey for him. When he repeated his studies, he use a sample size too small to be conclusive and his results conflicted with Gary's research. These two disagree with each other. That's not a sin, no, but it certainly undermines the credibility of the results.
From what I can find, the grand majority of those various incidents were apparently people disagreeing with him trying to undermine him, except one which amounted to a few posts on Usenet and Amazon that were self-aggrandizing. Childish but it really has no bearing on weather or not he's right or wrong.

.....What? Go take a look at US crime rates. >.>
We're back to this again? Academics agree that crime is connected to poverty or more specifically class disparity (real or perceived). If they're wrong, prove it, otherwise: moving on.

Yes, we *do* need more study and research done. That's sort of my point with the two references Vash gave. But very little has been done on defensive gun usage and what has been done is fiercely contested. Not by others, but between the researchers themselves. ><
Most of the contention is going on before anyone does any research in cases where there's anything of significance being attempted, with people nitpicking endlessly before they even have anything to look at. The rest of it is a heap of individual things cherry-picked and erroneously proclaimed to be true 'because of the US crime levels!!!!'

The conclusion that's most readily drawn from this IMO, seeing as how it's the large "bi-partisan" groups that are failing left and right is that in order for a large social study to go through on a controversial topic you really need to have a group that either doesn't care or agrees. Both sides have managed this but while Kleck's study is large scale and derived from sound rational conclusions from the data, the anti gunner's stuff has been incredibly small-scale and poorly constructed.

Speak for yourself.
I've referenced plenty of trends that I've found to be true in practical application. If you'd like I can inundate you with a bunch of links to each and every one but that's a waste of time because all you've come up with so far is how you think it would work on paper. On paper it seems like a civilian would not be able to take down a mass murdered, but they do. On paper it seems like more guns means more crime, but the opposite has happened. Besides, Vash was so kind as to bring all the specific data we need.

....ok. See this is why I went with rooster tits. You're....elsewhere, in your own little echo chamber.
Either that, or you're throwing out a mist of non-arguments and fallacious connections. That you're making an argument in no way makes it a convincing argument.

The 30 year old data? Or the inconclusive sample size data?
From what I can find, the raw data on one of his studies was lost (which is not at all outside the bounds of probability) but the information he sourced for his major publications is still widely available.

It was the "experts" that said his sample size was too small.
From what I can find, they spent a lot of time talking about how it wasn't anywhere close to the strength of the original, but that the fact that it was consistent counts for a little.

Yes it is.

Gah, why am I even bothering. This is still just rooster tits.
In order for something to prove something else false, it kindof has to start by disagreeing with it. The later study doesn't prove anything, for or against the original.

Vash113

01-27-2011, 02:25 AM

Ignoring the fact Gary has a pretty blatant agenda, and this study is over a decade old and at points he uses data over 20-30 years old, and thus this entire study is woefully out of date. And that his study, and the entire topic of defensive gun use is a massively conflicted shitstorm between several different studies and universities that squabbled over it for years. And that your second reference, John Lott, can't produce any of the survey data he used, his sample sizes were too small and that he use to write phony reviews on Amazon some of which bash your first reference, Gary... >.>

Actually as far as I can see you are incorrect, there is not a big conflict when it comes to research data on defensive gun use, of the dozen and more surveys and studies only one does not agree with the others. Pretty much all the others match up well within the margin of error for their given sample sizes, around 1.5% or so.

John Lott's original data was lost and his follow up data is too small to re-emphasize his earlier conclusions but really his data is the absolute weakest in our argument and wasn't even something we were rellying on. Even if you could discredit his conclusions, which you haven't so far, it doesn't change the fact that the overwhelming weight of material is still behind us. All you've brought up is that Lott is a somewhat petty academic, hardly a surprise.

Also Gary Kleck has no particular agenda that I can find, his conclusions are purely based on his scientific research and he is one of the most accomplished and respected Crimonologists in the country and his material has been published in peer reviewed publications. He also published findings that the majority of handguns that wind up in criminal possession are stolen from police officers and civilians, clearly not something pro-gun lobbyists like to see and a clear indication that he does not alter his findings based on an agenda. Complain all you want, scientific data doesn't lie, whether you think Kleck is biased or not the data is still there and its conclusively in support of the effectiveness of defensive gun use.

First of all, of course you're going to have a lot of defensive gun use. As I said earlier, if the tools are available, they will be used. And if the culture embraces, even applauds their use, damn straight they're going to be whipped out whenever possible.

This assertion is pure speculation and does not meet up with the facts. The data actually concludes that the grand majority of gun owners only use them when necessary and only a pitifully small percentage actually fire their weapons defensively. Only 8% of the 2.5 million defensive gun uses a year result in shooting and only about 1% actually involve wounding or killing a criminal, and if that weren't small enough only about 17.5% of criminals actually hit are killed. For the record that's .017% of the total defensive gun uses per year. So completely in contrast to your statement gun owners do not whip out firearms whenever possible.

The problem is they will be used by everyone. Again, you have more defensive gun use than criminal use? Ok, but you still have far more criminal use than countries with a lower rate of firearm ownership, availability and/or stricter gun control laws too. Its an escalating cycle.

That does not address crime rates in general. Japan has extraordinarily strict gun control, even criminals do not use guns in that country, but stabbings are through the roof and that's even with a relatively low rate of reported crimes. Restricting guns from law abiding citizens doesn't stop criminals from being able to commit crimes. Call it a self-fulfilling prophecy or escalation if you want but it doesn't change the facts.

I'm not even going to touch his study & summary too be honest. I read it and started writing up a big ass discussion, but there's not much point is there? His study is outdated, criticized, debated, makes leaps of logic to support his view and is just one of many in a larger academic conflict between several universities over the entire topic.

Unfortunately I see absolutely no basis for these claims. His conclusions are well supported and peer reviewed, he makes no leaps of logic beyond what is absolutely necessary for the feild and his data is actually on the low end of what studies have concluded. Far from a huge academic conflict I see very little serious criticism of his work or opposition in the academic field.

Also you have no real proof that the material is outdated. It is the most recent data the field has and comes from all available sources. Sciences doesn't ignore scientific findings because they are old, we still follow Newton's laws do we not but it's been centuries since he had that apple drop on his head. Twenty years is actually not that long as far as society is concerned and the Constitutional laws still protecting our rights are over 250 years old. No data or material has suggested that there has been a significant societal trend change since these surveys collected their data or their conclusions were drawn. You can't ignore the results or findings because they weren't done yesterday.

All told I'm extremely dissapointed, I was hoping for some better opposition than this. No material? No data? No scientific arguments? No reference to the Brady Campaign or other opposition material? I mean really, they have a lot of spurrious claims that I would have loved to prove wrong with science and logic but oh well... :(

I should also note that I've noticed a lot of sarcastic and personal statements, claims and accusations come from you, things like these:

"....aren't you listening? >.>"

".....What? Go take a look at US crime rates. >.>"

"Speak for yourself."

"....ok. See this is why I went with rooster tits. You're....elsewhere, in your own little echo chamber."

"Gah, why am I even bothering. This is still just rooster tits."

Add to that baseless attempts to undermine or discredit just about everyone brought up, to dismiss every fact, argument and data point with nothing but opinion and assertions that gun rights supporters or gun owners are vigilanties and numerous other unjustified character attacks. All without bringing up really any actual data or scientific evidence of your own, not stastistics, no survey data, not crime rates, shooting rates, nothing.

While you have spent a significant ammount of time trying to argue against our beliefs and our data, not only have you failed to do so but you have not provided evidence for any of your own claims. Perhaps we are biased, but we nevertheless have absolutely no reason or motivation to believe claims, accusations or concerns that have no basis in fact or peer reviewed analysis.

P.S.

With regards to the claim that 9% of the population is nothing I should point out that as of 2010 that 9% of America's 308 Million People is over 27 Million people. More importantly the 41% of the population that would feel less safe without guns ammounts to over 126 Million people.

Like it or not more than 2 out of every 5 people would feel less safe without guns, considerably more than those who would feel more safe. We have a government by the people for the people, whether you trust gun owners or not doesn't matter, they and those who support them outnumber those who are irrationally afraid of guns. Even if that were not so we also have rule of the Majority, rights of the Minority, gun ownership is a right so even if we didn't have the majority its still a protected right.

Andara Bledin

01-27-2011, 02:40 AM

I have to agree with that. Take the average gang-land shooting. These assholes simply spray the entire area with bullets.
We've had no less than 5 in the last 3 years in my neighborhood. 4 of those were gang-related (the not-so local Mexican gang keeps shooting up the local black gangers), 2 of those within a block of my apartment. In 4 of those, there were only a few shots fired, with the main targets dying, 1 target surviving, and no non-targets being hit. The 5th case was actually the cops doing the shooting against a crazy dude holed up in a shop. I'm pretty sure he survived, but I do know he never actually fired a shot - I think it was determined that he wasn't actually armed.

To that end though. I dont think I would mind if hand guns were banned altogether as seriously.. they only have one purpose.
Tell that to one of the hundreds of people who wasn't victimized last year because they had one.

Gah, why am I even bothering. This is still just rooster tits.
I'm not sure, really. You appear to have your mind set on your position and have already stated that you don't think it's possible to get anyone to change their mind (despite there being one person in this thread that already did change their mind based on Internet discussions).

^-.-^

Wingates_Hellsing

01-27-2011, 02:53 AM

Gravekeeper

01-27-2011, 03:14 AM

I'm not sure, really. You appear to have your mind set on your position and have already stated that you don't think it's possible to get anyone to change their mind (despite there being one person in this thread that already did change their mind based on Internet discussions).

Well in all blunt honesty, do you think anyone is going to change their mind in this, or the previous how ever many gun control threads? Its not happening. It's too passionate an issue. Perhaps even more so than religion in some ways. The US has a gun culture, and that's that. Its very difficult for those outside of the US to understand it and conversely its difficult for some in the US to understand those of us without said culture.

Also Gary Kleck has no particular agenda that I can find.

Read what you yourself posted from him? Hell, this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a9/Mf0145.jpg) is his author's picture. -.-

This assertion is pure speculation and does not meet up with the facts. The data actually concludes that the grand majority of gun owners only use them when necessary and only a pitifully small percentage actually fire their weapons defensively.

Cept thats not what I meant. I didn't mean used as in actually gunning down your attacker willy nilly. I mean used defensively as defined by the very study you brought up. I did read what you copypasta'd. -.-

That does not address crime rates in general. Japan has extraordinarily strict gun control, even criminals do not use guns in that country, but stabbings are through the roof and that's even with a relatively low rate of reported crimes.

Cept I can run from a guy with a knife far more effectively than I can a guy with a gun. There's a bit of a gap in the ease of use. I have a chance of grappling and disarming someone with a knife, and there are techniques taught specifically to do so. No technique in the world is going to help me dodge a bullet though.

Unfortunately I see absolutely no basis for these claims. His conclusions are well supported and peer reviewed, he makes no leaps of logic beyond what is absolutely necessary for the feild and his data is actually on the low end of what studies have concluded.

His study concluded 2.5 mil defensive gun uses, the Dept of Justice study concluded 1.5 mil, NCVS estimated 108k ( which has *got* to be horribly wrong mind you ). Duke University estimated its somewhere in the middle of both extremes.

One guy wrote an paper (http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/SmithT1.htm) on it.

Also you have no real proof that the material is outdated.

He dates all his data. That's pretty concrete. Again, you can't really say the data pans out over 20-30 years on an issue that can be so easily affected by various social and political factors.

I mean really, they have a lot of spurrious claims that I would have loved to prove wrong with science and logic but oh well...

I should also note that I've noticed a lot of sarcastic and personal statements, claims and accusations come from you, things like these:

Physician, heal thyself? Also, me and Wingate have been at this for a while, we're frustrated with each other. Like I said before, its fire and water. We don't understand each other and that is sadly that. It's not that I hate him or want drown him in a river. We just disagree and I'm sure he just can't understand why I don't understand just as much as I don't understand why he can't understand.

Like it or not more than 2 out of every 5 people would feel less safe without guns, considerably more than those who would feel more safe. We have a government by the people for the people, whether you trust gun owners or not doesn't matter, they and those who support them outnumber those who are irrationally afraid of guns.

and 3 out of 5 would feel just as safe or more safe. In other words, the majority would not feel less safe. And I think fear of guns is a fairly rational stand point to be honest. They are lethal weapons. That merits a very healthy respect for them, and people without said respect make me wary. And you know what? its not even the rate of gun ownership when you get right down too it. It's how easy it is to get one and how much the laws on it vary from state to state.

Look, let me clearly lay it out for you guys here before any more this. I'm as sick of arguing as anyone else and if we go in a circle any more we may disrupt the Earth's magnetic poles. -.-

If owning a gun meant you were properly trained in its responsibile use and had been vetted for any issues that would cause you to misuse it, great. But you aren't. The laws vary too much. I don't want to take all your guns away and unmake them in fires of Mount Doom. I'm not against gun ownership, I am against everyone being able to own one ( and ones that normally only the military has access too ) regardless of who they are and whether or not they have the training, judgement and responsibility to use it correctly.

Like I said to begin with, if anything the Arizona shooting is a failure of mental health services more than anything else.

Andara Bledin

01-27-2011, 04:06 AM

Well in all blunt honesty, do you think anyone is going to change their mind in this, or the previous how ever many gun control threads? Its not happening. It's too passionate an issue. Perhaps even more so than religion in some ways.
First, from the horses mouth:
Fratching has changed my opinions on gun control.

I've been involved in a debate where one member changed sides while on the topic of abortion. Gun control has nothing on the controversy surrounding that one.

^-.-^

Vash113

01-27-2011, 04:37 AM

Well in all blunt honesty, do you think anyone is going to change their mind in this, or the previous how ever many gun control threads? Its not happening. It's too passionate an issue. Perhaps even more so than religion in some ways. The US has a gun culture, and that's that. Its very difficult for those outside of the US to understand it and conversely its difficult for some in the US to understand those of us without said culture.

Actually we just recently had someone mention a similar debates' arguments helped change their mind at least somewhat on the issue, not to mention the silent majority of forum users who are lurkers and do not post but read threads. You seem to be the only one who thinks the discussion is useless.

Read what you yourself posted from him? Hell, this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a9/Mf0145.jpg) is his author's picture. -.-

So because he published findings based on research data results, he must therefore have an agenda? That's a non sequitur if ever I heard one. As for the picture, he's a Crimonologist, I wouldn't be surprised if he had a few shrunken heads floating around his house somewhere. Not to mention that has no bearing on the validity of his findings. Attempting to undermine the individual does not invalidate their peer reviewed, published findings.

Cept thats not what I meant. I didn't mean used as in actually gunning down your attacker willy nilly. I mean used defensively as defined by the very study you brought up. I did read what you copypasta'd. -.-

Except again there is no indication that these defensive uses occur excessively or without cause, quite the opposite as the situation has to exist already for them to be used. Besides the extremely small number of such incidents that result in any actual injury just goes to prove that gun ownership is not nearly as dangerous as you claim.

Cept I can run from a guy with a knife far more effectively than I can a guy with a gun. There's a bit of a gap in the ease of use. I have a chance of grappling and disarming someone with a knife, and there are techniques taught specifically to do so. No technique in the world is going to help me dodge a bullet though.

Actually this is not necessarily true. Knife fighting and knife wounds are far more vicious than gunfights. A knife fight lasting only a few seconds can result in dozens of mortal wounds, a gunfight lasting a few seconds involves only a handful of bullets and even fewer hits or serious injuries.

Not to mention that there are just as many techniques for disarming a gun wielding opponent as a kife wielding opponent and in many respects they are easier and more effective because the very nature and shape of a handgun allows the trigger finger to be broken with great ease among other things and a larger surface area to work with while many knives cannot easily be taken from an attacker. Push knives for instance are almost impossible to be taken from an opponents hand by virtue of their grip design, the same cannot be said for any firearm.

Also there are many techniques for throwing off an attackers aim with a gun, ducking, weaving and zig-zagging while running make a rapidly moving target near impossible for even experienced shooters to hit, add the usual night-time gloom and obstructing objects like cars for instance, and it is actually much easier to escape a gun wielding opponent than a knife wielding opponent. After all the gun wielder has to stop and take aim while a knife wielding opponent has little reason not to chase you down at which point you are entirely relying on your own fitness level.

All of which doesn't mention the simple fact that you can also throw a knife.

Even so all of this is pointless speculation, while anti-gun debaters bring it up all the time the data shows that running is not that effective regardless of the attacker's armament. Fighting back works better in general and the best way to do so is with a gun.

His study concluded 2.5 mil defensive gun uses, the Dept of Justice study concluded 1.5 mil, NCVS estimated 108k ( which has *got* to be horribly wrong mind you ). Duke University estimated its somewhere in the middle of both extremes.

Actually the Police Foundation survey sponsored by the National Institute of Justice concluded 2.73 million. A number of other surveys all conclude much the same. Not to mention that the lower end 2.5 Million estimate from the National Self-Defense Survey was not conducted by Kleck, he simply used their data. Kleck had no influence over the data and even used the low end estimate data from the National Crime Victimization Survey so often used by anti-gun lobbyists. All told 2.5 Million is by no means the upper extreme as you try to indicate.

One guy wrote an paper (http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/SmithT1.htm) on it.

Interestingly enough there's a good deal of supporting evidence in there as well. Even so the 2.5 is still well within reasonable bounds.

He dates all his data. That's pretty concrete. Again, you can't really say the data pans out over 20-30 years on an issue that can be so easily affected by various social and political factors.

Actually yes I can, the issue hasn't ultimately changed that much since the 70s or 80s, statistical spreads and societal trends have not changed very much on this issue. Gun ownership has simply slowly risen while crime rates have slowly fallen. Correllation does not equate causation but it can certainly imply it.

Also I should note that most gun laws don't effect existing gun owners thanks to ubiquitous grandfather clauses.

Physician, heal thyself? Also, me and Wingate have been at this for a while, we're frustrated with each other. Like I said before, its fire and water. We don't understand each other and that is sadly that. It's not that I hate him or want drown him in a river. We just disagree and I'm sure he just can't understand why I don't understand just as much as I don't understand why he can't understand.

I don't think Wingates is frustrated with you at all, and neither am I, and actually he does well understand why you disagree.

and 3 out of 5 would feel just as safe or more safe. In other words, the majority would not feel less safe. And I think fear of guns is a fairly rational stand point to be honest. They are lethal weapons. That merits a very healthy respect for them, and people without said respect make me wary. And you know what? its not even the rate of gun ownership when you get right down too it. It's how easy it is to get one and how much the laws on it vary from state to state.

Actually that is an invalid argument as I could simply say that 7/10 feel equally or less safe invalidating the need for any legal change. You cannot apply the middle ground and of those with concerns on the issue those who would feel less safe significantly outnumber those who would feel more safe.

As for fearing guns, well that is irrational by its very deffinition. A healthy respect is always good but that does not equate fear. There is no reason to fear a gun as long as you handle it properly just like anything. Do you fear cars? More people die in automobile accidents every year than from gunshots by a significant margin, yet we don't have attempts to ban cars every time someone is killed by one. Drunk drivers in particular kill a great many people every year but laws proposed in the wake of deaths are about the irresponsible behavior of the individual, not really the car or the booz.

As for the laws, well that is the nature of State's Rights. The availability of firearms is a much debated topic but I should note that no legally owned automatic weapon has ever been used in a crime, despite how much such things are targeted by anti-gun legislation. The majority of handguns used in crimes are acquired from other criminals. While many are initially stolen from homes and police officers they are not being stolen in large numbers all the time, rather each one circulates around the black market for some time, so it really isn't a problem about the ease of acquiring a firearm legally as it is an issue of crime in general.

Look, let me clearly lay it out for you guys here before any more this. I'm as sick of arguing as anyone else and if we go in a circle any more we may disrupt the Earth's magnetic poles. -.-

I'm not sick of debating, Wingates isn't sick of it, clearly others aren't sick of it. As the Boy Scouts say, onward and upward!

If owning a gun meant you were properly trained in its responsibile use and had been vetted for any issues that would cause you to misuse it, great. But you aren't. The laws vary too much. I don't want to take all your guns away and unmake them in fires of Mount Doom. I'm not against gun ownership, I am against everyone being able to own one ( and ones that normally only the military has access too ) regardless of who they are and whether or not they have the training, judgement and responsibility to use it correctly.

This is very much not true. Anyone carying a gun around in public legally must have a concealed carry permit. These permits are not easy to acquire, involve a great deal of expense, background checks, and often training in the weapon's proper use.

Additionally military grade firearms are very rare in civilian ownership, most are collectors pieces. Civilians do not often own M16s, or M4s, they own a derivative semi-automatic rifle variant designated the AR-15. This is not an automatic weapon and is one of the most popular civilian owned rifles. But it is by no means military grade equipment.

Actually owning automatic weapons requires a Title 2 liscense, which comes with the ubiquitous sizeable tax stamps and background checks. However actually purchasing an automatic weapon has been illegal for some time, they must be transferred from one owner to another at significant cost, even getting replacement parts incurs substantial cost.

Not to mention that many gun stores give clients a run down of the firearm's function and use along with gun safety rules. Each firearm also is practically guaranteed to have these rules as well. It isn't as though most people can just walk into a shop, throw down a few hundred bucks and walk out with an assault rifle, that's ludicrous.

Like I said to begin with, if anything the Arizona shooting is a failure of mental health services more than anything else.

So what does this have to do with gun laws? As Chris Rock said: "you can't be crazy no more?"

As NRA supporters often say: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

Many mass shootings are a problem with mental health services, the Virginia Tech Shooting was a result of Mental Health Services dropping the ball big time. Heck that shooting was directly responsible for me joining Students for Concealed Carry on Campus.

crashhelmet

01-27-2011, 04:52 AM

Come to think of it, Vash, you only quoted Lott once and that was his claim that no innocent bystander has ever been injured by an armed civilian during a mass shooting.

For that not to be true all you need to find is one instance where that happened. I've searched high and low Gravekeeper, maybe you'll have better luck.

I keep re-reading this over and over again to make sure I understand what you're trying to say.

I read this as you saying that no innocent bystander has ever been injured by an armed civilian during a mass shooting. An innocent bystander has never been wounded or killed by an armed civilian during a mass shooting?

What about Tucson a few weeks ago?
What about Columbine?
What about the 42 other incidents I posted earlier in this thread?

Please clarify your statement for me please. I'm an ESL kid, so writing it in Spanish might make it easier for me to understand.

Wingates_Hellsing

01-27-2011, 05:00 AM

Well in all blunt honesty, do you think anyone is going to change their mind in this, or the previous how ever many gun control threads? Its not happening. It's too passionate an issue. Perhaps even more so than religion in some ways. The US has a gun culture, and that's that. Its very difficult for those outside of the US to understand it and conversely its difficult for some in the US to understand those of us without said culture.
Except that we know of people who have done it, one in this very thread has said as much. While it may not happen here not only does it happen elsewhere, but just because minds aren't changed doesn't mean the discussion was pointless.

Read what you yourself posted from him? Hell, this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a9/Mf0145.jpg) is his author's picture. -.-
An author's picture of him with guns? He's a criminologist publishing documents about guns, of course the author's picture has something to do with that. That he has come to a conclusion in no way proves that he has a bias, demonstrate the bias and how it's effected the numbers.

Cept thats not what I meant. I didn't mean used as in actually gunning down your attacker willy nilly. I mean used defensively as defined by the very study you brought up. I did read what you copypasta'd. -.-
The point of stating this number is most in refute to one of the most common anti-gun arguments: the insistence that defensive use is rare. It isn't, not at all to the degree that they insist.

Cept I can run from a guy with a knife far more effectively than I can a guy with a gun. There's a bit of a gap in the ease of use. I have a chance of grappling and disarming someone with a knife, and there are techniques taught specifically to do so. No technique in the world is going to help me dodge a bullet though.
Here's the problem with this logic: the grand majority of violent crime directed at law-abiding citizens is not violent as an objective but rather a means. If you run away from a criminal with a gun he's most likely not going to shoot you to get $40.

Escaping a knife and escaping a gun are less on different planes than they are just different. With a knife your pursuer is most likely going to be putting all their effort into chasing you and you're basically relying on you're greater physical ability. With a gun, your pursuer must attempt to balance pursuit with seeking an opening to shoot if they're inclined to do so. If they're running after you, it's no different than a knife pursuit, if they stop to shoot (which they most certainly will need to) as long as you break LOS as often as possible (something you should do in either case so as to break off pursuit) you stand a very good chance of getting out of there.

Moreover, there are plenty of techniques for disarming both knife and gun-wielding opponents, most if not all of which in both categories still require that you get within arms-reach or less to disarm anyway.

The primary benefit a criminal gets from using a gun to elicit submission is fear, not lethality. And if they intend to kill you anyway you'd best be prepared to fight for your life gun or no gun.

His study concluded 2.5 mil defensive gun uses, the Dept of Justice study concluded 1.5 mil, NCVS estimated 108k ( which has *got* to be horribly wrong mind you ). Duke University estimated its somewhere in the middle of both extremes.
He also notes that there are numerous reasons why even a hypothetically inflated 2.5 mil figure would be low. The poll counted only one use per person, discounting anyone who's experienced multiples, and did not include young adults-the most often violently victimized group. 2.5 mil is up there but it's not nearly as outlandish as it might seem. As Kleck points out, one must speculate both ways: there's reasons it might be low and reasons it might be high, something the paper you linked also points out.

It's not slam-dunk, nothing can be on it's own. But it's still quite solid and evidence to the opposite is thin on the ground.

He dates all his data. That's pretty concrete. Again, you can't really say the data pans out over 20-30 years on an issue that can be so easily affected by various social and political factors.
Whilst the study in it's entirety uses a range of data gathering dates, for the most part each consideration is based off of data that was gathered in the same few years and he's consistent in taking cross-examination with a grain of salt.

As studies go, Kleck's is a lot less about a large amount of data and sub data that's cross-referenced from the same body like most. Instead, it's more of a collection of individual insights into individual data sets that each paint their own pictures and they are considered as a whole with a grain of salt.

Physician, heal thyself? Also, me and Wingate have been at this for a while, we're frustrated with each other. Like I said before, its fire and water. We don't understand each other and that is sadly that. It's not that I hate him or want drown him in a river. We just disagree and I'm sure he just can't understand why I don't understand just as much as I don't understand why he can't understand.
I can't speak for you, but I do understand where you're coming from and why you're coming from there at least overall. My primary point of interest has mostly to do with the individual points. I don't understand why you don't think civilians could positively effect mass shootings, because, perhaps as a result of being fundamentally interested in preparing myself for such situations I have found that it has happened on a number of occasions and in all of those the 'what if' points of contention brought forth by anti-gunners just haven't come to pass. Basically, we know that they do it and that it works. Either there's something not getting from me to them, they're dismissing what's getting through or there's some other concern that's not getting through to me.

My interest in these debates is the potential for these holes in my understanding of the other side to be filled in, even though they often make little or no sense to me, it's still enormously enlightening to know what they are and it's often very difficult to actually get at them.

and 3 out of 5 would feel just as safe or more safe. In other words, the majority would not feel less safe. And I think fear of guns is a fairly rational stand point to be honest. They are lethal weapons. That merits a very healthy respect for them, and people without said respect make me wary. And you know what? its not even the rate of gun ownership when you get right down too it. It's how easy it is to get one and how much the laws on it vary from state to state.
That's not how statistics work >_< the people who don't feel safer or less safe either way do NOT get lumped in with EITHER side. If we do that, we have to do it for both sides: giving no guns 6/10 and guns 7/10, so we're still ahead, not the other way around.

Look, let me clearly lay it out for you guys here before any more this. I'm as sick of arguing as anyone else and if we go in a circle any more we may disrupt the Earth's magnetic poles. -.-
We may be creeping forward at the rate of one of those NASA shuttle-moving crawlers but damn it! forward is forward! Onward, to glory! AND TACOS!

If owning a gun meant you were properly trained in its responsibile use and had been vetted for any issues that would cause you to misuse it, great. But you aren't. The laws vary too much. I don't want to take all your guns away and unmake them in fires of Mount Doom. I'm not against gun ownership, I am against everyone being able to own one ( and ones that normally only the military has access too ) regardless of who they are and whether or not they have the training, judgement and responsibility to use it correctly.
A couple things here: There are a lot of people who can't have guns under federal law. Convicted felons, the mentally ill*, etc. It's far from *everyone* and while it would be great to do more to keep them out of bad people's hands I have yet to be presented with a potential model for further restriction that successfully targets bad people, after a certain point it's just not feasible to determine who they are.
Second the military does not have a monopoly on Military equipment, much of which is increasingly prevalent among LE and IMO therefore edging into the area of not unfeasible for civilian application. Moreover"Military Style" i.e. semi-auto derivatives and they're differences from "Sporting" comparable items is not about raw lethality so much as it's about ergonomics. Moreover, absent statistically significant threat posed to the public it fails the "Clear and Present Danger" check. My pistol grip and my vertical fore grip don't make me deadlier just more comfortable, and my collapsing stock doesn't make my gun any more insidiously concealable so much as it reduces weight and helps many of the longer weapons fit into manageable gun bags/boxes.

Like I said to begin with, if anything the Arizona shooting is a failure of mental health services more than anything else.
On this we can agree, even though we don't agree that having someone nearby ready to shoot him would be good or bad. Hopefully there will be a decent push on the federal level to improve inter-connectivity between mental-health databases and background check services.

I also think there should be a certain amount federal legislation to provide for things like concealed carry and the like in the same way as requirements for background checks. Some examples of proposals I've heard that sound promising to me, if you're interested:
*Federal law protecting CCP holders and gun owners at large from being convicted of 'overreacting' by virtue of caliber choice alone, it's horseshit.
*Federal law providing that concealed carriers may elect to use hollow point and fragmenting ammunition if they so choose, if illegal in their home jurisdiction, they may have only enough to load the magazines they use in their load-out plus one mag's worth for testing purposes and over-flow during purchasing.
*Federal law requiring prohibition signage to meet certain standards: all entrances, eye level, white background, text of certain size and image of certain size etc.
*Federal requirement for basic safety course and fixed distance range qualification to be administered by the local precinct's range or the range they utilize for their qualifications.

These would all be improvements, but I don't think most of them are necessary so much as an increase in efficiency, and that's never a bad thing.

Wingates_Hellsing

01-27-2011, 05:06 AM

I keep re-reading this over and over again to make sure I understand what you're trying to say.

I read this as you saying that no innocent bystander has ever been injured by an armed civilian during a mass shooting. An innocent bystander has never been wounded or killed by an armed civilian during a mass shooting?

What about Tucson a few weeks ago?
What about Columbine?
What about the 42 other incidents I posted earlier in this thread?

Please clarify your statement for me please. I'm an ESL kid, so writing it in Spanish might make it easier for me to understand.

Armed civilians being responders to the shooter, the shooter is no longer a civilian, he/she is a criminal/combatant. It addresses the worries about civilians engaging shooters causing stray hits and over-penetrating hits.

This has not yet come to pass and is therefore a strong argument in support of the idea that civilian resistance to mass shooters stands to do much more good than bad.

crashhelmet

01-27-2011, 05:08 AM

Armed civilians being responders to the shooter, the shooter is no longer a civilian, he/she is a criminal/combatant. It addresses the worries about civilians engaging shooters causing stray hits and over-penetrating hits.

This has not yet come to pass and is therefore a strong argument in support of the idea that civilian resistance to mass shooters stands to do much more good than bad.

Doesn't the Armed Civilian then become a "Vigilante" which therefore makes them a criminal/combatant?

Wingates_Hellsing

01-27-2011, 05:14 AM

Doesn't the Armed Civilian then become a "Vigilante" which therefore makes them a criminal/combatant?
NO, NOT EVEN A LITTLE! I'm so tired of hearing this one >_<

*deep breath*
Vigilantees are people who circumvent the justice system to administer justice i.e. vengence against criminals, actively looking to start trouble where none existed and often looking to maim or kill their targets. Their actions are illegal.

CCP holders responding to violent crime against themselves or others or active-shooters are seeking to end violence to save lives, their motivation is to stop bad things from happening, not cause them, and their objective is not to kill merely to stop. Their actions are legal under the provisions for self-defense.

Vash113

01-27-2011, 05:16 AM

Doesn't the Armed Civilian then become a "Vigilante" which therefore makes them a criminal/combatant?

No... there's no logical reason that they would. A Vigilante is someone who seeks out "criminals" on their own time outside the Justice System generally intending to kill them.

An armed citizen responding to a violent threat is a brave individual putting their own life on the line to protect others and/or themselves. The objective is to protect, not to kill and they work with not against the Justice System.

Gravekeeper

01-27-2011, 05:19 AM

You seem to be the only one who thinks the discussion is useless.

I don't think me or Wingate are budging from our positions. Do you?

So because he published findings based on research data results, he must therefore have an agenda? That's a non sequitur if ever I heard one. As for the picture, he's a Crimonologist, I wouldn't be surprised if he had a few shrunken heads floating around his house somewhere. Not to mention that has no bearing on the validity of his findings. Attempting to undermine the individual does not invalidate their peer reviewed, published findings.

Nrrr, his findings and conclusions are a point of contention ( He has additional articles simply defending his conclusions and data ) and one of many studies that seem to be all over the map. The truth is likely somewhere in the middle. There is opinion in his study. I'm not debating the statistics themselves aside from how old they are. But he's drawing his own conclusions from them.

But again, I'm not debating DGU itself, I wasn't debating DGU to begin with. You brought it in.

Besides the extremely small number of such incidents that result in any actual injury just goes to prove that gun ownership is not nearly as dangerous as you claim.

Thats completely the wrong side of what I'm claiming though. I'm not claiming against a responsible gun owner fending off a burglar for instance. Its the burglar getting a gun just as easy as the home owner thats my problem. Or a gun owner opening fire in a crowd. That was the original argument. I'm not sure where we are now. >.>

Actually this is not necessarily true. Knife fighting and knife wounds are far more vicious than gunfights. A knife fight lasting only a few seconds can result in dozens of mortal wounds, a gunfight lasting a few seconds involves only a handful of bullets and even fewer hits or serious injuries.

The very incident we were originally talking about seems to disagree. Also, you'd have to be pretty damn impressive to inflict dozens of wounds with a knife in a few seconds and they'd all have to be on one target.

Not to mention that there are just as many techniques for disarming a gun wielding opponent

That require you to get close vs a ranged weapon. Plus while you're grapping with a knife, its not going to go off and hit a bystander.

Also there are many techniques for throwing off an attackers aim with a gun, ducking, weaving and zig-zagging while running make a rapidly moving target near impossible for even experienced shooters to hit, add the usual night-time gloom and obstructing objects like cars for instance, and it is actually much easier to escape a gun wielding opponent than a knife wielding opponent. After all the gun wielder has to stop and take aim while a knife wielding opponent has little reason not to chase you down at which point you are entirely relying on your own fitness level.

Ducking, weaving and zig zagging, if someone even thought to do it while running in fear, doesn't mean much at close range. If you're comparing knife to gun here, we have to assume starting at lethal range for the knife. I fear I could shoot your ass fairly easy even if you were trying to zigzag ( which requires a lot of agility on your part ). Why does a gun wielder have to stop to take aim? Sure thats more accurate, but a handgun would let you move and shoot, and at close range you don't have to be that accurate.

Really though, both scenarios have you relying entirely on your own fitness level. One would be endurance and some agility, the other agility and some endurance.

All of which doesn't mention the simple fact that you can also throw a knife.

This takes some measure of skill to pull off properly.

Fighting back works better in general and the best way to do so is with a gun.

And with that we're once again back to square one, where its a simple matter of I don't understand you, and you don't understand me on this issue. Call it cultural if you will, but thats unfortunately the facts of it.

All told 2.5 Million is by no means the upper extreme as you try to indicate.

All I said the truth was its probably somewhere in the middle of the respective studies. Its certainly now 108k ( thats lunancy, I wouldn't even use that as the minimum ). So its likely somewhere between 2.5 and 1.5. But again, DGU as defined in that study is a different topic that you introduced.

Actually yes I can, the issue hasn't ultimately changed that much since the 70s or 80s, statistical spreads and societal trends have not changed very much on this issue. Gun ownership has simply slowly risen while crime rates have slowly fallen. Correllation does not equate causation but it can certainly imply it.

You don't think events, politics and population growth in the interm could have thrown things off even a tad? And yes, correllation does not equal causation seeing as crime rates elsewhere have fallen too without any corrosponding increase in gun ownership.

I don't think Wingates is frustrated with you at all, and neither am I, and actually he does well understand why you disagree.

No offence, but you must be reading a different thread, honestly.

Actually that is an invalid argument as I could simply say that 7/10 feel equally or less safe invalidating the need for any legal change. You cannot apply the middle ground and of those with concerns on the issue those who would feel less safe significantly outnumber those who would feel more
safe.

Even if you ignore the opinion of the middle, you're still talking 9%, which doesn't include whatever the margin of error was. But none of that matters as fear shouldn't drive policy in either direction. Like I said at the very beginning of this discussion.

As for fearing guns, well that is irrational by its very deffinition. A healthy respect is always good but that does not equate fear. There is no reason to fear a gun as long as you handle it properly just like anything.

Perhaps I was not specific enough, I fear people who do not have said healthy respect ( or the capacity for said healthy respect ) and I do not see said healthy respect that often ( present company excluded of course ).

Do you fear cars? More people die in automobile accidents every year than from gunshots by a significant margin, yet we don't have attempts to ban cars every time someone is killed by one.

I fear cars driven by people who should not have gotten a license in the first place. Also, yet again, I never said anything about taking away all your guns and tossing them into Mount Doom.

As for the laws, well that is the nature of State's Rights.

Which is the problem, in my opinion. I'm quite sure there are states with perfectly reasonable gun control laws. But I am also quite sure there's, well, Arizona. -.-

This is very much not true. Anyone carying a gun around in public legally must have a concealed carry permit. These permits are not easy to acquire, involve a great deal of expense, background checks, and often training in the weapon's proper use.

But again, it depends on what State you're in how tight or how loose said laws are.

Sorry to cut short, but its time for me to return to the sale mine that is my job. ><

crashhelmet

01-27-2011, 05:28 AM

NO, NOT EVEN A LITTLE! I'm so tired of hearing this one >_<

*deep breath*
Vigilantees are people who circumvent the justice system to administer justice i.e. vengence against criminals, actively looking to start trouble where none existed and often looking to maim or kill their targets. Their actions are illegal.

CCP holders responding to violent crime against themselves or others or active-shooters are seeking to end violence to save lives, their motivation is to stop bad things from happening, not cause them, and their objective is not to kill merely to stop. Their actions are legal under the provisions for self-defense.

No... there's no logical reason that they would. A Vigilante is someone who seeks out "criminals" on their own time outside the Justice System generally intending to kill them.

An armed citizen responding to a violent threat is a brave individual putting their own life on the line to protect others and/or themselves. The objective is to protect, not to kill and they work with not against the Justice System.

They are not tackling the gunmen like the people did in Tucson. They are breaking the law to stop the crime. That is Vigilantism. That is why even when people have tried to use the "Stand Your Ground" law in their defense, it's been highly scrutinized as to whether or not they were at risk when they shot or not.

Further edit...
"CP holders responding to violent crime against themselves or others or active-shooters are seeking to end violence to save lives, their motivation is to stop bad things from happening, not cause them, and their objective is not to kill merely to stop. Their actions are legal under the provisions for self-defense." Having a CCP does not make you a Law Enforcment Officer. having a Gun does not make you a Law Enforcement Officer.

Wingates_Hellsing

01-27-2011, 06:16 AM

I don't think me or Wingate are budging from our positions. Do you?
As I said before, there's more to it than changing minds.

Nrrr, his findings and conclusions are a point of contention ( He has additional articles simply defending his conclusions and data ) and one of many studies that seem to be all over the map. The truth is likely somewhere in the middle. There is opinion in his study. I'm not debating the statistics themselves aside from how old they are. But he's drawing his own conclusions from them.
Isn't that what researchers do? and, as a criminologist, isn't that his specialty? He's obviously using his personal barometer to interpret what he sees, there's really no other option. Point being that he has been very up front about the limitations of his conclusions and there's little reason to believe that he has let his bias override his rationale and logic.

But again, I'm not debating DGU itself, I wasn't debating DGU to begin with. You brought it in.
DGU is kindof impossible not to bring into these debates, they're a substantial part of the purpose of all firearms and the primary et al use of handguns (which are designed to be used defensively. the saying goes "A pistol is what you use to fight your way to a rifle.")

Thats completely the wrong side of what I'm claiming though. I'm not claiming against a responsible gun owner fending off a burglar for instance. Its the burglar getting a gun just as easy as the home owner thats my problem. Or a gun owner opening fire in a crowd. That was the original argument. I'm not sure where we are now. >.>

Again, it's all very interconnected, and the prevalence of DGUs kinda has to be weighed against theft rates and consequences and ASS.

The very incident we were originally talking about seems to disagree. Also, you'd have to be pretty damn impressive to inflict dozens of wounds with a knife in a few seconds and they'd all have to be on one target.
Melee combat is by definition far more brutal than a firefight as they're far more in-your-face and involve the infliction of dozens and dozens of wounds to both parties before either gives in. It doesn't seem like it in theory but anyone can stab an opponent they're grappling with far, far faster than they can shoot and hit a target that's even a few feet away and probably moving. Melee is far more frantic and in many ways quite a bit more horrifying than exchanging bullets and oddly enough inflict far more damage than typical firefights (most people who're shot are shot once or twice and most people who are stabbed in a struggle are stabbed or cut many many times and the wound channels can me massive even compared to bullets.)

That require you to get close vs a ranged weapon. Plus while you're grapping with a knife, its not going to go off and hit a bystander.
Actually, to disarm you have to be just as in your face either way, which works to your advantage because violent crime almost always occurs regardless of weapon pretty close up. There are plenty of complications both ways and by the time you get to the end of it, bare-hands defense can work but it's most useful as a method of last resort compared to other forms of defense in terms of effectiveness.
As for going off and hitting bystanders, the chances of that happening are extreme to say the least and basically impossible if the disarming party has an idea of what they're doing.

Ducking, weaving and zig zagging, if someone even thought to do it while running in fear, doesn't mean much at close range. If you're comparing knife to gun here, we have to assume starting at lethal range for the knife. I fear I could shoot your ass fairly easy even if you were trying to zigzag ( which requires a lot of agility on your part ). Why does a gun wielder have to stop to take aim? Sure thats more accurate, but a handgun would let you move and shoot, and at close range you don't have to be that accurate.
This all makes a lot of sense on paper, but in practical application the more obscure variables tend to add up.
First and foremost, reaction times mean a lot in situations like this, the time it takes for the person threatening you to realize that you're bolting, consider his or her options, decide on a course of action and then take it are very probably enough that, by the time they start shooting you're going to be anything but stationary, close, or simple to hit. This is the same thing that's going to save your ass when it comes to fleeing a knife-wielder because you get some free ground.
The idea that most people don't think under stress is widespread but highly without basis. It's true that higher thought capacity is limited, but the fight or flight response actually encourages simple self-preservation based thought and many people act surprisingly intelligently in life-threatening situations. It's not high-strategy but the concept of getting out of sight isn't and exactly the sort of thing that people's instinct leads them to do.
Whilst firing and running is possible accuracy plummets far below even stationary point shooting and even at what would be short ranges the chance of hitting your target are very long indeed. It's basically impractical to the point of being almost useless. To the point where even gang-bangers seem to grasp the concept (if you watch video you'll see that even they instinctively stop or slow down when they want to hit their targets.)

Really though, both scenarios have you relying entirely on your own fitness level. One would be endurance and some agility, the other agility and some endurance.
Yeah, which leads me to think that the single most important thing contributing to your escape int he event that you choose flight is the level of dedication of the aggressor.

And with that we're once again back to square one, where its a simple matter of I don't understand you, and you don't understand me on this issue. Call it cultural if you will, but thats unfortunately the facts of it.
I dunno, I'm starting to understand you more.

All I said the truth was its probably somewhere in the middle of the respective studies. Its certainly now 108k ( thats lunancy, I wouldn't even use that as the minimum ). So its likely somewhere between 2.5 and 1.5. But again, DGU as defined in that study is a different topic that you introduced.
The point we're trying to make, for clarification's sake, is that the really outlandish numbers that are floating about out there go as high as 5 million and shit. 2.5 isn't on the high end of the middle which is 1.5 to 2.5.

You don't think events, politics and population growth in the interm could have thrown things off even a tad? And yes, correllation does not equal causation seeing as crime rates elsewhere have fallen too without any corrosponding increase in gun ownership.
A tad and enough to substantially alter what the data means are two very different beasts and while plenty of political stuff has happened, it's pretty equally spread between the two sides with a lack of overall ground being gained by either on average.
There is some information to suggest that higher rates of gun ownership do correspond with somewhat more severe drops in crime, which isn't a slam dunk, but it is decidedly not corresponding the other way as some people have claimed.

No offence, but you must be reading a different thread, honestly.
Not really, internet communication is fractal and nebulous by it's very nature, I'm not so much frustrated as dispassionate. This is by and large neither as ludicrous as the stuff that frustrates and angers me nor as clear and productive as the stuff that encourages me, more something in the middle.

Even if you ignore the opinion of the middle, you're still talking 9%, which doesn't include whatever the margin of error was. But none of that matters as fear shouldn't drive policy in either direction. Like I said at the very beginning of this discussion.
Margin of error was something like 1.5%-3% either way so really not much. 9 is pretty commanding all things considered. Point being (I seem to say that alot :P) that it doesn't matter that more felt as safe or safer without guns because that's a non sequitur combination.

Perhaps I was not specific enough, I fear people who do not have said healthy respect ( or the capacity for said healthy respect ) and I do not see said healthy respect that often ( present company excluded of course ).
Maybe it's the degree to which Vash and myself are plugged into the gun community, but the vast, vast majority of people we've had the pleasure of interacting with have had more than enough respect for the dangers of firearms than not. This is skewed incredibly by the amount of media attention that nuts of all stripes receive and the degree to which most pro-gun people tend to refrain from volunteering that fact absent some coaxing.

I fear cars driven by people who should not have gotten a license in the first place. Also, yet again, I never said anything about taking away all your guns and tossing them into Mount Doom.
Again, I believe that you're not against gun ownership but most of your arguments have been focused on the negative effects you fear derive from them and the degree to which they influence your opinions on the various topics. It kinda follows despite your assurance to the opposite that you intend for something to be done about it, Vash and I are simply employing hyperbole.

Which is the problem, in my opinion. I'm quite sure there are states with perfectly reasonable gun control laws. But I am also quite sure there's, well, Arizona. -.-
Different strokes for different folks, many rural states have laws like this because guns are such a casual and omnipresent component of many people's lives. Looser restrictions work for them because it's almost required for the day-to-day activities of a large portion of the population to go through without gunking everything up and causing a lot of people a lot of distress to say nothing of taxing law enforcement.

But again, it depends on what State you're in how tight or how loose said laws are.

Sorry to cut short, but its time for me to return to the sale mine that is my job. ><
That's cool, no problem. If it weren't for the fact that my in-person classes were all canceled I would be busy right now, but that's a whole different debate.

Wingates_Hellsing

01-27-2011, 06:34 AM

They are not tackling the gunmen like the people did in Tucson. They are breaking the law to stop the crime. That is Vigilantism. That is why even when people have tried to use the "Stand Your Ground" law in their defense, it's been highly scrutinized as to whether or not they were at risk when they shot or not.
Again, they are not breaking the law to stop the crime. Homicide and assault laws allow for self defense which includes the defense of others. Unless they're carrying the gun illegally, they aren't breaking any laws by stopping the gunman with it and even then they would still be using the gun legally despite carrying it illegally.
The reason why this scrutiny occurs is most likely the result of personal motivations against the Castle Doctrine and not any actual breaking of it. This is not equivalent to making those actions illegal.

Further edit...
"CP holders responding to violent crime against themselves or others or active-shooters are seeking to end violence to save lives, their motivation is to stop bad things from happening, not cause them, and their objective is not to kill merely to stop. Their actions are legal under the provisions for self-defense." Having a CCP does not make you a Law Enforcment Officer. having a Gun does not make you a Law Enforcement Officer.
Providing for personal safety and the safety of others is not the exclusive prerogative of law enforcement. they number far, far too few for that to be even remotely realistic.

In cases like the Appalatian Law School shooting, armed resistance captured the shooter alive when students retrieved firearms from their cars and closed to engage, risking their lives and chances of success by attempting capture before firing. The media, in a feat of enormous failure of integrity utterly failed to report this fact, ignoring it instead.

Or take for example the shooting at Pearl Highschool Mississippi where the Assistant principle tracked down the shooter, shooting and killing him before he could escape to continue his shooting spree at the local junior highschool.

link:http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/04/when-mass-killers-meet-armed-resistance.html

In both cases people with access to firearms used them to end the violence and thus, save lives. Unfortunately, they had to retrieve them from other places to do so, wasting precious seconds and likely causing more people to come to harm and possibly die. Had they been allowed to carry their weapons with them they would have been able to react sooner and therefore helped more.

Vash113

01-27-2011, 06:34 AM

They are not tackling the gunmen like the people did in Tucson. They are breaking the law to stop the crime. That is Vigilantism. That is why even when people have tried to use the "Stand Your Ground" law in their defense, it's been highly scrutinized as to whether or not they were at risk when they shot or not.

I don't know where you have gotten that idea but civilians using armed force to stop violent attackers are not breaking any laws, not a single one.

Further edit...
"CP holders responding to violent crime against themselves or others or active-shooters are seeking to end violence to save lives, their motivation is to stop bad things from happening, not cause them, and their objective is not to kill merely to stop. Their actions are legal under the provisions for self-defense." Having a CCP does not make you a Law Enforcment Officer. having a Gun does not make you a Law Enforcement Officer.

No one said having a CCP makes you a law enforcement officer. It does however come with a civic duty to protect yourself and others and is entirely legal. Unfortunately many attempts have been made to sue and/or prosecute individuals who have defended themselves and/or others with firearms, fortunately they are pretty well always thrown out. Most of the time when they aren't the result is a fine based on rediculous things like magazine capacity and ammunition type but that does not make the actions of the individual in stopping an armed attacker a crime nor does it make them a vigilante.

Honestly such a comparison is outrageously insulting and serious defamation of character to all those who have risked their lives to protect others.

As an example I point you to the University of Texas in Austin during the 1996 shooting. During that event armed civilians used hunting rifles to pin down the shooter, Charles Whitman, and prevent him from taking careful aim and forcing him to use water spouts in the clock tower observation deck he was using. This allowed officers to safely extract wounded from the University gardens and gave them cover and a suitable distraction to make it to the barricade Whitman errected at the top of the tower stairs, shoot and kill him. In point of fact Ramiro Martinez, one of the officers who participated in stopping Whitman's rampage, later stated that the civilian shooters should be credited as they made it difficult for him to take careful aim.

In fact one of the civilians, Allen Crum, was part of the four man ad-hoc "strike team" so to speak, along with three other officers including Martinez, who made it to the observation deck and brought down Whitman. Allen Crum's name is also on the Heroes Tower erected as part of a precinct house to recognize the police officers and civilians, instrumental in stopping the massacre.

You should seriously reconsider lumping civilian heroes in the same category as vigilante murderers.

Gravekeeper

01-27-2011, 08:24 AM

Yay, salt mine. >.>

As I said before, there's more to it than changing minds.

True, though I mean this discussion itself is fairly inconsequenal. The myriad of problems that contribute to the issue are immense. For example, the very fact there are places in the US where you feel you need a gun for self defence is a problem itself that just taking away guns isn't going to resolve.

If I could attempt to sum up where my perspective comes from though, I would say that you have to realise that you have the right to bear arms in your country, whereas in mine it is a privledge. That has resulted in a much different culture.

Point being that he has been very up front about the limitations of his conclusions and there's little reason to believe that he has let his bias override his rationale and logic.

I have no doubt he believes fully in his work. I'm probably being a bit too hard on Kleck, I'll admit. As while I disagree with some of the conclusions he draws I do accept that he means well. I still think we need a recent study to get a good picture, however. Though I stand by smucking Lott around. <cough>

But again, DGU wasn't really part of the intial discussion. Defending home and family is a different category all together. I know its pretty easy to segway over to it, but my views on DGU differ from my views on gun use in an active shooter scenario in a crowded enviroment.

Contrary to popular belief I am, as I said, not arguing for the Mount Doom solution. That ignores way way too many of the underlaying problems that have lead reasons, whether legtimate or not, to own a gun for one's own safety. Besides, there were guns in my house till the age of 14. 4 to be exact from handgun to shotgun. They were all used exclusively for target shooting. But not DGU. To say I was flogged about just how great a responsibility even being around them was is an understatement.

Melee combat is by definition far more brutal than a firefight as they're far more in-your-face and involve the infliction of dozens and dozens of wounds to both parties before either gives in.

Its not so much a matter of damage as it is effenciency. It takes time and effort to defeat a single target in melee combat. A knife, slightly better. A gun, well a good shot is going to clear a room. Which again, is where I start to have a problem. Crazy guy with a knife, sure, got a chance. Crazy guy with a gun, not so much. Crazy guy with a gun with other people returning fire, oh shi-

Melee is far more frantic and in many ways quite a bit more horrifying than exchanging bullets and oddly enough inflict far more damage than typical firefights (most people who're shot are shot once or twice and most people who are stabbed in a struggle are stabbed or cut many many times and the wound channels can me massive even compared to bullets.)

I think this is a matter of lethality and aggression. You're not going to shoot someone over and over because you're mentally aware of the lethality. By contrast, few people are mentally aware lethality is even possible with melee. Bit ironic really, on one hand people assume they can kill easily, on the other, people assume they couldn't possible kill.

Someone whose crazy aggressive though is going to curbstomp or fill you full of lead way beyond what is logical.

Actually, to disarm you have to be just as in your face either way, which works to your advantage because violent crime almost always occurs regardless of weapon pretty close up.

I have successfully defended myself vs a knife. But not successfully vs a handgun. Because of range. ( Range sucks. ). I don't mean I was shot. I mean I was stuck at that range where I was too far to a have shot at grappling, but too close to have any chance of not being shot if I bolted. Though the thought of wishing I had a gun in that scenario never crossed my mind even at the time. I recall telling myself to stay calm, make no sudden movements and talk my way out of it. Which I did. Else I'd likely not be here or I'd have a few more sexy scars.

First and foremost, reaction times mean a lot in situations like this, the time it takes for the person threatening you to realize that you're bolting, consider his or her options, decide on a course of action and then take it are very probably enough that, by the time they start shooting you're going to be anything but stationary, close, or simple to hit. This is the same thing that's going to save your ass when it comes to fleeing a knife-wielder because you get some free ground.

Intiative is a bitch. I didn't have intiative when it happened to me. Though frankly someone with a gun trained on you *is* going to be watching for any sign of movement. I know I would. With a knife, there might be some surprise that you're turning to run instead of fighting.

The idea that most people don't think under stress is widespread but highly without basis. It's true that higher thought capacity is limited, but the fight or flight response actually encourages simple self-preservation based thought and many people act surprisingly intelligently in life-threatening situations.

I, personally, become 100% calm and start trying to think my way out of it. However, if it were a chaotic situation such as a crowd, where I'm suddenly dealing with mob think, then things get more difficult.

Whilst firing and running is possible accuracy plummets far below even stationary point shooting and even at what would be short ranges the chance of hitting your target are very long indeed. It's basically impractical to the point of being almost useless.

Yes and no, it depends how damn fast the target can run really. Thing is you don't need any sort of square hit to make someone stop running. Even a glancing shot might stagger them. Depending how calm your attack is you could be unlucky as they may just calmly lline up the shot and not bother chasing you at all. In which case its between his reaction time and your speed + any possible cover.

To the point where even gang-bangers seem to grasp the concept (if you watch video you'll see that even they instinctively stop or slow down when they want to hit their targets.)

Yes, well, they hold a handgun sideways too so wanting to hit their targets is about the most they can hope for half the time. <cough>

Yeah, which leads me to think that the single most important thing contributing to your escape int he event that you choose flight is the level of dedication of the aggressor.

vs your fitness, unfortunately.

I dunno, I'm starting to understand you more.

Yes, well, don't say anything to screw up my international man of mystery status, the chicks dig it.

The point we're trying to make, for clarification's sake, is that the really outlandish numbers that are floating about out there go as high as 5 million and shit. 2.5 isn't on the high end of the middle which is 1.5 to 2.5.

I don't recall seeing one that hit 5 mil ( thats just as out there as 108k. ). I'd peg it between 1.5 and 2.5 somewhere.

A tad and enough to substantially alter what the data means are two very different beasts and while plenty of political stuff has happened, it's pretty equally spread between the two sides with a lack of overall ground being gained by either on average.

I was thinking something like 9/11 undoubtably caused a ripple, for example.

There is some information to suggest that higher rates of gun ownership do correspond with somewhat more severe drops in crime, which isn't a slam dunk, but it is decidedly not corresponding the other way as some people have claimed.

In a somewhat ideal scenario, you would have a cause where the aggressor cannot easily obtain a gun and thus must naturally fear the non-aggressor who can and likely does. Unfortunately, ideal scenarios, even somewhat ideal ones, are not the norm. Again, it would come back to just how determined the aggressor is. If he has a gun too, it's up to how aggressive or uncaring he is as to whether or not you have one.

Not really, internet communication is fractal and nebulous by it's very nature, I'm not so much frustrated as dispassionate. This is by and large neither as ludicrous as the stuff that frustrates and angers me nor as clear and productive as the stuff that encourages me, more something in the middle.

True. While I may not agree, I should take a moment to point out that I do appreciate that both you and Vash are actually discussing things. Normally I just get covered in spittle and froth with the occasional threat of being shot. >.>

Margin of error was something like 1.5%-3% either way so really not much. 9 is pretty commanding all things considered. Point being (I seem to say that alot :P) that it doesn't matter that more felt as safe or safer without guns because that's a non sequitur combination.

My point is more that its just not that big enough a difference to make a sweeping statement on. Plus, ultimately, feelings don't really matter to be honest. We'd be in pretty scary shape if everything operated on feelings.

Maybe it's the degree to which Vash and myself are plugged into the gun community, but the vast, vast majority of people we've had the pleasure of interacting with have had more than enough respect for the dangers of firearms than not. This is skewed incredibly by the amount of media attention that nuts of all stripes receive and the degree to which most pro-gun people tend to refrain from volunteering that fact absent some coaxing.

Which again, comes back to what I was saying before. Its not the responsible, respectful gun owner that I have a problem with. It's that he's not the only one that can just go buy a gun. Which comes back to the issue of States rights, unfortunately. Which is another one thats a bit of "Wha?" from a Canadian perspective.

Again, I believe that you're not against gun ownership but most of your arguments have been focused on the negative effects you fear derive from them and the degree to which they influence your opinions on the various topics. It kinda follows despite your assurance to the opposite that you intend for something to be done about it, Vash and I are simply employing hyperbole.

Well, I will clearly state as I did at the very beginning that I don't think anything should be done in response, gun control wise, to the Arizona shooting. Kneejerk legislation never does any good and is largely meaningless grandstanding. I'm not convinced additional gun control law would have avoided this particular tragedy. What would have helped would be if someone somewhere over the years had bothered to make a note somewhere that said "Hey this guy is fucking insane and has been for years, don't sell him anything" for the store to see when he walked in to buy one.

Different strokes for different folks, many rural states have laws like this because guns are such a casual and omnipresent component of many people's lives. Looser restrictions work for them because it's almost required for the day-to-day activities of a large portion of the population to go through without gunking everything up and causing a lot of people a lot of distress to say nothing of taxing law enforcement.

Its no different here for rural areas. Well, the key difference is handguns are extremely restricted here as they were originally used the most in crimes ( but their use in crimes has dropped severely in Canada since they became restricted ). Long guns are more accepted because they tend to have far more practical applications than handguns.

Wingates_Hellsing

01-27-2011, 09:40 AM

I'm going to pare down this response a bit because I've got to catch some sleep, maybe I'll flesh it out tommorow:

For example, the very fact there are places in the US where you feel you need a gun for self defence is a problem itself that just taking away guns isn't going to resolve.
I think the most accurate term would not be 'need a gun' so much as 'could use' a gun. 'Need' implies that the person(s) believe they will be victimized whilst 'could use' more accurately defines the concept, which is that in emergent circumstances guns are a viable and powerful option. In my experience there's more of a tone of realism to it than first appearances imply.

If I could attempt to sum up where my perspective comes from though, I would say that you have to realise that you have the right to bear arms in your country, whereas in mine it is a privledge. That has resulted in a much different culture.
Or the other way around come to think of it, either way, fair, but I fail to see how it has bearing on Us domestic policy.

Though I stand by smucking Lott around. <cough>
As well you should, too many academics are petty regardless of specialty and accomplishment. That said, doesn't really address the issue of the one quote of his we referenced.

But again, DGU wasn't really part of the intial discussion. Defending home and family is a different category all together. I know its pretty easy to segway over to it, but my views on DGU differ from my views on gun use in an active shooter scenario in a crowded enviroment.
I get that you want to treat them as separate, it makes good sense because they are different circumstances. Problem being that DGU is still the main reason for carrying in those same public places to say nothing of the fact that banning carry in public places makes carry to/from very impractical, something that bears considering.
I also get the concept of your reservations as to ASS gun use, but as I've pointed out before, those reservations however valid in theory haven't translated to reality.

Its not so much a matter of damage as it is effenciency. It takes time and effort to defeat a single target in melee combat. A knife, slightly better. A gun, well a good shot is going to clear a room.
TBO instances of mass murder with edged weapons aren't exactly unknown, they tend to involve heavier implements than street crime and once you get into the order of axes and machetes one good swing is very difficult to avoid, arrest or deflect and does more than enough damage.

Which again, is where I start to have a problem. Crazy guy with a knife, sure, got a chance. Crazy guy with a gun, not so much. Crazy guy with a gun with other people returning fire, oh shi-
First two you have a good and decent chance respectively, inexperienced shooters that haven't been to a range in their life (like the majority of mass shooters and street criminals) have been known to expend whole mags without hitting a damn thing even with targets everywhere.
Again, as for the third, the person shooting back be they LE, Military or Civilian is demonstrably better than the lack thereof. Not only does their shooting back pose little to no risk to you, but at worst distracts and disrupts the aggressor, possibly drives them away and in many cases eliminates them entirely.

I think this is a matter of lethality and aggression. You're not going to shoot someone over and over because you're mentally aware of the lethality. By contrast, few people are mentally aware lethality is even possible with melee. Bit ironic really, on one hand people assume they can kill easily, on the other, people assume they couldn't possible kill.
This holds true for people on the receiving end. People tend to give up if they even *think* they've been shot semi-seriously or at all but victims of physical attack in general seem to be oblivious to more or less comparable wounds. It's been noted by those with experience in the field that the number one reason people die from getting shot is that they give up.

I have successfully defended myself vs a knife. But not successfully vs a handgun. Because of range. ( Range sucks. ). I don't mean I was shot. I mean I was stuck at that range where I was too far to a have shot at grappling, but too close to have any chance of not being shot if I bolted. Though the thought of wishing I had a gun in that scenario never crossed my mind even at the time. I recall telling myself to stay calm, make no sudden movements and talk my way out of it. Which I did. Else I'd likely not be here or I'd have a few more sexy scars.
All good and well, no problems whatever works.
Plenty of people have also tried talking and ended up dead.
Same goes for virtually every option imaginable, which is why it's important to have as many as possible and work to ensure that you have enough forewarning to use them.

Intiative is a bitch. I didn't have intiative when it happened to me. Though frankly someone with a gun trained on you *is* going to be watching for any sign of movement. I know I would. With a knife, there might be some surprise that you're turning to run instead of fighting.
I dunno, seems to me there's just as much chance for a gun using criminal to be complacent and a knife user to be focused and determined.
Either way, best to see it coming if possible.

I, personally, become 100% calm and start trying to think my way out of it. However, if it were a chaotic situation such as a crowd, where I'm suddenly dealing with mob think, then things get more difficult.
It's not exactly slam-dunk hard data, but there seems to be a strong tendency for people to keep their heads when they're prepared. When you've got nothing panic is basically inevitable, but it looks more and more that the will to act and even some small level of preparedness goes a long way to cut through the mob think.

Yes and no, it depends how damn fast the target can run really. Thing is you don't need any sort of square hit to make someone stop running. Even a glancing shot might stagger them. Depending how calm your attack is you could be unlucky as they may just calmly lline up the shot and not bother chasing you at all. In which case its between his reaction time and your speed + any possible cover.
That is if they notice it, while people tend to have a bias against believing they'll survive or can function when shot there's still a lot of instances in which the adrenaline and other factors drown that out. Again, there's way for every course of action to go south if circumstances aren't favorable, so the more options the merrier.

Yes, well, they hold a handgun sideways too so wanting to hit their targets is about the most they can hope for half the time. <cough>
Whilst popular among the wannabes, it's probably wise to acknowledge that more than a few are serious and not exactly new at this, they may have a reputation for being incompetent but while acknowledging your enemies weaknesses and take advantage of them it's important not to underestimate them.

vs your fitness, unfortunately.
Fortunately for those guys and gals we send to the Olympics. According to that one commercial a few years ago there's at least one accomplished young lady from Texas who has to run away from cannibals on a regular basis :P

Yes, well, don't say anything to screw up my international man of mystery status, the chicks dig it.
Don't worry, I'll send you a high-collar duster and you'll be squared for life.

I don't recall seeing one that hit 5 mil ( thats just as out there as 108k. ). I'd peg it between 1.5 and 2.5 somewhere.
I seem to recall it was some low-rent thing out of, I'm tempted to say Vermont. You think Lott had small sample sizes, you ain't seen nothing.

I was thinking something like 9/11 undoubtably caused a ripple, for example.
Most definitely, but in basically all directions. There are just as many people who reacted by demanding tighter restrictions as there were who wanted to arm up. Either way I doubt it changed anyone's minds, these things rarely do. Rather, they tend to make everyone more *them* for a while.

In a somewhat ideal scenario, you would have a cause where the aggressor cannot easily obtain a gun and thus must naturally fear the non-aggressor who can and likely does. Unfortunately, ideal scenarios, even somewhat ideal ones, are not the norm. Again, it would come back to just how determined the aggressor is. If he has a gun too, it's up to how aggressive or uncaring he is as to whether or not you have one.
Kinda applies across the board. If neither could get guns and they had a knife or really whatever it's still a dice roll when it comes to what they're about. Probably the reason self-defense advocates don't care what the BG is armed with because not only do you not get to choose, you can't choose any of the other factors either. You can choose your level and style of preparedness though and among those with a more proactive outlook it's really no surprise that they see it as ideal and visa versa.

True. While I may not agree, I should take a moment to point out that I do appreciate that both you and Vash are actually discussing things. Normally I just get covered in spittle and froth with the occasional threat of being shot. >.>
I usually get horrified looks and shrieks and oddly also the occasional threat of being shot, jailed or both by the cops, all this from people who are just convinced their so much more 'enlightened'. (and always also exhibiting at least one hippy-esque trait, probably why I don't like them :rolleyes:)

My point is more that its just not that big enough a difference to make a sweeping statement on. Plus, ultimately, feelings don't really matter to be honest. We'd be in pretty scary shape if everything operated on feelings.
Really the biggest reason why we included that one is again, it's opposite and not as well based counterpart as used exhaustively by anti-gunners. Every time it comes to guns they go to a college or a bank or some shit in a liberal city and ask "would you feel safer if people had guns?"
Well no shit they're going to say no, you knew that wen you chose them, but not only are you wrong, it doesn't freaking matter!
If me and you for instance are standing in line in a bank and some shithead comes tearing in there shooting the place up I can't honestly say I give a shit if you feel safe with the idea of me having a gun or using it, I'm gonna fuck that guy up.

Which again, comes back to what I was saying before. Its not the responsible, respectful gun owner that I have a problem with. It's that he's not the only one that can just go buy a gun. Which comes back to the issue of States rights, unfortunately. Which is another one thats a bit of "Wha?" from a Canadian perspective.
Of all the states the most lenient is probably Utah, which is no surprise as the lifestyle that everyone for some reason associates with Texas is actually far more prevalent in Utah. It's also one of the several epicenters for practical and competition shooting practice and training facilities in the country, probably all the open space and lessened likelihood of some hippy airhead will wander along, freak and cause a scene.

Well, I will clearly state as I did at the very beginning that I don't think anything should be done in response, gun control wise, to the Arizona shooting. Kneejerk legislation never does any good and is largely meaningless grandstanding. I'm not convinced additional gun control law would have avoided this particular tragedy. What would have helped would be if someone somewhere over the years had bothered to make a note somewhere that said "Hey this guy is fucking insane and has been for years, don't sell him anything" for the store to see when he walked in to buy one.
The legislation necessary to patch that flaw, since mentally ill persons are not permitted under federal law to own firearms, unfortunately is lept over by anti-gunners, who really should be the first in line for it.

Its no different here for rural areas. Well, the key difference is handguns are extremely restricted here as they were originally used the most in crimes ( but their use in crimes has dropped severely in Canada since they became restricted ). Long guns are more accepted because they tend to have far more practical applications than handguns.
Maybe it's the evolution from cowboy culture where handguns were the norm, but country types who want or need a weapon for tooling around the countryside or wilderness have a seemingly unique appreciation for the portability and utility of a handgun over a rifle. For example; if you need to protect yourself from bears and other predators, an S&W 500 is both effective (massively effective) and actually practical to carry.

Mikkel

01-27-2011, 10:42 AM

The Arizona shooting was a tragedy. But this guy was a nut job that just cracked. He probably would have managed to get a gun and shoot people no matter how many laws get passed.

Or he'd find some other ways of hurting people. Holland has strict gun laws, that doesn't save them from crazy people attacking (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDezn5J-4Yg&feature=related).
There are certainly no need to make panicked law changes.

Gravekeeper

01-27-2011, 11:43 AM

I think the most accurate term would not be 'need a gun' so much as 'could use' a gun. 'Need' implies that the person(s) believe they will be victimized whilst 'could use' more accurately defines the concept, which is that in emergent circumstances guns are a viable and powerful option. In my experience there's more of a tone of realism to it than first appearances imply.

Well, I didn't mean it that implicitedly, though again the truth is probably a little from column A and a little from column B.

or the other way around come to think of it, either way, fair, but I fail to see how it has bearing on Us domestic policy.

It doesn't, I was just trying to outline where I'm coming from.

That said, doesn't really address the issue of the one quote of his we referenced.

Which? ( sorry, salt mines. Brain mushy. )

I also get the concept of your reservations as to ASS gun use, but as I've pointed out before, those reservations however valid in theory haven't translated to reality.

Perhaps they haven't in the US, I'll give you that. Though again, there's so many more underlaying problems to it in the US. You can't just jump straight to "ban all guns" and expect that to work in any way shape or form.

TBO instances of mass murder with edged weapons aren't exactly unknown, they tend to involve heavier implements than street crime and once you get into the order of axes and machetes one good swing is very difficult to avoid, arrest or deflect and does more than enough damage.

Well, fact of the matter is shitty people will do shitty things regardless of what they can get their hands on. It's making sure you keep the more dangerous ones out of said shitty people's hands. But once again, thats a very complex problem for which simply "omigawd ban guns!" isn't going to fix.

First two you have a good and decent chance respectively, inexperienced shooters that haven't been to a range in their life (like the majority of mass shooters and street criminals) have been known to expend whole mags without hitting a damn thing even with targets everywhere.

That's actually an interesting point, seeing as the Arizona shooter had the foresight to walk right up before he opened fire on people. Unfortunate, however, that he recognized any weakness in his possible aim.

Again, as for the third, the person shooting back be they LE, Military or Civilian is demonstrably better than the lack thereof. Not only does their shooting back pose little to no risk to you, but at worst distracts and disrupts the aggressor, possibly drives them away and in many cases eliminates them entirely.

But this is back to the original argument, which admittedly didn't get us too far, heh. There are just so many things that can go wrong vs how many things need to go right.

This holds true for people on the receiving end. People tend to give up if they even *think* they've been shot semi-seriously or at all but victims of physical attack in general seem to be oblivious to more or less comparable wounds. It's been noted by those with experience in the field that the number one reason people die from getting shot is that they give up.

Conversely, running on adreneline, you get cases were people don't even realise they've been shot at first. Granted, that really depends on what they were shot with.

All good and well, no problems whatever works.
Plenty of people have also tried talking and ended up dead.
Same goes for virtually every option imaginable, which is why it's important to have as many as possible and work to ensure that you have enough forewarning to use them.

I lucked out because I wasn't the target. A dumbass classmate of mine and his older brother had farked over some gang from out of town. They were looking for him when they rolled up on me.

I dunno, seems to me there's just as much chance for a gun using criminal to be complacent and a knife user to be focused and determined.
Either way, best to see it coming if possible.

Yeah, but I haven't figured out a move that can block bullets yet ( it would be nice if there was one. >.> ). The knife however I was able to stop.

It's not exactly slam-dunk hard data, but there seems to be a strong tendency for people to keep their heads when they're prepared. When you've got nothing panic is basically inevitable, but it looks more and more that the will to act and even some small level of preparedness goes a long way to cut through the mob think.

Individually, I think most people while even if they freak the hell out, will find a logical course of action ( even if its just run and call 911 ) and stick to it. In a group, people can be bloody idiots though even if an individual in the group is calm, they may end up struggling against the crowd or having the crowd disrupt whatever they're trying to do.

That is if they notice it, while people tend to have a bias against believing they'll survive or can function when shot there's still a lot of instances in which the adrenaline and other factors drown that out. Again, there's way for every course of action to go south if circumstances aren't favorable, so the more options the merrier.

Plus fun factors like hydrostatic shock.

Whilst popular among the wannabes, it's probably wise to acknowledge that more than a few are serious and not exactly new at this, they may have a reputation for being incompetent but while acknowledging your enemies weaknesses and take advantage of them it's important not to underestimate them.

Well yeah. I'd just like to see a study on how many lives gangsta style weapon posture has ended up *saving* due to the inaccuracy of it.

Don't worry, I'll send you a high-collar duster and you'll be squared for life.

Excellent.

Most definitely, but in basically all directions. There are just as many people who reacted by demanding tighter restrictions as there were who wanted to arm up. Either way I doubt it changed anyone's minds, these things rarely do. Rather, they tend to make everyone more *them* for a while.

Hmm, true. What followed was essentially a political polarization of extremes too. Though at the same time, I doubt the "less' side had any real affect in curbing the "more" side's aquisitions.

I usually get horrified looks and shrieks and oddly also the occasional threat of being shot, jailed or both by the cops, all this from people who are just convinced their so much more 'enlightened'. (and always also exhibiting at least one hippy-esque trait, probably why I don't like them :rolleyes:)

Both sides have their extremes, but extremes accomplish nothing in the grand scheme of things.

Really the biggest reason why we included that one is again, it's opposite and not as well based counterpart as used exhaustively by anti-gunners. Every time it comes to guns they go to a college or a bank or some shit in a liberal city and ask "would you feel safer if people had guns?"

You'd really need a nationwide, comprehensive study done. It varies so much from State to State you wouldn't get that accurate a picture without a sample size that covered every state, and covered rural to urban.

Of all the states the most lenient is probably Utah, which is no surprise as the lifestyle that everyone for some reason associates with Texas is actually far more prevalent in Utah.

Also, Mormons? -.-

The legislation necessary to patch that flaw, since mentally ill persons are not permitted under federal law to own firearms, unfortunately is lept over by anti-gunners, who really should be the first in line for it.

Its not even remotely an issue so simple you could just leap over it like that. Be nice if the issue was that simple.

Maybe it's the evolution from cowboy culture where handguns were the norm, but country types who want or need a weapon for tooling around the countryside or wilderness have a seemingly unique appreciation for the portability and utility of a handgun over a rifle. For example; if you need to protect yourself from bears and other predators, an S&W 500 is both effective (massively effective) and actually practical to carry.

Yeah, see, we evolved from a culture that needed to shoot furry things and pelt them. From a canoe. Also most hand guns of that particular era were manufactured in the US. I don't think it drifted too far north as our frontier was a tad different ( and involved a lot of beaver shooting ).

Andara Bledin

01-27-2011, 04:29 PM

(and always also exhibiting at least one hippy-esque trait, probably why I don't like them :rolleyes:)
I don't know who these people you speak of are, but they sure as shit ain't hippies. Hippy wannabes, probably. My parents were actual hippies, and we went out target shooting regularly. I learned how to fire a bow and arrow and an array of firearms before I was 10.

^-.-^

Wingates_Hellsing

01-27-2011, 06:52 PM

I don't know who these people you speak of are, but they sure as shit ain't hippies. Hippy wannabes, probably. My parents were actual hippies, and we went out target shooting regularly. I learned how to fire a bow and arrow and an array of firearms before I was 10.

^-.-^

I'm referring to the Vietnam protest type airhead hippy as opposed to an actual close to earth hippy. You'know the kind that think that if they smoke weed bang on drums and dance around like fools the world will suddenly be ponies and rainbows.

crashhelmet

01-27-2011, 08:23 PM

I don't know where you have gotten that idea but civilians using armed force to stop violent attackers are not breaking any laws, not a single one.

If I use my martial arts training to defend myself or someone else, I'm going to jail. Believe me. I've spent 3 separate weekends there as a result of it. They call it "Excessive Force," even if my life or health was potentially in danger. The onus is on me to defend myself in court or pray the DA decides not to press charges.

You should seriously reconsider lumping civilian heroes in the same category as vigilante murderers.

You're right. There's a difference between the two. Civilian Heroes are like the guys that tackled the shooter in Tucson, or the ones that run into a burning building to help save people until the FD shows up. The ones that take a bullet to protect someone else. Those people are Civilian Heroes.

Vigilante Murderers are the ones that think they're living in the Old West and can become "The Law" any time they want to. The ones still stuck in that "Cowboy Culture." The ones that think their possession of a firearm makes them everyone's Superman, ready to save the day.

Take it from me, anybody that does a "good deed" can be considered a hero. That does not always make them right though. They are still subject to the laws of the land that are supposed to govern and protect our people.

But you know what.... I'm tired of arguing about this. It's like talking to the bulkhead. Provide me with a recent ruling where a judge said to a civilian "It was your duty to use your civilian owned weapon to stop the ordeal" or even "I'm sentencing you to jail because you had a weapon and chose not to get involved." and I will admit I'm wrong and concede.

Fair enough?

Wingates_Hellsing

01-27-2011, 09:05 PM

Fair enough?
No, because you're entirely missing the point. There's more to life and how you live it than legal and illegal. Doing the right thing is a civic duty, not a legal one as has been ruled many times. Like calling 911 or helping someone who's been in a car accident, there's no law that says you have to do it but it's your civic duty to help. that said:

If I use my martial arts training to defend myself or someone else, I'm going to jail. Believe me. I've spent 3 separate weekends there as a result of it. They call it "Excessive Force," even if my life or health was potentially in danger. The onus is on me to defend myself in court or pray the DA decides not to press charges.
It's only excessive force if the level of force you use is substantially above that needed to handle the situation (breaking a guys arms and legs because he took a swing at you, for example)
Using lethal force in response to a lethal threat, however, does not constitute excessive force. And it's important to differentiate between being charged and breaking the law. They do not equal each other, people who break laws aren't always charged and people who are charged haven't necessarily broken laws. That's why our court system holds defendants as being innocent until proven guilty.

You're right. There's a difference between the two. Civilian Heroes are like the guys that tackled the shooter in Tucson, or the ones that run into a burning building to help save people until the FD shows up. The ones that take a bullet to protect someone else. Those people are Civilian Heroes.
What makes them more of a hero than the ones who stop crimes with guns? Do guns magically make anything thereto connected evil? or does heroic equate to suicidal in you're mind?

People who throw themselves in harms way without the right tools and training are heroes, I'm not disputing that, but what you fail to realize is that people who throw themselves into harms way with the right tools and training are also heroes, albeit with a healthy dose of foresight.

Vigilante Murderers are the ones that think they're living in the Old West and can become "The Law" any time they want to. The ones still stuck in that "Cowboy Culture." The ones that think their possession of a firearm makes them everyone's Superman, ready to save the day.
Who are you talking to here? Because it's certainly got nothing to do with anything Vash or I have proposed.

Stopping a violent crime with the threat and if need be use of lethal force is something police officers and civilians do every day, what makes you think that the shiny badge that cops happen to have makes it any different? If civilians using guns to stop crime are "Vigilantee Cowboys" then logically speaking, so are cops.

Take it from me, anybody that does a "good deed" can be considered a hero. That does not always make them right though. They are still subject to the laws of the land that are supposed to govern and protect our people.
For the nth time, the law of the land provides for self-defense as a justification for the use of lethal force, therefore a civilian shooting a gunman laying waste to a mall is doing so just as legally as a cop doing the same.

But you know what.... I'm tired of arguing about this. It's like talking to the bulkhead. Provide me with a recent ruling where a judge said to a civilian "It was your duty to use your civilian owned weapon to stop the ordeal" or even "I'm sentencing you to jail because you had a weapon and chose not to get involved." and I will admit I'm wrong and concede.
You'know, it's kinda funny how you're just as adamant that you're right and despite the fact that you've conveniently skipped over all of the examples and facts we've provided we're still somehow the unreasonable ones :rolleyes:

So if you'll be so kind as to come up with one example or fact to support your position I'll consider entertaining you're assertions. So far you've had none, and we've presented you with three separate occasions where civilians used lethal force to end killing sprees entirely lawfully, none of them were jailed in the largest case they were responsible for the positive outcome to a greater degree to the cops that were there.

Come up with an instance in which someone shot a mass murderer and was jailed for it and we'll debate.

Vash113

01-27-2011, 10:10 PM

If I use my martial arts training to defend myself or someone else, I'm going to jail. Believe me. I've spent 3 separate weekends there as a result of it. They call it "Excessive Force," even if my life or health was potentially in danger. The onus is on me to defend myself in court or pray the DA decides not to press charges.

Actually that's not the case, defending yourself or others is not even remotely close to "Excessive Force," the very assertion that it somehow might be is beyond outrageous. If you've been jailed for defending yourself that's grounds to sue the department and whatever dumb DA thought it was a good idea.

As for you spending three weekends in jail, I'd say it's a pretty clear indication you weren't breaking any laws otherwise you'd have spent a LOT longer in jail than that.

As for the legal side of things here's a few court cases you should look up before you start throwing around claims of excessive force or vigilantism again, first is Runyan v. State (57 Ind. 80), a case which is among the earliest cases that strongly supports an individual's right to self-defense and establishes the lawful use of self-defense actions up to and including the justifiable use of lethal force against an attacker.

In the Runyan case the court decided that: "When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justifiable."

A more extreme and related incident is the US Supreme Court Case of John Bad Elk v. U.S. (177 U.S. 529). In this case a police officer was killed by John Elk while attempting to illegally arrest him, the Supreme Court acquitted John Bad Elk of the charges.

Further supporting legal cases are Miller v. State (74 Ind. 1), Jones v. State (26 Tex. App. I), Beaverts v. State (4 Tex. App. 1 75), and Skidmore v. State (43 Tex. 93, 903).

Not to mention the three cases Wingates and I already brought up above that you completely ignored for some strange reason. In the case I mentioned, involving the University of Texas shooting, the civilian Allen Crum, who assisted law enforcement officers in engaging and killing Whitman was not charged for "Excessive Force," completely contrary to such a notion his name was included on the Heroes Tower adorning a Police Precinct House!

As further evidence I point you to the NRA News (http://www.nranews.com/#/nranews) Channel Hero of the Day video segments. Each one describing an event where one or more armed citizen(s) legally defended themselves from violent attackers. There are 197 videos currently. That's more than 197 people who have legally used firearms defensively right there.

You're right. There's a difference between the two. Civilian Heroes are like the guys that tackled the shooter in Tucson, or the ones that run into a burning building to help save people until the FD shows up. The ones that take a bullet to protect someone else. Those people are Civilian Heroes.

Those actions are heroic, but they are not one iota different from anyone else who risks their life to protect others, whether they use guns or not. Your seeming belief that the mere use of a gun in defending oneself or others makes someone a criminal is simply and utterly unfounded.

Vigilante Murderers are the ones that think they're living in the Old West and can become "The Law" any time they want to. The ones still stuck in that "Cowboy Culture." The ones that think their possession of a firearm makes them everyone's Superman, ready to save the day.

Well first of all I think you are entirely doing a disservice to the "Old West" and "Cowboy Culture" while ignoring the fact that the grand majority of all Wild West heroes and personalities were in actuality law enforcement officers. Heck even the Shoot Out at the OK Corral was between U.S. Marshals and men illegally carrying firearms. Even back in the Wild West it was illegal to carry firearms openly in most towns and it was also illegal to take the law into your own hands.

I am greatly disappointed when people show the ignorance to believe the old west was some kind of rough and tumble no mans land of utter and total lawlessness. In reality the Wild West as depicted in the movies never really existed, entities like the U.S. Marshals, Texas Rangers and Sheriffs existed to enforce the law, even at the furthest bounds of "civilization" so to speak.

You know who assisted them then as they still do today? Law abiding citizens with guns.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way I should also note that you still have not shown any proof that civilians protecting themselves and others from armed madmen with guns are committing a crime or are vigilantes in any way. You've made the rude and defaming claim several times but have provided no actual proof despite Wingates and I pointing out quite a bit of evidence to the complete opposite.

Take it from me, anybody that does a "good deed" can be considered a hero. That does not always make them right though. They are still subject to the laws of the land that are supposed to govern and protect our people.

Oh of course people are still subject to the law of the land, now show how someone acting in the defense of themselves or others is breaking said laws.

Also, lets not forget, that law enforcement and the legal system are not necessarily there to protect us per say, they are there to capture and prosecute criminals for crimes after they have been committed. If law enforcement officers get the chance to protect you from a crime in progress that's a bonus, not the expected norm.

Your protection is the onus of nobody but yourself or those who choose to risk themselves to protect you.

But you know what.... I'm tired of arguing about this. It's like talking to the bulkhead. Provide me with a recent ruling where a judge said to a civilian "It was your duty to use your civilian owned weapon to stop the ordeal" or even "I'm sentencing you to jail because you had a weapon and chose not to get involved." and I will admit I'm wrong and concede.

Fair enough?

Unfortunately you seem to be missing the point entirely. No-one has said there is any kind of legal obligation to use force to stop a crime in progress. It is a civic duty to protect yourself and others if you have the skill and/or means to do so, but a civic duty is not the same as a legal obligation.

In short, you are wrong, whether you concede or not isn't my concern at all. We have proven as much in multiple posts now with legal precedent and historical examples while having seen not one shred of evidence in return. If you won't even acknowledge that evidence then there's little we can do to help you.

While you accuse and disparage us with statements like: "It's like talking to a bulkhead" you really have no basis for such claims. We are entirely reasonable and will listen to evidence fairly when it is shown and will change our opinions if presented substantial evidence.

It is therefore ironic that we must face such accusations despite our side being the only ones displaying any substantial proof or evidence for our arguments thus far.

Or he'd find some other ways of hurting people. Holland has strict gun laws, that doesn't save them from crazy people attacking (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDezn5J-4Yg&feature=related).
There are certainly no need to make panicked law changes.

That is a very good point, thanks for bringing it up.

Hyena Dandy

01-28-2011, 07:28 AM

Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vash113 View Post
I don't know where you have gotten that idea but civilians using armed force to stop violent attackers are not breaking any laws, not a single one.
If I use my martial arts training to defend myself or someone else, I'm going to jail. Believe me. I've spent 3 separate weekends there as a result of it. They call it "Excessive Force," even if my life or health was potentially in danger. The onus is on me to defend myself in court or pray the DA decides not to press charges.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vash113 View Post
You should seriously reconsider lumping civilian heroes in the same category as vigilante murderers.
You're right. There's a difference between the two. Civilian Heroes are like the guys that tackled the shooter in Tucson, or the ones that run into a burning building to help save people until the FD shows up. The ones that take a bullet to protect someone else. Those people are Civilian Heroes.

Vigilante Murderers are the ones that think they're living in the Old West and can become "The Law" any time they want to. The ones still stuck in that "Cowboy Culture." The ones that think their possession of a firearm makes them everyone's Superman, ready to save the day.

Take it from me, anybody that does a "good deed" can be considered a hero. That does not always make them right though. They are still subject to the laws of the land that are supposed to govern and protect our people.

I'm a little confused here, but I'm sure you could explain, and I'm probably just misinterpreting you. But it sounds like what you're saying is that if you use a gun to do a good deed, that makes you a criminal, but if you don't, that makes you a hero.

I am not in favor of reaching for a gun first. But it seems to me you're going too far in the other direction as it seems (although I may be misinterpreting your position, and if I am, forgive me) that you're saying that the use of guns is NEVER justified.

And I don't understand your requirement that it be proven that there's a law on the books saying you're obligated to use a gun if you have it.

And as for a little philosophical tangent, I feel that good and right are intertwined. If a person does a good thing, and that's illegal, the person is right. Its the laws are wrong.

Gravekeeper

01-28-2011, 08:38 AM

Cata

01-28-2011, 11:57 PM

Damn, your local police and/or DA must be a complete dick? ( On a side note, the way you elect *everyone* down there gives me a headache sometimes ). Excessive force is, as the name implies, excessive. As in you need to have caused permanent injury or death. Or kept beating the guy after he'd given up or been knocked out. Excessive force is something you gotta work at to achieve. >.>

As I understand it, where I live, people who have significant martial arts training are held to a higher standard. If I fight back (melee) against an assailant and accidentally kill him, I'm generally off the hook; the death was an accident (barring any obvious and deliberate attempts to murder him). However, someone with a significant degree of martial arts training WILL be charged with murder if they kill someone in a fist fight, because they are expected to be capable of incapacitating their assailant without killing them.

I have no idea how it falls out for lesser issues WRT martial arts, but the local police generally arrest everyone involved in a brawl, and then press charges against only some of the participants, generally the antagonists and/or people who went overboard in their use of violence during the fight.

Gravekeeper

01-29-2011, 01:56 PM

Wingates_Hellsing

01-29-2011, 04:52 PM

Ah, finally found the guy I was thinking of: Joseph Zamudio. The guy that was at Arizona shooting and *did* have a gun on him. He saw it happen when he was coming out of drug store across the street and had his 9mm with him. Ran over ready to shoot, almost shot the wrong guy but luckily people saw him and yelled at him that he was aiming at the wrong guy.
Incorrect. The information at hand from witness accounts and Zamudio himself indicates that he arrived after the shooter was down, spotted someone holding a gun but observed that the person holding it wasn't using it and that it was empty and decided to approach the man and investigate. When he did the people holding the shooter down told him that the person they had was the shooter.

He didn't *almost* shoot anyone.

That's the kind of thing that makes me wary about the whole idea. ID'n the wrong guy, or even worse, if there were two or three people carrying in the crowd. What if they misidentified each other? Gah, there's just too many ways something farktastic could happen for me to be comfortable with the idea. And yeah, maybe a cop would misidentified the guy too ( which btw, if they arrive and *you're* the only one still standing with a gun, guess whose getting shot. >.> ). But police won't accidently shoot each other at least.
Well that's life. When the going gets tough, guarantees are thin but you're just going to have to deal. From what I can find there haven't been any cases of miss-identification on the part of responding armed citizens, nor have police officers mistaken an armed citizen for the shooter because not only do they have brains and can observe things like Zamudio did and draw the correct conclusions, but during LE training officers are instructed to expect armed good guys and bad guys. Between plainclothes and undercover officers there's plenty of room for cops to shoot each other too, but that almost never happens again because they know to expect that sort of thing.

Found a recent study (http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/News_Releases/2009/09/gun-possession-safety/) but fair warning it only covers Philly. So does not speak for other areas or States. It just really sucks to be in Philly. >.>
Heh, speaking of minute sample sizes...
And the researchers are daft enough to think that the exact same approach they use for diseases and the like applies to things like guns? Did they even consider crimes that went un-reported which make up a substantial portion of DGUs?

Also...you can apparently still buy a gun if you're on the terrorist watch list? Nrrrr.
Why shouldn't you? The terrorist watchlist is a list of names that routinely include hundreds if not thousands of people other than the intended individual.

Andara Bledin

01-29-2011, 11:49 PM

Why shouldn't you? The terrorist watchlist is a list of names that routinely include hundreds if not thousands of people other than the intended individual.
Because, don't you know, even if 1600 people in the US share the same name, because one of them might be a terrorist, none of the rest should ever be allowed to own a weapon. Nevermind that the TWL is just names, and doesn't include any really useful information.

Jan 2010 article from Wired (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/01/eight-year-old-on-watchlist/) about 8-year-old that gets frisked every time he flies due to having that common name. You'd think that after a decade of the same complaint, they'd have managed better.

^-.-^

Gravekeeper

01-30-2011, 05:32 AM

He didn't *almost* shoot anyone.

To quote the guy himself:

"He saw people wrestling, including one man with the gun. “I kind of assumed he was the shooter,” said Zamudio in an interview with MSNBC. Then, “everyone said, ‘no, no — it’s this guy,’” said Zamudio.

To his credit, he ultimately helped subdue Loughner. But suppose, in those few seconds of confusion, he had fired at the wrong man and killed a hero? “I was very lucky,” Zamudio said."

He himself admits he got lucky. He didn't draw the correct conclusion.

From what I can find there haven't been any cases of miss-identification on the part of responding armed citizens, nor have police officers mistaken an armed citizen for the shooter

This is kind of the problem, I honestly can't find much at all that goes either way. So we're largely just stuck in the realm of theorycraft. That said, I *have* heard of officers mistaken citizens before. Which....actually isn't a good thing in any way shape or form. But thats kind of a problem that goes above and beyond this singular scenaro.

during LE training officers are instructed to expect armed good guys and bad guys.

I guess I can see that being part of the training in the States, but you were pretty hard on LE training earlier.

Did they even consider crimes that went un-reported which make up a substantial portion of DGUs?

Well, obviously, we can't really say much for unreported incidents one way or another.

Why shouldn't you? The terrorist watchlist is a list of names that routinely include hundreds if not thousands of people other than the intended individual.

The effectiveness of the list is not the issue. The issue is they came up with the idea and it didn't occur to anyone to ban them from buying weapons. Can't hop a flight anywhere, but hey, no problem buy weapons? >.>

Isn't there a loophole of some sort where anyone can buy a gun at a gun show without even a background check too?

Wingates_Hellsing

01-30-2011, 06:54 AM

To quote the guy himself:

"He saw people wrestling, including one man with the gun. “I kind of assumed he was the shooter,” said Zamudio in an interview with MSNBC. Then, “everyone said, ‘no, no — it’s this guy,’” said Zamudio.

To his credit, he ultimately helped subdue Loughner. But suppose, in those few seconds of confusion, he had fired at the wrong man and killed a hero? “I was very lucky,” Zamudio said."

He himself admits he got lucky. He didn't draw the correct conclusion.

Those two quotes are incredibly out of context. If you watch the full video interview he details how he assumed at first that the man holding the gun was the shooter but re-evaluated when he noticed that the gun was empty and the man was clearly not using it. Not wanting to take anything for granted, he opted instead to approach the man and demand that he drop the weapon until the situation was established.

Moreover, while Zamudio sees himself as lucky this is actually the typical sequence of events. Time and again people in extraordinary situations rise to the occasion quite to the contrary of what our society has lead us to believe.

This is kind of the problem, I honestly can't find much at all that goes either way. So we're largely just stuck in the realm of theorycraft. That said, I *have* heard of officers mistaken citizens before. Which....actually isn't a good thing in any way shape or form. But thats kind of a problem that goes above and beyond this singular scenaro.
It's true that instances of officers happening upon armed civilians is pretty low because by virtue of their differences from LE: they typically don't stick around. Where an LEO is duty bound to arrest suspects and standby for backup; an armed citizen exercising self defense is either going to use it to create an opening to flee and follow suit or the situation will go entirely south and one or both parties end up dead. Either way by the time the cops get there the likelihood that anyone will be lounging around, weapon in hand is practically nil.

However, in those few instances where we have multiple active first responders citizen or otherwise, the outcomes have been pretty good such as in the case of the Appalachian School of Law shooting.

While your concerns of things possibly going badly are valid in that they're possible and when applied to a massive body of instances such as law enforcement actions et al they start to happen a number of times, none of this changes the fact that they're far from probable.

The reality of life is that when you're dealing with things like mass shootings, burning buildings and other disastrous emergencies there are simply no guarantees. Everything you do, including nothing, can get you killed and that's just how it is. That's why it's so important that we equip ourselves if we so choose to because what ultimately pays is options. There is no one option that you'll always have, so you should have as many options are possible.

I guess I can see that being part of the training in the States, but you were pretty hard on LE training earlier.
From what I've heard from my LEO acquaintances this basically amounts to a few sentences of lecture time and in some rare cases an armed training target that is not aiming it's weapon at anyone (the rule of thumb, you don't get shot for holding a gun, you get shot for aiming or shooting a gun) and TBH that's really all it takes. All it really takes is awareness and the rest falls into place.

Important distinction: I'm not saying now nor have I ever said that LE training is crap, it isn't. It is solid foundational training and there's no reason not to have it if you can get it. My problem is with the idea that basic LE training somehow transforms what would be an incapable man or woman into a consummate professional, it's not, that isn't it's purpose. It's purpose is to fill in any gaps and correct any misconceptions at the bases level and build on it a bit from there. The fact of the matter is that most people just before their academy training could do much of what's needed of them just fine without it, problem being that they need to do it all, this is not true for CCP holders.

CCP holders only need to know basic gun safety, basic self-defense usage, their local self defense legislative 'bullet points' and what to do after it's all over. All in all this is easily doable in a few days of class time.

Actively training in Active-Shooter scenarios is really just a waste of time by virtue of their rarity because you're essentially spending time, money and effort on a few specialized skills you probably won't get the chance to use and even if you do you probably won't need them. Ultimately they mostly just amount to applied basics so as long as you have those you're about as set as it's practical to be.

Specialized skills that SWAT teams learn are largely irrelevant. Group movement, emergency vs tactical mag changes vs swapping to secondary, room clearing strategy, all that's irrelevant to the armed citizen unless they just so happen to go everywhere with three or four PMCs with carbines. Probably the only one worth addressing at all is the 5% shot and you can do that all on your lonesome.

Anyway, tangent over, moving on:

Well, obviously, we can't really say much for unreported incidents one way or another.
The surveys sourced by Gary Kleck did a decent job, both in demonstrating that they happen, about how much they happen and how DGUs effect them.

The effectiveness of the list is not the issue. The issue is they came up with the idea and it didn't occur to anyone to ban them from buying weapons. Can't hop a flight anywhere, but hey, no problem buy weapons? >.>
That's because quite frankly the list was and always will be a feel good that does nothing. All it gets anyone is a frisking and a few hours delay, more to 'show that we're vigilant' than anything else. The only legitimate use it has is to catch fleeing criminals and that's where the hour delay comes in, even then it's about directing scrutiny, not listing known quantities.

Isn't there a loophole of some sort where anyone can buy a gun at a gun show without even a background check too?
This is another of the ones I get all the time, and it has to do with a certain amount of not-so-subtle misinformation.

The actuality of the matter is that private sales I.E. transfers from one citizen to another are not regulated below the level of Title 2. The seller is still responsible if they knowingly furnish a felon or other restricted person with a firearm, however, so due prudence is usually administered. This happens at gun shows because what with all the gun owners there it's no duh that it's an expedient place to go if you've got something you're looking to sell.

What we're lead to believe is that all those booths brimming with every sort of weapon imaginable, with major distributor's logos and employees are subject to some kind of magical loophole and the eevil weevil gun industry is exploiting it to hell and back. This is a false notion. The dealers at gun shows are licensed firearms distributors and are subject to all of the duties and misconduct penalties therein detailed regardless of the location or nature of the sale.

Gravekeeper

01-30-2011, 11:04 AM

Those two quotes are incredibly out of context.

Have to take your word for it, can't dig it out on shift. -.-

Time and again people in extraordinary situations rise to the occasion quite to the contrary of what our society has lead us to believe.

I've never heard of society leading us to believe otherwise?

Where an LEO is duty bound to arrest suspects and standby for backup; an armed citizen exercising self defense is either going to use it to create an opening to flee and follow suit or the situation will go entirely south and one or both parties end up dead. Either way by the time the cops get there the likelihood that anyone will be lounging around, weapon in hand is practically nil.

Depends on the situation, how it goes down, when its noticed and how close the nearest LE is. Practically nil is a little bit too much conjecture for me.

However, in those few instances where we have multiple active first responders citizen or otherwise, the outcomes have been pretty good such as in the case of the Appalachian School of Law shooting.

Otherwise. Both that responded with guns in that shooting were off duty cops. Neither was carrying ( they both had to run to their cars to get their guns ). Neither reached the shooter before he was physically subdued by yet another off duty officer ( +former marine ) and by that time the guy's clip was already empty ( as he'd already shot 6 people, 3 fatally ). So armed citizens were not a factor at all in stopping that one.

The reality of life is that when you're dealing with things like mass shootings, burning buildings and other disastrous emergencies there are simply no guarantees.

Yes, which is why I perfer to error on the side of caution and not introduce even more potentially dangerous factors.

Everything you do, including nothing, can get you killed and that's just how it is. That's why it's so important that we equip ourselves if we so choose to because what ultimately pays is options. There is no one option that you'll always have, so you should have as many options are possible.

My problem is not with options, but rather when those options become additional possible factors. Because again, the US does not seem to have proper controls in place to ensure we're only talking options. Due again, to what I assume is States rights.

Important distinction: I'm not saying now nor have I ever said that LE training is crap, it isn't.

I didn't say you said it was crap. I just said earlier in the discussion you were seemingly pretty hard on it.

CCP holders only need to know basic gun safety, basic self-defense usage, their local self defense legislative 'bullet points' and what to do after it's all over. All in all this is easily doable in a few days of class time.

Exactly. ><

Actively training in Active-Shooter scenarios is really just a waste of time by virtue of their rarity-

Maybe, but as the original debate was gun holder vs active shooter scenario, if you're going to be carrying a gun around because of the possibility of such a scenario than it's not really a waste of time.

Specialized skills that SWAT teams learn are largely irrelevant. Group movement, emergency vs tactical mag changes vs swapping to secondary, room clearing strategy, all that's irrelevant to the armed citizen unless they just so happen to go everywhere with three or four PMCs with carbines. Probably the only one worth addressing at all is the 5% shot and you can do that all on your lonesome.

Well no, you don't need to know that level of knowledge. It's rather unlikely as an armed civilian you'll need to storm and clear a house.

The surveys sourced by Gary Kleck did a decent job, both in demonstrating that they happen, about how much they happen and how DGUs effect them.

One point I found interesting in his study is the 1.4% figure. I haven't decided if that's rare, or uncomfortable common.

That's because quite frankly the list was and always will be a feel good that does nothing.

No argument there. 90% of what's going on down there lately is Feel Good(tm) only.

This is another of the ones I get all the time, and it has to do with a certain amount of not-so-subtle misinformation.

The frequency of its occurence does not negate the fact its a loophole and thus should be closed though. However, from what I can tell attempts to close it are usually met with a freak out by the NRA.

What we're lead to believe is that all those booths brimming with every sort of weapon imaginable, with major distributor's logos and employees are subject to some kind of magical loophole and the eevil weevil gun industry is exploiting it to hell and back. This is a false notion.

But I didn't say any of that. I'm just saying loophole = there = not good.

Vash113

01-31-2011, 07:32 AM

I've never heard of society leading us to believe otherwise?

Except it is the basis of your entire argument. You just don't seem to trust people acting logically and safely in dangerous situations and therefore believe that armed citizens are somehow a threat. However that belief, while fairly common, is just not the case at all as shown by numerous studies, surveys and crime statistics.

Depends on the situation, how it goes down, when its noticed and how close the nearest LE is. Practically nil is a little bit too much conjecture for me.

Perhaps for you but it is what the vast majority of situations that have occurred have shown. Either the situation is handled by the time the Cops get there and with no active threat the Cops hold their fire, or the situation is ongoing at which point the Cops generally follow your basic teamwork principles and shoot at the guy indiscriminately gunning down bystanders and not the people shooting at the criminal.

Perfect example is again the University of Texas shooting. Civilians responded to the threat well before the Cops showed up and when they did none of the responding officers mistook the Civilians for the Criminal, instead acting to back them up and work with them. The Civilians that responded to the threat remained in play acting in conjunction with the Austin Police Department until the threat was ended.

Otherwise. Both that responded with guns in that shooting were off duty cops. Neither was carrying ( they both had to run to their cars to get their guns ). Neither reached the shooter before he was physically subdued by yet another off duty officer ( +former marine ) and by that time the guy's clip was already empty ( as he'd already shot 6 people, 3 fatally ). So armed citizens were not a factor at all in stopping that one.

Nevertheless armed civilians were in play and no-one was hurt by them. Your arguments boil down to the fear that just having more guns in play increases the threat, but that's not really the case, yet again shown by this incident. Though the two men responded to the threat it ended before they arrived and neither made the situation worse. Fortunately they weren't needed but that they were there is no bad thing. Also they do count as armed civilians in this case as they were not just off duty they were far, far out of their jurisdiction and held no more privileges than any other civilians.

Yes, which is why I perfer to error on the side of caution and not introduce even more potentially dangerous factors.

Yet you have not shown armed civilians to be a dangerous factor, even saying they are a potentially dangerous factor is just not supported by the facts.

My problem is not with options, but rather when those options become additional possible factors. Because again, the US does not seem to have proper controls in place to ensure we're only talking options. Due again, to what I assume is States rights.

You say the US does not have the proper controls but I see no justification for such a claim, or any reason to fear armed civilians as an option to respond to a threat or a factor in eliminating a threat.

I didn't say you said it was crap. I just said earlier in the discussion you were seemingly pretty hard on it.

Wingates' point was that there is no magic secret taught to Law Enforcement or Military Personel in their training that makes them necessarily any more qualified than Civilians at utilising lethal force in a dangerous situation. It is a common argument that civilians lack the training to respond properly but again that's just not really the case.

Exactly. ><

Yet here you assume proper training must take a long time, but really we aren't talking rocket science here. Backstop, overpenetration, basic firearm safety, these things do not take a great deal of time to teach. In fact the only firearms training I've ever had was a single hours instruction at Scout Camp over a decade ago yet I am constantly complimented on my utilization of basic urban tactics and gun safety by acting and former military and law enforcement personel at the gun range and while engaging in MILSIM events. All told these aren't really complex or difficult concepts to grasp. A few hours of classroom instruction is all that is really needed, it works for the Police, it works for the Army, and it works for Civilians too.

Maybe, but as the original debate was gun holder vs active shooter scenario, if you're going to be carrying a gun around because of the possibility of such a scenario than it's not really a waste of time.

On the contrary Wingates is correct, nobody except SWAT actively train in "active-shooter" scenarios, not even normal law enforcement officers. They are so rare that training regularly is ultimately fairly pointless, however the basic response protocol is covered and is fairly simple. As for Civilians the point of carrying a concealed weapon for protection isn't always to respond to active-shooter scenarios, rather to cover the gampit of possibilities where armed protection is neccessary and again the response to these threats is really quite simple and covered in the concealed carry permit training that is required in most jurisdictions that allow CCP.

One point I found interesting in his study is the 1.4% figure. I haven't decided if that's rare, or uncomfortable common.

It's common enough to show the necessity but rare enough that many people can choose not to arm themselves if they don't want to. The benefit of gun rights and gun owners is that they protect everyone, even those who choose not to arm themselvse. That the need for such protection is moderately common is just the nature of crime in general.

The frequency of its occurence does not negate the fact its a loophole and thus should be closed though. However, from what I can tell attempts to close it are usually met with a freak out by the NRA.

Actually no it should not be "closed," it won't be closed ever, because to do so would be an utter violation of constitutional rights. The Government just cannot regulate private sales, not now, not ever. Not to mention it isn't really a loophole, private sellers can still be held criminally accountable or civilly accountable if they sell a weapon to someone intending to commit a crime if there's any reasonable way they might have believed that to be a possibility. Hence background checks and paperwork are still extremely common despite a lack of distinct regulation.

Though anti-gun groups love to rant and rave about Gun Shows, the fact of the matter is they have never been shown to be even minor sources of illegal or ciminally used guns. Alternately I think the NRA is justifiably disturbed when someone tries to deny us our 2nd Ammendment Rights and our rights to privacy and against illegal search and seizure all in one go.

But I didn't say any of that. I'm just saying loophole = there = not good.

Where as we are saying trampling constitutional rights = worse than non-existent loophole.

Ultimately it comes down to not just saying something isn't good but saying why and then offering a solution, without either of those answers there's no justification for taking action against something at the detriment of rights or freedoms just so everyone can feel good about passing the law.

Wingates_Hellsing

01-31-2011, 07:57 AM

I've never heard of society leading us to believe otherwise?
All it takes is to look. At every opportunity we're told that we shouldn't do anything for ourselves, there's too much risk and there's no point trying. Just wait for the authorities and they'll handle it all for us when they get here. Every time someone rises to the occasion it's met with a sort of wide-eyed shock as if it's something that doesn't happen all the fucking time.

Depends on the situation, how it goes down, when its noticed and how close the nearest LE is. Practically nil is a little bit too much conjecture for me.
What do you want? a magical psychic set of X-ray specs that magically informs the wearer as to the intent of the people around them?
Far from conjecture this is exactly what the people whose area of expertise this is have found to be true. We're dealing with a specific situation that's substantially rare and at that it only could lead to something bad once it happens. Throwing out CCWs over this drawback is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater because there was a bit of lint in it.

Life doesn't have any guarantees and this holds true in life or death situations more than anywhere else. Sooner or later you're going to have to accept that anything someone does in these situations could get them killed, including nothing, and depriving them of a perfectly valid option because it like anything else might fuck up makes no sense because by that litmus test you'd also have to restrain them from negotiating, complying, running, anything.

Otherwise. Both that responded with guns in that shooting were off duty cops. Neither was carrying ( they both had to run to their cars to get their guns ). Neither reached the shooter before he was physically subdued by yet another off duty officer ( +former marine ) and by that time the guy's clip was already empty ( as he'd already shot 6 people, 3 fatally ). So armed citizens were not a factor at all in stopping that one.
Off duty cop in an entirely different state than their jurisdiction = civilian. And if it weren't for the the fact that they did have to run to their cars they would have been able to intervene far earlier than otherwise. If anything, an example both that two armed citizens are perfectly able to identify the shooter and the bystanders based solely on behavior alone, it's also a textbook example of why banning CC only got in the way of the good guys.

Yes, which is why I perfer to error on the side of caution and not introduce even more potentially dangerous factors.
Which would in fact be a correct application of erring on the side of caution if the potentially dangerous factors you were worried about weren't themselves dwarfed by the potential good they come right along with. Erring on the side of caution would be going with the net result, which is demonstrably positive.

My problem is not with options, but rather when those options become additional possible factors. Because again, the US does not seem to have proper controls in place to ensure we're only talking options. Due again, to what I assume is States rights.
If an armed citizen doesn't try to engage an active shooter their not doing it right. Drawing a weapon, any kind of weapon, and closing to engage is the best and therefore first option when the defecation hits the oscillation. Are you suggesting that we put laws in place forcing people to refrain from using weapons until they've actually tried some course of action that they know is doomed to fail?

I don't know about you, but I think what describes the best course of action when someone's life is on the line is up to that person and not any regulating body. Legislating people out of using their best judgment to save their lives or those of others because you don't agree with the way some people would do it is the height of arrogance. Excessive force is probably as good as you're going to get before you start screwing people. If they used more force than they had to than they're going to jail, anything more complicated is infringing too much to do little if any good.

I didn't say you said it was crap. I just said earlier in the discussion you were seemingly pretty hard on it.
And if you look again you'll see that I wasn't so much hard on it as I was hard on the inflated stock some people put in it. As I just finished explaining before.

Exactly. ><
Exactly what?
Have you or have you not frequented your discomfort with the idea of 'untrained' persons?
Is that or is that not at odds with admitting that said training is a factor of hours in-class and easily equatable through even cursory personal research?

Maybe, but as the original debate was gun holder vs active shooter scenario, if you're going to be carrying a gun around because of the possibility of such a scenario than it's not really a waste of time.
Which is why standard DGUs are applicable, that's what you're 99% carrying for, and AS scenarios are just the cherry on top. A cherry that really isn't that different from the rest of it and to be ready for only takes a modicum, if not borderline immaterial, amount of effort.

That said, this is a free country and what I spend my effort and discomfort tolerance on is entirely up to me.

Well no, you don't need to know that level of knowledge. It's rather unlikely as an armed civilian you'll need to storm and clear a house.
And yet many do, if only because it's totally freakin' bad-ass. I'm already saving up for the Magpul training videos.

One point I found interesting in his study is the 1.4% figure. I haven't decided if that's rare, or uncomfortable common.
I'd place it as likely enough to be a factor, infrequent by virtue of emergencies being rare in general. Good news being that it becomes a win-win. Those who choose to be prepared stand to make the world a better place and aid others and those who don't aren't signing death warrants in the same way as disregarding the failing brakes on your car would be.

No argument there. 90% of what's going on down there lately is Feel Good(tm) only.
Replace 'down there' with 'freakin everywhere' and yeah, I agree. I can't throw a stick in Best Buy without hitting a game that Australia's review board didn't shit unnecessary bricks over, and the UK is just getting ridiculous.

The frequency of its occurence does not negate the fact its a loophole and thus should be closed though. However, from what I can tell attempts to close it are usually met with a freak out by the NRA.
See below as to there being no loophole.
And you're god damned right the NRA freaks, the gun culture NRA included has experienced supposed 'sensible measures' slippery sloping their way into blatant rights infringements enough not to believe for one second that anti-gunners are interested in anything other than eliminating 2nd amendment rights, which in this case would be infringed upon right along with privacy and illegal search and seizure.

But I didn't say any of that. I'm just saying loophole = there = not good.
You asked me what it was and that is it: A misconception at best.
Imaginary loophole =/= justification for removing civil liberties.

Andara Bledin

01-31-2011, 04:10 PM

I find this debate somewhat amusing.

Not so much for the debate itself, but for how much effort uninformed people put into fearing guns and people who carry guns.

There are a lot more scary things out there that we encounter every single day (crosswalks, for example) that we barely give consideration to, but we spend so much time and effort over things that most people encounter only a few times in their entire lives.

^-.-^

Gravekeeper

01-31-2011, 06:11 PM

Except it is the basis of your entire argument.

No it's not. My argument was that introducing additional possible lethal factors when those factors don't have sufficient controls is a bad idea. You also can't hand wave that with "numerous studies". As we can't seem to find much one way or another.

You just don't seem to trust people acting logically and safely in dangerous situations and therefore believe that armed citizens are somehow a threat.

Now you're making assumptions and using them to pole vault to a conclusion. There's a difference between a dangerous situation such as an accident or disaster, and an extreme situation such as an active shooter scenario where people are confronted with the possibility of someone actually trying to hunt them down or murder them. There is no one way people will react to that. You don't really know how you'll respond to the immediate possibility of your life ending until you reach that moment.

I can trust people to act reasonably in scenario A, but scenario B is a different and unpredictable ball game.

Perfect example is again the University of Texas shooting.

Er...wait, ok the mere fact the question "which?" came to mind is kind of bad. Regardless, you mean last year? The guy that had an assault rifle for starters, wandered around shooting it into the air than killed himself with it? What civilians responded to that armed or otherwise?

Or you mean the Appalacian Law one that Wingate is talking about?

Nevertheless armed civilians were in play and no-one was hurt by them. Your arguments boil down to the fear that just having more guns in play increases the threat, but that's not really the case, yet again shown by this incident.

No, my original argument was that more guns in a crowd usch as the Arizona shooting would increase the chances of something going tragically wrong. In the scenario of a shooter wandering around, say, a campus where civilians have already fled the area, leaving just him and a handful of people that are hiding out of sight, things are obviously different.

Though the two men responded to the threat it ended before they arrived and neither made the situation worse. Fortunately they weren't needed but that they were there is no bad thing.

They were both *cops*.

Also they do count as armed civilians in this case as they were not just off duty they were far, far out of their jurisdiction and held no more privileges than any other civilians.

No, but they have training. Which yet again goes back to the original problem me and Wingate were already discussing.

Yet you have not shown armed civilians to be a dangerous factor, even saying they are a potentially dangerous factor is just not supported by the facts.

I'm not sure you understand what my argument is at this point, honestly. You also keep citing facts, numerous studies, crime rates etc. But have only presented two. One of which is questionable. I've left crime rates out of it because they're pretty blatantly "more guns = more people being shot" but I didn't want to use causation/corralation.

You say the US does not have the proper controls but I see no justification for such a claim, or any reason to fear armed civilians as an option to respond to a threat or a factor in eliminating a threat.

How can you not see any justification with it? The mere fact monkey boy in Arizona bought a gun 3 days earlier without a problem is a pretty flagrant justification. If he's the type of civilian that can be armed, then yes, something's wrong somewhere. Either in individual State laws or lack of enforcement in existing laws.

Wingates' point was that there is no magic secret taught to Law Enforcement or Military Personel in their training that makes them necessarily any more qualified than Civilians at utilising lethal force in a dangerous situation. It is a common argument that civilians lack the training to respond properly but again that's just not really the case.

No, there's no magic secret, but they are trained in dangerous scenarios and situational judgement. Whereas the average civilian is not, because our job does not require it. Yes, some people have good judgement naturally, but some people naturally don't too. You can no more say that everyone is able to respond properly and effectively to any given danger than I can that everyone isn't. We can't have one extreme or the other, its just not realistic. That's not how people work. Some are smart, some are stupid. Some are brave, some will freak the hell out at the slightest danger.

Which is why you try and put controls in place to ensure that the ones who can handle the situation well are the ones best equipped to do so. But there are failures somewhere in this system in some places in the US. You cannot deny that. Its right there in the Arizona shooting. He didn't buy a gun on the black market.

Yet here you assume proper training must take a long time, but really we aren't talking rocket science here.

I'm not assuming anything of the sort. I'm saying that such training is not a global requirement to own a firearm in the US.

A few hours of classroom instruction is all that is really needed, it works for the Police, it works for the Army, and it works for Civilians too.

Again. That's not the issue. The issue is that training is not globally mandatory. I'm not sure how much clearing I can state this before we stop going in a circle back to earlier in the thread.

I'll say it again: I don't want to take all your damn guns away. In fact it doesn't really matter much at all what you do down there seeing as I don't live there. I'm just saying there's obviously flaws in your system, which could perhaps be ironed out if there wasn't such a rabid response to any sort of suggestion that remotely comes near gun related legislation or enforcement.

The benefit of gun rights and gun owners is that they protect everyone, even those who choose not to arm themselvse.

This, again, is the sort of attitude that bothers me. Gun owners are not charged with protecting everyone and have no responsibility to do so. That is an individual impulse.

Actually no it should not be "closed," it won't be closed ever, because to do so would be an utter violation of constitutional rights.

And there, likely, is your problem at its most base level.

Though anti-gun groups love to rant and rave about Gun Shows, the fact of the matter is they have never been shown to be even minor sources of illegal or ciminally used guns. Alternately I think the NRA is justifiably disturbed when someone tries to deny us our 2nd Ammendment Rights and our rights to privacy and against illegal search and seizure all in one go.

Sorry, but the NRA gets just as rabid as the other side of the spectrum. And one people start talking about 2nd Ammendment Rights I have to admit it gives me a headache. See previous comment about right vs priviledge.

there's no justification for taking action against something at the detriment of rights or freedoms just so everyone can feel good about passing the law.

Which. Again. The literal very first thing I said in this thread was this shouldn't be used to exact any knee jerk laws or legislation. As that would just be a band-aid feel good that likely does dick and all in the grand scheme of things.

All it takes is to look. At every opportunity we're told that we shouldn't do anything for ourselves, there's too much risk and there's no point trying. Just wait for the authorities and they'll handle it all for us when they get here. Every time someone rises to the occasion it's met with a sort of wide-eyed shock as if it's something that doesn't happen all the fucking time.

Up here the attitude isn't "do nothing for yourself" so much as "Don't escalate". As long as your life isn't in danger, there's no sense getting hurt or killed over $50 in the till sort of thing.

What do you want? a magical psychic set of X-ray specs that magically informs the wearer as to the intent of the people around them?

Heh, what, you don't want those? =p

Life doesn't have any guarantees and this holds true in life or death situations more than anywhere else. Sooner or later you're going to have to accept that anything someone does in these situations could get them killed, including nothing, and depriving them of a perfectly valid option because it like anything else might fuck up makes no sense because by that litmus test you'd also have to restrain them from negotiating, complying, running, anything.

Except the option in question is lethal to them and to others around them. That, still, in my opinion, is too important a distinction to just throw out like that. A fuck up could end lives unintentionally.

We may need to agree to disagree here.

Off duty cop in an entirely different state than their jurisdiction = civilian.

= Complete technicality. Also, I have no idea on the CC laws for that juristiction. But I'm certainly not opposed to an off-duty officer being able to CC.

Which would in fact be a correct application of erring on the side of caution if the potentially dangerous factors you were worried about weren't themselves dwarfed by the potential good they come right along with.

Again, we may have to agree to disagree. The size of said potential good is your opinion, mine differs.

I don't know about you, but I think what describes the best course of action when someone's life is on the line is up to that person and not any regulating body.

But that's not what I mean. I mean fuckwit in Arizona should have had no chance whatsoever of just walking into a store and buying a gun based on his clear history of being absolutely fucking insane. >.>

Exactly what?

You view that as sufficient, I view that as insufficient. I doubt either of us is going to move position here either.

And yet many do, if only because it's totally freakin' bad-ass. I'm already saving up for the Magpul training videos.

Ok, I'll admit that kinda made me laugh. >.>

I'd place it as likely enough to be a factor, infrequent by virtue of emergencies being rare in general. Good news being that it becomes a win-win. Those who choose to be prepared stand to make the world a better place and aid others and those who don't aren't signing death warrants in the same way as disregarding the failing brakes on your car would be.

I'm going with too common me thinks.

Replace 'down there' with 'freakin everywhere' and yeah, I agree. I can't throw a stick in Best Buy without hitting a game that Australia's review board didn't shit unnecessary bricks over, and the UK is just getting ridiculous.

Well, at least up here I don't have to have my balls cupped by a minimum wage employee to get on a plane. So far anyway. ><

You asked me what it was and that is it: A misconception at best.
Imaginary loophole =/= justification for removing civil liberties.

Ehh, I still don't like it to be honest. The threat of punishment for the seller doesn't seem airtight. Are there any studies done on how often sellers have ended up being charged in relation to a weapon they sold at a gun show which was used to commit a crime?

protege

01-31-2011, 08:14 PM

I find this debate somewhat amusing.

I find it somewhat amusing that it's still going after 15 pages :p

Not so much for the debate itself, but for how much effort uninformed people put into fearing guns and people who carry guns.

I noticed that too. I guess I never really fell into the fearful-of-guns-group, simply because when I was growing up...there were guns in the house. I don't remember any handguns, but we did have a few rifles and shotguns. All for hunting, of course. Throw in being in scouts, and learning firearm safety...I wasn't fearful of them. I'm no expert by *any* means, yet I respect their power.

What I *don't* respect, are the douchebags who shoot at anything that moves. We've run into several of that type on the farm. In fact...one of them actually shot at my dad...who was covered head-to-toe in orange :eek: Dad promptly returned fire, sending whoever it was...scurrying into the woods.

Mikkel

01-31-2011, 08:46 PM

how much effort uninformed people put into fearing guns and people who carry guns.

I don't fear guns. I'll even admit that target shooting is great fun and that if I lived in USA I'd probably own a gun too. My son-in-law have assault weapons in his home as a sergeant and weapons instructor in the Danish home guard "hjemmeværnet (http://www.hjv.dk/eng/Sider/forside.aspx)" and I don't feel unsafe visiting my daughter and grandchildren.

Madmen with guns, though, make me a bit nervous. A greater availability of guns must make it easier for unfit people to get them too.

Andara Bledin

01-31-2011, 09:26 PM

No it's not. My argument was that introducing additional possible lethal factors when those factors don't have sufficient controls is a bad idea. You also can't hand wave that with "numerous studies". As we can't seem to find much one way or another.
Deaths are sensational. Gun deaths are more-so.

If there was much in the way of armed citizenry adding to the death counts (or even injury counts), every anti-gun site on the 'net would have archives of those stories. Except they just don't seem to exist.

While lack of evidence does not equal evidence of a lack, in this instance it's the most reasonable conclusion absent further information.

This, again, is the sort of attitude that bothers me. Gun owners are not charged with protecting everyone and have no responsibility to do so. That is an individual impulse.
Unfortunately neither are police. They can choose to not protect someone without fearing automatic reprisal. The only real difference between an armed officer and an armed civilian is that the officer can be ordered to attend to a situation. Of course, they could also be ordered away from a situation, too, if something bigger crops up.

Except the option in question is lethal to them and to others around them. That, still, in my opinion, is too important a distinction to just throw out like that. A fuck up could end lives unintentionally.
Guns aren't the only things out there that are lethal in the case of a fuck up. Hell, for the things we accidentally kill ourselves and each other with on a daily basis, guns are too far down the list (less than 0.7% of all accidental deaths, annually) to warrant anywhere near the attention we give them. As an example, in the US alone, there are as many accidental-only deaths from poisoning as there are total deaths by firearms, of which fewer than 3% are accidental, including any hypothetical cross-fire casualties.

Well, at least up here I don't have to have my balls cupped by a minimum wage employee to get on a plane. So far anyway. ><
Hey, don't forget that that minimum wage employee is unscreened, too. For all we know, half the people working for the TSA right now are terrorists; we certainly can't say that we know they aren't. >_<

^-.-^

Gravekeeper

01-31-2011, 09:58 PM

I find it somewhat amusing that it's still going after 15 pages

-yet still remains remarkably civil. >.>

While lack of evidence does not equal evidence of a lack, in this instance it's the most reasonable conclusion absent further information.

The biggest problem with this, is that it is almost uniquely an American problem and the two sides of the debate are uniquely American. It's very difficult to wade inbetween the two sides and not have one or the other try to forcibly toss you into the opposing camp.

As I said before, when it comes to guns, the culture is so incredibly different outside of the US. It's difficult for us northern snow dwellers to understand for example. But hard for us to say anything one way or the other without being tossed into the camp with the NRA froth or the Anti-Gun hippy extremes. I'll admit even in this discussion its been somewhat difficult trying to define my position without being classified as in the Anti-Gun Hippy category. Because my position is more just "Canadian" then anything else. ( For which, being Canadian, I apologize ).

Unfortunately neither are police.

Which is another thing thats somewhat baffling to me. As up here, that's kind of the point of their existence. Actually, I'd be interested in figuring out what the per capita is of police officers to population in the US. Do you have more or less than average? I can't seem to find any clear numbers.

The biggest problem in this discussion is that I'm speaking from a completely different enviroment than Wins and Vash. There isn't anything in Canada that makes us go "Shit, maybe I should own and/or carry a gun" ( Well, maybe bears ). For example you can't carry a concealed handgun in Canada for any reason whatsoever save one very special case permit of which only about 50 people in the entire country have. But by the same rule, we don't feel we need one either.

Like I said before, I grew up with guns in the house. A 9mm Glock, a Magnum, a 22 rifle and a Spas-12 ( guess which one I was allowed to use at my age. Hint: Not the Spas. ). But they were all used for target practice and target practice alone. They were kept locked up and unloaded. We had an ammo press to load our own ammo. But it wasn't kept anywhere near the actual guns. Because we didn't have them for defense. We didn't feel we needed them for defense.

Which is the key at the heart of this issue and why I'm trying to learn why some Americans *do* feel they need them for defense. Is crime really that bad there? Do your cops suck? Are there not enough cops? Are there social or economic factors?

Its easy enough to point out the Second Amendment as one reason, but really only the real hard core gun nuts leap straight to it. That's not what I'm curious about. I'm curious as to why you have more middle of the road people that feel they need such a weapon for defensive purposes.

What exactly is the enviroment around you that causes that?

Guns aren't the only things out there that are lethal in the case of a fuck up. Hell, for the things we accidentally kill ourselves and each other with on a daily basis, guns are too far down the list (less than 0.7% of all accidental deaths, annually) to warrant anywhere near the attention we give them.

That's honestly not too relevant though as the situations in question are already very rare. Comparing them to more common incidents and accidents doesn't say much one way or another. The attention itself comes from incidents like the Arizona shooting or when accidental shootings too occur ( and by god you'll hear about them for days ). That tends to focus the attention on them pretty quick, then both extremes leap out of the woodwork yelling and swinging at each other. Which pulls even more attention too it.

Its no different then, say, the kidnapping of a little blond white girl. It creates a media explosion that ripples through politics and communities, even though the actual fact of the matter is its exceedingly rare. But it doesn't stop everyone from being convinced everyone else they see on the street is a serial pedophile kidnapper pirate.

I fully realise shootings don't just happen every day every where in the US. But by the same note its difficult for me to picture being in an active shooter scenario in the *US* as opposed to one in Canada. If that makes any sense?

Hey, don't forget that that minimum wage employee is unscreened, too. For all we know, half the people working for the TSA right now are terrorists; we certainly can't say that we know they aren't. >_<

I'm certainly not offering to cup their balls to make sure ( Terrorism is contained entirely in the strotum apparently. )

crashhelmet

02-02-2011, 02:07 AM

Wingates_Hellsing

02-02-2011, 08:07 AM

About this cases you cited. Every single one of them, aside form the UTEP shooter 45 years ago, were singular self-defense situations. They weren't some random civilian grabbing his gun to save a crowd. They saved their own asses. That's different.
You're forgetting the Appalachian Law School shooting and the Pearl High School shooting. More to the point: they're not all that different. Ultimately what we're talking about is a group of people who are carrying weapons as a means of stopping violent crime. Sometimes it's small, sometimes it's big, but ultimately that's what we're talking about.

Here's a new one: The Colorado Springs New Life church shooting. CCP holder incapacitates shooter before he could have made it any further, prompting him to give up and take his own life. Given his lethality thus far probably a heaping helping of lives saved.

If I have the right to take a life to save my own why does that not also mean that I can take a life to save another life? If I personally feel the impulse to save someone else's life how is that not a noble thing?

Getting back to the UTEP incident, the ONLY reason why those men were able to help was that the local police did not have rifles to shoot him at that range.
This is probably going to be a theme, but, your point is, what? Even if the cops had brought some ARs with them the civilians still would have been better prepared. Assuming that the cops brought hunting/sniper rifles with them the situation would still have benefited from the fact that the civilians were there already as well as the fact that they would have been in addition to any similarly armed LEOs.

The civilians laid down suppressing fire while the cops stormed the tower to shoot and kill him with their service revolvers. It is again, not a civilian shooting and killing a hostile shooter.
Nowhere have we said that killing the BG is the objective, it's merely part of the method. The objective has and always will be to stop the killing, to bring an end to the threat by whatever means necessary. If it weren't for that suppressing fire plenty more people would have been killed and it would have taken the LEOs far longer to achieve what they did. You mistakenly assume that we're out to bag the bad guy and this is entirely erroneous. Sometimes it may be necessary to handle the worst of the situation yourself, but those situations are in no way the only important ones.

Besides. It happened in frickin Texas where I can crack countless jokes about the gun mentality and the abundance of gun racks in the back of pickup trucks there and how that is seemingly expected behavior.
And? "That was Texas therefore..." What? That civilian response to active shooters is valid only when it's expected? What about the comparable incidents in other areas?

But the recurring theme in your posts is "I am a gun owner. It is my civic duty to protect everyone.
The only one saying this is you. Guns carried abroad or kept in the home is just the topic at hand, but the theme of these messages is that anyone with the capability and opportunity to help someone in need has, as we see it, a civic duty to help. Sometimes it's a tourniquet, sometimes it's a hundred feet of rope, but sometimes it's a gun and the fact that it's a gun shouldn't change anything.

because I carry my gun around, I have the right to play Frank Castle."
Speaking of ad nauseum: Again you go back to the erroneous comparison to vigilantism.

The both of you repeat it ad nauseum as if you you took an oath and got a free cape or a badge when you bought the weapon. I am saying that it is not.
So your problem with our impulse to have a positive impact on bad situations is that you see it as cartoonish? That it's unrealistic?
Wake up and smell the roses, normal people rise to the occasion all the time, and they're lauded as heroes. But as soon as it comes to guns oh no, suddenly it's an immature fantasy. It isn't.
And until you get past your starkly hyperbolic mis-representations of our position we quite simply have no reason to listen to what you have to say. The idea of taking the initiative in a bad situation in order to help save lives is very real indeed, and unless you can demonstrate that it isn't your assertions that it isn't are meaningless.

As I've said in other threads, I grew up around guns. I am a gun owner. I live in an Open-Carry State and have my CCP. However, that gun stays at home, locked away, and unloaded. It only comes out if I'm going to the firing range, out to Front Sight (http://www.frontsight.com/) for a class, or working a security detail. It's the mentality of these "Here I Come to Save The Day" people that make the rest of us gun owners look like whack jobs.
Personally I think it's the crackpot militants stockpiling canned beans in what they'd like to think are woodland fortresses that are giving gun owners a bad name but let's get to the point at hand, as they're generally minding their own business in said fortresses anyway.
I'm going to go ahead and give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you are willing to shell out for a CCP and not use it, except I infer as part of your job.

The question I ask of you is this:
What is it that separates a scenario in which you use that weapon as part of your job and a scenario in which you use that weapon outside of it?
If you are forced to use that weapon to protect yourself or someone else as part of your job, how is using that weapon to protect yourself or someone else outside of said job any different?

Is it the salary? is it the badge if indeed there is one?
Again your argument comes back to a seeming insistence that to do good is only possible if you are payed to do it, and anyone not getting payed is somehow lesser than those who are.

Vash113

02-02-2011, 08:08 AM

Gawd... I go away for 4 days and come back to what feels like a Tolstoy novel.

It would take me too long to try and go back and quote everything so I'm going to try and address my points clearly.

My arrests. As someone else pointed out, as a martial artist I'm expected to use the highest levels of self control. Almost as if I should be able to stop them by flexing a muscle or winking at them. Anything more and it's "OH MY GAWD!!!!! You could've killed him with your pinky!!!! LIFE SENTENCE FOR YOU!!!!" Now lets take a look at the truth of the matter. A few things called "Muscle Memory" and "Habit." My training teaches me how to disarm, how to disable, and how to kill. it takes a lot of self control to keep from doing those things, but sometimes muscle memory and habit take over and I break arms and/or legs.

The first two times I was arrested were self-defense, but I was the only one standing when the police arrived, so I got hauled away. It was eye witness reports that got me released before I saw a judge. The 3rd time, I beat the crap out of a guy that hit my girlfriend. I will be completely honest and say that "excessive" would been an understatement. I wanted him to hurt. To this day, I believe the only reasons I had the charges dropped is that my girlfriend was a cop's daughter and I had a female judge.

Interesting stories but they do not at all prove that self-defense is a crime as you were trying to argue earlier.

About this cases you cited. Every single one of them, aside form the UTEP shooter 45 years ago, were singular self-defense situations. They weren't some random civilian grabbing his gun to save a crowd. They saved their own asses. That's different.

Incorrect, there is nothing at all different about them. In all cases they were about defense of self and/or others with firearms. That's it, you cannot seperate the issues because they are in essence the same thing, armed civilians stopping dangerous criminals. Whether the person(s) protected are few or many or even just one it is no different.

Getting back to the UTEP incident, the ONLY reason why those men were able to help was that the local police did not have rifles to shoot him at that range. The civilians laid down suppressing fire while the cops stormed the tower to shoot and kill him with their service revolvers. It is again, not a civilian shooting and killing a hostile shooter.

The very notion that all defensive firearm use equates to shooting and killing an agressor by a civilian is just plain outrageous. Actual woundings make up around 1% or less of total defensive gun uses, deaths 17% of that 1% or .017% of the total number of defensive gun uses each year. It isn't about shooting and killing anyone. Anti-gun lobyists love to throw around the notion that every gun owner secretly wants to be the hero bagging the bad guy but that is utterly erroneous and false.

As for the UTEP shooting itself the Civilians were there quite a bit earlier than the Cops and were able to start suppressing the shooter before the law enforcement officers could arrive and take charge of the situation. You also seem to have forgotten that of the four man "strike team" that made it to the clock tower and took down the shooter, one of them was an armed civilian. The cops in charge of the situation also commended the civilians for their aid in ending the killing spree.

Besides. It happened in frickin Texas where I can crack countless jokes about the gun mentality and the abundance of gun racks in the back of pickup trucks there and how that is seemingly expected behavior.

Yet I do not see drastically more people getting shot up in Texas and certainly no greater percentage of mass shootings and certainly nothing remotely close to the blood bathed streets that so many claim would come with significant gun ownership. Besides I've seen gun racks in the backs of trucks and much the same culture and mentality from upstate New York all the way down to Florida, the Texans are not the only ones who actively make use of their rights.

But the recurring theme in your posts is "I am a gun owner. It is my civic duty to protect everyone. because I carry my gun around, I have the right to play Frank Castle." The both of you repeat it ad nauseum as if you you took an oath and got a free cape or a badge when you bought the weapon. I am saying that it is not.

Really? I don't recall anything of the sort coming from either Wingates or I, seems like you just concocted that yourself. In fact neither of us have a concealed carry liscence and neither of us actually own a firearm. Thus your assumption here, while telling, is utterly unfounded.

As for civic duty, that encompases far more than protection. We also consider it a civic duty to at least attempt to offer aid in any kind of emergency, from fire, injury, drowning, car accident, whatever the case may be. Apathy is the enemy of civil society, when capable people choose to do nothing, tragedy is the result.

As I've said in other threads, I grew up around guns. I am a gun owner. I live in an Open-Carry State and have my CCP. However, that gun stays at home, locked away, and unloaded. It only comes out if I'm going to the firing range, out to Front Sight (http://www.frontsight.com/) for a class, or working a security detail. It's the mentality of these "Here I Come to Save The Day" people that make the rest of us gun owners look like whack jobs.

Honestly I think its the people that put words in other gun owners mouths that make the rest look bad but hey, whatever floats your boat. Just don't expect anyone to actually be persuaded by arguments that refer to others as "whack jobs" or "vigilanties" because attempting to ridicule or undermine the character of others is far from a convincing argument.

On the other hand, as Wingates pointed out, it seems simply sad to insinuate that an action is only good if one is being paid to do it.

crashhelmet

02-02-2011, 09:28 PM

Interesting stories but they do not at all prove that self-defense is a crime as you were trying to argue earlier.

Self-defense is a defense. Violence is a crime. In my case, Assault and Battery, Aggravated Assault, Assault with Intent to Cause Bodily Harm. Take your pick. I'm sure it goes by many other names and has many other classifications and levels from state to state. After those are weeded through, the DA tries to see if what was done was bad enough to warrant manslaughter and/or attempted manslaughter charges. Proven Self-Defense is what got the charges against me dropped in the first 2 cases. Luck got them dropped in the third.

Incorrect, there is nothing at all different about them. In all cases they were about defense of self and/or others with firearms. That's it, you cannot seperate the issues because they are in essence the same thing, armed civilians stopping dangerous criminals. Whether the person(s) protected are few or many or even just one it is no different.

There is a big difference between me shooting someone trying to mug me and me trying to take down someone attacking a crowd. Especially if there is no imminent threat to my own well being.

The very notion that all defensive firearm use equates to shooting and killing an agressor by a civilian is just plain outrageous. Actual woundings make up around 1% or less of total defensive gun uses, deaths 17% of that 1% or .017% of the total number of defensive gun uses each year. It isn't about shooting and killing anyone. Anti-gun lobyists love to throw around the notion that every gun owner secretly wants to be the hero bagging the bad guy but that is utterly erroneous and false.

But that is exactly what the two of you have been promoting. That it's your civic duty to shoot and kill the guy so that you can stop him.

As for the UTEP shooting itself the Civilians were there quite a bit earlier than the Cops and were able to start suppressing the shooter before the law enforcement officers could arrive and take charge of the situation. You also seem to have forgotten that of the four man "strike team" that made it to the clock tower and took down the shooter, one of them was an armed civilian. The cops in charge of the situation also commended the civilians for their aid in ending the killing spree.

Everything I read states that they went home and got their rifles. If it seriously took the police that long to get there, I'd be ashamed of them. Regardless though, Police Commendation doesn't justify their actions.

Really? I don't recall anything of the sort coming from either Wingates or I, seems like you just concocted that yourself. In fact neither of us have a concealed carry liscence and neither of us actually own a firearm. Thus your assumption here, while telling, is utterly unfounded.

Wait... WHAT???? So you're saying that neither of you even have a leg to stand on in this debate? Just your own personal fantasies of what the training and mentality of people that are gun owners should have? Please clarify this for me.

As for civic duty, that encompases far more than protection. We also consider it a civic duty to at least attempt to offer aid in any kind of emergency, from fire, injury, drowning, car accident, whatever the case may be. Apathy is the enemy of civil society, when capable people choose to do nothing, tragedy is the result.

This I agree with. These are all heroic actions that can be taken without putting the lives and well being of others at risk. Things you don't have to worry about panic and adrenaline causing you to shoot the wrong person.

Honestly I think its the people that put words in other gun owners mouths that make the rest look bad but hey, whatever floats your boat. Just don't expect anyone to actually be persuaded by arguments that refer to others as "whack jobs" or "vigilanties" because attempting to ridicule or undermine the character of others is far from a convincing argument.

Forgive me for thinking that anyone that thinks it's their civic duty as a gun owner to perform a role they're not trained for and willing to take the law into their own hands is a vigilante.

On the other hand, as Wingates pointed out, it seems simply sad to insinuate that an action is only good if one is being paid to do it.

I'll address that in a reply to his.

Hyena Dandy

02-02-2011, 09:45 PM

Forgive me for thinking that anyone that thinks it's their civic duty as a gun owner to perform a role they're not trained for and willing to take the law into their own hands is a vigilante.

I feel its the duty of any person to attempt to defuse a dangerous situation, whether they have a gun or not. I don't know about civic duty, but I do think its a moral duty. If I think I'm capable of saving someone's life, I'll take any action I can to do that. If I have a gun, and I think it'll help, I'll use it in any way I think would help. If I don't have a gun, I won't use it, obviously, but I will still do anything I can to help.

If someone can stop a situation like that, and they do, that I think is good. If that's illegal, that doesn't change that it was good. The laws would be wrong in this case, not the action.

But that is exactly what the two of you have been promoting. That it's your civic duty to shoot and kill the guy so that you can stop him. From what I've been getting from them, its more that what they're saying is that its your civic duty to do anything you can. I assume they wouldn't say draw your gun and shoot immediately. Presumably, you'd draw the gun, and tell the person to stop or you'll shoot them.

Though he is hardly a prestigious philosopher, Al Capone said that you'll get more with a kind word and a gun than you will with a kind word. Nobody said you had to SHOOT it.

Wait... WHAT???? So you're saying that neither of you even have a leg to stand on in this debate? Just your own personal fantasies of what the training and mentality of people that are gun owners should have? Please clarify this for me.

So should only gun owners be allowed to discuss gun use? Presumably, this is a debate. And in a debate, it is the facts that should speak the loudest. Saying they don't have a leg to stand on because they're not gun owners is ridiculous.

They've repeatedly cited facts and incidents which are entirely independent of their personal experience. They have not debated from personal experience. Their evidence may be wrong, they may be right, they may be misrepresented. But they are independent of whether or not the person bringing them up has any experience with guns. I don't think at any point they have said "This is true because I have done it." or "This is true because I have seen it."

To say they have no leg to stand on because they're not gun owners is an ad-hominem attack. They aren't debating on the basis of their experience, so their experience is irrelevant.

Debate is based on evidence. Evidence is evidence. Some of its good, some of its bad, but in a debate, it shouldn't be discounted on the basis of who brought it up.

crashhelmet

02-02-2011, 11:16 PM

You're forgetting the Appalachian Law School shooting and the Pearl High School shooting. More to the point: they're not all that different. Ultimately what we're talking about is a group of people who are carrying weapons as a means of stopping violent crime. Sometimes it's small, sometimes it's big, but ultimately that's what we're talking about.

The 2 men that retrieved their weapons at the Appalachian Law School were both cops. The third man involved in it was also a cop. There are also two different stories told about that. One is that he had already put his weapon down before they got there and the other is that they ordered him to. Regardless though, they were not ordinary civilians.

Pearl High? The shooter fled once he heard sirens and crashed in the process. The principal caught up to him and put his gun to his head and held him for the few minutes it took for the cops to get to where he crashed. I'll stay open on this one. It could've gone either way. The principal's actions may have been unneeded. It's also possible that he may have been able to flee on foot. I've found nothing about his physical condition after the crash. For the sake of this debate, I'll even ignore the fact that the principal broke several state and federal laws by having his gun on campus.

Here's a new one: The Colorado Springs New Life church shooting. CCP holder incapacitates shooter before he could have made it any further, prompting him to give up and take his own life. Given his lethality thus far probably a heaping helping of lives saved.
The lady that shot him worked at the Church as Security. She wasn't some random civilian that happened to be carrying her sidearm at Church Service. She was there to fill that role specifically because of threatening letters the shooter was sending to that church. Again... No ordinary civilian.

If I have the right to take a life to save my own why does that not also mean that I can take a life to save another life? If I personally feel the impulse to save someone else's life how is that not a noble thing?

Yes and no. It's a grey area that comes down to intent and context of the situation. The UTEP "Strike Team," as you keep referring to them as, left the situation, retrieved their weapons, and came back. That is wrong in so many ways. That is without a doubt, vigilante action. While it may be noble to sacrifice yourself, it's still illegal to do what they did.

This is probably going to be a theme, but, your point is, what? Even if the cops had brought some ARs with them the civilians still would have been better prepared. Assuming that the cops brought hunting/sniper rifles with them the situation would still have benefited from the fact that the civilians were there already as well as the fact that they would have been in addition to any similarly armed LEOs.

While this incident may have occurred years before the first SWAT team was assembled, police forces are still trained in situations like this. If they had the proper weaponry, they would've done what the "strike team" did and provided cover fire to get bystanders out of the area and allow the others to breach the tower. But again, while it may be noble, it's still illegal.

Nowhere have we said that killing the BG is the objective, it's merely part of the method. The objective has and always will be to stop the killing, to bring an end to the threat by whatever means necessary. If it weren't for that suppressing fire plenty more people would have been killed and it would have taken the LEOs far longer to achieve what they did. You mistakenly assume that we're out to bag the bad guy and this is entirely erroneous. Sometimes it may be necessary to handle the worst of the situation yourself, but those situations are in no way the only important ones.

And Robin Hood was still a criminal. Try and sugar coat it all you want. It is still illegal. It is still people taking the law into their own hands and involving themselves in situations they're not trained for. While they may think they're doing a service by saving people, they're still at risk for causing more harm than good. Police and military are trained for situations like these. They're trained to take targets when their adrenaline is pumping, their heart is racing, and there's panic everywhere.

The only one saying this is you. Guns carried abroad or kept in the home is just the topic at hand, but the theme of these messages is that anyone with the capability and opportunity to help someone in need has, as we see it, a civic duty to help. Sometimes it's a tourniquet, sometimes it's a hundred feet of rope, but sometimes it's a gun and the fact that it's a gun shouldn't change anything.

But it does. First off, it's not illegal for me to use a tourniquet on someone in danger of bleeding to death. Nor is it illegal for me to tow someone out of a ditch, charge into their burning home to save their child, or dive into a lake to keep them from drowning.

However, it is illegal to bring a gun within 100 yards of a school, to discharge a gun in public, or to involve oneself in a police matter. Once again add in the variables that John Q Public isn't trained for, and God forbid he accidentally shoot a civilian and not have the city's insurance policy to back him up. And that's really what it comes down to.

Shoot the shooter and you're a hero. Accidentally shoot a bystander and you're going to jail for a long time, while getting your ass sued to kingdom come by your victim and/or their family. No amount of "I thought i was doing the right thing" or "I was doing my civic duty" will save them from that without a great lawyer and a sympathetic jury.

Speaking of ad nauseum: Again you go back to the erroneous comparison to vigilantism.
It's becoming very potayto, potahto.

So your problem with our impulse to have a positive impact on bad situations is that you see it as cartoonish? That it's unrealistic?
Wake up and smell the roses, normal people rise to the occasion all the time, and they're lauded as heroes. But as soon as it comes to guns oh no, suddenly it's an immature fantasy. It isn't.
And until you get past your starkly hyperbolic mis-representations of our position we quite simply have no reason to listen to what you have to say. The idea of taking the initiative in a bad situation in order to help save lives is very real indeed, and unless you can demonstrate that it isn't your assertions that it isn't are meaningless.

Not too cartoonish as much as it is too "Hollywood." Read my earlier rebuttal to your same argument a few paragraphs up.

Personally I think it's the crackpot militants stockpiling canned beans in what they'd like to think are woodland fortresses that are giving gun owners a bad name but let's get to the point at hand, as they're generally minding their own business in said fortresses anyway.
I'm going to go ahead and give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you are willing to shell out for a CCP and not use it, except I infer as part of your job.

The question I ask of you is this:
What is it that separates a scenario in which you use that weapon as part of your job and a scenario in which you use that weapon outside of it?
If you are forced to use that weapon to protect yourself or someone else as part of your job, how is using that weapon to protect yourself or someone else outside of said job any different?

Is it the salary? is it the badge if indeed there is one?
Again your argument comes back to a seeming insistence that to do good is only possible if you are payed to do it, and anyone not getting payed is somehow lesser than those who are.

Logic and common sense would make one believe that if they're being paid to do the job, that they're properly trained and certified for it. That it becomes the sole reason why they're carrying in the first place.

Yes, I have my CCP strictly because the few clients I work security for request it. They feel safer knowing that I and my partner are carrying and depending on the situation, we could be wearing a suit with the sidearm concealed or in plain clothes with it open. This job isn't my bread and butter, it's contractual work done a few times a year when said clients need it. In all honesty, these clients are long time friends of mine that pay me for a job I'd willingly do for free. But never have I ever had to pull it, let alone discharge it, while working. Otherwise, if I wanted to carry, I'd simply open-carry as my State Constitution allows me to.

crashhelmet

02-02-2011, 11:52 PM

So should only gun owners be allowed to discuss gun use? Presumably, this is a debate. And in a debate, it is the facts that should speak the loudest. Saying they don't have a leg to stand on because they're not gun owners is ridiculous.

They've repeatedly cited facts and incidents which are entirely independent of their personal experience. They have not debated from personal experience. Their evidence may be wrong, they may be right, they may be misrepresented. But they are independent of whether or not the person bringing them up has any experience with guns. I don't think at any point they have said "This is true because I have done it." or "This is true because I have seen it."

To say they have no leg to stand on because they're not gun owners is an ad-hominem attack. They aren't debating on the basis of their experience, so their experience is irrelevant.

Debate is based on evidence. Evidence is evidence. Some of its good, some of its bad, but in a debate, it shouldn't be discounted on the basis of who brought it up.

This is a particular topic that requires experience more than examples. Especially since most examples provided have been debunked. It would be like arguing for or against seat belts and never driven in a car, let alone used a seat belt itself. Examples and statistics can be used on both sides but don't mean much when they can be taken out of context or manipulated.

They have cited repeatedly in this thread and others about the the extra training you get with a CCP. How do they know if they don't have one? There's an awful lot that goes on in that 16 hour class required to get it. Reading the descriptions from biased web sites and publications does not make one an expert or even knowledgeable enough to contend in the debate. The other part of it is like talking about would'ves, could'ves, and should'ves like Monday Morning Quarterbacks.

Hyena Dandy

02-03-2011, 02:18 AM

The problem with saying they're citing statistics from biased websites is that this debate is so contentious that you'd be hard pressed to find a non-biased website.

I consider myself a relatively unbiased observer here. I'm in favor of firearms, I'm also in favor of control of firearms.

And I think the examples haven't been debunked to their satisfaction... They haven't completely to my satisfaction, either.

I've been trying to follow this and sometimes I feel like you and WinVash (sounds like a computer program) are not actually debating the same thing...

Perhaps we could all step back and say what our positions are, so we can get back to attacking those positions.

Vash113

02-03-2011, 03:04 AM

Self-defense is a defense. Violence is a crime. In my case, Assault and Battery, Aggravated Assault, Assault with Intent to Cause Bodily Harm. Take your pick. I'm sure it goes by many other names and has many other classifications and levels from state to state. After those are weeded through, the DA tries to see if what was done was bad enough to warrant manslaughter and/or attempted manslaughter charges. Proven Self-Defense is what got the charges against me dropped in the first 2 cases. Luck got them dropped in the third.

Violence is not a crime when it is a justified use of force in self-defense. I honestly didn't think that was such a difficult subject to grasp and it is exactly what many laws state, Castle Doctrine is the most obvious specification and enumeration of the exact circumstances of justified use of force. Even law enforcement officers have to show their use of force was justified but that doe snot mean any and all force is unjustified.

You've shown nothing beyond some personal anecdotes as proof for your arguments, if you really think all use of force equals vigilantism then prove it. Lets see a law or a court case ruling where someone acting in defense of themselves or others, whether they used a gun or no, was tried and convicted for vigilantism.

There is a big difference between me shooting someone trying to mug me and me trying to take down someone attacking a crowd. Especially if there is no imminent threat to my own well being.

Actually according to the law a mass shooting is an imminent threat to your own well being regardless of whether your being currently shot at or not. The reason being that there are a great many dangers involved in such a situation, such as being trampled, the mere presence of the violent attacker creates a situation that is inherently dangerous to all those in the area. Moreover self-defense encompasses not just the defense of the individual but also the protection of others in the vicinity.

But that is exactly what the two of you have been promoting. That it's your civic duty to shoot and kill the guy so that you can stop him.

Wrong, as Hyena Dandy said, we have never claimed it is a civic duty to shoot and kill anyone. Sometimes ending a violent threat can result in such a course of action, but it is not the first or only course of action when responding to a violent threat. Even acting in the defense of oneself, shooting and killing the aggressor is not the objective nor is taking the law into ones own hands.

Both of those assumptions are completely without basis, while you keep making that claim you have yet to support them with any evidence from anyone in this discussion or the gun rights lobby in general.

Everything I read states that they went home and got their rifles. If it seriously took the police that long to get there, I'd be ashamed of them. Regardless though, Police Commendation doesn't justify their actions.

Regardless eye witness statements place the Civilians at the scene long before the police got there, as even having to go home (though not all did) they were still able to respond within a couple of minutes while it took the police around twice as long to arrive and assess the situation. The police cannot just teleport to a the location of a violent attack, in some instances the very presence of fleeing bystanders can hamper police and emergency response but that is neither here nor there.

As for Police Commendation, I'd say it does justify their actions, if law enforcement applauds the actions of these people then it's a pretty good indication they weren't doing anything illegal. The lack of arrest or charges against them also shows as much.

I mean really, if one puts so much stock in the training and abilities of Law Enforcement personnel why not trust what they say?

Wait... WHAT???? So you're saying that neither of you even have a leg to stand on in this debate? Just your own personal fantasies of what the training and mentality of people that are gun owners should have? Please clarify this for me.

So, let me get this straight, research and facts don't matter only personal anecdotes? One must be a member of a group to understand and/or support them? So I couldn't support Gay Rights if I'm not gay? I couldn't support Woman's Rights if I'm not female? I couldn't support immigration if I'm not an immigrant? That makes absolutely no sense.

Furthermore these repeated claims of fantasies and other character attacks are getting extremely tiresome and undermine the very capacity for cogent debate.

Our position is based off of our extensive research into gun control laws, crime rates, violent attack and shooting statistics, blogs and video blogs from both sides of the debate, published scientific articles and surveys on the issue, the arguments from the Brady Campaign, Democratic and Republican platforms, NRA, Masad Ayuub, the nutnfancyproject and much, much more. In short: Empirical Observation of peer reviewed science, the law and logical argument. What do you have?

This I agree with. These are all heroic actions that can be taken without putting the lives and well being of others at risk. Things you don't have to worry about panic and adrenaline causing you to shoot the wrong person.

Unfortunately I must disagree there. All actions in any dangerous situation can put others lives and well being at risk. If you run into a burning building to try and save someone but don't know how to do it safely you are not just endangering yourself but those you are attempting to save. Knowledge like to hug the floor and stay beneath the smoke, not to open doors into burning rooms that would cause an explosion. Attempting to perform emergency first aid without the proper skill can also put the very life at risk you are attempting to save, the last thing you want to do is overdo CPR and wind up breaking the persons ribs and potentially causing serious or even fatal internal injury. Even attempting to save someone that's drowning can get both yourself and the endangered individual killed if you don't know how to do it properly.

There is nothing about guns that makes their use in a dangerous situation even worse than improperly using any other skill or action. Heck even if you attempt to tackle the shooter and in the attempt are shot along with someone around or behind you, guess what, you just got someone killed and all without the use of a gun on your own part!

Not to mention of course that the very concern of panic and adrenaline causing the wrong person to be shot is pretty well without basis. It just hasn't really happened, no armed civilian has so far responded to a violent threat and shot and killed an innocent bystander. It just hasn't happened.

Forgive me for thinking that anyone that thinks it's their civic duty as a gun owner to perform a role they're not trained for and willing to take the law into their own hands is a vigilante.

Well no, that's not a notion worth forgiving because it is crass, inane and wrong. It misrepresents the entire gun rights support movement and gun owners in general. No-one said anything about taking the law into ones own hands, that's entirely your notion. Additionally you assume gun owners are untrained and unskilled in performing such actions and yet have simply shown absolutely no indication of this at all. This whole argument of yours is targeting a non-existent straw man.

From what I've been getting from them, its more that what they're saying is that its your civic duty to do anything you can. I assume they wouldn't say draw your gun and shoot immediately. Presumably, you'd draw the gun, and tell the person to stop or you'll shoot them.

Though he is hardly a prestigious philosopher, Al Capone said that you'll get more with a kind word and a gun than you will with a kind word. Nobody said you had to SHOOT it.

Precisely our point.

So should only gun owners be allowed to discuss gun use? Presumably, this is a debate. And in a debate, it is the facts that should speak the loudest. Saying they don't have a leg to stand on because they're not gun owners is ridiculous.

They've repeatedly cited facts and incidents which are entirely independent of their personal experience. They have not debated from personal experience. Their evidence may be wrong, they may be right, they may be misrepresented. But they are independent of whether or not the person bringing them up has any experience with guns. I don't think at any point they have said "This is true because I have done it." or "This is true because I have seen it."

To say they have no leg to stand on because they're not gun owners is an ad-hominem attack. They aren't debating on the basis of their experience, so their experience is irrelevant.

Debate is based on evidence. Evidence is evidence. Some of its good, some of its bad, but in a debate, it shouldn't be discounted on the basis of who brought it up.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

This is a particular topic that requires experience more than examples. Especially since most examples provided have been debunked. It would be like arguing for or against seat belts and never driven in a car, let alone used a seat belt itself. Examples and statistics can be used on both sides but don't mean much when they can be taken out of context or manipulated.

On the contrary, none of the examples we have provided have been debunked, not-a-single-one. No evidence or legal precedent or much of anything has been provided to counter the wealth of material Wingates, I and others have brought to the debate. Personal concerns and criticisms do not counter facts and peer reviewed research no matter how hard you try. Character attacks do not invalidate data no matter how many times they are made.

Additionally what on earth does having driven a car or used a seat belt have with knowing that they work? Research and statistics show that car deaths dropped dramatically after the implementation of seat belts, you don't even have to have ever even seen a car to look that one up. Personal experience is not all that important and certainly does not outweigh facts and data.

Lastly why is this a subject that requires experience over facts? Even that claim is unsupported, explain what in the nature of this discussion over any other necessitates personal involvement and eliminates the very possibility of objective knowledge and participation.

To be perfectly frank, we don't even know that you own a gun or have a CCP, we just have your claim but no reason to accept it as valid or true and it does not at all make a valid argument. Personal anecdotes are just simply useless and prove nothing. They make nice soundbites maybe but that's it. Bring on the facts, if you have any.

They have cited repeatedly in this thread and others about the the extra training you get with a CCP. How do they know if they don't have one? There's an awful lot that goes on in that 16 hour class required to get it.

The same way anyone knows anything, by asking and looking up the information... what you think the NRA doesn't hold classes? The state does not make the requirements and training for acquiring a CCP secret, you don't need Code Word Clearance to call and ask for it. A world class mystery this stuff is not.

Reading the descriptions from biased web sites and publications does not make one an expert or even knowledgeable enough to contend in the debate. The other part of it is like talking about would'ves, could'ves, and should'ves like Monday Morning Quarterbacks.

That just doesn't make any sense, personal anecdotes make one an expert yet facts and research are utterly unimportant? I'm afraid that is not at all how debates work, you don't win by pulling out your gun store receipt. We have provided a great deal of evidence in support of every claim and assertion we have made from crime statistics to population surveys and much more all while seeing virtually nothing in return.

To try and argue that we have "no leg to stand on" because we don't own a gun or have a CCP is just nonsensical and, as Hyena Dandy said, ridiculous.

Vash113

02-03-2011, 03:05 AM

The 2 men that retrieved their weapons at the Appalachian Law School were both cops. The third man involved in it was also a cop. There are also two different stories told about that. One is that he had already put his weapon down before they got there and the other is that they ordered him to. Regardless though, they were not ordinary civilians.

Off duty cops out of jurisdiction have no more legal power than Civilians, furthermore they do not necessarily have any more training in responding to such threats than Civilians do so yes they were to all intents and purposes ordinary civilians in that situation.

Pearl High? The shooter fled once he heard sirens and crashed in the process. The principal caught up to him and put his gun to his head and held him for the few minutes it took for the cops to get to where he crashed. I'll stay open on this one. It could've gone either way. The principal's actions may have been unneeded. It's also possible that he may have been able to flee on foot. I've found nothing about his physical condition after the crash. For the sake of this debate, I'll even ignore the fact that the principal broke several state and federal laws by having his gun on campus.

Actually at the time of the incident the Principal had his firearm in his car which, thanks to certain Castle Doctrine, is an extension of ones home and legal domain therefore a valid place to store a firearm despite laws against possession in a gun free zone. Some legislation since then has changed that but I have not seen anything to indicate he actually broke any state or federal laws by keeping his firearm in his car. Furthermore saying the situation could go either way is a pointless and an entirely invalid argument, it is ignoring the effective resolution of the situation in favor of what might have been however a solid argument that does not make.

The lady that shot him worked at the Church as Security. She wasn't some random civilian that happened to be carrying her sidearm at Church Service. She was there to fill that role specifically because of threatening letters the shooter was sending to that church. Again... No ordinary civilian.

She was a civilian church goer that volunteered to act as security for the church, there is no indication that I can find that she was a professional security guard or that she had any additional training what so ever so yes she was also an ordinary civilian.

Again the notion that self-defense with a firearm is only valid if one is being paid to do it, however that notion also appears to be entirely divorced from relevant skill or training level. A paycheck or volunteer job title does not suddenly justify what would otherwise be unjustified, nor does it elimination justification for the actions of those without a paycheck or title.

Yes and no. It's a grey area that comes down to intent and context of the situation. The UTEP "Strike Team," as you keep referring to them as, left the situation, retrieved their weapons, and came back. That is wrong in so many ways. That is without a doubt, vigilante action. While it may be noble to sacrifice yourself, it's still illegal to do what they did.

Prove it, you keep making these claims but have pointed out not a single, I repeat not a single law or case where such actions have been illegal. There is nothing to at all indicate the actions of those civilians were those of vigilantes, not even slightly. None of them that I could find actually left the scene to retrieve their weapons, they crossed a street to their car and/or home and returned. That does not make them vigilantes nor did it actually remove them from the near vicinity of the shooting and such a claim is just plain insulting to those peoples actions.

You say these actions were wrong in so many ways, or that it was illegal to do what they did, so I say, prove it. What is wrong about what they did, how is it illegal, what law did they break. Because frankly none were charged for vigilantism, illegal use of force, illegal possession of a firearm, illegal discharge of a firearm, attempted murder, or any of the myriad other laws you could claim they broke, not a single one.

Furthermore please read my posts properly before responding, I never called the Civilians that responded to the UTEP shooting a "Strike Team," rather I used that term to reference the four men that actually did infiltrate the clock tower and put a stop to the shooting, of which one of them was a Civilian, a man named Allen Crum. If you are going to try to counter my arguments it helps to at least get them correct.

While this incident may have occurred years before the first SWAT team was assembled, police forces are still trained in situations like this. If they had the proper weaponry, they would've done what the "strike team" did and provided cover fire to get bystanders out of the area and allow the others to breach the tower. But again, while it may be noble, it's still illegal.

Again you have provided no proof and I see nothing to indicate their actions were illegal, nothing at all. They acted heroically in the defense of themselves and others and even received commendation from the Austin police department, were not charged for anything and received nothing but praise following the incident. If their actions were really those of illegal vigilantes then that would not be the case, if you wish to make that claim then provide some law that they broke and were prosecuted for. Otherwise your claim is completely invalid.

Secondly there is no indication that I can find that normal law enforcement officers are trained in such situations. They are trained to clear a house and shoot a gun but I have seen no indication that they receive specific training to deal with mass shootings. In fact even SWAT teams are not equipped to perform the actions that the Civilians did in the UTEP shooting, with the exception of a few rifle armed snipers the standard issue SWAT weapons are carbines and submachine guns that would not have had the accuracy over range to suppress the shooter in the UTEP incident.

Lastly you say the Civilians were doing exactly what police would in that situation if they had the capability? Well that, at least, is correct.

And Robin Hood was still a criminal. Try and sugar coat it all you want. It is still illegal. It is still people taking the law into their own hands and involving themselves in situations they're not trained for. While they may think they're doing a service by saving people, they're still at risk for causing more harm than good. Police and military are trained for situations like these. They're trained to take targets when their adrenaline is pumping, their heart is racing, and there's panic everywhere.

Well first and foremost making an argument based off of a fictional character is hardly moving. Secondly, once again, I've found nothing to indicate that Police and Military are trained to address such situations. Training in marksmanship and shooting in both law enforcement and the military do not include a standard for dealing with adrenaline pumping situations. How do I know this? Well first and foremost like many things these are not great secrets. Secondly I know people. In fact, if you want to deal with personal anecdotes, one of my uncles was a Drill Instructor for the United States Army for the better part of a decade. While wargames were conducted from time to time they did not accurately address the stress and issues of fighting and thinking effectively under duress, nor does poor performance prevent a recruit from continuing training, they will just keep having that recruit attempt the shooting qualifications until by either gradual improvement or luck the individual manages to score the minimum required and then off they go. A week of a few hours class instruction and range time every day is all most Soldiers get when it comes to marksmanship training, Law Enforcement training regimens are somewhat more varied but not drastically better.

But it does. First off, it's not illegal for me to use a tourniquet on someone in danger of bleeding to death. Nor is it illegal for me to tow someone out of a ditch, charge into their burning home to save their child, or dive into a lake to keep them from drowning.

It also isn't illegal to shoot someone gunning down civilians, you keep saying it but haven't provided any proof. Not to mention it is illegal to apply a tourniquet without permission even if it means the person bleeds to death.

Additionally there is absolutely no justification to claim shooting an armed attacker is any more a use of illegal force than tackling them and binding them against their will. But nobody is calling the people in the Tuscon shooting to task for assault now are they?

However, it is illegal to bring a gun within 100 yards of a school, to discharge a gun in public, or to involve oneself in a police matter. Once again add in the variables that John Q Public isn't trained for,

All of these laws are superseded by the rights of self protection, in fact this right is so potent in our law that it can include shooting and killing police officers that are attempting to illegally arrest, detain or harm you. Thus the term justified use of lethal force, if lethal force is justified then it also justifies the necessity to discharge a firearm or bring it into a gun free zone like a school. We have seen this time and time again such as the UTEP and Appalachian Law School, the Pearl High School and many, many, many other such incidents. Despite your claims however none of these individuals were charged for these actions because they were justified uses of force.

and God forbid he accidentally shoot a civilian and not have the city's insurance policy to back him up. And that's really what it comes down to.

That's what it really comes down to!?!?!? Insurance policies! Civil protection, danger to self or others, legal precedent, all of that is superseded by law enforcement having an insurance policy?

Shoot the shooter and you're a hero. Accidentally shoot a bystander and you're going to jail for a long time, while getting your ass sued to kingdom come by your victim and/or their family. No amount of "I thought i was doing the right thing" or "I was doing my civic duty" will save them from that without a great lawyer and a sympathetic jury.

Fortunately that is an extremely rare occurrence and no innocent bystanders have been killed by a civilian responding to a lethal threat with a firearm. Nevertheless the onus is on the civilian shooter not to miss now isn't it? Just like a cop, or a soldier for that matter. Besides the legal justified use of force would almost certainly prevent jail time though civil suits and damages are likely they would also be justified. A mistake is a mistake but it doesn't make the action inherently wrong.

It's becoming very potayto, potahto.

That's like saying mixing up the words sex and rape or surgery and torture is potayto, potahto.

Not too cartoonish as much as it is too "Hollywood." Read my earlier rebuttal to your same argument a few paragraphs up.

You didn't rebut the argument any more accurately a few paragraphs up. Actually from a debate standpoint you haven't provided a justified or verifiable rebuttal to any of our arguments at all.

Logic and common sense would make one believe that if they're being paid to do the job, that they're properly trained and certified for it. That it becomes the sole reason why they're carrying in the first place.

Actually that is neither logical or common sense. Being paid to do something doesn't mean your trained and certified to do it. Plenty of people work as security guards, contractors and many other such disciplines without actual training or certification, just because you make money doing something does not necessitate that you do it well or have received the proper instruction. On the other hand anyone forking out the money and going through the extensive process of acquiring a quality firearm and attendant permits and CCP license is more likely to have also invested in the proper training. Note I said more likely not necessarily, neither group is universally going to be completely trained and certified to fulfill these roles. However that is not justification to favor one over the other.

Not to mention there is also a chance that individuals signing up to be police are also looking to be heroes and that is why they are doing it and carrying a firearm. You can't make the accusation against one group without it also applying to the other, but the chance of such individuals existence is once again not a justification to throw out the baby with the bathwater so to speak.

Yes, I have my CCP strictly because the few clients I work security for request it. They feel safer knowing that I and my partner are carrying and depending on the situation, we could be wearing a suit with the sidearm concealed or in plain clothes with it open. This job isn't my bread and butter, it's contractual work done a few times a year when said clients need it. In all honesty, these clients are long time friends of mine that pay me for a job I'd willingly do for free. But never have I ever had to pull it, let alone discharge it, while working. Otherwise, if I wanted to carry, I'd simply open-carry as my State Constitution allows me to.

So your for open carry but against concealed carry because concealing necessitates a vigilante mindset? That doesn't make sense. Moreover your saying the pay check is more important than the intent?

Lastly you admit yourself that people feel safer when there are concealed firearms around should a dangerous event occur, seems like a common enough trend to validate the usefulness of the action.

Wingates_Hellsing

02-03-2011, 03:07 AM

The 2 men that retrieved their weapons at the Appalachian Law School were both cops. The third man involved in it was also a cop. There are also two different stories told about that. One is that he had already put his weapon down before they got there and the other is that they ordered him to. Regardless though, they were not ordinary civilians.
Never claimed they were ordinary, in fact the fact that they intervened where others didn't is testament enough to that. The point you consistently fail to address is that they were in every legal and practical sense civilians as they were not only off-duty but incredibly out of jurisdiction. They actions were taken as civilians, not as police officers.

Pearl High? The shooter fled once he heard sirens and crashed in the process. The principal caught up to him and put his gun to his head and held him for the few minutes it took for the cops to get to where he crashed. I'll stay open on this one. It could've gone either way. The principal's actions may have been unneeded. It's also possible that he may have been able to flee on foot. I've found nothing about his physical condition after the crash. For the sake of this debate, I'll even ignore the fact that the principal broke several state and federal laws by having his gun on campus.
Actually reports vary between the principal using his own vehicle to disable the shooter's and apprehended him following this or that the principal confronted the shooter prior to and thereby causing the crash.
Either way he was instrumental in foiling an escape that would have put lives in danger.

The lady that shot him worked at the Church as Security. She wasn't some random civilian that happened to be carrying her sidearm at Church Service. She was there to fill that role specifically because of threatening letters the shooter was sending to that church. Again... No ordinary civilian.
According to the information at hand, plenty ordinary. Assam was a churchgoer who volunteered as a security guard in light of the recent threats. There's no indication anywhere that she was a professional.

Yes and no. It's a grey area that comes down to intent and context of the situation. The UTEP "Strike Team," as you keep referring to them as, left the situation, retrieved their weapons, and came back. That is wrong in so many ways. That is without a doubt, vigilante action. While it may be noble to sacrifice yourself, it's still illegal to do what they did.
Actually if you bothered to read our posts thoroughly you'd see that we referred only to the four people (three cops and one civilian) who entered the tower as the strike team because that in essence is exactly what they were. Moreover, you again insist that these actions are vigilantism without providing any support. These people weren't looking for trouble, they merely reacted to a crisis and there is no law that makes these actions illegal. You say it over and over but never have you actually proven this.

While this incident may have occurred years before the first SWAT team was assembled, police forces are still trained in situations like this. If they had the proper weaponry, they would've done what the "strike team" did and provided cover fire to get bystanders out of the area and allow the others to breach the tower. But again, while it may be noble, it's still illegal.
I can find no indication that police officers are trained to deal with barricaded mass-shooting marksman situations. In essence you're admitting that the untrained civilians did exactly what modern trained officers would do, far from debunking anything on that note. And again, no law says that these actions were illegal so until you can demonstrate that this claim is somehow supported or validated excuse me if I don't take your word for it.

And Robin Hood was still a criminal. Try and sugar coat it all you want. It is still illegal. It is still people taking the law into their own hands and involving themselves in situations they're not trained for. While they may think they're doing a service by saving people, they're still at risk for causing more harm than good. Police and military are trained for situations like these. They're trained to take targets when their adrenaline is pumping, their heart is racing, and there's panic everywhere.
Way to source an irrelevant fictional character who has nothing to do with the debate. Again, prove that it's illegal and I'll listen to you. You keep falsely equating personal and public safety with the law. They are not the same thing and this is probably the most vital of your misconceptions. Vigilantees are taking the legal system's role upon themselves, creating trouble where the was none, actively looking for it and causing it. This couldn't have less to do with armed citizens responding to violent threats instigated against themselves or others. Moreover neither you not anyone else has been able to substantiate that the potential for an armed citizen's actions to make things worse have manifested much if at all not even getting close to showing that they outweigh the posetives.
Last time I checked police and military are trained to hit targets and actual stress simulation is rare indeed. Other than that, police get some target discrimination and military get some courses where stress is applied but ultimately neither deal with the stress of selecting and engaging targets whilst under attack.
Even so, it's readily apparent that people are more than capable of doing just fine without it, so I don't see where you're trying to go here.

But it does. First off, it's not illegal for me to use a tourniquet on someone in danger of bleeding to death. Nor is it illegal for me to tow someone out of a ditch, charge into their burning home to save their child, or dive into a lake to keep them from drowning.
Neither is using justified force to stop a violent attack, a point that you still haven't addressed.

However, it is illegal to bring a gun within 100 yards of a school, to discharge a gun in public, or to involve oneself in a police matter. Once again add in the variables that John Q Public isn't trained for, and God forbid he accidentally shoot a civilian and not have the city's insurance policy to back him up. And that's really what it comes down to.
All of those laws are subject to justification. Also, you're mixing up "involve" and "interfere". It's illegal to deliberately get in the cop's way, nowhere is it illegal to help them.
Moreover the majority of variables none of which you deign to enumerate are outside the purview of police officer's training as well. What are cops trained to do? recognize threats, hit their target, and that's about it. Neither of which are exactly rocket science nor are they outside the ability of civilians to train for.
Again, the possibility of a bystander getting hit has yet to manifest, so I have to say it's therefore far less important than those factors that have.
Mostly though, insurance? that's what's important? So, taking the initiative to save another person's life or my own is bad because I'm not insured.

Shoot the shooter and you're a hero. Accidentally shoot a bystander and you're going to jail for a long time, while getting your ass sued to kingdom come by your victim and/or their family. No amount of "I thought i was doing the right thing" or "I was doing my civic duty" will save them from that without a great lawyer and a sympathetic jury.
Maybe if you could pony up an instance in which the latter has happened I'd be inclined to let that occlude the former. So far the grand majority of armed civilians who are charged or convicted of anything have been due to things like inadvertently entering jurisdictions where some feature is banned or where the DA and/or jury are mollycoddling over what constitutes justified force.
I don't see why I should let my legal system's lack of perfection stop me from doing the right thing. The law's pretty clear in outlining the legality of justified force. I may not always be able to rely on the justice system to see that clearly, but if anything that's more of a reason not to trust them with my safety either.

Not too cartoonish as much as it is too "Hollywood." Read my earlier rebuttal to your same argument a few paragraphs up.
You mean that poorly context aligned reference to Robin Hood?
Point to one sentence where I espoused CCP holders as superheroes or the like, so far the only one who's made that claim is you and at that you've done little to prove it.

Logic and common sense would make one believe that if they're being paid to do the job, that they're properly trained and certified for it. That it becomes the sole reason why they're carrying in the first place.
And yet in practice we also find that said money-to-suitability relation falls apart in a number of instances.
Moreover logic and common sense would indicate that CCP holders who forked over cash for all the attached fees, goes out of their way to cope with the social and practical drawbacks as well as accepted the potential liabilities is just as likely through basic motivation to have prepared themselves for it as well.
Not to say that this doesn't fall through too, just that it the two are no different in either their presence or flaws.

Yes, I have my CCP strictly because the few clients I work security for request it. They feel safer knowing that I and my partner are carrying and depending on the situation, we could be wearing a suit with the sidearm concealed or in plain clothes with it open. This job isn't my bread and butter, it's contractual work done a few times a year when said clients need it. In all honesty, these clients are long time friends of mine that pay me for a job I'd willingly do for free. But never have I ever had to pull it, let alone discharge it, while working. Otherwise, if I wanted to carry, I'd simply open-carry as my State Constitution allows me to.
So in essence your saying here that you're perfectly happy to arm yourself in return for pay and/or as a favor for a friend but the thought that someone might do this of their own volition is somehow vigilantism. And seemingly that a weapon is somehow instantly insidious once it's concealed despite the fact that to do so is not only more effective but also a hell of a lot more polite.
What about the people around and about who aren't comfortable with concealed weapons? is the fact that you were hired supersede their wishes in a way my right to self defense doesn't?

Hyena Dandy

02-03-2011, 03:26 AM

Crash: It feels to me you've set an arbitrary limit due to the fact that neither of them carry guns to essentially attempt to 'disqualify' your opponents from the debate.

You accuse them of being emotional cowboy vigilantes and what have you, but they are the one providing evidence, and so far the most evidence I've actually seen you bring up rather than respond to was that you have a gun, therefore they can't discuss it.

If they're disqualified for not having guns/not having a concealed carry permit, we could easily just disqualify all of us because (to the best of my knowledge) none of us have ever been in an active shooter scenario, so all of us are basically just trying to imagine what we would do/what it would be appropriate to do.

Hyena Dandy

02-03-2011, 04:43 AM

Dear Mods: I'd like if this was edited into my previous post, but it does not have to be. I post at your pleasure, you don't mod at mine. :P So anyway.

Crash: One of your disqualifications was that a woman at a church was volunteering to act as security, and therefore brought her gun. I didn't read anything about her being a security guard, a policeman, or anything other than a woman with a gun who wanted to help protect people.

That sounds like the sort of cowboy mentality you've been arguing against. "I have a gun, I'll protect you."

Why is what she did alright, and the hypothetical case of a CCP owner intervening wrong? The only difference I can see is that she, unlike the CCP owner, said what she was going to do beforehand.

Isn't that still the cowboy mentality?

If so, wouldn't you say what she did was 'cowboy'ing, and wrong, even if it turned out alright?

Hyena Dandy

02-03-2011, 04:44 AM

Addendum to my last post, and I apologize for triple-quadruple-whatever posting.

I would like to clarify that's not me doing strawman-arguments, I was asking for clarification on your position.

crashhelmet

02-03-2011, 06:27 AM

I don't have much time left tonight, so I'll leave it with this for now.

So in essence your saying here that you're perfectly happy to arm yourself in return for pay and/or as a favor for a friend but the thought that someone might do this of their own volition is somehow vigilantism. And seemingly that a weapon is somehow instantly insidious once it's concealed despite the fact that to do so is not only more effective but also a hell of a lot more polite.
What about the people around and about who aren't comfortable with concealed weapons? is the fact that you were hired supersede their wishes in a way my right to self defense doesn't?

So your for open carry but against concealed carry because concealing necessitates a vigilante mindset? That doesn't make sense. Moreover your saying the pay check is more important than the intent?

Lastly you admit yourself that people feel safer when there are concealed firearms around should a dangerous event occur, seems like a common enough trend to validate the usefulness of the action.

For as much as you accuse me of putting words in your mouth, you're doing it here.

Nowhere have I said that someone that is employed to do the job is a vigilante. If anything, I've said that it's acceptable because they have the necessary training that's required for it.

Nowhere have I said that having a CCP makes you a vigilante. I've been speaking out against the myth that having a CCP makes you trained and capable to be the "hero" that you two keep claiming it does. Let me go further and say that just because you spend the time and money for it, it doesn't mean you're that much more responsible or capable over someone that didn't. All it does is mean that you spent the time and money to learn a little bit more about gun safety and have therefore been given an extra privilege.

Nowhere have I said that my friends feel more comfortable with me carrying concealed. I said they feel more comfortable with me carrying, period. They work in an industry that has some stalker issues and would wish I was armed to the teeth sometimes. I said I conceal when I have to wear a suit and I open carry when I'm in plain clothes. I do it that way because it's almost impossible to carry open when wearing a suit or a jacket of any kind.

I never said that carrying, whether or open or not, was vigilantism. I said that responding to a situation where you're not employed to do so can be equated as. Especially when it requires you to leave the scene to retrieve your weapon(s) and come back.

If someone decided to go "postal" here at my bread and butter job and I went home to get my handgun and then came back to shoot the guy, I would be breaking the law. Hero or not, I would be breaking the law. Despite the fact that I am trained and certified by the state and local governments here in Nevada to be armed security, I would still be breaking the law.

Let's take the argument away from guns and apply it to other things. If there was a high speed chase down the freeway and I decided to use my car to stop the other car, I'd be arrested. But it should be allowed since I have a driver's license, right? i took a road safety and defensive driving course in school. That obviously means I should know how to stop another car. Right?

And don't cry straw man. It's the same equation, just a different value or x.

Wingates_Hellsing

02-03-2011, 07:09 AM

For as much as you accuse me of putting words in your mouth, you're doing it here.
Calling for clarification of seemingly impossible to reconcile inferences is not putting words in your mouth. If you take a look you'll notice that we've been asking you what it is you mean when the things your saying aren't adding up.

Nowhere have I said that someone that is employed to do the job is a vigilante. If anything, I've said that it's acceptable because they have the necessary training that's required for it.
In your lack of specificity we've no choice but to infer from your statements what you might mean. Now that we know what you mean we might be able to get somewhere.
And yet this is an entirely false equation as I stated before. Being hired to do something necessitates nothing about your competency and it's the same for a lack of having been hired to do it.
In either case the competency of the individual is up to that individual alone and from this standpoint there is therefore little dividing the efforts of LE from armed civilians.

Nowhere have I said that having a CCP makes you a vigilante.
Which is not what we've indicated that you've done. What you've done is said that to use the weapon that you carry as a result of having a CCP is vigilantism. Something that we, for a number of reasons, see as patently ridiculous.
I've been speaking out against the myth that having a CCP makes you trained and capable to be the "hero" that you two keep claiming it does.
Nowhere have we claimed that CCP holders are heroes or that they are uniquely suited to the task at hand. Our point if you would deign to notice it is that while some people are uniquely suited for a number of different tasks we as a society often underestimate the degree to which the populace at large is suited to the same task. Our point is not that CCP ownership makes you a tactical guru so much as it is that one does not need to be a tactical guru to succeed.

Let me go further and say that just because you spend the time and money for it, it doesn't mean you're that much more responsible or capable over someone that didn't. All it does is mean that you spent the time and money to learn a little bit more about gun safety and have therefore been given an extra privilege.
I could easily apply this to your theory of employment as well: Just because you've been payed to serve a role does not necessitate that you are especially prepared for it, merely that you have been given a reason to do so pending further employment or personal impulse. This particular blade cuts both ways.

Nowhere have I said that my friends feel more comfortable with me carrying concealed. I said they feel more comfortable with me carrying, period.
Which is exactly what we were responding to. Concealed or not, I really don't give two shits it's entirely up to you. That said, it's more than a little hypocritical to participate in something for the benefit of a few individuals whilst deriding others doing the same thing for themselves.

According to your logic the fact that you are carrying a weapon for the defense of either or self or in this case others categorizes you as a John Wayne wannabe out to bag the baddie, you're just getting payed to do it.

They work in an industry that has some stalker issues and would wish I was armed to the teeth sometimes.
As if there aren't plenty of people who live in areas and/or situations just the same albeit without the luxury of hiring someone to protect them.

I said I conceal when I have to wear a suit and I open carry when I'm in plain clothes. I do it that way because it's almost impossible to carry open when wearing a suit or a jacket of any kind.
Again, not at all what we were getting at but okay, whatever floats your boat. I can definitely see how a drop-leg over suit pants would chafe or at the very least ruin the pants.

I never said that carrying, whether or open or not, was vigilantism. I said that responding to a situation where you're not employed to do so can be equated as. Especially when it requires you to leave the scene to retrieve your weapon(s) and come back.
How is leaving and coming back make something into vigilantism?
Vigilantism is the extralegal punishment of an alleged criminal, which has nothing to do with a civilian responding to a violent crime or situation. The former is about vengeance, the latter is about ending the killing and saving lives. The death of the aggressor is but one of the means by which good Samaritans may accomplish their ends, but even so this has nothing to do with vigilantism.

One might be able to argue that such individuals are taking their actions to an unnecessary level, which would be a far more debatable point as compared to the entirely erroneous vigilantism comparison.

If someone decided to go "postal" here at my bread and butter job and I went home to get my handgun and then came back to shoot the guy, I would be breaking the law. Hero or not, I would be breaking the law. Despite the fact that I am trained and certified by the state and local governments here in Nevada to be armed security, I would still be breaking the law.
Again, what law would you be breaking? If you are in fact doing the right thing but being punished by the law, wouldn't that as Hyena Dandy pointed out most logically indicate that the law is wrong, not you? Why is the leaving/returning a dynamic in this at all?

But most of all: what law are you breaking here? You've said many times that you would be breaking one, but not once have you shown which one if indeed it exists at all.

Let's take the argument away from guns and apply it to other things. If there was a high speed chase down the freeway and I decided to use my car to stop the other car, I'd be arrested. But it should be allowed since I have a driver's license, right? i took a road safety and defensive driving course in school. That obviously means I should know how to stop another car. Right?
Again, for what would you be arrested for?
As far as I can tell, the use of a motor vehicle to protect yourself or others from the violent actions of someone in another vehicle would technically constitute justifiable force.

And don't cry straw man. It's the same equation, just a different value or x.
No one's crying straw man, merely that you're still wrong. Although the fact that it's a high-speed chase would indicate that the cops were already involved and therefore I could if I so elected to do so, call straw-man because the equation at hand is one where the cops are almost never already involved.
The only reason why I don't is because even under the circumstances where civilians are aiding police efforts they actions have been shown to be vindicated.

Hyena Dandy

02-04-2011, 06:04 AM

I never said that carrying, whether or open or not, was vigilantism. I said that responding to a situation where you're not employed to do so can be equated as. Especially when it requires you to leave the scene to retrieve your weapon(s) and come back.

If it can (and you have not provided any statistics to back up your claims) then the laws are in the wrong.

Gravekeeper

02-04-2011, 09:13 AM

Oi, Trotsky novel indeed. >.>

If someone decided to go "postal" here at my bread and butter job and I went home to get my handgun and then came back to shoot the guy, I would be breaking the law. Hero or not, I would be breaking the law. Despite the fact that I am trained and certified by the state and local governments here in Nevada to be armed security, I would still be breaking the law.

That seems like kind of an extreme example ( going home and coming back ). We're talking about of a first responder situation here aren't we? IE if you're responding before law enforcement can arrive. Running to your car I can see. In which case, what law is being broken? I can't see anyone really being charged for being the first responder to an actively dangerous situation like that. Provided you're employing reasonable force. ( Ie you didn't wing him then walk up and straight up execute him ).

Let's take the argument away from guns and apply it to other things. If there was a high speed chase down the freeway and I decided to use my car to stop the other car, I'd be arrested. But it should be allowed since I have a driver's license, right? i took a road safety and defensive driving course in school. That obviously means I should know how to stop another car. Right?

While that could be a rather stupid thing to do depending on the circumstances ( unless you've had some PIT Maneuver courses -.- ). That said, I have seen this done in high speed chases by other motorists without any arrests being thrown around. Semi drivers especially seem to tend to move to try and block a fleeing vehicle as it at least causes them to have to slow down to get around them. Though I've seen SUVs try it too. I wouldn't think about it in anything smaller though.

Though a fleeing suspect in a vehicle is typically just trying to get the hell away and really only super dangerous in a dense area like downtown or residential. Where there's too high a chance of either him or other motorists not being able to react fast enough.

But unfortunately, I can't elude a gun men by just standing off to the side and waiting for him to pass by.

FArchivist

02-04-2011, 11:31 AM

Lethal Force is the last resort, and that in no way means it's not the first thing you turn to in a given situation.

I have a tendency to disagree with that, but that's because I follow a Reductionist philosophy on opponents. If someone is going to fight me, it does me no good to subdue them. That's only a temporary win; they can come back at a later time and fight me again. The only way to truly win the fight is by winning permanently; to make it so the aggressor is absolutely unable to be aggressive against you ever again.

The most practical and efficient way of ensuring this is, all things being equal, by lethal force.

(Yes, I love using Occam's Razor.)

It's really no burden when everything is going peachy, but if the government decides to overstep it's bounds, it can make all the difference in the world.

This is a significant issue that rarely gets addressed.
The idea in this day and age that the average American, who is not a trained soldier, will overcome the American military with a bunch of rifles, shotguns, and automatic pistols is frankly ludicrous. Here's why:

- If there was ever a case wherein a 2nd American Revolution occurred, you would be assured of no more than a 1/3rd of Americans joining the Revolutionaries. Another 1/3rd would remain loyal - call them Federalists - and the remaining 1/3rd would be studiedly neutral and keep their head down. Just like during the 1st American Revolution.
- At maximum, it has been estimated that only a 1/4 of the American military would defect to the Revolutionaries and that it would be in a disordered state, mostly spurred by 3%ers and Oathkeepers. The Revolutionaries would not have access to a modern air force, space weaponry, most satellite communication, AWACS, or a modern navy. They would also not have access to WMDs.
- Lack of strong leadership would lead to very disorganized resistance attempts. You can see this mirrored in the current Tea Party problems, wherein the Tea Party has failed to conquer the conservative side of politics due to divisive leadership.

Y'know, there was a good military assessment of why a 2nd revolution would fail...I'll need to find a copy of it...

ya know I seem to remember a few groups that thought that:
first that comes to mind is England during the revolutionary war-odds there were only 3(untrained civilians) to 1 british troop
Second is the US in a nice little skirmish that we lost in a tiny country called Vietnam.
third was the Russians that had their asses handed to them in Afghanistan.

Militiamen were lightly armed, had little training, and usually did not have uniforms. Their units served for only a few weeks or months at a time, were reluctant to go very far from home, and were thus generally unavailable for extended operations. Militia lacked the training and discipline of soldiers with more experience, but were more numerous and could overwhelm regular troops, as at the battles of Concord, Bennington and Saratoga, and the siege of Boston.

Ah ha! But there are significant differences! :D

- In the American Revolutionary War, the Revolutionaries were fighting on their home territory against what was essentially a foreign power, who had to supply all troops and ammunition from overseas. Resupply was negligible; a matter of 7-10 weeks at best to get communications back and forth. The Revolutionaries were being supplied by France and did not have to rely on their own resources for the most part.

- In the Vietnam War, you have the same situation: a foreign power attempting to finance a war far from home ground, with resupply issues, and with another foreign power closer supplementing the revolutionary faction. Worse, the home populace was more actively antagonistic to the Americans than they were to the Vietcong and Chinese/Russians. The Vietnam War was more like the issue of Vichy France than anything else. The supply issues were the direct reason why we built the big resupply base on Diego Garcia. Didn't help that the Vietcong had been guerillas since the end of WW2

- With the Russians in Afghan, you had an entrenched religious resistance who had been fighting as guerrillas for the last 400 years, being helped by massive resources from the USA that overshadowed the Russian equipment by far, and the Russians were a corrupt inept government who at times couldn't supply bullets for the guns.

Contrast all this with what we have here; a revolution fought on the occupying forces' home ground, with ample military stocks, an ambivalent civilian population of whom the majority will side with whoever provides the most security, bread, and circuses, and no widespread tradition of guerilla warfare for the past 110 years.

This isn't another Revolutionary War; it's another CIVIL war...and less pretty than the Confederacy was.

In order for a revolution to succeed in the USA, you would need to do an coup de'tat, not a revolution. Depose the heads of the federal government, execute them quickly, and get a Gestapo on the ground. Suspend elections and rule by military force "for the duration of the emergency."

Perhaps first and foremost being that government forces will be actively engaged in destroying the labor and infrastructure that enabled them to operate in the first place. innumerable vital facilities will essentially be in hostile territory that aren't set up for it (mostly intelligence and supply centers.) The industrial apparatus that makes modern armies possible will most likely grind to a halt in the turmoil.

I have to disagree with that. All assessments show that the Revolutionaries would not be able to take control of any significant urban areas as anti-government bias is firmly rural-oriented, which is not where the infrastructure and industrial production is located. You might have a chance if you dominated Detroit and Chicago...

Hyena Dandy

02-04-2011, 06:30 PM

Andara Bledin

02-04-2011, 09:53 PM

Another thing that bears consideration is that the military is made up of the People. It's not an unthinking and uncritical machine solely at the disposal of the State. I'd estimate that about half of the pro-gun people I am acquainted with are either former or current members of the nation's military.

In stark contrast, none of the supporters for strict gun controls I know have ever served.

It might be interesting to see how that demographic falls in various different regions.

^-.-^

Gravekeeper

02-05-2011, 07:17 AM

In stark contrast, none of the supporters for strict gun controls I know have ever served.

Ehhh, no offence but that's A) Kind of a generalization and B) Not sure what it would be relevant too unless you're just musing outloud?

Though you have me curious as to the demographic as well now. But I don't think anyone's every bothered to poll that kind of thing. So we may go unanswered. -.-

It's difficult to drudge up info about such things in the US I've found. There's two really polarized sides to the gun debate there. Inevitably most stuff I find is on the website of one side or the other. Which makes me doubt its objectiveness.

Hmm..maybe if we compared enlistment by state vs gun ownership by state?

Andara Bledin

02-05-2011, 07:54 AM

Ehhh, no offence but that's A) Kind of a generalization and B) Not sure what it would be relevant too unless you're just musing outloud?
Mostly just musing about what I've seen of the people around me.

^-.-^

FArchivist

02-05-2011, 10:57 AM

The main problem with that analysis is that it is all rooted in the right now. I think Andy at least was talking about a hypothetical future situation of the government overstepping its bounds. Basically, while you raise many good points, (as far as I can tell) they only apply to the current situation. In the current situation, a revolution is not justified. But if in the future one was, then the situation would be quite different.

This analysis is rooted in the state of the USA as it is now and probably will be for the next 50-75 years. In this century, the 21st, a revolution by the general citizenry of the United States is simply unfeasible unless they can get 3/4ths or more of the military to side with them and engage in a dictatorship for 15-30 years.

crashhelmet

02-05-2011, 11:26 PM

And yet this is an entirely false equation as I stated before. Being hired to do something necessitates nothing about your competency and it's the same for a lack of having been hired to do it.
In either case the competency of the individual is up to that individual alone and from this standpoint there is therefore little dividing the efforts of LE from armed civilians.

Go out and get a job as a security guard, officer, patrolman, whatever you want to call the title.

Entry level gets you a flash light and a walkie talkie.

Want a promotion? Take a pepper spray/mace class.
Learn all about how to properly spray someone and not yourself. And then stand there and get sprayed in the face with it. Let me tell you, there's nothing like the sensation of feeling like your eyes are going to explode, even after you've dunked your head into the bucket of water. Congratulations! You now get to perform your job with an aerosol deterrent.

Want another promotion? Take a taser/stun gun course. Once again, learn all about the how to properly use it and then have it used on you. Your body will tingle for a while afterwards, but it doesn't hurt as long as the pepper spray does. Congratulations! You now get to carry a taser/stun gun.

Want another promotion? Take a gun safety course. Learn how to safely and properly use a handgun. Thankfully, you don't have to worry about it being used on you in order to pass the class, but this time around you have to put in a large amount of time in at a firing range and prove your ability to accurately hit whatever it is you're shooting at. Your tests will require threat targeting, as well as the standard paper bullseye.

Want to carry shotguns or rifles? Take classes for those and pass their tests to get those promotions.

So yes, someone that is employed to do this job is going to have the necessary training that an ordinary civilian won't. They don't just hire John Q Public, give him a sidearm, a patrol route, and say "Have at it."

Nowhere have we claimed that CCP holders are heroes or that they are uniquely suited to the task at hand. Our point if you would deign to notice it is that while some people are uniquely suited for a number of different tasks we as a society often underestimate the degree to which the populace at large is suited to the same task. Our point is not that CCP ownership makes you a tactical guru so much as it is that one does not need to be a tactical guru to succeed.

In other threads, you have touted how someone with a CCP is more capable than others, including LEOs, to handle these situations.

Again, a CC practitioner and a police officer are roughly equivalent over all and many if not most CC practitioners far exceed average LE levels of firearms proficiency and accuracy. CC holders are firearm hobbyists who spend many hours on the range and keeping their skills fresh. Almost always far exceeding the requirements of most law enforcement agencies.

Believe it or not, CC practitioners make places safer not less safe. And your right to comfort in no way trumps anyone's right to safety. It is far preferable for a trained and skilled individual to engage an attacker as quickly as possible in order to eliminate the threat sooner rather than later. While the exchange of fire adds quite slightly to the chance of someone catching a stray, it most likely ends a rampage far earlier than it would have otherwise. That's LE doctrine, by the way, engage the shooter as quickly as possible.

From your same response...

Even if you aren't emotionally ready to accept the fact that CCers do as much to make a place safer as cops do, at least give it some rational intellectual thought. The precedent and the numbers to say nothing of the expertise of those who are well versed in such areas all say that without a doubt you're safer around a CCer than not. Let's not let our emotions endanger our lives, or our liberty.

Moving on...

I could easily apply this to your theory of employment as well: Just because you've been payed to serve a role does not necessitate that you are especially prepared for it, merely that you have been given a reason to do so pending further employment or personal impulse. This particular blade cuts both ways.

Read my earlier response about the requirements for a job providing Armed Security.

Which is exactly what we were responding to. Concealed or not, I really don't give two shits it's entirely up to you. That said, it's more than a little hypocritical to participate in something for the benefit of a few individuals whilst deriding others doing the same thing for themselves.

According to your logic the fact that you are carrying a weapon for the defense of either or self or in this case others categorizes you as a John Wayne wannabe out to bag the baddie, you're just getting payed to do it.

No, if I was a "John Wayne wannabe out to bag the baddie" like you seem to think I am, I wouldn't need the CCP and I'd open carry regardless of what I wear. I'd have my holster hanging from my hip, strapped to my thigh, or over my jacket so that my handgun was in plain view, meeting the Open Carry requirements.

As if there aren't plenty of people who live in areas and/or situations just the same albeit without the luxury of hiring someone to protect them.

Sadly, there is too much crime in this country, let alone the world. There are people that have to worry about stray bullets coming through their walls and windows while they're sleeping, eating dinner, or having family game night.

My clients have to worry about some deranged, obsessed fan that got a reply from them on Twitter or met them at a convention that may suddenly think "If I can't have her, no one can!" and try to do something rash. Then there are the abusive exes they're stereotypically known to have. They employ me for 2 reasons. I have the qualifications and they trust me.

Again, not at all what we were getting at but okay, whatever floats your boat. I can definitely see how a drop-leg over suit pants would chafe or at the very least ruin the pants.

But that would go for the "John Wayne wannabe out to bag the baddie" look, which I am not after.

How is leaving and coming back make something into vigilantism?
Vigilantism is the extralegal punishment of an alleged criminal, which has nothing to do with a civilian responding to a violent crime or situation. The former is about vengeance, the latter is about ending the killing and saving lives. The death of the aggressor is but one of the means by which good Samaritans may accomplish their ends, but even so this has nothing to do with vigilantism.

One might be able to argue that such individuals are taking their actions to an unnecessary level, which would be a far more debatable point as compared to the entirely erroneous vigilantism comparison.

Once you leave the scene and come back armed, it becomes an act of vengeance.

Again, what law would you be breaking? If you are in fact doing the right thing but being punished by the law, wouldn't that as Hyena Dandy pointed out most logically indicate that the law is wrong, not you? Why is the leaving/returning a dynamic in this at all?

But most of all: what law are you breaking here? You've said many times that you would be breaking one, but not once have you shown which one if indeed it exists at all.

I give you the case of Adrial White, of Racine, WI (http://www.jsonline.com/news/29292109.html). Burglars were breaking into his girlfriend's car. He shot them in self-defense. He was originally convicted of first-degree intentional homicide in the death of one burglar and found guilty of attempted second-degree intentional homicide in the shooting of another.

He appealed and was given the opportunity at a retrial due to inadequate representation. He accepted a plea of first-degree reckless homicide while armed and first-degree reckless injury while armed before it went to trial for the second time. Self-Defense was not a valid defense for his actions.

That seems like kind of an extreme example ( going home and coming back ). We're talking about of a first responder situation here aren't we? IE if you're responding before law enforcement can arrive. Running to your car I can see. In which case, what law is being broken? I can't see anyone really being charged for being the first responder to an actively dangerous situation like that. Provided you're employing reasonable force. ( Ie you didn't wing him then walk up and straight up execute him ).

But that's exactly what the civilians at UTEP did. They went home, grabbed their rifles, and came back to the scene of the shooting.

Ninja_Sushi

02-06-2011, 07:00 AM

Well I guess its time for my 2 cents....

Im a handgun carrier. Some days I carry concealed, other days I open carry. I have no fear of guns whatsoever. Ive shot weapon as big as the .50 cal machine gun to as small as a deringer.

I dont believe more strict gun laws would solve anything. Take a weapon out of my hand and I cant help anyone. Im in the military and even being out at night at home makes me uneasy. Very cliche but its true: Out law personal weapons and the only people with weapons are the outlaws.

Criminals will always get their hands on a gun. Do you guys know how easy it is to buy a throw away gun? (throw away - very cheap, multiple killings attached to weapon, use and sell/throwaway) Very easy. Do people really think laws will get criminals to stop? Its too optimistic an idea. We have many laws for many things but that doesnt stop them.

I do, on the other hand, agree that people need to be more informed about weapons. Since Ive been in my criminal justice courses, Ive learned all about self defense laws. There are situations where you can kill and others where a gun is too much force. More to come later. Playing Black Ops lol

Wingates_Hellsing

02-06-2011, 07:07 AM

Go out and get a job as a security guard, officer, patrolman, whatever you want to call the title.

Entry level gets you a flash light and a walkie talkie. <snip> Want to carry shotguns or rifles? Take classes for those and pass their tests to get those promotions.

So yes, someone that is employed to do this job is going to have the necessary training that an ordinary civilian won't. They don't just hire John Q Public, give him a sidearm, a patrol route, and say "Have at it."
All of which is great when it's adhered to and when said training is studiously kept with. Problem being that neither is necessarily true.
The onus of continuing with said training and maintaining a good level of proficiency is still on the individual. Together with the inevitable cases of bad apples falling through the cracks and formal training requirements or not is far from the golden bullet that some people hold it to be.

Put that together with the varying hard and fast requirements between jurisdictions and unscrupulous businesses and getting payed is no guarantee at all.

At the end of the day while in general a security guard is better than John Doe and a beat cop is better than a security guard etc. the assumption that John Doe doesn't have training is false because many do to say nothing of the falsity of the assumption that no training is a catastrophe. There are enough instances of entirely untrained people doing exactly the right thing to show that the possibility that some or even most of a given group may lack formal training is not enough to discount or disband that group. In this case, civilian CCP holders.

In other threads, you have touted how someone with a CCP is more capable than others, including LEOs, to handle these situations.
Nowhere in that quote did I state that CCers were superhuman or themselves better than cops overall, merely that many CCers are also hobbyist shooters who benefit from higher resulting proficiency levels than those LEOs who practice only as much as they are required to.

No, if I was a "John Wayne wannabe out to bag the baddie" like you seem to think I am, I wouldn't need the CCP and I'd open carry regardless of what I wear. I'd have my holster hanging from my hip, strapped to my thigh, or over my jacket so that my handgun was in plain view, meeting the Open Carry requirements.
You're the one insinuating that anyone who carries a concealed weapon who then engages an active shooter = cowboy. Are you saying that if some deranged ass-hat opened fire in the mall you were in and you were armed at that time that you wouldn't take action?
If the answer is "no I wouldn't take action" than clarification will be achieved and we can move on.
If the answer is "Yes I would take action" than it is therefore quite hypocritical for you to accuse others of being vigilantees and therefore bad people whilst doing the same thing in preparation for the same course of action in the same circumstance as you.

Sadly, there is too much crime in this country, let alone the world. There are people that have to worry about stray bullets coming through their walls and windows while they're sleeping, eating dinner, or having family game night.

My clients have to worry about some deranged, obsessed fan that got a reply from them on Twitter or met them at a convention that may suddenly think "If I can't have her, no one can!" and try to do something rash. Then there are the abusive exes they're stereotypically known to have. They employ me for 2 reasons. I have the qualifications and they trust me.
Problem being that your clients have the money to hire and vet professionals, the people who have to worry about stray shots from gang-bangers do not. They also deserve some protection and the only way they're going to get it is doing it for themselves. Open carry would be fine if it weren't for the loss of the element of surprise to say nothing of the fact that open carry tends to freak people out. It's far better to conceal for the purpose of day-to-day carry, so why shouldn't they be allowed to do it?

Once you leave the scene and come back armed, it becomes an act of vengeance.
How?
This is the biggest non-sequitur I have ever seen.
Leaving to get the right tool means only that you wanted to get the right tool. The shooter didn't go home while these people were gone, he didn't finish his crime and then get caught by an angry mob after the fact.
As long as that threat is active any and all action to end that threat is exactly that, it's only when force is used after the threat has ended that it becomes vengeance. These people didn't pop this guy on his way to court, they didn't bludgeon him to death in his bed. They recognized an ongoing threat to the life and limb of everyone in the area and prepared themselves to stop it.

I give you the case of Adrial White, of Racine, WI (http://www.jsonline.com/news/29292109.html). Burglars were breaking into his girlfriend's car. He shot them in self-defense. He was originally convicted of first-degree intentional homicide in the death of one burglar and found guilty of attempted second-degree intentional homicide in the shooting of another.

He appealed and was given the opportunity at a retrial due to inadequate representation. He accepted a plea of first-degree reckless homicide while armed and first-degree reckless injury while armed before it went to trial for the second time. Self-Defense was not a valid defense for his actions.
Because his actions were not in self-defense. The reason he was convicted was because he used lethal force in an instance where there was no threat to life or limb and certainly no lethal force or threat thereof against him.

This man's case in no way applies to instances where people use lethal force against violent robbery attempts, active shooters, rape attempts or those instances covered by any Castle Doctrine.

But that's exactly what the civilians at UTEP did. They went home, grabbed their rifles, and came back to the scene of the shooting.
Even so, it means nothing as throughout the whole process for those who did indeed leave and then return, the shooter was still an active threat. I can find no law that makes it illegal to assist police, only cases where those who did had to fend for themselves in the face of civil suits, which is far from the end of the world and has nothing to do with legality.

Gravekeeper

02-06-2011, 07:44 AM

I dont believe more strict gun laws would solve anything. Take a weapon out of my hand and I cant help anyone.

Again though, even just better enforcement of the ones you actually have would help. Also, again, you're not obligated to help anyone because you own a weapon nor are you expected in any way to do so. I'm not saying you shouldn't, just that you can't use that as an argument when there's no mandate for you to do so to begin with.

Im in the military and even being out at night at home makes me uneasy. Very cliche but its true: Out law personal weapons and the only people with weapons are the outlaws.

I'm still curious as to the state of the US or areas of the US that cause people to feel that uneasy. As for your second point, thats actually demonstrable false by other countries with stricter controls than the US. In Canada for example, when we outlawed handguns, crime with handguns dropped like a rock. Over the last 40 years or so since we began really tightening our gun control laws the usage of firearms in crime has dropped significantly. Murder with firearms for example, has dropped literally by half. Yes, we still have murder. As bad people will do bad things regardless. That however, is a different argument. But they will do it with what's available. If guns aren't available, they aren't used. So no, that cliche by itself isn't true.

Criminals will always get their hands on a gun. Do you guys know how easy it is to buy a throw away gun? (throw away - very cheap, multiple killings attached to weapon, use and sell/throwaway) Very easy. Do people really think laws will get criminals to stop? Its too optimistic an idea. We have many laws for many things but that doesnt stop them.

Again though, its easy because its available, if its not available its not easy. It goes hand in hand.

More to come later. Playing Black Ops lol

Have you no taste, man? >.>

Once you leave the scene and come back armed, it becomes an act of vengeance.

Er, no. Running to your car to get a weapon to stop an active shooter that's on a rampage isn't vengeance. Driving all the way home, getting your gun, coming back and shooting him in the head while the cops are taking him away is vengeance. >.>

I give you the case of Adrial White, of Racine, WI.

What Wingate said. That's defence of property, not defence of life.

Vash113

02-06-2011, 09:36 AM

Go out and get a job as a security guard, officer, patrolman, whatever you want to call the title.

Entry level gets you a flash light and a walkie talkie.

Want a promotion? Take a pepper spray/mace class.
Learn all about how to properly spray someone and not yourself. And then stand there and get sprayed in the face with it. Let me tell you, there's nothing like the sensation of feeling like your eyes are going to explode, even after you've dunked your head into the bucket of water. Congratulations! You now get to perform your job with an aerosol deterrent.

Want another promotion? Take a taser/stun gun course. Once again, learn all about the how to properly use it and then have it used on you. Your body will tingle for a while afterwards, but it doesn't hurt as long as the pepper spray does. Congratulations! You now get to carry a taser/stun gun.

Want another promotion? Take a gun safety course. Learn how to safely and properly use a handgun. Thankfully, you don't have to worry about it being used on you in order to pass the class, but this time around you have to put in a large amount of time in at a firing range and prove your ability to accurately hit whatever it is you're shooting at. Your tests will require threat targeting, as well as the standard paper bullseye.

Want to carry shotguns or rifles? Take classes for those and pass their tests to get those promotions.

So yes, someone that is employed to do this job is going to have the necessary training that an ordinary civilian won't. They don't just hire John Q Public, give him a sidearm, a patrol route, and say "Have at it."

That would be true if those requirements you cited were universal... but they aren't. Unfortunately, just like CCP legislation, Security Guard Registration requirements are not universal, for instance I could find no training requirements or registration for use of a taser or stun gun in Virginia. Of the requirements I found for registration as an Armed Security Guard the majority of the curriculum was the legal definitions for deadly force, justified deadly force, criminal and civil liability. Mostly legal jargon, the actual safe use and care of firearms was very limited and there was no explicit requirement for range time or accuracy and certainly nothing that would remotely approximate training for reliable action under stress.

Actually the basic handgun safety course I found offered by the NRA included more range time and safety instruction than the Security Guard registration.

Concealed Carry Permits can be achieved through very limited instruction and that's somewhat worrying but comparing curriculum I do not see significantly more safety instruction in Security Guard or Law Enforcement training requirements. Certainly none of the requirements include any kind of stress training or run and gun training simulations often employed by NRA and other gun rights support organization's courses.

Even Military training curriculum do not extensively (or even marginally in cases) include run and gun simulations that get the adrenaline and blood pumping and thus would approximate the stresses of a life threatening mass shooting as has been argued.

In this respect while your basic CCP permit does not stipulate extensive training, Security Guard and Law Enforcement training requirements are not much more significant and none are as prepared for dangerous urban threats as those who choose to engage in the more active run and gun training employed by the gun rights supporters.

Regardless the very assumption that training is required to properly respond to dangerous situations is erroneous. Time and time again we have seen individuals with little or no training respond to dangerous situations properly and very successfully. Additionally civilians have access to more extensive training than that received by basic law enforcement, security or military personnel, some of whom also choose to undertake such training on their own time. As such the capacity to properly respond to violent threats is, as Wingates has said numerous times, almost completely down to the individual. Minimum requirements are all well and good but they aren't the be all end all that some claim. Completing the training does not ensure competency or effectiveness when put into real life situations, likewise lack of training does not ensure a lack of competency or effectiveness.

Training is nice, training is good, some training is better than none, but a lack of required training is no death knell.

In other threads, you have touted how someone with a CCP is more capable than others, including LEOs, to handle these situations.

Read my earlier response about the requirements for a job providing Armed Security.

Wingates' point was that having a job that includes carrying a firearm does not mean that the individual actively practices or up-keeps the skills. Whereas many gun owners and CCP holders actively practice and get far more range time than many Law Enforcement Officers. The assumption your making is that because someone has completed very basic levels of competency they are then superior in training and competency than anyone else. However that ignores the significant percentage of gun owners that actively practice the proper use of their firearms, something that many Security Guards, Law Enforcement Officers and even Military Personnel are not required to do and do not choose to do either.

No, if I was a "John Wayne wannabe out to bag the baddie" like you seem to think I am, I wouldn't need the CCP and I'd open carry regardless of what I wear. I'd have my holster hanging from my hip, strapped to my thigh, or over my jacket so that my handgun was in plain view, meeting the Open Carry requirements.

Except you've argued that concealed carry holders are vigilantes out to kill bad guys. So what is it? Is it the concealed carry permit or just the gun? If it's the gun why do you have one? If it's the concealed carry permit why does this not apply to you whereas you apply it to everyone else?

You argue against the actions of concealed carry permit holders while having and using one yourself, this does not follow.

Sadly, there is too much crime in this country, let alone the world. There are people that have to worry about stray bullets coming through their walls and windows while they're sleeping, eating dinner, or having family game night.

My clients have to worry about some deranged, obsessed fan that got a reply from them on Twitter or met them at a convention that may suddenly think "If I can't have her, no one can!" and try to do something rash. Then there are the abusive exes they're stereotypically known to have. They employ me for 2 reasons. I have the qualifications and they trust me.

Plenty of other people have security concerns equal to or greater than those you mentioned. Abusive exes are not the sole domain of the privileged for example. Why can't other people choose to protect themselves with the most effective means possible?

But that would go for the "John Wayne wannabe out to bag the baddie" look, which I am not after.

So again your saying that everyone who open carries is just out to kill bad guys? Once more that doesn't follow.

Once you leave the scene and come back armed, it becomes an act of vengeance.

Not in the eyes of the law its not. A vigilante is someone who seeks out and punishes a criminal outside the bounds of the law, no armed civilian responding to a dangerous situation, even if they leave and come back, is taking such an action. Their aim is to stop the situation and protect people, it has nothing to do with punishing anyone or taking vengeance for anything. Once more that's an erroneous argument.

I give you the case of Adrial White, of Racine, WI (http://www.jsonline.com/news/29292109.html). Burglars were breaking into his girlfriend's car. He shot them in self-defense. He was originally convicted of first-degree intentional homicide in the death of one burglar and found guilty of attempted second-degree intentional homicide in the shooting of another.

He appealed and was given the opportunity at a retrial due to inadequate representation. He accepted a plea of first-degree reckless homicide while armed and first-degree reckless injury while armed before it went to trial for the second time. Self-Defense was not a valid defense for his actions.

In this case the individual was not acting in self defense because neither himself or anyone else was in active danger and thus he was tried and convicted for excessive use of force. This does not equate to the actions of individuals responding to a violent situation where there is an immediate threat to themselves or others.

But that's exactly what the civilians at UTEP did. They went home, grabbed their rifles, and came back to the scene of the shooting.
[/quote]

That is simply untrue, even if they left and came back it does not even remotely make a difference, they were still responding to a violent threat to themselves or others that was ongoing. There is no law that once you leave the scene you cannot come back and provide assistance. It's no different than individuals outside the scene entering it to provide aid. Such acts are putting the individual at risk for the sake of others and, far from being the act of vigilantes, are the very definition of heroic. They are also actions protected by good Samaritan and self defense laws that are not relegated to merely the defense of oneself but extend to the protection of others in the vicinity.

It is sad to see such repeated attempts to undermine the brave actions of a few individuals that saved a great many lives on such a tragic and terrible day.

It is also sad that the commendation of those individuals actions by the local legislation and law enforcement and the utter lack of any convictions or even charges is repeatedly ignored in favor of outrageous and unsupported accusations of vigilantism. The facts are completely contrary to such wild accusations.

Vash113

02-06-2011, 09:36 AM

Again though, even just better enforcement of the ones you actually have would help. Also, again, you're not obligated to help anyone because you own a weapon nor are you expected in any way to do so. I'm not saying you shouldn't, just that you can't use that as an argument when there's no mandate for you to do so to begin with.

Except gun control laws have not ever been proven to reduce crime, so better enforcement of them would not necessarily improve anything.

Secondly a lack of a mandate isn't important, civilian firearms ownership acts as a deterrent to crime even when they are not used, we have seen this time and time again when concealed carry laws are passed, crime generally drops. No mandate to use a firearm is necessary, some towns in the United States even have laws that require every resident to own a firearm. Far from seeing increases in crime these areas see fairly significant drops. When criminals know their victims have the capacity to fight back it is a crime deterrent even before a single shot is fired.

The argument that a lack of mandate negates defensive firearms use arguments is at best non sequitur. Civilian rights do not derive from needs and requirements. To remove a right you must prove a significant and imminent threat to the general populace from the continued existence of that right. Firearms use has not been proven to threaten the populace in general, on the contrary its generally proven to be the opposite.

I'm still curious as to the state of the US or areas of the US that cause people to feel that uneasy. As for your second point, thats actually demonstrable false by other countries with stricter controls than the US. In Canada for example, when we outlawed handguns, crime with handguns dropped like a rock. Over the last 40 years or so since we began really tightening our gun control laws the usage of firearms in crime has dropped significantly. Murder with firearms for example, has dropped literally by half. Yes, we still have murder. As bad people will do bad things regardless. That however, is a different argument. But they will do it with what's available. If guns aren't available, they aren't used. So no, that cliche by itself isn't true.

That is actually not at all true. In Washington D.C. for instance when the gun bans were passed into law gun crimes went up dramatically. When victims could no longer protect themselves properly they became defenseless. Much the same has occurred in other areas of the United States. All major shooting sprees have happened on "gun free" zones where available. Where as places like Japan that have very strict gun control laws simply have a ton of stabbings. Banning a weapon does not stop violent crime, not even remotely. Crime in the UK has not improved significantly thanks to gun bans either, actually if I recall correctly gun crime is up in the last ten years in the UK.

Actually looking at statistics from the United Nations from public and justice system sources homicides and assaults went up fairly consistently in Canada over the last surveyed period from 2003-2008. In the United States those crime rates were wobbly but generally down over that same period. Maybe firearms crimes are down in Canada but crime in general is up, if you solve one problem but make another worse that still isn't a good thing, especially if it is at the cost of trampling over civil liberties.

As for feeling uneasy, many people do and its because violent crimes can happen just about anywhere. Not everyone lives in upper-middle class neighborhoods that are virtually crime free and even then horrible violent crimes still occur. The DC shooting spree (http://www.mayhem.net/Crime/sniper.html) was not so long ago to easily forget and sent the entire tri-state region into paroxysms of terror. The Holocaust museum (http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-10/justice/museum.shooting_1_holocaust-museum-von-brunn-security-guard?_s=PM:CRIME) saw a shooting recently and a few years back someone opened fire (http://www.metacafe.com/watch/293818/man_opens_fire_on_white_house/) at the White House. Not to mention the Fort Hood (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2009/11/06/army-fort-hood-gunman-custody-killed-injured-rampage/) shooting. That disturbed a lot of people, if an Army Base isn't safe from mentally unstable killers, what is?

Not to mention many people live in less secure sub-urban and rural areas where cops are a long way away even when they are called and the fear isn't always of human attackers. Many people in rural areas have to worry about wolves, coyotes, bears, bobcats, mountain lions and so on and so forth. Try carrying around a hunting rifle everywhere you go sometime, it's a lot easier to carry a Smith & Wessen 500, which is about the only handgun that will stop a bear... sometimes. Whereas people in urban areas have gang violence, robbery, burglary, assault and many other crimes to worry about.

While only about 1.4% of the population will suffer a violent crime each year, odds are about 85% or more will be victims of a violent crime at sometime in their life. While some throw around claims of paranoia I honestly don't see gun ownership as anything other than reasonable prudence.

Again though, its easy because its available, if its not available its not easy. It goes hand in hand.

Gun control laws do not however necessarily make it more difficult for criminals to obtain guns nor do they have a significant effect on the black market. On the contrary they simply increase the black market demand for firearms and, like the ban of drugs and alcohol has shown, will simply spawn much more powerful criminal markets while leaving the civilian population comparably defenseless.

Have you no taste, man? >.>

Well true Call of Duty has gone into some rather irksome conspiracy theory heavy plots they're still some extremely addictive games, besides you'd prefer World of Warcraft? That game devours your soul!

Er, no. Running to your car to get a weapon to stop an active shooter that's on a rampage isn't vengeance. Driving all the way home, getting your gun, coming back and shooting him in the head while the cops are taking him away is vengeance. >.>

Well said. :)

Ninja_Sushi

02-06-2011, 10:44 AM

Which bring up something I just thought about...One marked as a felon in the US, rights are taken away, such asssssss: Right to bear arms.

Unfortunately I do have a couple felon friends and yes, they have obtained firearms from shady people. I dont know how I feel about this cause they both have changed their lifestyles and arent doing the gang thing anymore. Yes its not legal for them to have one, but it does make me feel better knowing they can protect themselves (their neighborhood is very....hood).

My point was even though they were told they could not own a firearm, they were still able to get one. Hell, I can walk outside right now and buy a full auto AK-47(very illegal) for $350. All you need is connections. Not saying I would actually buy anything illegal or affiliate myself with gang members, I just have my ways. Its very easy nowdays.

Its just like the drug trade, we have tens of thousand of troops/agents along the border but still manage to have drugs up here. If people demand there will ALWAYS be a supplier. Laws wont stop them. Nor will restrictions. Once one becomes cynical to the world, nothing suprises you.

Which is why I will keep my weapon no matter what. Even if a law is in place. If its taken, Ill buy a dirty gun. Im never going to be caught dead without my plan B when its needed.

Mikkel

02-06-2011, 12:47 PM

Gun control laws do not however necessarily make it more difficult for criminals to obtain guns nor do they have a significant effect on the black market. On the contrary they simply increase the black market demand for firearms and, like the ban of drugs and alcohol has shown, will simply spawn much more powerful criminal markets while leaving the civilian population comparably defenseless.

It's very difficult to buy black market firearms here and even more difficult to buy ammunition for them. Both are impossible to buy legally without a permit.
I could get some kind of handgun in a month or two, I think, through one of my shadier friends. They are smuggled in, primarily from Eastern Europe and Russia. Ammo, though, I doubt I could get much and certainly not cheap.
Robbers here usually make do with knifes or baseball bats.

Gravekeeper

02-06-2011, 01:16 PM

Except gun control laws have not ever been proven to reduce crime, so better enforcement of them would not necessarily improve anything.

They reduce crime committed with guns due simple to availability. I was responding specifically to the cliche. Also, better enforcement of existing laws would have stopped the Arizona shooting, for the most blatant example. Better enforcement would also not make anything worse. Really, why not have better enforcement of existing laws? What would be the problem with that? -.-

Secondly a lack of a mandate isn't important, civilian firearms ownership acts as a deterrent to crime even when they are not used, we have seen this time and time again when concealed carry laws are passed, crime generally drops.

Time and time again where? You can't conceal carry at all in Canada. Anywhere. For any reason. Our crime rates are going down regardless. Our crime rates are lower than yours to begin with. Our crime rates with fire arms are obviously lower.

No mandate to use a firearm is necessary, some towns in the United States even have laws that require every resident to own a firearm. Far from seeing increases in crime these areas see fairly significant drops. When criminals know their victims have the capacity to fight back it is a crime deterrent even before a single shot is fired.

....wait, what? Where the hell is that mandated? You mean to tell me there's somewhere they mandate owning lethal force, yet people freak the fuck out about rights when it comes to health insurance? And yeah it would deter me, as in period. I wouldn't go anywhere near such a place. I don't mean that as a criminal either.

The argument that a lack of mandate negates defensive firearms use arguments is at best non sequitur.

I didn't say it negated defensive firearm use. Please pay attention to what Ninja said, and what I was responding too.

That is actually not at all true.

It's completely true. I didn't pull the stats out of my ass. >.>

In Washington D.C. for instance when the gun bans were passed into law gun crimes went up dramatically.

That's not surprising, you're comparing banning them in one city vs Canada where they're banned in the entire country. Those are two completely different ballgames and not comparable. I'm not suprised at all it failed miserably.

Where as places like Japan that have very strict gun control laws simply have a ton of stabbings.

Again, bad people will do bad things. Again, as I said, that's an entirely different argument.

Banning a weapon does not stop violent crime, not even remotely. Crime in the UK has not improved significantly thanks to gun bans either, actually if I recall correctly gun crime is up in the last ten years in the UK.

Violent crime is tallied differently in the UK. They have 24/7 pub hours and even a pushing match between two drunks is technically counted as a violent crime. They also still have one of the lowest firearm homicide rates in the entire world. Well below Canada. Which, again, is only about 1/6th of the US's firearm homicide rate per capita. For straight up non-homicide gun crime, they're not much better than Canada. But they're still 1/5th of the US.

There is a clear link between availability and usage in crime, simple as that. The underlaying reasons may very and the solutions may not be clear ( Like I said a few times already, I'm not trying to take all your guns away and toss them in the fires of Mount Doom. ) But that alone is undeniable, sorry.

Actually looking at statistics from the United Nations from public and justice system sources homicides and assaults went up fairly consistently in Canada over the last surveyed period from 2003-2008. In the United States those crime rates were wobbly but generally down over that same period. Maybe firearms crimes are down in Canada but crime in general is up, if you solve one problem but make another worse that still isn't a good thing, especially if it is at the cost of trampling over civil liberties.

First of all, correlation /= causation. Second of all, crime has overall been falling in Canada for over a decade now per StatCan. Third, yes, individual crimes here may fluctuate a little from year to year, but we're literally talking a + or - of 10-15 homicides. With actual firearm homicides, they dropped heavily right after we put tougher controls in place in the 1970s. They then leveled off by 2000, stabilized for a while and are again trending downwards since 2005. Fourth of all, I'm not sure how its tallied elsewhere, but in Canada manslaughter is included in our homicide rate. Fifth of all, straight up homicide rates are trending downward in all western countries. Yours included. But, you still have one of the highest of any industrialized nation. Especially with firearms.

Aside from availability and thus usage, I don't think guns have a factor on the actual rate of crime one way or another. Me thinks niether having them nor not having them really affects the overall rate of crime. Only the rate at which they're used in crime.

To quote StatCan: Most violent crime (75%) was committed by physical force or threats, without the use of any weapon. Weapons were used against 18% of victims of violent crimes, with knives (6.2%) and clubs or blunt instruments (3.0%) being the most common. A firearm was used against 2.4% of all victims.

Up here, we're probably going to pull your jersey over your head and punch you more than anything else. >.>

As for feeling uneasy, many people do and its because violent crimes can happen just about anywhere. Not everyone lives in upper-middle class neighborhoods that are virtually crime free and even then horrible violent crimes still occur.

Again, this is what I'm interested in, in the US. Is the how or why of these areas where you actually feel you need to carry a firearm. But no one's really answered that one yet.

Not to mention many people live in less secure sub-urban and rural areas where cops are a long way away even when they are called and the fear isn't always of human attackers. Many people in rural areas have to worry about wolves, coyotes, bears, bobcats, mountain lions and so on and so forth.

Most gun owners in Canada are rural and have them for precisely the reasons you list. IE They have a legit reason.

Try carrying around a hunting rifle everywhere you go sometime, it's a lot easier to carry a Smith & Wessen 500, which is about the only handgun that will stop a bear... sometimes. Whereas people in urban areas have gang violence, robbery, burglary, assault and many other crimes to worry about.

Our urban areas are very anti-gun. Generally speaking only the most hardcore ( gang related ) commonly have them ( Though its typically foreign groups, locals still like their knives ), and up here at least they tend to be too busy using them on each other well away from the rest of us. Like I said before, I live in the worst city in Canada for gun related crimes. The worst. And I would still have to put in months of effort pissing off Asian gangs to get shot. >.>

Gun control laws do not however necessarily make it more difficult for criminals to obtain guns nor do they have a significant effect on the black market.

Cept they do. Again, there is a clear link between availability and usage. We can argue the social and economic reasons for why crime happens as I imagine thats the biggest problem in the US. But that one point is stands by looking at any other country with tighter controls than the US.

On the contrary they simply increase the black market demand for firearms and, like the ban of drugs and alcohol has shown, will simply spawn much more powerful criminal markets while leaving the civilian population comparably defenseless.

Yet again, Canada. I'm not under siege here thanks to gun control laws. Even despite sharing the longest undefended border in the world with the US.

I feel the need to yet again point out I don't want to take away all your guns, Mt Doom, etc. I think you could seriously do with better enforcement of existing laws and less of this states rights stuff that lets it fluctuate so much from place to place. But I don't want to take away all your guns and leave you at the peril of whatever the hell it is down there that you live in the same neighbourhood with. >.>

Well true Call of Duty has gone into some rather irksome conspiracy theory heavy plots they're still some extremely addictive games, besides you'd prefer World of Warcraft? That game devours your soul!

Pssh! At least play something in the Battlefield series. -.-

Which bring up something I just thought about...One marked as a felon in the US, rights are taken away, such asssssss: Right to bear arms.

Unfortunately I do have a couple felon friends and yes, they have obtained firearms from shady people. I dont know how I feel about this cause they both have changed their lifestyles and arent doing the gang thing anymore. Yes its not legal for them to have one, but it does make me feel better knowing they can protect themselves (their neighborhood is very....hood).<snip>

Again though, that hops back to "better enforcement of existing laws" as well as "Dear lord what sort of neighbourhood is this?" >.>

Ninja_Sushi

02-06-2011, 01:35 PM

Well Gravekeeper....

To put it simply, you have to be there to understand. There are some parts of the city that just aren't that safe at night. For example, South side and East side Tucson. South side: Very dangerous, low income house holds, cheap apartments, lots of gangs, liquor stores, bars on windows, graffiti, etc.

Unfortunately, if you work a standard minimum wage job, more than likely you live around there. I mean dont get me wrong, during the day its fine. And the apartments are set at a good price. Lots of stores to go to. But at night, it does a 180. Its one of those places where your 'sixth sense' would be ringing bad. NO ONE walks at night. If you do, I guarantee you will be either mugged, raped, or killed. Especially if you are white, asian, or black. That side of town is overrun with Sur trece (South 13...13 being the letter 'M' for Mexican). East side almost the same, a little safer. You can walk but only in lit areas. Even then I dont recommend it. Blood and Crip area. Again, if you're white, mexican, or asian.

Its just....better if you have a gun. Say there was a strict gun law. Ok, nobody has a gun. Ill have a knife. Against 5 guys with knives, clubs, etc. I lose. At least with a gun I can have a chance. Not every gangbanger has a gun, thank god. Ill fight long range against 5 guys with guns and risk not getting shot due to inaccuracy than risk close quarters with a knife.

Sometimes its just better to have something rather than nothing at all. It rather go down shooting and taking out 2 or 3 of them than having 5 guys stab me to death. .......(Smoke time!!!!:D)

Ninja_Sushi

02-06-2011, 01:42 PM

Oh and average response time is 15min (quickest) to 90min (slowest....yes even for burglaries) Scary huh? lol, and they lay off the Sheriff's Dept and Tucson PD....Pshhhh, thats what we need. Even less cops. WHERE IS MY TAX MONEY GOING?? Or the better question: What's my tax money being spent on? Politicians? I think so. Lame tourist attractions? Indeed. Construction on perfectly fine roads? Yes. Give money to the police departments you say? HAHAHA! I need my new jacuzzi with the pop up mini bar!

Gravekeeper

02-06-2011, 02:14 PM

But at night, it does a 180. Its one of those places where your 'sixth sense' would be ringing bad. NO ONE walks at night. If you do, I guarantee you will be either mugged, raped, or killed. Especially if you are white, asian, or black. That side of town is overrun with Sur trece (South 13...13 being the letter 'M' for Mexican). East side almost the same, a little safer. You can walk but only in lit areas. Even then I dont recommend it. Blood and Crip area. Again, if you're white, mexican, or asian.

Yes, there we go. That's what I was wondering about. You don't get that here, which is likely why its hard for me to understand the gun issue down there. I can walk to 7/11 at 3am down what is supposedly the worst street in our neighbourhood and the absolute worst I have to fear is some dude asking me for change. Can and have.

Downtown here, my office is smack in the middle of downtown. We can wander out on our break to the store or Subway or something at 3 or 4 in the morning and have nothing to fear. ( Cept change dude. )

Oh and average response time is 15min (quickest) to 90min (slowest....yes even for burglaries)

See if that's the kind of enviroment around there, I don't have a problem at all with you having a gun, frankly. *I'd* probably have one. -.-

crashhelmet

02-07-2011, 12:26 AM

All of which is great when it's adhered to and when said training is studiously kept with. Problem being that neither is necessarily true.
The onus of continuing with said training and maintaining a good level of proficiency is still on the individual. Together with the inevitable cases of bad apples falling through the cracks and formal training requirements or not is far from the golden bullet that some people hold it to be.

Put that together with the varying hard and fast requirements between jurisdictions and unscrupulous businesses and getting payed is no guarantee at all.

At the end of the day while in general a security guard is better than John Doe and a beat cop is better than a security guard etc. the assumption that John Doe doesn't have training is false because many do to say nothing of the falsity of the assumption that no training is a catastrophe. There are enough instances of entirely untrained people doing exactly the right thing to show that the possibility that some or even most of a given group may lack formal training is not enough to discount or disband that group. In this case, civilian CCP holders.

These certifications aren't handed out like Arizona Driver's Licenses where they're good for far too many years than they should be. You have to renew them annually. Some companies, for insurance purposes, make their guards take proficiency tests every 6 months, depending on their job levels.

Now, I realize I may be making an assumption here based on my own personal experience, but I would think that security guards that are certified to carry a firearm are going to be people that actually own one and spend their own recreational time at a range, in addition to whatever classes they need, or even want, to take. So once again, they will not only have the experience that you attest people with CCPs will have, but they will also have the training that comes with it.

Nowhere in that quote did I state that CCers were superhuman or themselves better than cops overall, merely that many CCers are also hobbyist shooters who benefit from higher resulting proficiency levels than those LEOs who practice only as much as they are required to.

Your very first line in that quote says otherwise

Again, a CC practitioner and a police officer are roughly equivalent over all and many if not most CC practitioners far exceed average LE levels of firearms proficiency and accuracy.

Do you honestly believe that once a cop finished through the academy and gets hired, they never have any type of training again?

You're the one insinuating that anyone who carries a concealed weapon who then engages an active shooter = cowboy.

No, I'm not. I'm saying any ordinary civilian that engages an active shooter, regardless if they're open or concealed carry, is one. You're the one that keeps making people with CCPs out to be on a higher skill level than someone without, as well as higher than the police.

Are you saying that if some deranged ass-hat opened fire in the mall you were in and you were armed at that time that you wouldn't take action?
If the answer is "no I wouldn't take action" than clarification will be achieved and we can move on.
If the answer is "Yes I would take action" than it is therefore quite hypocritical for you to accuse others of being vigilantees and therefore bad people whilst doing the same thing in preparation for the same course of action in the same circumstance as you.

My first priority would be the safety of myself and that of the people around me. I would not go looking for the gunman and abandon those people. If he came to us and began firing, I would shoot back knowing full well what legal risks I was taking. In all honesty, I'd shoot for the legs or the shoulder. I'd incapacitate him before I'd kill him. Hell, even if I wasn't armed I would do what I could to save a life. I can handle a jail cell better than personal guilt.

Problem being that your clients have the money to hire and vet professionals, the people who have to worry about stray shots from gang-bangers do not. They also deserve some protection and the only way they're going to get it is doing it for themselves. Open carry would be fine if it weren't for the loss of the element of surprise to say nothing of the fact that open carry tends to freak people out. It's far better to conceal for the purpose of day-to-day carry, so why shouldn't they be allowed to do it?

Much like what GK and Ninja is talking about, that's where things need to change. There needs to be better law enforcement in those areas. Redo the state and city budgets to employ more police and have regular patrols to reduce that crime. Why would Conceal Carry be better? Wouldn't having everyone Open Carry make would be criminals think twice about committing a crime since they can see that people are armed? Are you saying it's better for them to fall for a ruse and possibly cost the lives of innocents, rather than not commit the crime at all?

How?
This is the biggest non-sequitur I have ever seen.
Leaving to get the right tool means only that you wanted to get the right tool. The shooter didn't go home while these people were gone, he didn't finish his crime and then get caught by an angry mob after the fact.
As long as that threat is active any and all action to end that threat is exactly that, it's only when force is used after the threat has ended that it becomes vengeance. These people didn't pop this guy on his way to court, they didn't bludgeon him to death in his bed. They recognized an ongoing threat to the life and limb of everyone in the area and prepared themselves to stop it.

No. You're missing the point, so I'll put it plainly. Once you leave the scene, you are no longer in any threat. You no longer have any need to defend yourself. it is no longer "Self-Defense." If you leave and come back, it becomes vengeance and quite possibly retribution.

Because his actions were not in self-defense. The reason he was convicted was because he used lethal force in an instance where there was no threat to life or limb and certainly no lethal force or threat thereof against him.

This man's case in no way applies to instances where people use lethal force against violent robbery attempts, active shooters, rape attempts or those instances covered by any Castle Doctrine.

His defense was that he was attacked and needed to defend himself. That sounds like Self-Defense to me. What about Bernard Goetz? Multiple eye witnesses called him a hero and said he was right to defend himself. While he might have been acquitted, he was still arrested and charged with his crimes. But that comes down to the jury seeing it as justified, not what the laws state.

Even so, it means nothing as throughout the whole process for those who did indeed leave and then return, the shooter was still an active threat. I can find no law that makes it illegal to assist police, only cases where those who did had to fend for themselves in the face of civil suits, which is far from the end of the world and has nothing to do with legality.

Criminal vs civil law is a debate left for another thread. I don't see the logic in someone like OJ Simpson or Bernard Goetz being acquitted in criminal court, but found guilty in civil court. It looks like double-jeopardy to me.

There are several laws that can be applied. Some I've already listed, like use of excessive force, discharging a firearm in public, having a firearm within 100 yards of a school, and there is also interference with public duties. After they're applied, it's up to the legal system and the rights of due process. if the courts find them Not Guilty, then they're not guilty. The fact remains, that they're arrested because they're breaking laws.

How about this. Go out and buy yourself a police scanner and listen to it. When you hear about a robbery or anything involving gun fire, go down and involve yourself in it. See just how quickly you get yourself a brand new pair of shiny bracelets.

Hyena Dandy

02-07-2011, 01:01 AM

But that comes down to the jury seeing it as justified, not what the laws state.

So, what is the ultimate decider of what is right then? The law? Juries?

I say the ultimate decider of what is right is whether it hurts or helps people.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again, even though you haven't replied to it.

IF you help people. IF you save lives. IF you stop a crime, and you are found guilty of vigilantism or any other of the crimes you've listed then the laws are wrong, and what you did is right.

How about this. Go out and buy yourself a police scanner and listen to it. When you hear about a robbery or anything involving gun fire, go down and involve yourself in it. See just how quickly you get yourself a brand new pair of shiny bracelets.

But that is in no way related to what they're talking about. I can see how you might THINK it is, but it isn't. They're talking about being in a situation, and trying to make it better. Not LOOKING for trouble to be a hero.

You're just ignoring the other side, and making up claims for your opponents to argue against instead.

crashhelmet

02-07-2011, 04:36 AM

So, what is the ultimate decider of what is right then? The law? Juries?

I say the ultimate decider of what is right is whether it hurts or helps people.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again, even though you haven't replied to it.

IF you help people. IF you save lives. IF you stop a crime, and you are found guilty of vigilantism or any other of the crimes you've listed then the laws are wrong, and what you did is right.

It's the basis of our legal system. Our LEOs make arrests based on whether or not laws are broken. Judges and Juries decide if you broke them and if you were justified in breaking them. It's a flawed system.

And I have replied to it. I have said before that it doesn't matter if it's viewed as being right or not, it's still illegal.

But that is in no way related to what they're talking about. I can see how you might THINK it is, but it isn't. They're talking about being in a situation, and trying to make it better. Not LOOKING for trouble to be a hero.

You're just ignoring the other side, and making up claims for your opponents to argue against instead.

How is it not different from leaving the scene of a crime, taking yourself out of the scenario, thus making yourself completely safe and out of harm's way, grabbing your gun, and returning to the scene of the crime? How is that different than sitting at home, grabbing your gun, and joining in and 'assisting" the police at a shooting scene?

Hyena Dandy

02-07-2011, 05:12 AM

And I have replied to it. I have said before that it doesn't matter if it's viewed as being right or not, it's still illegal.

Then go to jail for it. That doesn't make it wrong, and it doesn't mean you shouldn't have done it.

Hyena Dandy

02-07-2011, 04:17 PM

Perhaps I should rephrase the question.

Why should I place what is legal or illegal above what is right or wrong?

crashhelmet

02-08-2011, 01:28 AM

Perhaps I should rephrase the question.

Why should I place what is legal or illegal above what is right or wrong?

Right and wrong is a matter of personal morals. What may be right or wrong to you isn't always what is right or wrong to someone else.

People that bomb abortion clinics or kill the doctors that perform them believe they're in the right, despite the lives they take or laws they break. They're lauded as heroes by those of the same mindset.

Some people believe they have the right to steal because they're under-privileged, especially if it's from someone that is wealthy.

Some people believe they're right by not paying taxes or committing tax fraud.

How do you define right or wrong?

Hyena Dandy

02-08-2011, 02:36 AM

Right and wrong is a matter of personal morals. What may be right or wrong to you isn't always what is right or wrong to someone else.

People that bomb abortion clinics or kill the doctors that perform them believe they're in the right, despite the lives they take or laws they break. They're lauded as heroes by those of the same mindset.

Some people believe they have the right to steal because they're under-privileged, especially if it's from someone that is wealthy.

Some people believe they're right by not paying taxes or committing tax fraud.

How do you define right or wrong?

For the sake of the discussion, because you seem to have skipped my bringing this up before, I'll try to lay it out clearly.

A right action is one that

Causes no harm to anyone else, and causes benefit to others, or causes harm only by the consent of those being harmed.

If neither of those are possible

A right action is one which stops a party from causing harm to people other than themselves.

That said, that being said, and having said that, the question of what I believe is right or wrong is an irrelevant tangent. The actions you have listed are wrong, independent of their legality. Were stealing, abortion-clinic bombing, or tax fraud, not illegal, I would still say they were wrong.

The point I am trying to make, which will be highlighted, underlined, and even centerednot out of condescension but in order to ensure that it is properly emphasized that this is the matter at hand, and this is, for lack of a better word, thesis.

You need to provide a reason these actions are wrong other than that they are illegal.

Andara Bledin

02-08-2011, 02:36 AM

How do you define right or wrong?
Let's keep it simple, then.

If an action causes harm to another without provocation, it's Wrong.

If an action prevents harm to someone undeserving of harm, then it's Right.

Given those criteria and with the only obstacle to doing what is Right being the law, why would anyone place what is legal over what is Right?

Especially, as you said, juries have the right to acquit based on justification. (knowledge of which will usually guarantee you never get on a jury)

^-.-^

crashhelmet

02-08-2011, 03:26 AM

Let's keep it simple, then.

If an action causes harm to another without provocation, it's Wrong.

If an action prevents harm to someone undeserving of harm, then it's Right.

Given those criteria and with the only obstacle to doing what is Right being the law, why would anyone place what is legal over what is Right?

Especially, as you said, juries have the right to acquit based on justification. (knowledge of which will usually guarantee you never get on a jury)

^-.-^

So you're saying that the people that are bombing abortion clinics and murdering doctors are right?

Their provocation is the act of committing abortions, killing innocent unborn babies.

Their actions prevent the further deaths of said babies. Babies they believe to be undeserving of harm.

Your rules define these people to be "right" and the laws to be "wrong."

Yes, our legal system grants juries the power to convict innocent people and acquit those that are guilty. We hope and pray that they will get it right, but it doesn't always work out that way. We're forced to take the good with the bad until things are changed. If they're ever changed.

Hyena Dandy

02-08-2011, 04:42 AM

We are getting distracted from the matter at hand. Can we please focus on the main point.

Which was, in Andy's post.

with the only obstacle to doing what is Right being the law, why would anyone place what is legal over what is Right?

Canarr

02-08-2011, 03:37 PM

Wingates_Hellsing

02-08-2011, 07:51 PM

Being German and thus raised in a completely different "gun culture" than citizens of the US, I've nonetheless been able to follow your argument(s) pretty well so far. Meaning, I can get where you're coming from, even though I find myself more partial to Gravekeeper's opinion that armed civilians are bound to cause more problems than they solve. Because, let's face it: for every sensible, level-headed person with a concealed gun like Wingates or Vash, there'll be at least one moron who thinks carrying a gun everywhere is cool, or one nutjob who thinks at any moment a government official will jump him to take his guns, or one wannabe-hero just itching for that chance to prove his worth.
Not an entirely unfounded opinion on paper but in practice there are a number of factors that tend to weed out many of the problem persons. The individuals who think it's cool tend to give it up after a week or two due to the inconvenience , nutjobs tend not to leave their property or for that matter apply for government permits. Most people that come off as wannabe heroes are just genuinely well-intentioned and enthusiastic, IMO only a slender fraction is over-enthusiastic and therefore a problem.
The majority of concealed-carriers are former or off duty LE and Military, followed closely by specifically threatened individuals (worried about crime in their neighborhood and the like.) and sheepdogs.

But here, you lost me:
I'll see if I can help, do you have a map of Budapest?

Now, if the goal of the whole idea of being a law-abiding citizen carrying a gun is being able to defend yourself and others from criminals - why would you ever drop your gun just because another guy with a gun tells you to? In the example case, the guy had neither badge nor uniform to identify him as a LEO (because, well, he wasn't) - so how do you know he isn't an accomplice of the shooter? Just because he isn't shooting indiscriminately at unarmed civilians, but is purposely going for the guy with a gun?
The man that Zamudio approached and disarmed was holding the shooter's weapon which was either empty or jammed (most likely empty due to Zamudio's description) so the man, if he felt threatened, wouldn't have been able to use it anyway.
Moreover with a permit holding rate of 1% there were probably at least half a dozen bystanders with weapons somewhere in the mall or in the vicinity. Couple that with the fact that an accomplice, if targeting armed resistance, would most likely just shoot said armed resistance and not approach into arms reach where their range advantage is moot and it's entirely logical that an armed person acting as Zamudio did was not an accomplice.

Wouldn't prudence dictate that you treat any other armed civilian in the crowd as potential hostile, until the people in uniform arrive to sort it all out? After all, the other guy would be free to shoot you once you're no longer able to shoot back. But if two people with guns each demand the other drop theirs... hm. Not seeing a positive development there, personally.
Again, target identification is dependent on behavior. Calling for disarmament is the behavior of friendly, not a hostile.
It's possible that a shooter might do so as to appear to be friendly, but ultimately it's in their favor to simply shoot and scoot.

Gravekeeper

02-09-2011, 12:56 AM

The man that Zamudio approached and disarmed was holding the shooter's weapon which was either empty or jammed (most likely empty due to Zamudio's description)

If I recall right, he ran out of rounds, went to change clips, dropped the fresh clip and thats when he got beaten with a lawn chair and dog piled. So Zamudio came upon the struggle itself, had he bad judgement or made a snap decision it might have been bad. But luckily they yelled at him, which likely caused him to reassess.

Canarr

02-09-2011, 09:43 AM

I had a map of Budapest once; didn't work out too well for me, seeing as I was trying to find my way around Munich. But that's a different story.

Moreover with a permit holding rate of 1% there were probably at least half a dozen bystanders with weapons somewhere in the mall or in the vicinity. Couple that with the fact that an accomplice, if targeting armed resistance, would most likely just shoot said armed resistance and not approach into arms reach where their range advantage is moot and it's entirely logical that an armed person acting as Zamudio did was not an accomplice.

Okay, so it might be logical that someone calling for you to drop your gun is not an accomplice, but rather someone like yourself, using their legally purchased personal firearm to protect people around them. I'll accept that for now.

But it still doesn't explain to me why you would follow such an instruction. I mean, apparently you are unwilling to trust into the proper authorities to protect you -. that's why you want the right to carry a gun (provided you have the permit), correct? Now, if you don't trust that police, armed security guards and whatnot can keep you safe, why would you trust some random other guy with a gun to do so? Why would you be willing to surrender your weapon - your only defense, unless you're also carrying a chair - in a situation that is not yet definitely cleared? Even if he *is* a friendly, you don't know that there isn't an accomplice somewhere in the vicinity - so why would you give up your gun and hope that the other guy is capable of defending you in case it becomes necessary?

Andara Bledin

02-09-2011, 04:14 PM

I mean, apparently you are unwilling to trust into the proper authorities to protect you -. that's why you want the right to carry a gun (provided you have the permit), correct?
That's a fallacious assumption.

It's not that people who carry don't trust the police to protect them so much as facing the reality that there just aren't enough police to protect everybody.

If there were, we wouldn't buy burglar alarms; after all, the police will protect us, right?

There's a major difference between not trusting someone who may or may not be present, and the fact that more often than not, there are none of those who are specifically assigned for protection on hand to do so.

^-.-^

blas87

02-09-2011, 04:53 PM

Andara said it better than I could.

If someone breaks into my apartment, why call the police and wait, and hope I don't get killed, when I could grab my gun and hope that scares them away, if it doesn't, shoot them and get rid of the problem before I end up raped or killed myself.

That argument could go against any kind of self defense. Should I let a guy rape me while I wait and hope the cops get there in time? Fuck no. I'll do my best to get him away from me and hopefully get him on the ground and unable to get up and get me, then I'll call the cops.

Gravekeeper

02-09-2011, 06:08 PM

You call the police, then you do something about it in the meantime to protect yourself until the police arrive. This directly puts you at the mercy of the effectiveness and funding of your local police department though. As Ninja pointed out, there seems to be some rather brutal response times in some areas down there.

Here in Van, the VPD's response time is on average just under 9 minutes. I can hold someone off for 9 minutes if they're trying to break in an kill my arse. And my security alarm would bring down the neighbourhood to help, luckily.

If you're actually downtown in public when something happens, they'll be there in minutes if that. Downtown Vancouver is very well patrolled and very visibly patrolled. Hence I've never once worried about my safety working night shifts all these years.

Not even on transit, which while it has its weirdos, transit has its own seperate fully armed police force. Who spot patrol the Skytrain riding random cars from stop to stop.

blas87

02-09-2011, 06:19 PM

I don't know the response time from the police here. I don't want to know.

I can tell you, down by the university bars, there are cops hovering at every corner, so that response time is of gazelle speed. But as far as in any other part of the city, I'm not sure. I don't want to know. I'd rather nothing ever happened so that I'd have to find out.

MadMike

02-09-2011, 07:12 PM

Here in Van, the VPD's response time is on average just under 9 minutes. I can hold someone off for 9 minutes if they're trying to break in an kill my arse.

Maybe you could, and maybe you couldn't. And even if you could, someone else may not be able to hold back the intruder.

This reminds me of something I saw on another board -- "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

Canarr

02-09-2011, 11:03 PM

That's a fallacious assumption.

It's not that people who carry don't trust the police to protect them so much as facing the reality that there just aren't enough police to protect everybody.

Okay, assumption discarded.

It still doesn't answer my question: would you ("you" in this case generally meaning concealed carriers) give up your gun to someone like Zamudio, who's approaching you with gun out and ordering you to? Or, in Zamudio's shoes, would you turn your back on an armed man who's refusing to give up his gun and continue checking the surrounding area for hostiles - when there's a potential hostile right behind you?

I'm not trying to be dense here; I'm really interested. Apparently, there are some people here who have given this potential situation some thought, so I'd like to learn their thoughts on this. The good thing about police as armed response is: they wear uniforms. You can easily identify them as (supposedly) good guys. How do you do this with someone like Zamudio?

Ninja_Sushi

02-09-2011, 11:21 PM

Maybe you could, and maybe you couldn't. And even if you could, someone else may not be able to hold back the intruder.

This reminds me of something I saw on another board -- "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

That And 9 minutes is still a long time. I mean, have you ever just sat for 9 minutes? It feels like forever. Thats like almost 2 smokes for me. I dont think I could hold anyone off for that long physically. During my PT tests, after 2 minutes of continuous pushups my arms are toast. Yes Im trained to fight, but I learned a very important phrase.

The longer you fight the better the chance you get hurt. A gun to the head is enough to stop people. (Trust me)

Wingates_Hellsing

02-10-2011, 02:00 AM

It still doesn't answer my question: would you ("you" in this case generally meaning concealed carriers) give up your gun to someone like Zamudio, who's approaching you with gun out and ordering you to? Or, in Zamudio's shoes, would you turn your back on an armed man who's refusing to give up his gun and continue checking the surrounding area for hostiles - when there's a potential hostile right behind you?
Well first of all if I had gained possession of the shooter's weapon I wouldn't just be standing there with it (not a good idea as it invites some potential problems) instead I would safe it and set it down. If I had drawn my own weapon than it would go back to it's holster absent further threats, if someone like Zamudio were to approach me before that happened I would holster it and explain the situation if possible. There are some varying schools of thought here, this is just my own.

I'm not trying to be dense here; I'm really interested. Apparently, there are some people here who have given this potential situation some thought, so I'd like to learn their thoughts on this. The good thing about police as armed response is: they wear uniforms. You can easily identify them as (supposedly) good guys. How do you do this with someone like Zamudio?
Ultimately, the likelihood of encountering other armed citizens or, for that matter, law enforcement whilst still engaged (and thus, weapon in hand) is almost zilch. Once the threat has been dealt with it's important to de-escalate and re-establish environmental awareness. If someone is approaching with a weapon you need to see it early and observe their behavior to determine if they are an active threat.

This sort of situation is unique to Active Shooter Scenarios as in other abroad DGU instances the user has almost 100% already GTFO by the time the authorities arrive.

Gravekeeper

02-10-2011, 04:20 AM

Maybe you could, and maybe you couldn't. And even if you could, someone else may not be able to hold back the intruder.

Well, as they're not likely to have a gun here, my chances are pretty good and I do have armaments.. >.> Just not pew pew ones.

Well first of all if I had gained possession of the shooter's weapon I wouldn't just be standing there with it (not a good idea as it invites some potential problems) instead I would safe it and set it down.

My first impulse would be to get it as far away from the scene and thus the guy's reach as possible. Toss it or kick it away. As not to invite a wrestling match over it.

FArchivist

02-10-2011, 12:58 PM

So, what is the ultimate decider of what is right then? The law? Juries?

There is no right or wrong. There is legal and illegal.

I say the ultimate decider of what is right is whether it hurts or helps people.

That's a really dangerous criteria. Are you going to decide in favor of those items which hurt or help people most? How do you measure utility? Whose definition of what hurts and what helps is being used?

I've said this before, and I'll say it again, even though you haven't replied to it.

IF you help people. IF you save lives. IF you stop a crime, and you are found guilty of vigilantism or any other of the crimes you've listed then the laws are wrong, and what you did is right.

Scenario: I'm in a bar. A man gets up from his seat, bitchslaps the woman sitting across from him, and screams he's going to kill her. Since he's made it plain he's going to kill her, I draw and plug him in the leg. He goes down. I walk over and execute him in the face.

Since I saved her life (He said he was going to kill her and I have no way of verifying that as false.), did I do right?

Why should I place what is legal or illegal above what is right or wrong?

And here's where I become angry and vastly irritated/annoyed.
Because we live under rule of law. Y'know, what the Founding Fathers fought for?

When someone does things based on what they think is right or wrong, placing their own morality above the law, above what is legal or illegal, they are no different from an absolute monarch of yore, from King George to Stalin.
I execute rapists because I say it's right.
I cut the hands of of thieves because I say it's right.
I stone adulterers because I say it's right.
I execute abortion doctors because I say it's right.
When someone says "This is right/wrong.", they are actually saying "I say this is right/wrong." or "The Bible says this is right/wrong." or "Glenn Beck says this is right/wrong." We became the United States to get away from that. To have rights. To live under law.

When you place right/wrong over legal/illegal, you place right/wrong above the law. You place right/wrong over freedom of speech, over cruel and unusual punishment, over a fair trial, over the laws put in place by the legislators voted in by the populace. You place right/wrong over the Constitution, which is the Ultimate Law of the USA.

A right action is one that
Causes no harm to anyone else, and causes benefit to others, or causes harm only by the consent of those being harmed.
If neither of those are possible
A right action is one which stops a party from causing harm to people other than themselves.

And that's YOUR definition of right, which is frankly one which could be interpreted a billion different ways, depending on what is meant by "harm", "benefit", and "consent". I can think of several situations off the bat where firing 20% of the workers to maintain shareholder profit would meet what you call "right".

You need to provide a reason these actions are wrong other than that they are illegal.

Not in the USA. Constitution Says So.

Hyena Dandy

02-10-2011, 11:16 PM

I would be happy to discuss right and wrong vs legal and illegal, that is getting on a tangent from the thread, which is exactly the opposite of what I wanted to do. If you want to continue the conversation, I would be happy to do it in a separate thread.

Andara Bledin

02-11-2011, 03:09 AM

We became the United States to get away from that. To have rights. To live under law.
That's actually kind of funny, considering that revolting was, by it's very nature, against the laws currently governing the people revolting.

Sometimes, the law is unacceptable. And those that are unconstitutional often must be broken, defended against, appealed against, and the cases work their way through the legal system until they reach the Supreme Court to be finally struck down.

There are times when the law must be broken.

Or, do you plan to obey all the speed limits should you find yourself in a situation where you are transporting someone to the hospital and time is of the essence?

If you spotted someone drowning in a waterway that had posted "No Swimming" signs, would you allow them to drown? Hell, there are some places where both going into the water and letting the person drown would be illegal actions. What then?

Back to the actual topic:

I'm surprised that Kennesaw, GA has only been mentioned once on Fratching at all, and that was over 2 years ago. And in a thread about gun crime in the UK. And chock full of erroneous information and a lack of useful details.

Unfortunately, nobody can seem to agree whether crime was reduced by the ordinance or not, although the city appears to currently support about half the crime rate of the national average, but even that statistic lacks relevance.

However, what is obvious is that the requirement of guns and ammunition in the homes of all but exempt citizens hasn't led to increased crime, increased accidental shootings, or other negative effects related to the high prevalence of guns.

^-.-^

FArchivist

02-11-2011, 04:58 AM

That's actually kind of funny, considering that revolting was, by it's very nature, against the laws currently governing the people revolting.

Except that we weren't being ruled by law then, but by the personal whim of kings. We revolted against Might Makes Right to exchange it for Rule Of Law. Parliament didn't become the Ultimate Power in the UK it later did till after his reign (and partly due to his excesses).

Sometimes, the law is unacceptable. And those that are unconstitutional often must be broken, defended against, appealed against, and the cases work their way through the legal system until they reach the Supreme Court to be finally struck down.

As we have procedures and protocols in case for taking care of laws we don't like, including electing legislators who will modify or repeal the law, then I see no need to break it.

There are times when the law must be broken.

I disagree. Practice civil disobedience if you like, but at least have the courtesy the Civil Rights activists did when they disobeyed. They served their sentences without protest.

Or, do you plan to obey all the speed limits should you find yourself in a situation where you are transporting someone to the hospital and time is of the essence?

If I have not arranged police escort at high-speed, absolutely will I follow the speed limits. If I ignore them and a crash happens, I am liable. My ass is on the line then. I will be the one sued, the one who goes to jail. And that would be "right", because whoever is liable is at fault.

If you spotted someone drowning in a waterway that had posted "No Swimming" signs, would you allow them to drown? Hell, there are some places where both going into the water and letting the person drown would be illegal actions. What then?

This has been dealt with a few times in law before. Without looking it up, as I recall, even with a Good Samaritan law in place, there are generally few jurisdictions that require duty-to-assist. Do you know what meets that requirement? Calling 911. Yes, if you spot someone drowning, calling 911 meets assistance in most jurisdictions. In all jurisdictions in the USA, failing to assist is at best a misdemeanor with a fine of $100-200.

Secondly, trespassing violations are considered suborned if a Samaritan attempt is made if the legal principle of "imminent peril" is applied. The court defines what is and is not imminent peril if suit is brought.

However, what is obvious is that the requirement of guns and ammunition in the homes of all but exempt citizens hasn't led to increased crime, increased accidental shootings, or other negative effects related to the high prevalence of guns.

As a former resident of Kennesaw, GA, I can also advise you that currently most residents are ignorant of the law, as it isn't enforced in any way, shape, or form. When you buy a house, no representative of the law checks to see that you own a firearm and ammunition for it, nor is there any penalty for not having it. But I don't really see what this has to do with what I said in my previous post; we're talking about raging vigilantes breaking the law and "doing what is right".