Hypocrisy at its worse (rant warning)

[H2O_Doc]

Criminals don't follow the law, therefore any discussion about gun laws is irrelevant.

Case in point - it is illegal to fly an airplane into a building, that did not stop 9/11 nor did it stop the gentleman in Austin, TX a few years ago.

Government can neither guarantee nor grant safety, and you would be a fool to believe otherwise. The supreme court stated as much when they affirmed that police officers do not have a duty to protect you.

What horrid logic. Should no laws exist if someone breaks those laws? Is that your logical model? You can't keep every husband from abusing his wife; therefore should spousal abuse be ok? Your logic seems willing to adopt ad absurdism ad nauseam.

Our government is, at least in part, in the business of protecting its citizens; the nature and extent of which has varied over history. You might not want or need it; that is ok. That government does this (or tries to), doesn't mean it can guarantee its effectiveness in every instance and that is certainly part of the rational for protecting gun ownership (it is viewed as a FUNDAMENTAL right of man in many texts and that is a position I find compelling).

 

[04rnr]

The title of the thread, I thought this was going to be about certain member :shrug:

But yes, we need to stop blaming, guns, tv, video games, etc etc for gun violence, just has we do not blame CARS, for DUIs, we dont blame spoons for being fat etc etc etc.

 

[ndcent]

I'm really thinking it's time we did something about hammers..

 

[H2O_Doc]

04rnr:

You make a very good point; you're right that we regulate driving and have dramatically reduced (but not eliminated) the rate of car fatalities. Very savvy, relevant, and interesting point. I wonder if this can help us think about the matter at hand?

Despite you very good example, I don't think we should ban guns. I would, however, be willing to listen to your thoughts on what are and are not appropriate gun laws.

 

[04rnr]

:shrug:

04rnr:

You make a very good point; you're right that we regulate driving and have dramatically reduced (but not eliminated) the rate of car fatalities. Very savvy, relevant, and interesting point. I wonder if this can help us think about the matter at hand?

Despite you very good example, I don't think we should ban guns. I would, however, be willing to listen to your thoughts on what are and are not appropriate gun laws.

well I think the gun laws are ok as they are, IF America was to ban guns, any guns or even all guns, only criminals will have guns...
Look at it this way, heroin has been illegal or banned for how long now ??? some reports say that buying heroin is lots easier to buy than a gun, so banning heroin did NOT work, Banning guns will be the same.

People think that just because some crazy dude kills a bunch of people using a gun, that we should ban guns, well by that thinking, we should be banning cars, not guns, about 115 people die every day in vehicle crashes in the United States -- one death every 13 minutes ( Car Accident Statistics, Stats, Auto, Fatal, Drunk Driving)
what cause more deaths in America ? cars or guns ?
but people want to ban guns :noidea:
Illegal Immigrants murder on average of 12 Americans EVERY single day, (Index) yet nothing is done about that :noidea: well there is something being done, Illegals get amnisty..
Guns do NOT kill people, just as a spoon does NOT make people fat.
Banning guns is NOT the answer.

 

[1engineer]

04rnr:

You make a very good point; you're right that we regulate driving and have dramatically reduced (but not eliminated) the rate of car fatalities. Very savvy, relevant, and interesting point. I wonder if this can help us think about the matter at hand?

Despite you very good example, I don't think we should ban guns. I would, however, be willing to listen to your thoughts on what are and are not appropriate gun laws.

The Crux of the Issue

Many people cannot articulate their thoughts into words and sometimes I have that problem too. The real issue, and the one I'm sure most people on both sides will agree - is not the actual issue of laws and regulations, it's how MUCH regulation is needed. The EPA regulates water quality (just for you doc) and does a pretty good job of making sure our water is clean. They could regulate more and get impurities down even further but is that feasible or necessary? Same for air quality, and same for guns and legal intoxication limits and everything else. There comes a point where you have to stop and ask " Is it worth it?" Unfortunately, our government agencies such as the EPA, GSA, ICE and all other acronyms are in the business of regulating and enforcing those regulations as that is their job. I have never heard of an agency stating OK, we have enough regulations now so we are just going to stand pat and cruise awhile." No, they have good people who are trying to do the right thing but they can't help themselves either because of justification of budget, justification of jobs or agencies or just plain politics and individual beliefs (cue Lisa Jackson). So the issue is not whether laws are necessary (they are) it's where do we stop and say, "OK, we're good." To conclude the question should be "What, if anything, could be gained by regulating gun ownership further?" Unfortunately nobody knows the answer and don't start quoting statistics from other countries because America is a very unique place and is almost incomparable to other countries.

 

[aha2988]

I would, however, be willing to listen to your thoughts on what are and are not appropriate gun laws.

I think the regulations in place are sufficient, however more enforcement of those regulations would be key to prevent people who are not law abiding citizens for obtaining guns as easily.

with that said though, its just as easy for a convicted felon to obtain a gun by purchasing from a friend or private seller. thus the regulations in place do not prevent that convicted felon from going around the laws to do as he pleases.

So if that convicted felon has a gun (which he broke the law to get) and he decides to break common law by bringing said gun into areas where guns arn't aloud for safety reason (I.E. an educational establishment, parade, court house). With this we now have a convicted felon with a gun on unlawful property to carry such weapon surrounded by say law abiding citizens who are following the rules and arn't bringing there guns around. The convicted felon now as open ability to assault with deadly force any unarmed person on the property..

So lets theorize for a moment which is safer. the above hypothetical situation or this..

same thing felon obtains a gun, however there are no said establishments that prevent the ability to carry personal protection. Said felon walks into a school to make an assault sees all the people carrying weapons and decides to leave. goes to a parade with the same intentions and sees everyone carrying weapons decides to leave. goes to a movie theater to satisfy his crazy itch to kill someone, see's everyone carrying a weapon and realizes he's now in just as much danger as all the people he sought out to endanger. keeps his gun hidden to prevent being arrested for carrying a gun as convicted felon and leaves.

or say the guy just doesn't care decides to open fire in any one of those situations in the second hypothetical situation. all the law abiding citizens pull out there weapons and stop the assault without even needing to call 911 other than to have a police car come out to write up a report.

I truly believe there is good in this world in fact I would venture out to say there is more good in this world than bad. even though at times its hard to see past the bad to find all the good out there. If you allow the good to carry protection anywhere any of the bad would decide to bring trouble. Then not only have you made it a safer community you've given people the power to defend themselves and not rely on government control to "protect there securities"

 

[KCcarguy]

What horrid logic. Should no laws exist if someone breaks those laws? Is that your logical model? You can't keep every husband from abusing his wife; therefore should spousal abuse be ok? Your logic seems willing to adopt ad absurdism ad nauseam.

Our government is, at least in part, in the business of protecting its citizens; the nature and extent of which has varied over history. You might not want or need it; that is ok. That government does this (or tries to), doesn't mean it can guarantee its effectiveness in every instance and that is certainly part of the rational for protecting gun ownership (it is viewed as a FUNDAMENTAL right of man in many texts and that is a position I find compelling).

That logic DOES make sense Doc. The problem with gun control is that it only controls guns LEGALLY obtained and only affects those willing to participate. If there were only one way for any person (law-abiding or not) to get a weapon it might work. However, here are millions of weapons in circulation and the bad guys will find a way to get them regardless. Let's also remember we have porous borders and even if we limited suppliers within the US that void would likely be filled by arms traffickers. Remember how well prohibition worked out?

What data do you have that suggests gun control will significantly reduce violent crime? You can't use data from other countries because it's a different population with a smaller number of pre-existing guns in circulation. The US is a relatively violent society in general and violent crime is statistically higher across all categories (not just gun-violence) than any other developed country. And I know you're not saying to ban all guns, but you're also not specifying what is enough. If crime statistics remain the same after new gun laws do we keep adding more? Do we just keep going until its only legal to own a muzzle-loader? At what point do we leave gun owners alone and look for other answers?

 

[H2O_Doc]

The Crux of the Issue

Many people cannot articulate their thoughts into words and sometimes I have that problem too. The real issue, and the one I'm sure most people on both sides will agree - is not the actual issue of laws and regulations, it's how MUCH regulation is needed. The EPA regulates water quality (just for you doc) and does a pretty good job of making sure our water is clean. They could regulate more and get impurities down even further but is that feasible or necessary? Same for air quality, and same for guns and legal intoxication limits and everything else. There comes a point where you have to stop and ask " Is it worth it?" Unfortunately, our government agencies such as the EPA, GSA, ICE and all other acronyms are in the business of regulating and enforcing those regulations as that is their job. I have never heard of an agency stating OK, we have enough regulations now so we are just going to stand pat and cruise awhile." No, they have good people who are trying to do the right thing but they can't help themselves either because of justification of budget, justification of jobs or agencies or just plain politics and individual beliefs (cue Lisa Jackson). So the issue is not whether laws are necessary (they are) it's where do we stop and say, "OK, we're good." To conclude the question should be "What, if anything, could be gained by regulating gun ownership further?" Unfortunately nobody knows the answer and don't start quoting statistics from other countries because America is a very unique place and is almost incomparable to other countries.

We seem to be largely on the same page (in general) here. By the way, I was at one time in a policy and science section of the EPA but have switched to a different abbreviation and am no longer there.

 

[1engineer]

We seem to be largely on the same page (in general) here. By the way, I was at one time in a policy and science section of the EPA but have switched to a different abbreviation and am no longer there.

Yep I have had to work with several abbreviations myself.

 

[RandyDaytona]

I think the regulations in place are sufficient, however more enforcement of those regulations would be key to prevent people who are not law abiding citizens for obtaining guns as easily.

with that said though, its just as easy for a convicted felon to obtain a gun by purchasing from a friend or private seller. thus the regulations in place do not prevent that convicted felon from going around the laws to do as he pleases.

So if that convicted felon has a gun (which he broke the law to get) and he decides to break common law by bringing said gun into areas where guns arn't aloud for safety reason (I.E. an educational establishment, parade, court house). With this we now have a convicted felon with a gun on unlawful property to carry such weapon surrounded by say law abiding citizens who are following the rules and arn't bringing there guns around. The convicted felon now as open ability to assault with deadly force any unarmed person on the property..

So lets theorize for a moment which is safer. the above hypothetical situation or this..

same thing felon obtains a gun, however there are no said establishments that prevent the ability to carry personal protection. Said felon walks into a school to make an assault sees all the people carrying weapons and decides to leave. goes to a parade with the same intentions and sees everyone carrying weapons decides to leave. goes to a movie theater to satisfy his crazy itch to kill someone, see's everyone carrying a weapon and realizes he's now in just as much danger as all the people he sought out to endanger. keeps his gun hidden to prevent being arrested for carrying a gun as convicted felon and leaves.

or say the guy just doesn't care decides to open fire in any one of those situations in the second hypothetical situation. all the law abiding citizens pull out there weapons and stop the assault without even needing to call 911 other than to have a police car come out to write up a report.

I truly believe there is good in this world in fact I would venture out to say there is more good in this world than bad. even though at times its hard to see past the bad to find all the good out there. If you allow the good to carry protection anywhere any of the bad would decide to bring trouble. Then not only have you made it a safer community you've given people the power to defend themselves and not rely on government control to "protect there securities"

This is what the NRA has been saying for years. But I don't buy the whole "armed-society-is-a-polite-society" concept, and here's why:

I've been dealing with criminals for almost 18 years, and in my experience, a criminal generally doesn't care how many people are armed at a place where they want to do something, like what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary. That's not going to deter them because they're not thinking rationally, to begin with. They're usually not thinking about "getting away" with anything or what may happen after the act. They're thinking in the present; in whatever twisted, deluded reality they're already residing in. They're also often fairly stupid. That's why they're criminals to begin with.

So, say we encourage more law abiding citizens to be are armed. By the law of averages, you'll have an equal percentage of non-law-abiders (or law-abiders who haven't done anything wrong, but will) who are also armed. So I don't think more guns, period, is necessarily a good thing.

On top of that, by arming a lot more of the population, a la the NRA model, you have a lot more people starting to carry guns as more of a "cool" thing, who are poorly-trained, and who have no business owning a gun, let alone carrying one. People who see it as more of a right than a responsibility. There are already way too many people carrying guns who are overly-enamored with the "cool factor."

Also, I once had a tactics instructor at a training course on flying while armed tell me that a terrorist doesn't necessarily need to get a weapon on board a plane. They just have to identify you (for the sake of my point, the legally armed person) and take yours. And if your training, situational awareness, and mental preparation aren't there, they'll get it.

And I see CCW-holders all the time who don't have any of that. They go to the range as a hobby, only; they don't seek any training, they "play" with their gun and like to show it off to people, like it's a picture of their kid, they carry in places they shouldn't (like a bar), or wear clothing that easily allows other people to see that they're armed. A lot of gun carriers lack the responsibility, maturity, and knowledge to be carrying a gun, but according to "the regulations in place," they get to do it.

This is all not to mention the number of these "new" armed citizens who have emotional or anger issues that have never been addressed. Who are immature. Who are irresponsible (but don't have a criminal history that would prevent them from carrying a gun - we all know people like this).

I'm not talking about everyone with a CCW permit. I'm not even talking about the majority. But in my experience, it's an alarming number and is certainly enough to give me pause. And the NRA's solution to Sandy Hook is to simply arm more people? I know why it's their position: because it's a solution that doesn't infringe upon them (or their supporters) in any way. And I find that position to be selfish and irresponsible.

I don't think the overall debate is over whether we should "ban guns" or not. I think a lot of people simply want to see some measures in place that keep some people who shouldn't have access to guns from obtaining them. And the NRA responds to this by claiming that it's all or nothing; that the sky is falling and it's all about "disarming" America.

I'd like to see some things like more controls over gun show transactions, rules for people who have emotional or mental issues (or who have had them in the past), and restrictions on people who have demonstrated a pattern of irresponsibility (like my neighbor, who has FOUR Dui's - give me a break). I'd like to see a background check for a CCW and a mandatory training program (not some of the rinky-dink courses in place now).

I don't know what the exact provision of those new rules would be or how they would be considered, but I'd like to at least see someone from the NRA camp agree to consider looking at some of them. But they won't. Because it means they might be inconvenienced in some way. They'd apparently rather stir up hysteria about the government going door-to-door and taking everyone's guns away.

 

[H2O_Doc]

That logic DOES make sense Doc. The problem with gun control is that it only controls guns LEGALLY obtained and only affects those willing to participate. If there were only one way for any person (law-abiding or not) to get a weapon it might work. However, here are millions of weapons in circulation and the bad guys will find a way to get them regardless. Let's also remember we have porous borders and even if we limited suppliers within the US that void would likely be filled by arms traffickers. Remember how well prohibition worked out?

What data do you have that suggests gun control will significantly reduce violent crime? You can't use data from other countries because it's a different population with a smaller number of pre-existing guns in circulation. The US is a relatively violent society in general and violent crime is statistically higher across all categories (not just gun-violence) than any other developed country. And I know you're not saying to ban all guns, but you're also not specifying what is enough. If crime statistics remain the same after new gun laws do we keep adding more? Do we just keep going until its only legal to own a muzzle-loader? At what point do we leave gun owners alone and look for other answers?

Well of course you can use data from other countries, it's just probably not the ideal data and you should understand (and account for in your analysis and conclusions) that there are additional circumstances and variables that limit usefulness of the data. There will be examples that are clearly entirely useless, but maybe not all. I think some of the data from other countries actually point to some of what a lot of us believe (I think you included). This is that although gun ownership rates are highest in the US, other countries have also have fairly high ownership rates but their rate of gun crime is disproportionately lower. This suggest that there is something different about U.S. gun violence and that it is not as simple as just gun ownership; we shoot each other for reasons far more complicated than gun availability and reducing gun violence needs to be more complex than laws limiting possession.

To answer one of your questions in as unobtuse a manner as I can I'll offer the following: I didn't describe what I think is enough gun control for several reasons. First and foremost, I don't know. Second, I'm not particularly anxious for more laws and do agree that what exists should be enforced first - absent knowledge of how the world would be with this enforcement, it is hard to know what the real policy imperative is. Finally, I never really entered this fray to advocate any amount of gun control (or not). I think until we are able to exchange ideas and articulate well informed positions that are logically sound, we will never have a particularly useful political process. There have been a lot of logical fallacies, poorly developed conclusions, and non-factual facts thrown around and my comments were made with that in mind (maybe I'm as guilty as anyone else).

 

[blackrifle01]

This is what the NRA has been saying for years. But I don't buy the whole "armed-society-is-a-polite-society" concept, and here's why:

I've been dealing with criminals for almost 18 years, and in my experience, a criminal generally doesn't care how many people are armed at a place where they want to do something, like what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary. That's not going to deter them because they're not thinking rationally, to begin with. They're usually not thinking about "getting away" with anything or what may happen after the act. They're thinking in the present; in whatever twisted, deluded reality they're already residing in. They're also often fairly stupid. That's why they're criminals to begin with.

So, say we encourage more law abiding citizens to be are armed. By the law of averages, you'll have an equal percentage of non-law-abiders (or law-abiders who haven't done anything wrong, but will) who are also armed. So I don't think more guns, period, is necessarily a good thing.

On top of that, by arming a lot more of the population, a la the NRA model, you have a lot more people starting to carry guns as more of a "cool" thing, who are poorly-trained, and who have no business owning a gun, let alone carrying one. People who see it as more of a right than a responsibility. There are already way too many people carrying guns who are overly-enamored with the "cool factor."

Also, I once had a tactics instructor at a training course on flying while armed tell me that a terrorist doesn't necessarily need to get a weapon on board a plane. They just have to identify you (for the sake of my point, the legally armed person) and take yours. And if your training, situational awareness, and mental preparation aren't there, they'll get it.

And I see CCW-holders all the time who don't have any of that. They go to the range as a hobby, only; they don't seek any training, they "play" with their gun and like to show it off to people, like it's a picture of their kid, they carry in places they shouldn't (like a bar), or wear clothing that easily allows other people to see that they're armed. A lot of gun carriers lack the responsibility, maturity, and knowledge to be carrying a gun, but according to "the regulations in place," they get to do it.

This is all not to mention the number of these "new" armed citizens who have emotional or anger issues that have never been addressed. Who are immature. Who are irresponsible (but don't have a criminal history that would prevent them from carrying a gun - we all know people like this).

I'm not talking about everyone with a CCW permit. I'm not even talking about the majority. But in my experience, it's an alarming number and is certainly enough to give me pause. And the NRA's solution to Sandy Hook is to simply arm more people? I know why it's their position: because it's a solution that doesn't infringe upon them (or their supporters) in any way. And I find that position to be selfish and irresponsible.

I don't think the overall debate is over whether we should "ban guns" or not. I think a lot of people simply want to see some measures in place that keep some people who shouldn't have access to guns from obtaining them. And the NRA responds to this by claiming that it's all or nothing; that the sky is falling and it's all about "disarming" America.

I'd like to see some things like more controls over gun show transactions, rules for people who have emotional or mental issues (or who have had them in the past), and restrictions on people who have demonstrated a pattern of irresponsibility (like my neighbor, who has FOUR Dui's - give me a break). I'd like to see a background check for a CCW and a mandatory training program (not some of the rinky-dink courses in place now).

I don't know what the exact provision of those new rules would be or how they would be considered, but I'd like to at least see someone from the NRA camp agree to consider looking at some of them. But they won't. Because it means they might be inconvenienced in some way. They'd apparently rather stir up hysteria about the government going door-to-door and taking everyone's guns away.

If you are a felon, you cannot own or possess firearms.
If you are guilty of a violent misdemeanor, you can have your firearms taken away and similarly cannot possess firearms.
If you are deemed legally incompetent and a danger to others or yourself, you cannot own or possess firearms.
If you are an illegal alien, you cannot own or possess firearms in the United States.
Etc, etc. There already exists laws to control who can or cannot possess/purchase a firearm for everything you just mentioned. The government that made those laws is simply piss poor at enforcing them and often breaks them (Operation Fast and Furious anyone?).

Laws already exist that are meant to restrict gun ownership and usage. No new law is going to make any difference if the government cannot enforce the laws in place.

According to FBI and US DOJ statistics, ALL violent crime...to include gun crime has gone down since the expiration of the AWB. So, no new gun laws yet gun crime is going down. On the other end, more semi-automatic rifles have been sold since the expiration of the AWB (which the FBI has flat out said did absolutely NOTHING to reduce crime) than ANY other time in history...to include when full-auto was purchasable without tax stamps or BATFE approval. Yet gun crime continues to fall.

ETA: CCW has grown in popularity across the country with more and more people carrying everyday. Gun crime is still falling, so your anecdotal evidence does not support the reality. In fact, what statistical evidence there is shows that CCW holders are FAR less likely to commit crimes than the general population. There will always be dopes, but so far, those dopes haven't caused any harm and for the most part have prevented or stopped crime when it occurs. The Clackamas mall shooter was stopped by a CCW license holder who drew on him. The CCW actually drew and did not fire because he saw innocents standing in the line of fire (behind his target...one of the four rules of weapons safety). Additionally, you see people with piss-poor training open carrying firearms on a daily basis (they're called police officers...remember the NYC shootout??). I shoot more in a month than the average police officer in a year. If only the general public knew how little most police officers practice with their firearms.

 

[blackrifle01]

I find myself in the odd position of having to disagree with much of a post, dispute disagreeing with the general sentiment.

You point to the expiration of the AWB and the declining crime rate. Well, one would not expect the AWB to have any significant measure on the crime rate. "Crime" is pretty broad and the frequency of the use either true assault weapons or large capacity magazines is so RELATIVELY (and perhaps absolutely) low that it cannot affect the statistics much. So, it is a dramatic argument but not necessarily a useful one.

Yes a gun law can prevent a crime (this doesn't mean it will, nor does it mean that it cannot have precisely the opposite effect)! No, as I have said before, no single law can prevent all crimes. I don't know which you are really arguing, but the real debate (when it comes down to law and policy making) is whether or not a given law can lead to REDUCE crime and whether or not the loss of freedoms associated with that law are both Constitutional and otherwise acceptable. Ad absurdism arguments might seem to "disarm" your opponent, but they are dangerous to our interests. The reason these arguments are dangerous is that if you say that a law is unacceptable for reasons easily falsifiable and the opposition shows it, you are left without an argument. If you are frequently shown as ill informed or disingenuous, then you,lose credibility and your seat at the table.

Your allusion to Franklin's words on liberty and security are fair, but don't mean that regulations have no place in society. Scroll up and look at the Mason quote.

On your last point, this is just plainly wrong. "Facts" show that gun control can work and this recognition doesn't mean I want more gun laws or you are more patriotic in your love of the Constitution. What it means is that I am taking the time to understand the facts and circumstances around the discussion and if I choose to argue against gun control, my arguments will rest on a solid foundation.

I'm not sure you're familiar with FBI/USDOJ statistics on gun violence/crime. They support my assertion. I encourage you to look it up. Fact is, gun violence has been on the decline for more than a decade. Glad we both agree that the usage of semi-automatic rifles ("assault weapons" for the ignorant) in crime is so irrelevant and low...I hope you will support efforts to prevent another AWB or magazine restriction since we can see that AWB/magazine restrictions are irrelevant to preventing crime.

Your second point: gun laws have actually gotten more lax (AWB expiration) and proliferation of open carry and concealed carry across the US since 2004. Gun crime continues to drop. Again, please take a look at USDOJ and FBI statistics on gun crime. That is a fact. What does it mean when fewer laws exist in the same space as reduced crime? Has America been dividing by 0 since 2004?

Glad you are taking the time to understand the facts and not letting emotion or "logic" get in the way. I have presented nothing but facts to you, so I hope you can recognize that we have been living in a state of reduced gun violence with fewer gun laws for the last 15+ years.

 

[blackrifle01]

I think the regulations in place are sufficient, however more enforcement of those regulations would be key to prevent people who are not law abiding citizens for obtaining guns as easily.

with that said though, its just as easy for a convicted felon to obtain a gun by purchasing from a friend or private seller. thus the regulations in place do not prevent that convicted felon from going around the laws to do as he pleases.

So if that convicted felon has a gun (which he broke the law to get) and he decides to break common law by bringing said gun into areas where guns arn't aloud for safety reason (I.E. an educational establishment, parade, court house). With this we now have a convicted felon with a gun on unlawful property to carry such weapon surrounded by say law abiding citizens who are following the rules and arn't bringing there guns around. The convicted felon now as open ability to assault with deadly force any unarmed person on the property..

So lets theorize for a moment which is safer. the above hypothetical situation or this..

same thing felon obtains a gun, however there are no said establishments that prevent the ability to carry personal protection. Said felon walks into a school to make an assault sees all the people carrying weapons and decides to leave. goes to a parade with the same intentions and sees everyone carrying weapons decides to leave. goes to a movie theater to satisfy his crazy itch to kill someone, see's everyone carrying a weapon and realizes he's now in just as much danger as all the people he sought out to endanger. keeps his gun hidden to prevent being arrested for carrying a gun as convicted felon and leaves.

or say the guy just doesn't care decides to open fire in any one of those situations in the second hypothetical situation. all the law abiding citizens pull out there weapons and stop the assault without even needing to call 911 other than to have a police car come out to write up a report.

I truly believe there is good in this world in fact I would venture out to say there is more good in this world than bad. even though at times its hard to see past the bad to find all the good out there. If you allow the good to carry protection anywhere any of the bad would decide to bring trouble. Then not only have you made it a safer community you've given people the power to defend themselves and not rely on government control to "protect there securities"

I love facts, so here is an interesting one:

Nearly ALL mass-shooter events have occurred in "GUN FREE" zones. The only one to occur in a non-gun free zone is the Giffords shooting in AZ. I would also like to point out that the first responders should never be the police since they are always minutes away. The first responders will always be the private citizens in the immediate vicinity of the shooter.

There have been instances when private citizens retrieved firearms to stop an active shooter. If you compare the body counts in those situations to ones where only police responded, you will have a significant delta.

ETA: When Texas passed their CCW law, opponents said there would be blood in the streets. So far, that hasn't happened...unless you count dead criminals.

 

[Thai]

On top of that, by arming a lot more of the population, a la the NRA model, you have a lot more people starting to carry guns as more of a "cool" thing, who are poorly-trained, and who have no business owning a gun, let alone carrying one. People who see it as more of a right than a responsibility. There are already way too many people carrying guns who are overly-enamored with the "cool factor."

They just have to identify you (for the sake of my point, the legally armed person) and take yours. And if your training, situational awareness, and mental preparation aren't there, they'll get it.

And I see CCW-holders..."play" with their gun and like to show it off to people, like it's a picture of their kid, they carry in places they shouldn't (like a bar), or wear clothing that easily allows other people to see that they're armed. A lot of gun carriers lack the responsibility, maturity, and knowledge to be carrying a gun, but according to "the regulations in place," they get to do it.

I'm not talking about everyone with a CCW permit. I'm not even talking about the majority. But in my experience, it's an alarming number and is certainly enough to give me pause.

I love it when RandyDaytona talks...he actually sounds like that dude in his avatar! :lmao: (BTW, love that movie!)

RD goes blasting CCW-holders.........then at the very end, puts a disclaimer that he's not even talking about the majority of CCW-holders. I am shock(!!!) that H2O and RD aren't politicians with their get-out-of-jail disclaimers behind every statement! :crazy:

A cop that patrols my neighborhood is seen more often at McD's than on the streets...and yeah, he's extremely overweight. But, based on RandyDaytona's logic, hey, i see ENOUGH of his kind to say that there is an ALARMING NUMBER (!!) of morbidly obese slow moving cops that spend more time at donut shops and McDs than patrolling!!!!!! BUT, i do not mean a majority of cops are like that...i just see an ALARMING NUMBER of these fatsos slugging around our streets to come to that conclusion! Fair?

Look, i see what cops have to pass for their shooting competency...it ain't that hard! My mother could pass it. I am sure that you have additional training in whatever RD mentioned above...but, lets not exaggerate at how perfect cops are. Lets not. You would be foolish to do so.

Not sure where RD lives, but around TX, CCW holders are very much unknown...because they (including myself) don't identify themselves to the public. Only my family knows. My friends do not. My colleagues do not. My neighbors do not. So, how exactly does a criminal know that i am carrying and thus IDENTIFY ME??? Hint...this is why it is called, CONCEAL CARRY. We're not open carry here in TX (yet).

Yes, shocking to RD & friends, I along with every CCW-holder i know follow the law to the teeth! No exceptions. (In fact, i have an APP on my iPhone (avail on Android also) that tells me where i cannot carry my handgun.)

And as I was proven wrong in the past, OPEN carry does in fact deter crime. So, yeah, i am against open carry...but, hey, folks here have proven that open carry does work. But, this is for another discussion.

But, either way, RandyDaytona, you need to do more research into your talking points.

 

[aha2988]

I love facts, so here is an interesting one:

Nearly ALL mass-shooter events have occurred in "GUN FREE" zones. The only one to occur in a non-gun free zone is the Giffords shooting in AZ. I would also like to point out that the first responders should never be the police since they are always minutes away. The first responders will always be the private citizens in the immediate vicinity of the shooter.

There have been instances when private citizens retrieved firearms to stop an active shooter. If you compare the body counts in those situations to ones where only police responded, you will have a significant delta.

ETA: When Texas passed their CCW law, opponents said there would be blood in the streets. So far, that hasn't happened...unless you count dead criminals.

Exactly my point,

and for the other guy that quoted me I have no affiliation with the NRA nor care what there opinions of gun control is. I'm just calling it how I see it.

I can agree however that more gun carriers is useless unless those who choose to carry educate themselves with proper gun handling techniques and skills.

but yes teachers in Texas have been CC'ing for years now with no issues

 

[Thai]

but yes teachers in Texas have been CC'ing for years now with no issues

Did not know this...mental note...don't piss them off at PTA meetings!!

 

[aha2988]

I love it when RandyDaytona talks...he actually sounds like that dude in his avatar! :lmao: (BTW, love that movie!)

RD goes blasting CCW-holders.........then at the very end, puts a disclaimer that he's not even talking about the majority of CCW-holders. I am shock! that H2O and RD aren't politicians with their get-out-of-jail disclaimers behind every statement! :crazy:

A cop that patrols my neighborhood is seen more often at McD's than on the streets...and yeah, he's extremely overweight. But, based on RandyDaytona's logic, hey, i see ENOUGH of his kind to say that there is an ALARMING NUMBER (!!) of morbidly obese slow moving cops that spend more time at donut shops and McDs than patrolling!!!!!! BUT, i do not mean a majority of cops are like that...i just see an ALARMING NUMBER of these fatsos slugging around our streets to come to that conclusion! Fair?

Look, i see what cops have to pass for their shooting competency...it ain't that hard! My mother could pass it. I am sure that you have additional training in whatever RD mentioned above...but, lets not exaggerate at how perfect cops are. Lets not. You would be foolish to do so.

Not sure where RD lives, but around TX, CCW holders are very much unknown...because they (including myself) don't identify themselves to the public. Only my family knows. My friends do not. My colleagues do not. My neighbors do not. So, how exactly does a criminal know that i am carrying and thus identify ME??? Hint...this is why it is called, CONCEAL CARRY. We're not open carry here in TX (yet).

Yes, shocking to RD & friends, I along with every CCW-holder i know follow the law to the teeth! No exceptions. (In fact, i have an APP on my iPhone (avail on Android also) that tells me where i cannot carry my handgun.)

And as I was proven wrong in the past, OPEN carry does in fact deter crime. So, yeah, i am against open carry...but, hey, folks here have proven that open carry does work. But, this is for another discussion.

But, either way, RandyDaytona, you need to do more research into your talking points.

I thought you could open carry in Texas?

I open carry simply because I haven't taken the steps to get my ccw. I personally feel it does have some visual affects to make someone think twice before threatening my safety. however that hasn't always been the case

my wife and I were walking around at a beach on the SC coast. we got done at the strip and made our way back towards the house we were staying at (several blocks back away from the strip) as we were walking a man heading towards us pulls out a knife and insist I hand over my wallet, phone, and watch (guess he didn't see the gun lol) he reached to grab my wife! I reached and grabbed my gun he turned to run so I tripped him as he was turning around and sat on him while holding him at gun point until authorities could arrive. I personally don't want to imagine what I would have experienced had I not been carrying. had he had a gun I wouldn't of had a second thought about having a going to Jesus meeting with him. luckily I've never had to open fire in defense.

 

[Thai]

I thought you could open carry in Texas?

Nope...unless someone didn't tell me!!