# What it's like to live in America where everybody can buy guns?



## kehcorpz

On the one hand I think that being allowed to buy guns is good. If I lived in America I'd also buy lots and lots of guns and
rifles. This must be really fun to shoot with them and just hold them in your hand and clean them carefully.

On the other hand though it's also really scary imo. I mean do you even feel safe outside in public places knowing that
somebody could shoot at you at ANY time? I think I'd become paranoid and only walk around in public with a bullet proof
vest and of course also have at least 1 gun with me, better 2 guns.
But what do you do in the summer? You cant wear a gun holster under your shirt or a bullet proof vest.

Do you think about this when you go outside or do you suppress these thoughts that a terrorist or crazy person could stop
opening fire at any second?

i'd rather have it that only i am allowed to have guns but nobody else. this would make me feel safe and i'd not have to worry
about being shot at.


----------



## jks9199

What's it like to live somewhere you can't buy a gun?

Your question only is meaningfully answered by those who have done both. 

Where I live and work, anyone over 21 with a clean criminal history can buy a gun.  They can get a concealed carry permit to carry that gun unless there's a reason not to give them one (like criminal history, history of public drunkenness, mental problems, etc.).  So that means that, professionally, I simply assume people may well have a gun.  If they aren't causing a problem, I don't care.

As to carrying concealed -- I do it year-round, even in shorts.  I know women who carry concealed (on their person, not in a bag) in pleasantly short skirts and when dressed to the 9s.  I'm not quite sure where a few of them put the thing -- but they do it.  Body armor is actually tougher to conceal... because if you actually have armor in it, it's like having a thick (1/4 inch/.8 cm or so), stiff blanket on.


----------



## Touch Of Death

kehcorpz said:


> On the one hand I think that being allowed to buy guns is good. If I lived in America I'd also buy lots and lots of guns and
> rifles. This must be really fun to shoot with them and just hold them in your hand and clean them carefully.
> 
> On the other hand though it's also really scary imo. I mean do you even feel safe outside in public places knowing that
> somebody could shoot at you at ANY time? I think I'd become paranoid and only walk around in public with a bullet proof
> vest and of course also have at least 1 gun with me, better 2 guns.
> But what do you do in the summer? You cant wear a gun holster under your shirt or a bullet proof vest.
> 
> Do you think about this when you go outside or do you suppress these thoughts that a terrorist or crazy person could stop
> opening fire at any second?
> 
> i'd rather have it that only i am allowed to have guns but nobody else. this would make me feel safe and i'd not have to worry
> about being shot at.


Most people don't think about it.


----------



## JowGaWolf

The U.S. is a really big place so even though a lot of people get shot here,  Many more people don't get shot when they go out in public.  The majority of gun violence happens around bad elements, drug dealers, gangs and the neighborhoods they live in.  The chance of being shot in those areas are so much greater than other areas.  My guess is that this is no different than other countries where bad areas increase the risk of something bad happening to you.  

The gun shootings that take up most of the news are those done by bad elements, those done by someone that who is mentally unstable, or those that are accidental shootings. When I was living in Baltimore Maryland, I was really concerned about gun because I was living around bad elements.
People are more worried about getting a speeding ticket than about being shot. 

The only time you'll actually be worried about being shot is if you lived in some of the bad areas in the U.S. where you hear gun shots every night and where stray bullets hit houses.


----------



## Dirty Dog

kehcorpz said:


> On the one hand I think that being allowed to buy guns is good. If I lived in America I'd also buy lots and lots of guns and
> rifles. This must be really fun to shoot with them and just hold them in your hand and clean them carefully.



It's like being free...



kehcorpz said:


> On the other hand though it's also really scary imo. I mean do you even feel safe outside in public places knowing that
> somebody could shoot at you at ANY time?



You can be shot at any time in any country. You don't really think making guns illegal stops criminals from getting them, do you?



kehcorpz said:


> I think I'd become paranoid and only walk around in public with a bullet proof
> vest and of course also have at least 1 gun with me, better 2 guns.
> But what do you do in the summer? You cant wear a gun holster under your shirt or a bullet proof vest.



Of course you can. I carry under a T-shirt or polo all the time.



kehcorpz said:


> Do you think about this when you go outside or do you suppress these thoughts that a terrorist or crazy person could stop
> opening fire at any second?



Do you? It's as likely in your country as here.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Even if a country is at war, most of the time, things are deceptively peaceful.


----------



## MAfreak

ok, i'm no american, but at least i could bring in a saying which tells how the world thinks about it:

a kid runs amok in an american school or mall or wherever, shooting other children. the american citizen says:
"you see? if the other children have had guns, they've could have defended themselves!"

it would scare the hell out of me if every jerk could buy guns here and when all the martial arts training would be useless because of this. on the other hand, i'd like to be able to buy guns myself, because terrorists and the like, who are able to get guns even here, so partially i understand the americans.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

MAfreak said:


> on the other hand, i'd like to be able to buy guns myself, because terrorists and the like, who are able to get guns even here, so partially i understand the americans.


This is exactly it. The terrorists, school shooters, etc. are still able to get guns, and many (most) of them did not get them legally. By having a gun you can (hopefully) protect yourselves from the other people who have guns, and by making it illegal all that is happening is they remain armed while I can no longer defend myself.

Also, if the world believes every american citizen has this view, the media is lying to you very much. It's an incredibly divided issue, and where I am many more people believe that banning guns will magically make them safer, rather than having their own.

Edit: To clarify, I do not have a permit to carry. It is really freaking annoying to get in NY, and I live in a safe enough area that I am not particularly concerned. Plus I work with the mentally ill so I would not want to bring it to work anyway.


----------



## Dirty Dog

MAfreak said:


> ok, i'm no american, but at least i could bring in a saying which tells how the world thinks about it:
> 
> a kid runs amok in an american school or mall or wherever, shooting other children. the american citizen says:
> "you see? if the other children have had guns, they've could have defended themselves!"



Nonsense. Children cannot legally carry guns, so this is pretty much a straw man.

If, on the other hand, responsible, trained adults at that school/mall/theater/whatever are armed, it is possible that they could protect themselves and others. 

Consider this. Paris is a gun free zone. Didn't stop bad guys from shooting a bunch of people.


----------



## MAfreak

this was, what i mentioned then. also these terrorists seem to have bought their weapons from some german weapons dealer. 

btw i remember this american weapons instructor getting accidently shot by a 8 year old girl because he and the parents thought, it is necessary to teach her how to use an uzi. sometimes its just sick.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

I like having options. Guns are an option.

I like my choices being my choices, and no concern of anyone else.


----------



## jks9199

JowGaWolf said:


> The gun shootings that take up most of the news are those done by bad elements, those done by someone that who is mentally unstable, or those that are accidental shootings. When I was living in Baltimore Maryland, I was really concerned about gun because I was living around bad elements.
> People are more worried about getting a speeding ticket than about being shot.
> 
> The only time you'll actually be worried about being shot is if you lived in some of the bad areas in the U.S. where you hear gun shots every night and where stray bullets hit houses.



This is another very important thing to understand, which is often omitted or buried when shooting statistics are bandied about...  Most of those shootings are really criminal on criminal.  Despite all the press, for example, that is implying that cops are shooting young black men...  the person most likely to shoot a young black man is another young black man.  In short, as Marc MacYoung often says "We have an armed professional criminal class in America.  Fortunately, they are more interested in shooting each other."


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

*Living in America is simply great...*  I feel safe everyday where I live even when I am not carrying which is rare.  I have been around the world and have really enjoyed my travels but it is always nice to be home.

My experience at the range and with people who legally own firearms has been really, really positive.  *They are in general good people, polite and kind.*

A friend of a friend of mine passes out cards to business in Texas that do not want people with firearms in them and these are pretty poignant in that they explain why having people with ccw's around is great.


----------



## JR 137

Bill Mattocks said:


> I like my choices being my choices, and no concern of anyone else.



This.

I'm not a fan of them.  I don't carry one, and have no desire to.  Even when I worked in a "tough" neighborhood (Fordham section of the Bronx), I had no desire to.

It's very hard to get a carry and conceal permit in New York State.  A friend of mine is a secretary for a high ranking judge, and could easily get me one.  Pistol permits aren't as hard, but they're not simple either.

I have no need to own one, let alone carry one around.  Too many issues.  But that doesn't mean no other law abiding and good willed person shouldn't be allowed to.

There's no realistic need for 99% of the civilians here to have to carry a gun (when they're not hunting, target shooting, etc.).  The US isn't a gun crazy war zone like our media and the foreign media portray it to be.  The vast majority of people don't think about carrying guns nor others carrying them.


----------



## Tgace

Stay out of very specific areas and your odds of being shot are as slim as those in any utiopan "no gun" nation you can name.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## Tgace

jks9199 said:


> This is another very important thing to understand, which is often omitted or buried when shooting statistics are bandied about...  Most of those shootings are really criminal on criminal.  Despite all the press, for example, that is implying that cops are shooting young black men...  the person most likely to shoot a young black man is another young black man.  In short, as Marc MacYoung often says "We have an armed professional criminal class in America.  Fortunately, they are more interested in shooting each other."


The Danger of the “Black Lives Matter” Movement


Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## JowGaWolf

For anyone that doesn't live in the U.S. I would recommend  using this site CrimeReports https://www.crimereports.com/ to get an Idea of the violence going on in the U.S. and what elements are located around that violence.  You'll have to filter the crimes out in order to only select the specific crime that you want to look at. They also have a quality of life filter as well.  Keep in mind that these reports are incidents that were reported to the police. I'm not sure how often the data is submitted but it should still give you an idea of what has happened and where.  You can also check out Crime Mapping - Building Safer Communities!
Based on the map, it looks like sex offenders are a bigger issue than weapons assaults.

Based on what I've found by researching "Every 107 seconds, another American is sexually assaulted." Source
Based on the number of sex offenders that popped up on that map, I would say that is well within the possibility 

Have fun with the map of Crazy America lol


----------



## Tgace

America is a very large place with very different geographic cultures. You can't really make a general statement about Americans as you are trying to in this thread.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## JowGaWolf

JR 137 said:


> This.
> 
> I'm not a fan of them.  I don't carry one, and have no desire to.  Even when I worked in a "tough" neighborhood (Fordham section of the Bronx), I had no desire to.
> 
> It's very hard to get a carry and conceal permit in New York State.  A friend of mine is a secretary for a high ranking judge, and could easily get me one.  Pistol permits aren't as hard, but they're not simple either.
> 
> I have no need to own one, let alone carry one around.  Too many issues.  But that doesn't mean no other law abiding and good willed person shouldn't be allowed to.
> 
> There's no realistic need for 99% of the civilians here to have to carry a gun (when they're not hunting, target shooting, etc.).  The US isn't a gun crazy war zone like our media and the foreign media portray it to be.  The vast majority of people don't think about carrying guns nor others carrying them.


I don't carry a gun everywhere I go either.  I have family members that do, but for me I've been in bad neighborhoods and didn't feel so uncomfortable that I would need to shoot my way out of something.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Tgace said:


> Stay out of very specific areas and your odds of being shot are as slim as those in any utiopan "no gun" nation you can name.
> 
> Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


Outside of the people with mental issues there are just some streets you don't go down unless you have business there.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Tgace said:


> America is a very large place with vary different geographic cultures. You can't really make a general statement about Americans as you are trying to in this thread.
> 
> Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


France has around 64 million people  The U.S. has around 323 million people. In all honesty I think the U.S. does incredibly well with violence (we could always do better) considering that there are warring countries with far fewer people.  I'm not sure how accurate this site is but if it is accurate than I would say that the U.S. does an incredible job
France vs United States: Crime Facts and Stats


----------



## MAfreak

well lets wait until america screws up its iq-test (aka next election) by voting for psychopath trump, to "make america big again"...

but in case of the terrorists, french and belgium authorities totally f***ed it up, thats true.


----------



## Buka

MAfreak said:


> well lets wait until america screws up its iq-test (aka next election) by voting for psychopath trump, to "make america big again"...



From your lips to God's ears.


----------



## MAfreak

winning the pre election is already a reason to worry. when there are many chauvinists who also don't want to hear about crazy ufo-case stuff of clinton, then it will be a dark period...


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Last time I went to Vancouver, I saw 3 fist fights in 1 day. I haven't seen fist fight in US for a long time because people all know that if you beat me with fist today, I'll shot you tomorrow. That's the beauty to live in a gun country. There will be less fist fight and everybody treat others nicely and live happy ever after.

This is my favor movie clip.

- You pull out your gun (you try to scare me).
- I pull out my gun (you are not going to scare me. I have gun too).
- You put back your gun (you think it's too risky to fight).
- I put back my gun (I didn't want to fight you to begin with).

We all just move on, mind our own business after that. It's such a nice friendly world to live in.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

MAfreak said:


> well lets wait until america screws up its iq-test (aka next election) by voting for psychopath trump, to "make america big again"...


I am a libertarian, and very much not a Trump Supporter. I am, however, curious about what exactly you dislike. If it's his personality/racism/sexism, have you seen any examples of him acting in that way in the past, or is it primarily second-hand sources (media who does not provide the clip involved or only provides one sentence with their own interpretation, people posting on FB, etc.). If it's that you dislike his policies, which of his policies do you dislike and can you articulate why you would think Sanders or Clinton's policies are superior?

I don't actually expect you to answer this as you are from Germany, and I can't imagine you have a whole lot of reason to be invested in our presidential candidates. However, a lot of the people I know who support Trump ignore most of the people who complain about him because they can't answer the above questions, and instead just parrot "He wants to build a wall, kill muslims and is into incest." (The trump supporters words about the liberals words, not mine) While I don't like him, people making attacks or comments about him without providing any reasoning ends up supporting his case rather than hurting it.


----------



## MAfreak

let me say, here it wouldn't be imaginable to let a ridiculous and exaggerated actor like him get power (not since the 1930's). but here it wouldn't also be imaginable to let laypeople in a jury decide, when participants act crying in court, someone is guilty or not. land of endless opportunities? or just thinking the world is a hollywood movie or a talkshow?
but yes i have no deeper knowledge of what else the candidates promise in their programs.


----------



## kehcorpz

i think clinton is also really scary. i heard many times that she should actually be in prison for lying.
to me she doesn't look like she's right in her mind. i watched a video on youtube which only consisted
of scenes where she laughed and this laughter already sounded disturbing. i think that by the way a person
laughs you can already draw conclusions. for example if somebody always laughs really loud so that everybody can
hear him it's a red flag to me.

anyway, i think even if somebody is against carrying guns in public then having guns at home for self-defense is a good thing imo.
if a creep breaks into your house you should be allowed to defend it and not just call the police and hide in a closet. somebody who
breaks into a house shouldn't complain afterwards if he gets shot in the head.


----------



## Touch Of Death

MAfreak said:


> winning the pre election is already a reason to worry. when there are many chauvinists who also don't want to hear about crazy ufo-case stuff of clinton, then it will be a dark period...


They must have suppressed the Clinton UFO connection, here; so, do tell.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Write me in as President.  I'll make it a requirement that every school must have at least 4 different martial arts systems, and I would make Martial Art competitions a school sport. Where schools would compete against each other.


----------



## Steve

Couple of things.   First, politics are not okay around here. 

Second, regarding guns, I am glad tgace posted some common sense.  Statistically, a lot of risk is self inflicted by choosing to engage in high risk behaviors.   Not all, certainly,  but most.


----------



## Buka

Steve said:


> Couple of things.   First, politics are not okay around here.
> 
> Second, regarding guns, I am glad tgace posted some common sense.  Statistically, a lot of risk is self inflicted by choosing to engage in high risk behaviors.   Not all, certainly,  but most.



I so like what Steve said.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Steve said:


> Couple of things.   First, politics are not okay around here.
> 
> Second, regarding guns, I am glad tgace posted some common sense.  Statistically, a lot of risk is self inflicted by choosing to engage in high risk behaviors.   Not all, certainly,  but most.


This reminds me..around 4 years or so ago, when I started, there was a politics section in the bar and grill. What happened to that/why are politics not allowed anymore?


----------



## JR 137

I didn't think talking politics was allowed either.  And it sounds even stupider when our politics are discussed by people half way around the world who think every American has to carry a gun at all times because it's so dangerous and every other American is.

If I started arguing German or British politics (especially if all my knowledge came from YouTube/Facebook and the like stuff), you'd call me one of those "stupid Americans."  I wonder what the term is when it's the other way around?

Then again, most of what people know about politics around here (in my neck of the woods) can and usually do fit on a bumper sticker.  Most just repeat what the internet just told them, practically verbatim.  Talk about master debaters.


----------



## Buka

_"This is the internet and we're all friends. It's okay to talk about race, religion and politics_." Said nobody, ever.


----------



## Tez3

Dirty Dog said:


> Nonsense. Children cannot legally carry guns, so this is pretty much a straw man.
> 
> If, on the other hand, responsible, trained adults at that school/mall/theater/whatever are armed, it is possible that they could protect themselves and others.
> 
> Consider this.* Paris is a gun free zone*. Didn't stop bad guys from shooting a bunch of people.



Paris isn't a gun free zone no more than France is, you can buy guns of all types you just need permits.  There's a heck of a lot of legal weapons of all sorts. The French Police and the Gendarmerie are also armed to the teeth. The recent attacks there would not have been stopped by armed civilians, it was a planned attack by trained military personnel which really only a another military force would have been able to counteract.


----------



## Tgace

Tez3 said:


> Paris isn't a gun free zone no more than France is, you can buy guns of all types you just need permits.  There's a heck of a lot of legal weapons of all sorts. The French Police and the Gendarmerie are also armed to the teeth. The recent attacks there would not have been stopped by armed civilians, it was a planned attack by trained military personnel which really only a another military force would have been able to counteract.



That's pure opinion and conjecture right there......


----------



## Tez3

Tgace said:


> That's pure opinion and conjecture right there......



Actually neither is conjecture.
 My reasoning is based on over 40 years experience in anti terrorism, it's my specialised subject if you like, it's the opinion, I know as well, of the security forces here of which I was a member until very recently.


----------



## Tez3

The alert state in the UK has just gone up to 'severe', not IS, Al Qaeda or their ilk but yet again the IRA. Terrorism and national emergencies - GOV.UK


----------



## jks9199

kempodisciple said:


> This reminds me..around 4 years or so ago, when I started, there was a politics section in the bar and grill. What happened to that/why are politics not allowed anymore?


After political discussions became exceedingly disruptive, we (the Staff) initially tried quarantining them to a particular, paid subforum.  That didn't work as well as we'd like, for lots of reasons, and when we joined the Forum Foundry family, they had dedicated political discussion forums, here at US Message Board.  Sending all political discussions there allowed us to keep MartialTalk focused on the martial arts.  Of course, there's the occasional overlap that pops up.  If a topic, like gun control, starts to shift too far into the politics, we issue reminders and encourage folks to go there for the political chat.  The lines can be somewhat fuzzy, of course, such as causes of crime, and legality of actions -- but, generally, when there's too much of a political trend -- we try to steer out of it.


----------



## Tgace

Tez3 said:


> Actually neither is conjecture.
> My reasoning is based on over 40 years experience in anti terrorism, it's my specialised subject if you like, it's the opinion, I know as well, of the security forces here of which I was a member until very recently.


[emoji108] 

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

jks9199 said:


> After political discussions became exceedingly disruptive, we (the Staff) initially tried quarantining them to a particular, paid subforum.  That didn't work as well as we'd like, for lots of reasons, and when we joined the Forum Foundry family, they had dedicated political discussion forums, here at US Message Board.  Sending all political discussions there allowed us to keep MartialTalk focused on the martial arts.  Of course, there's the occasional overlap that pops up.  If a topic, like gun control, starts to shift too far into the politics, we issue reminders and encourage folks to go there for the political chat.  The lines can be somewhat fuzzy, of course, such as causes of crime, and legality of actions -- but, generally, when there's too much of a political trend -- we try to steer out of it.


Thanks, that makes sense. It was something I was wondering about, and figured it went either like you suggested, or the posters enacted an unspoken(unwritten?) rule that talking about politics was causing too many problems. Since it's an official policy, I'll be more cautious about going into political territory.


----------



## Tez3

kehcorpz said:


> i think clinton is also really scary. i heard many times that she should actually be in prison for lying.
> to me she doesn't look like she's right in her mind. i watched a video on youtube which only consisted
> of scenes where she laughed and this laughter already sounded disturbing. i think that by the way a person
> laughs you can already draw conclusions. for example if somebody always laughs really loud so that everybody can
> hear him it's a red flag to me.
> 
> .




Ok, it's YouTube is not actually reliable or even real. Like most of the martial arts stuff that's on there political stuff is better avoided. I don't know anything about Clinton and if I wanted to know more I would not be looking at social media to help me make an informed opinion.
If the video is of just of her laughing then it was manipulated and edited wasn't it so you can't judge what she's like from that. Her actions, her speeches ( without opponents edits), etc will help you decide about her not some cuckoo brained 'maker' of You Tube videos.


----------



## Tgace

Here in Texas, a single police officer with a handgun halted a planned ISIS assault (two terrorists with long guns). The old saw of "you will never be able to make a difference if you carry a gun" is poppycock....

May the odds be long?

Certainly. 

But anyone who tells people that being unarmed and hoping you don't get killed is somehow preferable to carrying a sidearm and at least having the slim chance of making a difference is full of @#$%. 


Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3

Tgace said:


> Here in Texas, a single police officer with a handgun halted a planned ISIS assault (two terrorists with long guns). The old saw of "you will never be able to make a difference if you carry a gun" is poppycock....
> 
> May the odds be long?
> 
> Certainly.
> 
> But anyone who tells people that being unarmed and hoping you don't get killed is somehow preferable to carrying a sidearm and at least having the slim chance of making a difference is full of @#$%.
> 
> 
> Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk




I haven't said that being unarmed and hoping you don't get killed is preferable to carrying a weapon. The Paris attacks which included suicide bombers and IS trained militia was a different thing from two armed people planning attacks and we have stopped attacks here too by the way however Paris was a massive assault planned very carefully. It would be a mistake to think that terrorists always use the same MO. The IRA for example use car and pipe bombs often phoning a false warning so that an area is evacuated into the path of the real bombs. The anti gay bombings were similar in that the IEDs were left in pubs. The murder of Lee Rigby was different, he was run down by two men in a car who leapt out and hacked at him with knives. Certainly a civilian rather than the police officer could have shot them but it still wouldn't have saved Lee.
Looking in depth at the Paris situation it would be hard to see how an civilian could have made any difference as the combatants had carefully made sure of their position is the theatre so as not to be shot at. The other drive by shooters had shot and gone before anyone could react. Each incident has to be take by itself and no generalisations made, each incident is studied and lessons learnt.

An armed person military or civilian is not going to be able to do anything to prevent these, being vigilant but not paranoid may though. CAIN: Events: The Omagh Bomb - Main Events, 15 August 1998
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.../ira-manchester-bomb-anniversary-bomb-9451973
BBC ON THIS DAY | 8 | 1987: Bomb kills 11 at Enniskillen
BBC News | The nail bomb terror | Two dead in London nail bomb
BBC ON THIS DAY | 4 | 1974: Soldiers and children killed in coach bombing


----------



## Dirty Dog

Tez3 said:


> Paris isn't a gun free zone no more than France is, you can buy guns of all types you just need permits.



This is sort-of true, but quite a distortion. You have to have a permit before you can buy anything. To get the permit you have to go through psych evals. Every year. And then you have to renew the permit every 3 years. 
Not only is magazine capacity limited, the amount of ammo you're even allowed to own is strictly limited. About what I shoot in a month, at the range. 
And, of course, unless you're a high ranking politico or wealthy enough to pay a lot of graft, you can forget about actually being able to carry a gun. 
While guns are not illegal in France, it is entirely reasonable to say it's a gun free zone, given the draconian laws preventing the mere ownership of a gun, and the absolute impossibility of Jagues Citizen actually carrying one.

Gun laws in France are nearly as ridiculous as those of the UK. Which, as we all know, have a sterling reputation for effectiveness, given how well they stopped the violence during the troubles...


----------



## pgsmith

kehcorpz said:


> On the one hand I think that being allowed to buy guns is good. If I lived in America I'd also buy lots and lots of guns and
> rifles. This must be really fun to shoot with them and just hold them in your hand and clean them carefully.
> 
> On the other hand though it's also really scary imo. I mean do you even feel safe outside in public places knowing that
> somebody could shoot at you at ANY time? I think I'd become paranoid and only walk around in public with a bullet proof
> vest and of course also have at least 1 gun with me, better 2 guns.
> But what do you do in the summer? You cant wear a gun holster under your shirt or a bullet proof vest.
> 
> Do you think about this when you go outside or do you suppress these thoughts that a terrorist or crazy person could stop
> opening fire at any second?
> 
> i'd rather have it that only i am allowed to have guns but nobody else. this would make me feel safe and i'd not have to worry
> about being shot at.


  Here's my take on it ... Remember the "knock out game" ? It got very popular with young guys trying to impress their buddies and get famous on-line. They tried doing it in Texas, and the guy they tried it on shot and killed the kid that tried to knock him out. All of the sudden it wasn't as fun anymore and it died out shortly thereafter. Don't know if they still have a problem with that in the UK or not.


----------



## Tez3

Dirty Dog said:


> This is sort-of true, but quite a distortion. You have to have a permit before you can buy anything. To get the permit you have to go through psych evals. Every year. And then you have to renew the permit every 3 years.
> Not only is magazine capacity limited, the amount of ammo you're even allowed to own is strictly limited. About what I shoot in a month, at the range.
> And, of course, unless you're a high ranking politico or wealthy enough to pay a lot of graft, you can forget about actually being able to carry a gun.
> While guns are not illegal in France, it is entirely reasonable to say it's a gun free zone, given the draconian laws preventing the mere ownership of a gun, and the absolute impossibility of Jagues Citizen actually carrying one.
> 
> Gun laws in France are nearly as ridiculous as those of the UK. Which, as we all know, have a sterling reputation for effectiveness, given how well they stopped the violence during the troubles...



Our laws are only ridiculous to you, we are a different society, different culture, different history so to us, whose laws they are they are fine. As I'm not insulting the US gun laws I see no reason for anyone to insult ours. I spend time in various countries in Europe, have done for years, a know a lot about France and about living there as I do Germany and the Netherlands. You can call Paris what you like but I find it easy to get a gun there, legally and without being rich.

I assume by 'the troubles' you mean the Irish situation, I'd be interested to see how you think arming citizens would sort that situation out.


----------



## Steve

Tgace said:


> Here in Texas, a single police officer with a handgun halted a planned ISIS assault (two terrorists with long guns). The old saw of "you will never be able to make a difference if you carry a gun" is poppycock....
> 
> May the odds be long?
> 
> Certainly.
> 
> But anyone who tells people that being unarmed and hoping you don't get killed is somehow preferable to carrying a sidearm and at least having the slim chance of making a difference is full of @#$%.
> 
> 
> Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


Was it the gun, or was it the police officers training and experience in law enforcement that really made the difference?   Or said another way, having every tool in Home Depot doesn't mean you can build a house.  Tools in the hands of a trained person can be very effective, but tools in the hands of an untrained person are at best ineffective, and at worst very dangerous. 

For all of the trained people executing good judgement, there are poorly or completely untrained people nurturing fantasies of being Jack Bauer.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Steve said:


> Was it the gun, or was it the police officers training and experience in law enforcement that really made the difference?   Or said another way, having every tool in Home Depot doesn't mean you can build a house.  Tools in the hands of a trained person can be very effective, but tools in the hands of an untrained person are at best ineffective, and at worst very dangerous.
> 
> For all of the trained people executing good judgement, there are poorly or completely untrained people nurturing fantasies of being Jack Bauer.



Many gun owners, especially those who carry regularly, spend at least as much time training as the police do.
Tools in the hands of the untrained are still better than trying to build the house with your bare hands.


----------



## Steve

Dirty Dog said:


> Many gun owners, especially those who carry regularly, spend at least as much time training as the police do.
> Tools in the hands of the untrained are still better than trying to build the house with your bare hands.


Define "many."   Is that like 80%?  50%?  25?  If we don't know how many gun owners actually exist in America, how can you quantify your statement? 

I can readily agree that some gun owners are well trained.   Some are not.  Some choose to educate themselves on use of force laws.   Some do not.   "Many" and "few" are subjective terms that speak to a bias.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Steve said:


> Define "many."   Is that like 80%?  50%?  25?  If we don't know how many gun owners actually exist in America, how can you quantify your statement?



It's impossible to quantify on a national level. On a personal level, I would say that of the people I know who carry on a regular basis, at least 75% of them train at least monthly.
I'm sure one of the LEO members can give us an idea how often they train. But in my experience, those officers who are shooting enthusiasts (just like the civilians who are shooting enthusiasts) train much more often than those who only meet the Departments mandatory training.
Now, that is obviously a small sample size, but not unreasonably so. After all, we see political polls cited constantly that involve a minuscule percentage of the national population. A random sampling remains a random sampling.

And, as I said before, a tool in the untrained hand remains better than no tools at all. I'm not a great carpenter, but I can still do a better job of building a box if I have a saw, than if I have to chew through the wood.


----------



## Steve

Dirty Dog said:


> It's impossible to quantify on a national level. On a personal level, I would say that of the people I know who carry on a regular basis, at least 75% of them train at least monthly.
> I'm sure one of the LEO members can give us an idea how often they train. But in my experience, those officers who are shooting enthusiasts (just like the civilians who are shooting enthusiasts) train much more often than those who only meet the Departments mandatory training.
> Now, that is obviously a small sample size, but not unreasonably so. After all, we see political polls cited constantly that involve a minuscule percentage of the national population. A random sampling remains a random sampling.
> 
> And, as I said before, a tool in the untrained hand remains better than no tools at all. I'm not a great carpenter, but I can still do a better job of building a box if I have a saw, than if I have to chew through the wood.


What percentage of gun owners have taken training? - AR15.Com Archive

I could only find one relevant source of information on the prevalence of gun training among gun owners, and it was on a gum forum... So also complete conjecture.   For what it's worth, the consensus on that forum is that the percentage of gun owners who are trained at all is somewhere between 25% at the high end if you count military training, and .0000001%.   Yikes.  

If you have some more reliable information, I'd welcome it.   Otherwise, it sounds like there is an important distinction to be made between how many gun owners relative to all gun owners are as well trained as LEO, And how many gun owners relative to the group you associate with are well trained.  

Regarding the saw, comparing a firearm to a saw is also kind of unrealistic.   I think the dangers of using a band saw or such is a little closer, along with the likelihood of trips to the ER.   Surely you've seen your share of DIY accidents resulting from ignorance related negligence.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Steve said:


> What percentage of gun owners have taken training? - AR15.Com Archive
> 
> I could only find one relevant source of information on the prevalence of gun training among gun owners, and it was on a gum forum... So also complete conjecture.   For what it's worth, the consensus on that forum is that the percentage of gun owners who are trained at all is somewhere between 25% at the high end if you count military training, and .0000001%.   Yikes.
> 
> If you have some more reliable information, I'd welcome it.   Otherwise, it sounds like there is an important distinction to be made between how many gun owners relative to all gun owners are as well trained as LEO, And how many gun owners relative to the group you associate with are well trained.
> 
> Regarding the saw, comparing a firearm to a saw is also kind of unrealistic.   I think the dangers of using a band saw or such is a little closer, along with the likelihood of trips to the ER.   Surely you've seen your share of DIY accidents resulting from ignorance related negligence.


Unfortunately, from what I read they don't have any distinct evidence for their estimates either. I always assumed it was upwards of 50%, but if not it feels like something that should be addressed before we get to the topic of whether or not guns should be banned/restricted.


----------



## Buka

The subject of training with firearms is probably similar to the subject of training in Martial Arts. Some do more, some do less. Some do it one way, some do it another, others are in the middle.Some are elite, some do the best they can.

May we all survive, prosper and get out alive.


----------



## Steve

kempodisciple said:


> Unfortunately, from what I read they don't have any distinct evidence for their estimates either. I always assumed it was upwards of 50%, but if not it feels like something that should be addressed before we get to the topic of whether or not guns should be banned/restricted.


My point was that when DD used the term "many" it's pretty much meaningless and subjective.  The idea that most gun owners are well trained is a convenient fiction.  No one really knows because actual statistics are discouraged.   What that forum did show is simply how even among gun owners , there are wildly disparate opinions on the subject.   

Im not suggesting guns should be or shouldn't be banned or restricted.   I'm strictly saying that assertions about many gun owners being well trained is completely unsubstantiated bias.  

@Buka has it right.   Some is about all we can do...  More than one.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Steve said:


> What percentage of gun owners have taken training? - AR15.Com Archive



I think I made it clear that I was talking about people who carry, not just own. My father in law owns several guns. He doesn't train.
Of course, it's been about 25 years since there was any ammo in the house for the guns. I strip them and clean them when we visit. That's the only time they're even touched.
In case I wasn't clear before, allow me to be explicitly clear. I'm talking about people who regularly carry a gun as part of their personal defense.


----------



## Tgace

Steve said:


> I'm strictly saying that assertions about many gun owners being well trained is completely unsubstantiated bias..



I can only comment on MY LEO experience...but that can cut both ways if the argument is to be  "well cops are WELL trained".

When it comes to LEO's and weapons there is a difference between knowing WHEN to use force and HOW to actually use a weapon. In far too many PD's the good shooters are either getting advanced training only if they are on a special unit like SWAT....or they are training on their own.

Some are lucky that they remember which end the bullet comes out of.

It's a matter of time and money. Training means overtime, short staffing patrol while people train and ammo expense. While the politicians like to move their mouths in ways that sound like they want trained cops, they seldom want to pay any more than the cheapest they can get away with.


----------



## Steve

Dirty Dog said:


> I think I made it clear that I was talking about people who carry, not just own. My father in law owns several guns. He doesn't train.
> Of course, it's been about 25 years since there was any ammo in the house for the guns. I strip them and clean them when we visit. That's the only time they're even touched.
> In case I wasn't clear before, allow me to be explicitly clear. I'm talking about people who regularly carry a gun as part of their personal defense.


 how do you know this? As I said, I would welcome some reliable numbers. If I get some time, I'll look for some myself to support your most recent assertion, that people who regularly carry a gun are mostly well trained. Can you help me by pointing me to sime stats on how many people carry guns as part of their personal self defense, and then tell me what we'll trained means?  because, even with the clarification, this still seems like self serving conjecture.


----------



## pgsmith

Steve said:


> how do you know this? As I said, I would welcome some reliable numbers. If I get some time, I'll look for some myself to support your most recent assertion, that people who regularly carry a gun are mostly well trained. Can you help me by pointing me to sime stats on how many people carry guns as part of their personal self defense, and then tell me what we'll trained means?  because, even with the clarification, this still seems like self serving conjecture.


  While I agree with your assertion, I fail to see the point that you're trying to make. He made an unsupportable statement, you refuted it. To continue to belabor the point is totally irrelevant to just about any sort of discussion in my opinion.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Steve said:


> how do you know this? As I said, I would welcome some reliable numbers. If I get some time, I'll look for some myself to support your most recent assertion, that people who regularly carry a gun are mostly well trained. Can you help me by pointing me to sime stats on how many people carry guns as part of their personal self defense, and then tell me what we'll trained means?  because, even with the clarification, this still seems like self serving conjecture.



Steve, I'm not sure why you're going on and on here, honestly.
I told you. The sample group is "people I know who carry regularly", and I know because I talk to them, and train with some of them.
You don't like my sample group? That's fine. It ain't going to change anything. The fact remains that of the people I personal know who carry regularly, the clear majority train on a regular basis.
You're basically insisting that the only possible valid opinion can be formed after making a detailed survey of every gun owner in the US. And that's a ridiculous expectation, but hey, feel free to fund such a study (which will be invalidated, under your expectations, because you'll never get info from every gun owner).
Have a nice day.


----------



## Steve

pgsmith said:


> While I agree with your assertion, I fail to see the point that you're trying to make. He made an unsupportable statement, you refuted it. To continue to belabor the point is totally irrelevant to just about any sort of discussion in my opinion.


in a thread on what it's like to live in America on this subject, it's relevant because this is typical. The rhetoric is largely grounded in nothing, on both sides, and is self serving. DD typifies this. He started with a blanket statement, and had backed off considerably since. But he still thinks "people I know" is a random sample and that his impression is sufficient o form a defensible opinion.

look, were I to say something like this about BJJ and TKD, I would be justifiably taken to task... Something like, most people who train BJJ are mote capable fighters than those who train TKD. even if I backed off and said... "hey. I Meant of those I know who train in one or the other."

I appreciate the point and will not belabor the point further.


----------



## Steve

Dirty Dog said:


> Steve, I'm not sure why you're going on and on here, honestly.
> I told you. The sample group is "people I know who carry regularly", and I know because I talk to them, and train with some of them.
> You don't like my sample group? That's fine. It ain't going to change anything. The fact remains that of the people I personal know who carry regularly, the clear majority train on a regular basis.
> You're basically insisting that the only possible valid opinion can be formed after making a detailed survey of every gun owner in the US. And that's a ridiculous expectation, but hey, feel free to fund such a study (which will be invalidated, under your expectations, because you'll never get info from every gun owner).
> Have a nice day.


You're getting snarky, DD.

I'm proposing that a valid opinion is one that is supported by more than conjecture.  Never suggested that it be a result of a detailed survey of every gun owner in the US.  Hyperbolizing my point is kind of petty and a little beneath you.  Don't you think?

TKD sucks, because I know some guys who do TKD and they suck.  The form of that assertion is essentially the same as your position on this subject.  Is my opinion supportable?  I'd argue that it's not.  And I've seen you argue that it's not in other threads, as well.

And relevant to this thread, this, more than anything else, is the problem with this topic in America now.  We can't discuss it in a meaningful way because the gathering of information on the subject is actively discouraged so that unsupported opinions based upon imagination and intuition can be thrown around by all sides of the discussion.


----------



## jondoe297

kehcorpz said:


> On the one hand I think that being allowed to buy guns is good. If I lived in America I'd also buy lots and lots of guns and
> rifles. This must be really fun to shoot with them and just hold them in your hand and clean them carefully.
> 
> On the other hand though it's also really scary imo. I mean do you even feel safe outside in public places knowing that
> somebody could shoot at you at ANY time? I think I'd become paranoid and only walk around in public with a bullet proof
> vest and of course also have at least 1 gun with me, better 2 guns.
> But what do you do in the summer? You cant wear a gun holster under your shirt or a bullet proof vest.
> 
> Do you think about this when you go outside or do you suppress these thoughts that a terrorist or crazy person could stop
> opening fire at any second?
> 
> i'd rather have it that only i am allowed to have guns but nobody else. this would make me feel safe and i'd not have to worry
> about being shot at.



In my experience, it has been a common misconception with Europeans that firearms are available to anyone and everyone in the United States. I've heard it said that they are available for sale in every corner store here. While they are certainly more readily accessible in the USA than in most European nations, the contention that they are available to anyone and everyone is simply not true. In the United States, firearms are regulated at both the federal and state level, with federal law superseding any contradictory state law. The Federal Government has established a class of "prohibited persons" who are denied their right to possess firearms, based upon certain criminal convictions, citizenship status, military discharge status, drug usage, and mental health status. Some states further restrict firearms access, in addition to the federal restrictions.
The carrying of firearms varies greatly, depending on which state you are in. Some states allow anyone who is not a prohibited person to carry a firearm concealed (or openly) without any license or permit. Some states make it nearly impossible to carry a firearm.
I would contend that your remark about possibly "becoming paranoid" is very accurate. It is indeed paranoia. When you are raised around something, you tend to become accustomed to it, and not think about it. I can understand how someone who comes from a place where firearms are not common, would find the thought unsettling. However, a significant number of Americans are raised around firearms, and the thought of firearms being present around them is not something they think about on a regular basis.


----------



## Tez3

I wouldn't say Europeans find guns unsettling because as with your comment about guns not being quite as common as many think, guns are far more common in Europe than many think! We are both more comfortable with them than you think plus we don't really give a monkey's cuss about them.
The problem is that it's far more of a political issue in the US than probably anywhere else in the world and this leads to much rhetoric from both sides of the argument. This clouds the reality a lot. We get all the stories of children killing adults by accident, all the school massacres and mass killings showing how dangerous guns are from one side and from the other all the times that having a gun has stopped crimes and saved lives. The truth is in the middle somewhere, there's not nearly as much of anything that these two sides say. In the middle  are the normal people who carry guns without making a fuss and those who don't carry guns and also don't make a fuss.


----------



## Flying Crane

jondoe297 said:


> I would contend that your remark about possibly "becoming paranoid" is very accurate. It is indeed paranoia. When you are raised around something, you tend to become accustomed to it, and not think about it. I can understand how someone who comes from a place where firearms are not common, would find the thought unsettling. However, a significant number of Americans are raised around firearms, and the thought of firearms being present around them is not something they think about on a regular basis.


I was raised around guns, hunted with my dad, went to the local abandoned quarry to do some target practice, enjoyed it all, and I am a gun owner now.  I am very comfortable around guns.

You may have a point in the above comments.  But it goes both ways.  In my opinion there is a lot of fear and paranoia in the gun owning population here in the US.  Not everyone, certainly.  But there is a very vocal subset of the population that obsesses over access and ownership and carrying rights, and actively build large collections of militarized and "tactical" weaponry as opposed to those items that are appropriate for hunting purposes, and I've seen it in discussions in places like the forums of martialtalk and the sister site kenpotalk that tell me these people are fearful and paranoid both about their perception of the governments interference with their rights and in their perception of danger lurking around every corner, against which they need to be armed, always and everywhere.  I've seen forum members make comments such as (I paraphrase here) "I am not afraid of anyone because I am armed."  In my assessment, such a comment clearly indicates fear of the world around them, possibly to the point of paranoia, tho I readily admit I am not qualified to diagnose anyone as clinically paranoid.

That is my observation.


----------



## jondoe297

Flying Crane said:


> I was raised around guns, hunted with my dad, went to the local abandoned quarry to do some target practice, enjoyed it all, and I am a gun owner now.  I am very comfortable around guns.
> 
> You may have a point in the above comments.  But it goes both ways.  In my opinion there is a lot of fear and paranoia in the gun owning population here in the US.  Not everyone, certainly.  But there is a very vocal subset of the population that obsesses over access and ownership and carrying rights, and actively build large collections of militarized and "tactical" weaponry as opposed to those items that are appropriate for hunting purposes, and I've seen it in discussions in places like the forums of martialtalk and the sister site kenpotalk that tell me these people are fearful and paranoid both about their perception of the governments interference with their rights and in their perception of danger lurking around every corner, against which they need to be armed, always and everywhere.  I've seen forum members make comments such as (I paraphrase here) "I am not afraid of anyone because I am armed."  In my assessment, such a comment clearly indicates fear of the world around them, possibly to the point of paranoia, tho I readily admit I am not qualified to diagnose anyone as clinically paranoid.
> 
> That is my observation.



You make valid points, particularly with the inherent fear-mongering that tends to be present in the "gun world". However, with regard to buying, as you word it "militarized" weaponry, vice hunting, there are many people who have little to no interest in hunting. Firearms ownership and the practice of hunting are not mutually exclusive. Hunting is merely one facet of firearm ownership, and one does not need to be a hunter to validate their interest in firearms.


----------



## jondoe297

Tez3 said:


> The problem is that it's far more of a political issue in the US than probably anywhere else in the world and this leads to much rhetoric from both sides of the argument.



No truer words have ever spoken, that I've seen.


----------



## Flying Crane

jondoe297 said:


> You make valid points, particularly with the inherent fear-mongering that tends to be present in the "gun world". However, with regard to buying, as you word it "militarized" weaponry, vice hunting, there are many people who have little to no interest in hunting. Firearms ownership and the practice of hunting are not mutually exclusive. Hunting is merely one facet of firearm ownership, and one does not need to be a hunter to validate their interest in firearms.


That is also a valid point.  However it speaks to the point I was making about why some people may be buying guns.  Militarized weaponry in large quantity, coupled with large (Large!) stockpiles of ammunition suggests, at least to me, that people are buying because they are afraid of the people around them.  I sometimes wonder if that fear extends to the next door neighbor with the three children under age 9.

Owning these weapons isn't automatically a bad thing, I do understand that.  But sometimes it does make a fellow go "hmmm...."

In my opinion it can become an unhealthy obsession and it seems to me that it can be driven by fear and paranoia.  And again I readily admit that this does not describe everyone, but at the same time is a very real portion of the gun owning population.


----------



## jondoe297

Flying Crane said:


> That is also a valid point.  However it speaks to the point I was making about why some people may be buying guns.  Militarized weaponry in large quantity, coupled with large (Large!) stockpiles of ammunition suggests, at least to me, that people are buying because they are afraid of the people around them.  I sometimes wonder if that fear extends to the next door neighbor with the three children under age 9.
> 
> Owning these weapons isn't automatically a bad thing, I do understand that.  But sometimes it does make a fellow go "hmmm...."
> 
> In my opinion it can become an unhealthy obsession and it seems to me that it can be driven by fear and paranoia.  And again I readily admit that this does not describe everyone, but at the same time is a very real portion of the gun owning population.



Agreed on all points.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Unfortunately a lot of politics prey on people's fears.   one side says that the government is going to take away guns and have been dating that for 35 years and the government still hasn't made any effort or plan to take away guns.  35 years of fear mongering about a threat that doesn't exist. 

Because of this people are only going to get the extreme perceptions from both side.  The sad thing is that it takes away any realistic solutions that address issues that actually surrounds gun ownership. It also gives an unrealistic view of what is really happening with America's gun culture. Causing people to fight problems that really don't exist.


----------



## Tgace

Flying Crane said:


> , but at the same time is a very real portion of the gun owning population.



Based on what research or study?

While those types are out there I wouldn't consider them statistically significant or even a "problem".

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## Flying Crane

Tgace said:


> Based on what research or study?
> 
> While those types are out there I wouldn't consider them statistically significant or even a "problem".
> 
> Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


I'm not claiming any research or statistical significance.  Like DD's examples, this is simply my own experience.

My real point being, as a jondoe297 pointed out that there can be fear and paranoia about guns amongst those who are not familiar with them, likewise there is plenty of fear and paranoia among the gun owning population.


----------



## SenseiHitman

If we were not allowed to own firearms in the United States, then our ruling class would use the police to bully use around rather than bullying around the rest of the world to get what it wants.  In the United States, the police are very afraid to just kick your door in and take you away for questioning.  Not so in the rest of the world.  Thanks to the bill of rights, in the United States the police have to pretend we have civil liberties that protect us and our property from them.  Not so in other countries.       Firearm laws do not stop terrorism or kooks.  look what happened in France not too long ago. there was no one to shoot back until the French police got the courage to show up.  In the United states when a kook wants to go on a shooting spree they make sure to go to a location where firearms are not permitted so they can get some kills in.  For example, guns are not allowed on schools campuses or in theaters or shopping malls or on army bases ( unless they are being used in an exercise) so these are popular targets.  Just imagine what would happen if one of these kooks went to a bar that off work police offers frequented or a biker bar or a street owned by a street gang.  They would get only a couple shots off before being blasted from every direction.  These kooks know this so they hunt where the prey is easy.  People who are willing to give up their civil liberties for safety are the victims of mind control promoted by the ruling class through the media.
     On a related subject, the television programing in the United states is purposely filled with propaganda against citizens owning firearms.  I find that the vast majority of Americans that agree with gun control had the idea suggested to them by the sh*t they see on television.  People who watch television become the blind puppets of the Babylon system.  Frank Zappa wrote a song called The Slime that spells it all out.  If you don't get what I am saying go listen to it on YouTube.


----------



## Flying Crane

See what I mean?


----------



## SenseiHitman

I own firearms but I never carry them, my primary weapon is karma.  I train with weapons so I can understand them in order to develop good strategies to defend against them. I know that people who carry guns for self defense are cowards hiding behind the weapon to be safe.  The truth is the weapon is only an extension of the warrior.  There is no safety for those who hide behind guns.  Yes, we have a bunch of stupid red necks and the like in this country that give firearm owners a bad name every time they open their mouths.  On the other hand, history teaches us about the dangers of being disarmed.  The group called, Jews for the preservation of firearms ownership can teach you why only an armed public is a free public. Go look at their web site.  
Hitler, Stalin and Mao all agree that gun control works.


----------



## Flying Crane

...sigh...


----------



## PhotonGuy

kehcorpz said:


> On the other hand though it's also really scary imo. I mean do you even feel safe outside in public places knowing that
> somebody could shoot at you at ANY time? I think I'd become paranoid and only walk around in public with a bullet proof
> vest and of course also have at least 1 gun with me, better 2 guns.
> But what do you do in the summer? You cant wear a gun holster under your shirt or a bullet proof vest.
> 
> Do you think about this when you go outside or do you suppress these thoughts that a terrorist or crazy person could stop
> opening fire at any second?
> 
> i'd rather have it that only i am allowed to have guns but nobody else. this would make me feel safe and i'd not have to worry
> about being shot at.



In the USA you're more likely to die from a car crash than you are of ever being shot.


----------



## Dirty Dog

SenseiHitman said:


> I own firearms but I never carry them, my primary weapon is karma.



Go ahead and rely on karma. I'll stick with something with a bit better chance of actually keeping me alive. Like the Glock 19 currently sitting behind my right hip.



SenseiHitman said:


> I train with weapons so I can understand them in order to develop good strategies to defend against them.



This is a fairly ridiculous thing to say. I'm standing 10 feet away from you with the aforementioned Glock 19 aimed at you. What possible defense do you think you're going to be able to develop against that? You think karma is going to deflect the bullet, maybe?



SenseiHitman said:


> I know that people who carry guns for self defense are cowards hiding behind the weapon to be safe.



There are rules against name calling and insulting people on this forum, you know.

There are a number of us on this forum who have and do face physical violence on a regular basis. Some of us carry guns. Two of those (that I know of, it could well be more) have been forced to cause serious injury or death to an assailant.
But you're going to brand us all as cowards. 
I'm going to refrain from saying what I'd like to say, because it would violate the TOS here.



SenseiHitman said:


> There is no safety for those who hide behind guns.



There's more safety behind a gun than there is behind karma.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

SenseiHitman said:


> I know that people who carry guns for self defense are cowards hiding behind the weapon to be safe.



Based on my personal experience carrying and working with people that carry every day, I would have to say that this is a ridiculous statement!


----------



## Tgace

Dirty Dog said:


> Go ahead and rely on karma. I'll stick with something with a bit better chance of actually keeping me alive. Like the Glock 19 currently sitting behind my right hip.



I think I'll name my pistol "karma"....

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## SenseiHitman

Karma is the most powerful weapon available. The word karma means action in English.  Our actions cause re-actions.  I do not go places that my instincts tell me are not safe. I do not cheat people when I do business.  I do not take things that don't belong to me.  I refuse to have a line of work that requires me to hurt people or animals in any way, or carry a firearm. I carry no weapons and have no ill will for my fellow man.  I prefer to follow the eightfold path of the Buddha.  Karma is the weapon of the true Kempo master. Not only will my karma keep me safe, it will also lead me to a long and happy/healthy life. Well so far so good anyway.


----------



## SenseiHitman

Their are two old sayings in Kempo that apply here.  1)" If I need a weapon my opponent will bring it for me. "  2) " Any weapon you don't understand is a weapon that can be used against you." I have done more firearms training than one would think from reading my post.  I know to carry any weapon is a great responsibility and just cause you point and shoot it does not mean the bullet will hit the target. In a real firefight many rounds miss and if you use the weapon out of its environment (close range) then the strength of the weapon (reach ) become it's weakness.  Of course, if someone decided to pull a gun on me and shoot me I would die if they did it the right way ( from a distance and from behind ) however, if they tried to take me hostage and were using the gun for the leverage to get me to comply they better do it like a true pro or I will kill them.


----------



## Dirty Dog

SenseiHitman said:


> Karma is the most powerful weapon available.



Bwahahahahaha



SenseiHitman said:


> The word karma means action in English.



No, it does not.


> Karma: the force generated by a person's actions held in Hinduism and Buddhism to perpetuate transmigration and in its ethical consequences to determine the nature of the person's next existence



So I guess what you're trying to say is that after you're killed, your karma will help you have a better next live.
It certainly will not keep THIS life going.


----------



## Tez3

Basic Buddhism: The Theory of Karma


----------



## jondoe297

Not sure if "senseihitman" is serious...or epic troll.


----------



## pgsmith

jondoe297 said:


> Not sure if "senseihitman" is serious...or epic troll.


  I vote for troll. Either that, or he's seen *way* too many reruns of Kung Fu.


----------



## Grenadier

*Admin's Note:*

This forum is for the discussion of weaponry, but not the political (or religious) aspects of it.  If you wish to engage in political / religious / philosophical discussions pertaining to weaponry, you are encouraged to take such matters to a different forum.  The Forum Foundry does have such a place:

US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## donald1

pgsmith said:


> I vote for troll. Either that, or he's seen *way* too many reruns of Kung Fu.


Nonsense.  You can never watch too many kungfu movies. And besides, performing backspinning 360 round house kicks off roofs and breaking bricks is perfectly safe.


----------



## Langenschwert

SenseiHitman said:


> Their are two old sayings in Kempo that apply here.  1)" If I need a weapon my opponent will bring it for me. "



There's a technical term for that: hubris.

Usually when an opponent brings a weapon for you, they'll bury it in your skull or someplace else uncomfortable and generally fatal. If someone brings a weapon, it's a far better plan to see if you can run faster scared than they can angry.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

kehcorpz said:


> On the other hand though it's also really scary imo. I mean do you even feel safe outside in public places knowing that somebody could shoot at you at ANY time?



Why would anyone be afraid of a law abiding citizen carrying a firearm in a public place?  By definition they are a law abiding citizen and thus are not a danger to anyone.  In fact, statistically you are safer.  In an active shooter scenario and average of 14 people have been shot if the police are the ones to respond and stop the shooter.  Whereas if a private citizen is in attendance and on scene only two people have been shot prior to the shooter being stopped (by the armed citizen).  Since neither criminals nor terrorists obey gun laws or are stopped by a sign that says *Gun Free Zone* the only viable option is personal protection.  Which beats relying on someone else to do what you should be doing for yourself.  



> Do you think about this when you go outside or do you suppress these thoughts that a terrorist or crazy person could stop opening fire at any second?



If I lived in a country with draconian gun laws I'd be afraid as well.  Disarmed citizens in other countries have no viable option of defense against a criminal or terrorist armed with a firearm.  Think of it this way;  two wolves and a sheep are voting on what to have for dinner.  An unarmed sheep IS dinner.  An armed sheep gets to contest the vote.


----------



## Steve

There was an armed LEO on site working extra duty at the pulse night club.   OPD Adam Gruler exchanged gunfire with the bad guy, who went deeper into the club and continued shooting people.


----------



## Flying Crane

Steve said:


> There was an armed LEO on site working extra duty at the pulse night club.   OPD Adam Gruler exchanged gunfire with the bad guy, who went deeper into the club and continued shooting people.


I don't know the details of that situation, but it seems to me that in a dark, noisy, crowded night club, anybody pulling a gun to engage the bad guy runs a huge risk of severe escalation of the problem.  In the confusion, nobody knows who are the bad guys and who are the good guys, including the cops who arrive, and everyone end up shooting at each other.  And the bullets that go astray into a crowded night club, well gee, who else gets hit...


----------



## sgraves

JowGaWolf said:


> The U.S. is a really big place so even though a lot of people get shot here,  Many more people don't get shot when they go out in public.  The majority of gun violence happens around bad elements, drug dealers, gangs and the neighborhoods they live in.  The chance of being shot in those areas are so much greater than other areas.  My guess is that this is no different than other countries where bad areas increase the risk of something bad happening to you.
> 
> The gun shootings that take up most of the news are those done by bad elements, those done by someone that who is mentally unstable, or those that are accidental shootings. When I was living in Baltimore Maryland, I was really concerned about gun because I was living around bad elements.
> People are more worried about getting a speeding ticket than about being shot.
> 
> The only time you'll actually be worried about being shot is if you lived in some of the bad areas in the U.S. where you hear gun shots every night and where stray bullets hit houses.


your last statement is very untrue


----------



## Steve

Flying Crane said:


> I don't know the details of that situation, but it seems to me that in a dark, noisy, crowded night club, anybody pulling a gun to engage the bad guy runs a huge risk of severe escalation of the problem.  In the confusion, nobody knows who are the bad guys and who are the good guys, including the cops who arrive, and everyone end up shooting at each other.  And the bullets that go astray into a crowded night club, well gee, who else gets hit...


It's always something, isn't it?   In this case, I was responding to an assumption with a fact to the contrary.   This cop exchanged gunfire with the bad guy, who went deeper into the club to shoot more people.   I total, I think 11 cops fired shots at the pulse nightclub over like three hours.  

My point is that a good guy with a gun isn't the panacea that "guns for self defense" crowd would like people to believe.


----------



## Charlemagne

Published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.  http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

A report from the CDC on Gun Violence
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/pr...reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence


Neither say what the gun grabbing people wish they did and they are worth reading.  

However, at the end of the day this is very simple.  Violent crime is down, while gun ownership is up. Causation is impossible without correlation. Since the trends are in the opposite direction, the only possible correlation is an inverse one. Therefore, statistically, the only potential for a cause and effect relationship between guns and violent crime would be that guns cause less of it, not more. Anyone with the most basic statistical understanding can determine this for themselves, study or otherwise.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Flying Crane said:


> I don't know the details of that situation, but it seems to me that in a dark, noisy, crowded night club, anybody pulling a gun to engage the bad guy runs a huge risk of severe escalation of the problem.  In the confusion, nobody knows who are the bad guys and who are the good guys, including the cops who arrive, and everyone end up shooting at each other.  And the bullets that go astray into a crowded night club, well gee, who else gets hit...



Let's examine the scenario that happened.  The club was a Gun Free Zone.  Law abiding citizens in the club were unarmed because they obeyed the sign.  A bad guy (terrorist and/or criminal) disregarded the Gun Free Zone policy and in fact new it to be a gun free zone ahead of time.  Result, just over 100 people shot and about half killed.  

Now, what if only 10% of the folks in the club had their CCW and were carrying their personally owned firearm that night.  Let's go a step further and say that they were the 'designated carrier' in the group just like you have the 'designated driver'.  I don't have an issue with that at all.  Could someone have been shot accidentally?  Absolutely.  But could the bad guy have been stopped before he had shot 100 people?  At least you would have had the opportunity.  Again, stats bear out that in active shooter situations far fewer people are shot when an armed citizen ends the attack rather than waiting for the police to arrive.  

Think of it another way;  those people that were shot were American citizens.  They had second amendment rights but those rights were violated by a sign and a policy.  As such they had to depend upon other people for their protection.  We see the results of that.  Far better to be armed and have options than to be unarmed and at the mercy of a terrorist/criminal's mercy.


----------



## Flying Crane

Steve said:


> It's always something, isn't it?   In this case, I was responding to an assumption with a fact to the contrary.   This cop exchanged gunfire with the bad guy, who went deeper into the club to shoot more people.   I total, I think 11 cops fired shots at the pulse nightclub over like three hours.
> 
> My point is that a good guy with a gun isn't the panacea that "guns for self defense" crowd would like people to believe.


Oh I agree with your point.  And in my mind, in a situation like this, it could very well make it worse.  Same thing in the Aurora, CO theater shooting, during the Batman opening.  Mass confusion, dark and crowded theater, loud movie with movie gunfire.  It's a very bad recipe.  Throwing additional guns into the mix would be a disaster.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

I've offered these before, they are applicable here:

An armed society is a polite society

The Armed Citizen


----------



## Flying Crane

Kong Soo Do said:


> Let's examine the scenario that happened.  The club was a Gun Free Zone.  Law abiding citizens in the club were unarmed because they obeyed the sign.  A bad guy (terrorist and/or criminal) disregarded the Gun Free Zone policy and in fact new it to be a gun free zone ahead of time.  Result, just over 100 people shot and about half killed.
> 
> Now, what if only 10% of the folks in the club had their CCW and were carrying their personally owned firearm that night.  Let's go a step further and say that they were the 'designated carrier' in the group just like you have the 'designated driver'.  I don't have an issue with that at all.  Could someone have been shot accidentally?  Absolutely.  But could the bad guy have been stopped before he had shot 100 people?  At least you would have had the opportunity.  Again, stats bear out that in active shooter situations far fewer people are shot when an armed citizen ends the attack rather than waiting for the police to arrive.
> 
> Think of it another way;  those people that were shot were American citizens.  They had second amendment rights but those rights were violated by a sign and a policy.  As such they had to depend upon other people for their protection.  We see the results of that.  Far better to be armed and have options than to be unarmed and at the mercy of a terrorist/criminal's mercy.


And the first guy who pulls his gun to return fire, in the confusion, is mistaken as a collaborator by the next guy with a gun, who pulls his weapon and fires at the first, misses and hits someone else, and then another guy pulls his gun to fire back at the second guy, etc. and it gets worse.


----------



## Flying Crane

Charlemagne said:


> Published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.  http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
> 
> A report from the CDC on Gun Violence
> http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/pr...reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence
> 
> 
> Neither say what the gun grabbing people wish they did and they are worth reading.
> 
> However, at the end of the day this is very simple.  Violent crime is down, while gun ownership is up. Causation is impossible without correlation. Since the trends are in the opposite direction, the only possible correlation is an inverse one. Therefore, statistically, the only potential for a cause and effect relationship between guns and violent crime would be that guns cause less of it, not more. Anyone with the most basic statistical understanding can determine this for themselves, study or otherwise.


Um, no, there is not an automatic correlation there.  

This discussion is going in the direction of the Political, and I believe that is no longer allowed here so I'm not going to continue with it.  

You all are welcome to your opinions on it, as are we all


----------



## Charlemagne

Flying Crane said:


> Um, no, there is not an automatic correlation there.



Didn't say there was.  

I said that when you have trend lines going in the opposite direction, the only possible correlation is negative, which is true.  If significant correlations could be established, then any prediction equation that could be developed through regression analysis would be a negative one.  Therefore, if there is any sort of cause and effect relationship, it is also a negative one, which is also true.


----------



## jks9199

“‘The Good Guy With a Gun’ Myth is BS” called into question.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Steve said:


> It's always something, isn't it?   In this case, I was responding to an assumption with a fact to the contrary.   This cop exchanged gunfire with the bad guy, who went deeper into the club to shoot more people.   I total, I think 11 cops fired shots at the pulse nightclub over like three hours.
> 
> My point is that a good guy with a gun isn't the panacea that "guns for self defense" crowd would like people to believe.



I would respectfully disagree:

Guns in America | Facts and statistics about firearms in the USA


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Flying Crane said:


> And the first guy who pulls his gun to return fire, in the confusion, is mistaken as a collaborator by the next guy with a gun, who pulls his weapon and fires at the first, misses and hits someone else, and then another guy pulls his gun to fire back at the second guy, etc. and it gets worse.



And where do you find that happening?  Certainly it is a consideration, but considering the alternative it isn't a big consideration.  As I mentioned, there 'could' be injuries due to friendly fire.  There 'could' be mistaken identity.  But there WAS 100 people shot without any means to protect themselves.  You may want to read the studies in the links I provided as well as JKS.


----------



## Flying Crane

Charlemagne said:


> Didn't say there was.
> 
> I said that when you have trend lines going in the opposite direction, the only possible correlation is negative, which is true.  If significant correlations could be established, then any prediction equation that could be developed through regression analysis would be a negative one.  Therefore, if there is any sort of cause and effect relationship, it is also a negative one, which is also true.


Gotcha.  I misread


----------



## Flying Crane

Kong Soo Do said:


> And where do you find that happening?  Certainly it is a consideration, but considering the alternative it isn't a big consideration.  As I mentioned, there 'could' be injuries due to friendly fire.  There 'could' be mistaken identity.  But there WAS 100 people shot without any means to protect themselves.  You may want to read the studies in the links I provided as well as JKS.


It didn't play out like that because the rest of the population in the night club either was not armed, or chose to not pull their weapons and exchange fire.  If more people had engaged, it is highly likely that it would have been worse.

This is not difficult to grasp.

It's a bad situation, without good options.  And no, adding more guns to that situation would not have been a good option.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Flying Crane said:


> It didn't play out like that because the rest of the population in the night club either was not armed, or chose to not pull their weapons and exchange fire.



I have seen no reports that anyone was armed other than the off duty officer working as security at the door.  Since it was a Gun Free Zone it is likely that no private citizen was armed, and certainly no one used a firearm against the attacker.  They had to rely upon the response of the police.  That netted 100 people being shot with a 50% fatality rate.



Flying Crane said:


> If more people had engaged, it is highly likely that it would have been worse.



Highly likely?  Based upon what are you basing these conclusions?  The actual studies indicate that six times more people are shot in an active shooter situation if the police are the ones to respond and stop the shooter than if an armed citizen stops the attacker.  The armed citizen is there, in attendance and on the scene when the active shooter engages.  Armed citizens stop three times as many violent felons annually than police.  

Doesn't mean that an armed citizen will be able to stop a particular attack, but it's a definite that an unarmed citizen won't be able to stop an attack (unless they are able to get close enough to an active shooter to disable him/her with an improvised weapon, and I'm not real excited about those odds).


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Flying Crane said:


> It's a bad situation, without good options.  And no, adding more guns to that situation would not have been a good option.



Yes, it was a bad situation.  But I disagree, respectfully that adding armed citizens to the equation would not have provided additional options that very well may have improved the situation.  Studies bear that out.

And this also opens the question of the Gun Free Zone.  With very few exceptions, active shootings happen in Gun Free Zones.  The reason is obvious, law abiding citizens obey the sign, terrorists and criminals don't.  And we know that this individual scoped out this location and knew it was a Gun Free Zone (as did other active shooters).  That's why it was chosen.  Had this NOT have been a posted GFZ the terrorist 'may' not have chosen the venue.  Crime has consistently gone down where citizens are armed and has consistently gone up where citizens rights are infringed.


----------



## Charlemagne

Flying Crane said:


> Gotcha.  I misread



It happens.  No worries.


----------



## Flying Crane

Kong Soo Do said:


> Yes, it was a bad situation.  But I disagree, respectfully that adding armed citizens to the equation would not have provided additional options that very well may have improved the situation.  Studies bear that out.
> 
> And this also opens the question of the Gun Free Zone.  With very few exceptions, active shootings happen in Gun Free Zones.  The reason is obvious, law abiding citizens obey the sign, terrorists and criminals don't.  And we know that this individual scoped out this location and knew it was a Gun Free Zone (as did other active shooters).  That's why it was chosen.  Had this NOT have been a posted GFZ the terrorist 'may' not have chosen the venue.  Crime has consistently gone down where citizens are armed and has consistently gone up where citizens rights are infringed.


I'm ok with disagreement


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Flying Crane said:


> I'm ok with disagreement



Cool 

Please understand where I'm coming from on this issue.  I'm a military veteran.  I'm an active Deputy (24 years).  Sherrif's Offices are the ONLY Constitutional L.E. agencies (all others are created by statute).  This means that the S.O. should be first and foremost defending the Constitution and people's rights.  Not everyone is that way, but I swore and oath to uphold and defend the COTUS and I take that seriously.  

Americans have 2A rights.  It is a personal choice to own (keep) and/or carry (bear) a firearm.  I respect the choice either way.  But personal protection is exactly that...personal.  It isn't to be outsourced.  These folks in a GFZ club had their rights infringed.  As a result, they had no viable option but to be victims.  The results were horrific.  A firearm isn't a death ray and bullets aren't magic.  But an armed citizen has options an unarmed citizen doesn't.


----------



## JowGaWolf

sgraves said:


> your last statement is very untrue


How is it very untrue"?


----------



## sgraves

JowGaWolf said:


> How is it very untrue"?


a person can get shot any where not just in those neighborhoods ,its happening more and more every day.feeling safe and secure anywhere nowadays is impossible a person should always be ready no matter where they are


----------



## JowGaWolf

sgraves said:


> a person can get shot any where not just in those neighborhoods ,its happening more and more every day.feeling safe and secure anywhere nowadays is impossible a person should always be ready no matter where they are


Getting shot and being worried about getting shot are 2 different things.  One has nothing to do with the other.


----------



## sgraves

JowGaWolf said:


> Getting shot and being worried about getting shot are 2 different things.  One has nothing to do with the other.


yes it does,but this isn't a discussion for the post so ill leave it alone .


----------



## Flying Crane

Kong Soo Do said:


> Cool
> 
> Please understand where I'm coming from on this issue.  I'm a military veteran.  I'm an active Deputy (24 years).  Sherrif's Offices are the ONLY Constitutional L.E. agencies (all others are created by statute).  This means that the S.O. should be first and foremost defending the Constitution and people's rights.  Not everyone is that way, but I swore and oath to uphold and defend the COTUS and I take that seriously.
> 
> Americans have 2A rights.  It is a personal choice to own (keep) and/or carry (bear) a firearm.  I respect the choice either way.  But personal protection is exactly that...personal.  It isn't to be outsourced.  These folks in a GFZ club had their rights infringed.  As a result, they had no viable option but to be victims.  The results were horrific.  A firearm isn't a death ray and bullets aren't magic.  But an armed citizen has options an unarmed citizen doesn't.


I can respect your position on it.  Like I say, it's a bad situation with zero good options.  And it could go either way.  That hero citizen (or five) could take down the bad guy and end it, or he could make it ten times worse or more.  There are too many variables to say with certainty, especially in a scenario like this one or the Aurora theater, and personally I believe that in this kind of scenario it is far more likely to go badly. There may be other scenarios where a hero citizen has a better chance at it, but I do not believe this scenario is that case.

But yeah in principle I can recognize the possibility. 

However, I can't help but believe that the automatic solution, every time there is another mass shooting, regardless of the details, is to throw more guns into the equation in the hands of unknown citizens, is unrealistic in the extreme, even reckless and foolish.  More guns is not automatically the answer.


----------



## Steve

Kong Soo Do said:


> I would respectfully disagree:
> 
> Guns in America | Facts and statistics about firearms in the USA


Disagree with what?  I stated a fact.


----------



## pgsmith

Kong Soo Do said:


> Americans have 2A rights. It is a personal choice to own (keep) and/or carry (bear) a firearm. I respect the choice either way. But personal protection is exactly that...personal. It isn't to be outsourced. These folks in a GFZ club had their rights infringed. As a result, they had no viable option but to be victims. The results were horrific. A firearm isn't a death ray and bullets aren't magic. But an armed citizen has options an unarmed citizen doesn't.



  While I tend to agree with your feelings here, I've also seen way too many drunk idiots in bars here in Texas that I would definitely NOT want to see them carrying. Until and unless a very stout penalty for carrying while drinking can be devised, I think it's a much safer bet all around to bar concealed weapons from bars.


----------



## Flying Crane

I think it could be very interesting to run an experiment on this, if safety and ethical issues could be worked out while maintaining enough uncertainty and surprise to get genuine reactions from the participants.

Basically set up a night club experience with 200 people, complete with bar and dance floor, dimly lit with flashing disco lights and loud, pulsating music, even a fog machine.  Maybe even real alcohol, keep things going for a while first until people relax and forget a bit.  Give low-capacity paintball pistols to 5 people, all unknown to each other.  Tell them to enjoy the club, but if they see someone with a paintball gun, they are to try and take that person out, and if they think they can get the shot, feel free to take it, their mission is to prevent others from bein shot. 

Then, have the "perpetrator" come in with a high-capacity rapid-fire paintball gun, who opens fire on the crowd.  The crowd is instructed that if hit by a paintball, to drop down on one knee to designate wounded or dead.  See how the five deal with the situation.  And, to simulate nerves and stress, maybe misalign their gun sites just a bit so they are not as accurate.

Then, have additional people enter as "police" who are looking for an active shooter, and open fire on anyone they see with a paintball gun, b cause they don't know who the perp is.

All people with paintball guns have a different color paint.  When it's all over, see who was shot, and by whom.

The five who are issued guns do not necessarily have any experience with them, beyond basic, because in areas where concealed carry is allowed, it could be anybody, not necessarily someone with lots of training and high level skills.

That would be a very interesting experiment.


----------



## Juany118

Steve said:


> It's always something, isn't it?   In this case, I was responding to an assumption with a fact to the contrary.   This cop exchanged gunfire with the bad guy, who went deeper into the club to shoot more people.   I total, I think 11 cops fired shots at the pulse nightclub over like three hours.
> 
> My point is that a good guy with a gun isn't the panacea that "guns for self defense" crowd would like people to believe.



The last point is true.  In this case, before police arrival, an armed off duty officer working security exchanged gun fire with the suspect.  The following are facts that create the dynamic.

1. The vast majority of people do not train to shoot the way you should/need to for defense in public.  Just shooting at paper is a small part of the issue.  I regularly shoot a 296 (out of 300) in qualification, I know my accuracy will drop by at least 25% however in real shootings even though I do the following, which most people (and sadly most other cops in my experience) do not do.  Now some of these are lacking due to lack of access but that doesnt change they are missing.
   a. Stress shooting.  While it is hard to truly mirror the physiological and psychological effects of combat you have to address the effects of combat  This Is Your Brain On War
   b. Moving targets...bad guys move.
   c. You shooting while moving or from cover.  If you don't do this you die.
   d. Shooting in low light conditions.  Most shooting incidents occur in crap light.
   e. Proper target discrimination.  In the Gabby Gifford shooting bystanders had to restrain an armed civilian as he was going to shoot the wrong guy.
   f. Lack of knowledge of self defense laws.  I have had to explain to people regularly "no you can't shoot someone over a verbal threat to do harm", "no you can't shoot someone simply because they are in your backyard" and "yes you can use lethal force to defend yourself or others but if they are running away, even in your home, that isn't self defense."

2. Note, the following is largely only an issue in an Active Shooter Scenario like Orlando.  If there is an active shooter situation and LE make entry if they see an armed subject there is a VERY good chance that the person will be shot, even if they are a civilian responding.  When we train schools and businesses in how to address active shooters we say "run>hide>fight" and if somehow the bad guy loses a gun NOT to pick it up, secure it by putting a trash can over it or something but if cops enter a room, see bodies everywhere and someone standing over the bodies....unlike TV police are not required to say "drop the gun" and wait.

   An example of this is the Oregon College shooting.  There were actually a number of armed veterans at a lounge reserved for students who were veterans.  They considered moving to the sounds of gun fire as they were trained but then though "in this chaos what will responding LEOs do when they see unidentified subjects running across an open area brandishing guns?" So they thought the better of it.

    The above is not a comment on whether gun ownership and/or concealed carry is right or wrong...only that more guns does not necessarily = safer society.


----------



## Juany118

Back to the OPs point.  Some people in the US are highly concerned about guns in our society.  That said, in my experience most people, even NRA members agree with sensible gun laws, even new ones, like Universal Background checks.

The reason?  Due to the 2nd Amendment, and how our Nation expanded westward, the US has been a gun culture almost since its founding and so because of this guns are seen by a great many as little different than any other tool.

There is something else to note.  There was once a time in England where all men between certain ages were required to own a bow and practice on a particular day, Sunday if I recall.  The Early USA had a similar law, the Militia act.  The only permenant professional military force authorized by the Constitution is the Navy.  

The Founders had concerns regarding a standing Army and the Army could only be funded by legislation that even today needs to be regularly reauthorized.  As such men and boys between certain ages were required, by the Militia Act, to own a rifle or musket, a nap sack, a powder horn (with powder) and a certain amount of shot (less shot for rifles than muskets) reserved for Militia Service.  The formal Militia was actually still a matter of law until the early 20th Century when the Act was Amended.  The Militia then became informal and unregulated, and the "Regulated Militia" was replaced by the National Guard.


----------



## Charlemagne

Juany118 said:


> Due to the 2nd Amendment, and how our Nation expanded westward, the US has been a gun culture almost since its founding and so because of this guns are seen by a great many as little different than any other tool.



Because they aren't.  Far more people die in car wrecks each year then are shot, and more people are murdered with hammers then they are guns.


----------



## Juany118

Charlemagne said:


> Because they aren't.  Far more people die in car wrecks each year then are shot, and more people are murdered with hammers then they are guns.



I am trying to avoid politics and get this back on track in a way that addresses facts without overt politicization.  There is a sub-form for such discussions under the "General Talk" tab specifically for political debates.  I would suggest, and I think the mods would appreciate, that such a debate be moved there?


----------



## jks9199

Folks -- this is starting to stray into politics again.  We actually closed the political stuff here at Martial Talk.  If you want to talk politics, rather than use, tactics, strategy, etc. of guns, pop on over to US Message Board.


----------



## Steve

Juany118 said:


> The last point is true.  In this case, before police arrival, an armed off duty officer working security exchanged gun fire with the suspect.  The following are facts that create the dynamic.
> 
> 1. The vast majority of people do not train to shoot the way you should/need to for defense in public.  Just shooting at paper is a small part of the issue.  I regularly shoot a 296 (out of 300) in qualification, I know my accuracy will drop by at least 25% however in real shootings even though I do the following, which most people (and sadly most other cops in my experience) do not do.  Now some of these are lacking due to lack of access but that doesnt change they are missing.
> a. Stress shooting.  While it is hard to truly mirror the physiological and psychological effects of combat you have to address the effects of combat  This Is Your Brain On War
> b. Moving targets...bad guys move.
> c. You shooting while moving or from cover.  If you don't do this you die.
> d. Shooting in low light conditions.  Most shooting incidents occur in crap light.
> e. Proper target discrimination.  In the Gabby Gifford shooting bystanders had to restrain an armed civilian as he was going to shoot the wrong guy.
> f. Lack of knowledge of self defense laws.  I have had to explain to people regularly "no you can't shoot someone over a verbal threat to do harm", "no you can't shoot someone simply because they are in your backyard" and "yes you can use lethal force to defend yourself or others but if they are running away, even in your home, that isn't self defense."
> 
> 2. Note, the following is largely only an issue in an Active Shooter Scenario like Orlando.  If there is an active shooter situation and LE make entry if they see an armed subject there is a VERY good chance that the person will be shot, even if they are a civilian responding.  When we train schools and businesses in how to address active shooters we say "run>hide>fight" and if somehow the bad guy loses a gun NOT to pick it up, secure it by putting a trash can over it or something but if cops enter a room, see bodies everywhere and someone standing over the bodies....unlike TV police are not required to say "drop the gun" and wait.
> 
> An example of this is the Oregon College shooting.  There were actually a number of armed veterans at a lounge reserved for students who were veterans.  They considered moving to the sounds of gun fire as they were trained but then though "in this chaos what will responding LEOs do when they see unidentified subjects running across an open area brandishing guns?" So they thought the better of it.
> 
> The above is not a comment on whether gun ownership and/or concealed carry is right or wrong...only that more guns does not necessarily = safer society.


i appreciate these points, but don't understand how they are facts relevant to my post.   Are you suggesting that the Cop who was working extra duty as security was not well trained  or was unaware of the relevant laws?  It's very early, so maybe I'm just not tracking.


----------



## Flying Crane

Steve said:


> i appreciate these points, but don't understand how they are facts relevant to my post.   Are you suggesting that the Cop who was working extra duty as security was not well trained  or was unaware of the relevant laws?  It's very early, so maybe I'm just not tracking.


Bah!  It's not so early...


----------



## Charlemagne

Juany118 said:


> I am trying to avoid politics and get this back on track in a way that addresses facts without overt politicization.  There is a sub-form for such discussions under the "General Talk" tab specifically for political debates.  I would suggest, and I think the mods would appreciate, that such a debate be moved there?



Not trying to be a jerk, but isn't this entire thread about politics, or at least policy?  The premise from the OP is that the US allows guns while other countries might not.  That is a political issue, or I am missing something.  

As for my comment, it is a simple fact that cars, hammers, ladders, are more likely to get you killed then guns are.  Those numbers come from the CDC and FBI.


----------



## Juany118

Steve said:


> i appreciate these points, but don't understand how they are facts relevant to my post.   Are you suggesting that the Cop who was working extra duty as security was not well trained  or was unaware of the relevant laws?  It's very early, so maybe I'm just not tracking.



No sorry.  I was pointing to dynamics that make this true.

"My point is that a good guy with a gun isn't the panacea that "guns for self defense" crowd would like people to believe."

I mentioned cops to preempt a strawman argument I have had thrown at me before "well cops don't do X" either.  Sadly this is true, largely through no fault of their own.  I work in the Richest County in my State.  The County set up a regional training center with an indoor range that has moving targets and where can obviously control the lighting as well.  However some rural counties can't afford such a facility but the officers there tick off just about every other box so they are in a lot better shape than the typical civilian. They do shoot on the move, they do stress shooting to one degree or another, they do know the laws etc. Just budgets get in the way for a couple of the boxes..  So I was simply trying, apparently poorly to preempt an diversionary argument I have had countless times before


----------



## Juany118

Charlemagne said:


> Not trying to be a jerk, but isn't this entire thread about politics, or at least policy?  The premise from the OP is that the US allows guns while other countries might not.  That is a political issue, or I am missing something.
> 
> As for my comment, it is a simple fact that cars, hammers, ladders, are more likely to get you killed then guns are.  Those numbers come from the CDC and FBI.



No the premise was how the difference in the laws effects us mentally/emotionally as I read it so he was interested in the effect, not the cause, for lack of a better term. Basically "how do you guys feel about all those guns...people in my country would be scared to death." That is different than saying "do you guys agree with Law X".

 The cause is tied directly to politics, the mental and emotional effects across an entire society are only tangentially tied to the politics.


----------



## Charlemagne

Juany118 said:


> No the premise was how the difference in the laws effects us mentally/emotionally as I read it so he was interested in the effect, not the cause, for lack of a better term. Basically "how do you guys feel about all those guns...people in my country would be scared to death." That is different than saying "do you guys agree with Law X".
> 
> The cause is tied directly to politics, the mental and emotional effects across an entire society are only tangentially tied to the politics.



Either way, political issues are at the root of the situation.  If there was no cause, there would be no effect.  As such, they are likely to be a factor in any discussion related to the topic at hand.  If the mods want to close the thread, no worries on my end, but I personally don't see staying away from politics in a discussion with politics at the core of the situation.


----------



## Tez3

To be honest the title and question posed by the OP is actually so vague there isn't an answer. The question could have been what's it like to live in a country where they drive on the right. Those of us who live in countries which drive on the left are happy with it, see no reason to change and can quite happily drive on the right when visiting countries that require you to. Comparing countries, laws, customs and mindsets is also a pointless exercise and I suspect comparing different states, cities and towns in the US is probably pretty pointless as well.
It's well known throughout the world that in the US the arming or not of it's citizens is an emotive and contentious issue so I'm wondering if the OP was perhaps being somewhat disingenuous with his question hoping to provoke (perhaps that may be too strong a word but I don't know) arguments for and against what is called 'gun control'. I suspect on here the discussion may go around in circles and not provide any answers the OP is looking for.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Steve said:


> Are you suggesting that the Cop who was working extra duty as security was not well trained...



This question wasn't directed at me but I'd like to toss out a thought or two for consideration.  It would be interesting to know the actual extent of the off duty officers training.  Police, contrary to what you may think are not usually 'gun people'.  There are of course exceptions.  I've been a firearms instructor for just under 20 years for our agency.  Police/Deputies do get a fair amount of training (depending upon the budget of the agency) but many/most qualify only once per year.  That may be the only time a particular officer fires his/her weapon.  On the other hand there are many civilians that go to many courses and/or shoot competitively. 

A private citizen in any encounter could be just so-so trained or they could be highly trained with a firearm.  Person to person basis really.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Juany118 said:


> The last point is true.  In this case, before police arrival, an armed off duty officer working security exchanged gun fire with the suspect.  The following are facts that create the dynamic.
> 
> 1. The vast majority of people do not train to shoot the way you should/need to for defense in public.  Just shooting at paper is a small part of the issue.  I regularly shoot a 296 (out of 300) in qualification, I know my accuracy will drop by at least 25% however in real shootings even though I do the following, which most people (and sadly most other cops in my experience) do not do.  Now some of these are lacking due to lack of access but that doesnt change they are missing.
> a. Stress shooting.  While it is hard to truly mirror the physiological and psychological effects of combat you have to address the effects of combat  This Is Your Brain On War
> b. Moving targets...bad guys move.
> c. You shooting while moving or from cover.  If you don't do this you die.
> d. Shooting in low light conditions.  Most shooting incidents occur in crap light.
> e. Proper target discrimination.  In the Gabby Gifford shooting bystanders had to restrain an armed civilian as he was going to shoot the wrong guy.
> f. Lack of knowledge of self defense laws.  I have had to explain to people regularly "no you can't shoot someone over a verbal threat to do harm", "no you can't shoot someone simply because they are in your backyard" and "yes you can use lethal force to defend yourself or others but if they are running away, even in your home, that isn't self defense."
> 
> 2. Note, the following is largely only an issue in an Active Shooter Scenario like Orlando.  If there is an active shooter situation and LE make entry if they see an armed subject there is a VERY good chance that the person will be shot, even if they are a civilian responding.  When we train schools and businesses in how to address active shooters we say "run>hide>fight" and if somehow the bad guy loses a gun NOT to pick it up, secure it by putting a trash can over it or something but if cops enter a room, see bodies everywhere and someone standing over the bodies....unlike TV police are not required to say "drop the gun" and wait.
> 
> An example of this is the Oregon College shooting.  There were actually a number of armed veterans at a lounge reserved for students who were veterans.  They considered moving to the sounds of gun fire as they were trained but then though "in this chaos what will responding LEOs do when they see unidentified subjects running across an open area brandishing guns?" So they thought the better of it.
> 
> The above is not a comment on whether gun ownership and/or concealed carry is right or wrong...only that more guns does not necessarily = safer society.



I would add being able to operate the firearm from a variety of positions with either hand as well as being able to clear malfunctions using a variety of methods.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Charlemagne said:


> Because they aren't.  Far more people die in car wrecks each year then are shot, and more people are murdered with hammers then they are guns.



Correct.  Vehicle accident injuries far exceed the number of shooting injuries annually.  Between drunk driving and texting it's a ridiculous number of injuries.  With firearms you have to know the source of the data numbers.  Some groups that are anti-gun consider police shootings and law abiding citizens lawfully defending themselves as 'gun violence.  That skews the numbers in a dishonest way.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

kehcorpz said:


> i think clinton is also really scary. i heard many times that she should actually be in prison for lying.
> to me she doesn't look like she's right in her mind. i watched a video on youtube which only consisted
> of scenes where she laughed and this laughter already sounded disturbing. i think that by the way a person
> laughs you can already draw conclusions. for example if somebody always laughs really loud so that everybody can
> hear him it's a red flag to me.
> 
> anyway, i think even if somebody is against carrying guns in public then having guns at home for self-defense is a good thing imo.
> if a creep breaks into your house you should be allowed to defend it and not just call the police and hide in a closet. somebody who
> breaks into a house shouldn't complain afterwards if he gets shot in the head.


If you are going to judge people based upon a clip of their laughs, you're going to end up paranoid. None of us would survive that scrutiny, because we all look batshit crazy at least part of the time when we laugh.


----------



## Flying Crane

Kong Soo Do said:


> Correct.  Vehicle accident injuries far exceed the number of shooting injuries annually.  Between drunk driving and texting it's a ridiculous number of injuries.  With firearms you have to know the source of the data numbers.  Some groups that are anti-gun consider police shootings and law abiding citizens lawfully defending themselves as 'gun violence.  That skews the numbers in a dishonest way.


I agree with your points, however there is a bit of apples-to-oranges comparison going on. 

It lies in what the item was designed and intended to do.  

A car was never designed to be a weapon meant for killing people.  While it can be mis-used as one, the vast majority of car related deaths are accidents, even if those involved might not have been driving in a fully responsible way.  Add to that the fact that many many more people are driving, often multiple times every single day, and car use is much much greater than gun use.  

In contrast to a car, a gun is meant and designed and intended as a weapon for killing.  Granted, target shooting is another activity for which guns can be used, but the primary purpose of a gun is to kill.  While a target shooting  competition can be an activity of its own, the underlying reason for target shooting historically has been to sharpen ones skills with the gun, so as to be more effective in killing.  If a gun is being used as it was intended, then someone, either a person or an animal, has died.

Some guns are designed for hunting animals, but could easily be used on humans.  Others are designed for the military and are meant specifically for killing humans.  While regulations make it impractical for the average civilian to own a true military weapon, the civilian version of many of these weapons are really a very small step down from the military version.  The real difference lies in burst and full automatic capabilities, which are not found in the civilian versions.  That is really it.  However, the large capacity magazines, coupled with semi-automatic capability, makes these civilian versions very very close in performance, to the true military versions.  And the civilian versions are deliberately designed to look indistinguishable from the military version, at least to someone who is not very intimately familiar with some very minor differences. 

So, when someone shows up at a night club or a school with a weapon that is designed specifically for killing large numbers of people, and he then proceeds to kill a large number of people, well I'm sorry but that is a very different thing from deaths due to automobile accidents

Trying to compare those events as if they are apples-to-apples, is dishonest.

I'm wracking my brain, trying to remember the last time a head-on collision on the highway resulted in 50 dead and 50 wounded.  Nope, I'm not coming up with anything...


----------



## Steve

Kong Soo Do said:


> This question wasn't directed at me but I'd like to toss out a thought or two for consideration.  It would be interesting to know the actual extent of the off duty officers training.  Police, contrary to what you may think are not usually 'gun people'.  There are of course exceptions.  I've been a firearms instructor for just under 20 years for our agency.  Police/Deputies do get a fair amount of training (depending upon the budget of the agency) but many/most qualify only once per year.  That may be the only time a particular officer fires his/her weapon.  On the other hand there are many civilians that go to many courses and/or shoot competitively.
> 
> A private citizen in any encounter could be just so-so trained or they could be highly trained with a firearm.  Person to person basis really.


okay.  So, in the context of this thread, what's the actual point here?   Was this cop unqualified to perform his role as armed security for this club?


----------



## Steve

Flying Crane said:


> I agree with your points, however there is a bit of apples-to-oranges comparison going on.
> 
> It lies in what the item was designed and intended to do.
> 
> A car was never designed to be a weapon meant for killing people.  While it can be mis-used as one, the vast majority of car related deaths are accidents, even if those involved might not have been driving in a fully responsible way.  Add to that the fact that many many more people are driving, often multiple times every single day, and car use is much much greater than gun use.
> 
> In contrast to a car, a gun is meant and designed and intended as a weapon for killing.  Granted, target shooting is another activity for which guns can be used, but the primary purpose of a gun is to kill.  While a target shooting  competition can be an activity of its own, the underlying reason for target shooting historically has been to sharpen ones skills with the gun, so as to be more effective in killing.  If a gun is being used as it was intended, then someone, either a person or an animal, has died.
> 
> Some guns are designed for hunting animals, but could easily be used on humans.  Others are designed for the military and are meant specifically for killing humans.  While regulations make it impractical for the average civilian to own a true military weapon, the civilian version of many of these weapons are really a very small step down from the military version.  The real difference lies in burst and full automatic capabilities, which are not found in the civilian versions.  That is really it.  However, the large capacity magazines, coupled with semi-automatic capability, makes these civilian versions very very close in performance, to the true military versions.  And the civilian versions are deliberately designed to look indistinguishable from the military version, at least to someone who is not very intimately familiar with some very minor differences.
> 
> So, when someone shows up at a night club or a school with a weapon that is designed specifically for killing large numbers of people, and he then proceeds to kill a large number of people, well I'm sorry but that is a very different thing from deaths due to automobile accidents
> 
> Trying to compare those events as if they are apples-to-apples, is dishonest.
> 
> I'm wracking my brain, trying to remember the last time a head-on collision on the highway resulted in 50 dead and 50 wounded.  Nope, I'm not coming up with anything...


Totally agree, FC. And there's also the issue of saturation.   I see hundreds of cars every day.   I ride in a car several times per day, and have direct contact with cars, either avoiding them, riding in them etc every day.

I see a firearm in real life, outside of LeO, maybe once a month, and have seen one fired once in the last 5 years, and that was when my brother took me to the range.   

saturation makes a big difference, and if we consider how often people who see guns are injured or killed, the stats become quite a bit more alarming.   In my opinion.


----------



## Flying Crane

Steve said:


> Totally agree, FC. And there's also the issue of saturation.   I see hundreds of cars every day.   I ride in a car several times per day, and have direct contact with cars, either avoiding them, riding in them etc every day.
> 
> I see a firearm in real life, outside of LeO, maybe once a month, and have seen one fired once in the last 5 years, and that was when my brother took me to the range.
> 
> saturation makes a big difference, and if we consider how often people who see guns are injured or killed, the stats become quite a bit more alarming.   In my opinion.


Yeah, another good point there.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Flying Crane said:


> I agree with your points, however there is a bit of apples-to-oranges comparison going on.
> 
> It lies in what the item was designed and intended to do.
> 
> A car was never designed to be a weapon meant for killing people.  While it can be mis-used as one, the vast majority of car related deaths are accidents, even if those involved might not have been driving in a fully responsible way.  Add to that the fact that many many more people are driving, often multiple times every single day, and car use is much much greater than gun use.



I understand your point.  My comparison is more towards looking at both as tools.  As such, they are both tools that can be misused.  A vehicle is truly an exceptional invention.  But in the hands of someone under the influence or impaired or simply distracted it can be a truly dangerous thing. Whether or not it was designed as such, it still deals far greater harm than firearms ever could except in the advent of war.

Some firearms are designed to 'kill' such as in hunting.  This is humane.  Other weapons are designed to _stop the threat_.  There is a difference.  The military for example isn't as interested in killing an enemy soldier on the battlefield as they are wounding them.  From a logistical perspective it takes a far greater toll in finances as well as manpower to wound the enemy than it does killing them.  From a L.E. perspective, police don't 'shoot to kill' despite those that claim otherwise.  They (we) shoot to stop the threat.  As a result the bad guy may die, but that isn't the intent.  They (we) shoot for center mass because that is the biggest part of the anatomy that has the least amount of movement.  Safer for bystanders.



Flying Crane said:


> Others are designed for the military and are meant specifically for killing humans. While regulations make it impractical for the average civilian to own a true military weapon, the civilian version of many of these weapons are really a very small step down from the military version. The real difference lies in burst and full automatic capabilities, which are not found in the civilian versions. That is really it. However, the large capacity magazines, coupled with semi-automatic capability, makes these civilian versions very very close in performance, to the true military versions. And the civilian versions are deliberately designed to look indistinguishable from the military version, at least to someone who is not very intimately familiar with some very minor differences.



Agreed.  I would argue that civilians should have weapons on par with the military and not just 'close to' what the military has.  And the reason is because of the very existence of the 2A.  It wasn't for duck hunting.  And self defense was a byproduct of the main reason which is for the populace to be able to overthrow the government should it ever become a tyranny.  When one examines the climate in which our founding fathers lived, their reasoning in COTUS as well as individual quotes and writings it is clear they wanted a strongly armed populace.  I have no issues with law abiding private citizens owning such weapons.  Because they're law abiding private citizens.  I don't fear a law abiding private citizen owning an AR-15 or an M-16 or an AK-47.  Just as I don't fear the person in the next lane waiting for the light to turn green so they can run to the store for milk and eggs.  I do fear a bad guy or terrorist with such weapons just as I fear a drunk driver or some idiot texting while driving.  But to restrict law abiding citizens from owning weapons due to the actions of a few would be no different from restricting people from owning automobiles due to the actions of a few.  Particularly since owning a weapon is a right and driving is not a right.



Flying Crane said:


> So, when someone shows up at a night club or a school with a weapon that is designed specifically for killing large numbers of people, and he then proceeds to kill a large number of people, well I'm sorry but that is a very different thing from deaths due to automobile accidents



I'm more upset about law abiding private citizens being denied the right to defend themselves because of a sign that uses flawed assumptions (i.e. that criminals and terrorists obey gun laws or posted signs).  And since FBI and other studies definitively demonstrate that armed citizens means fewer casualties in active shooter situations, denying private citizens their rights doesn't make sense.  Like I mentioned earlier, just as well have 'designated drivers' you could also have 'designated CCW'.  Armed citizens can make a difference and have made a difference.

And many Sheriff's and Chiefs have called on their citizens to carry a firearm and if they don't yet, call them for training.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Steve said:


> saturation makes a big difference, and if we consider how often people who see guns are injured or killed, the stats become quite a bit more alarming.   In my opinion.



I can't agree with your statement here Steve (again with respect).  There are over 80 million gun owners in the U.S. with nearly half a billion weapons.  Incidents with firearms are small in comparison, particularly when we consider range shooting, hunting, competitions and lawful shootings by police and civilians.  Media coverage can be, and is, very biased and saturated in comparison.  Tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of people see a gun every day and the experience is rather uninteresting.


----------



## Flying Crane

Sure, I understand this point of view and some of it I can find some agreement with and some of it I do not.  I personally do not feel that civilians need to have ready access to military grade weaponry.  The notion that the civilians will someday need to rise up and overthrow a tyrannical government in that fashion is something that I find completely uncompelling for a number of reasons.  But neither do I feel that civilians need to be completely and categorically disarmed.

The fact that the military, after doing research, chose a cartridge for its standard issue rifle that CAN be less than lethal, as part of a battlefield strategy of clogging the enemies resources with the needs of their own wounded soldiers, does not diminish the underlying lethality of the weapon and what it was designed for. 

Same thing with law enforcement.  I understand that firing at center of mass provides for the largest target.  However, as we all know, a number of essential bodily organs are located there, and a shot to the torso can very easily be lethal.  Redefining the intent as "stopping the threat" does not change that fact.  I would wager that if an officer chooses to fire his weapon at a suspect, death is the assumed outcome.  If the suspect survives, that is seen as a turn of luck.  This is not meant as a criticism of law enforcement.  I understand the job is tremendously stressful, and life-and-death decisions can be demanded in the blink of an eye.  I briefly considered a career in law enforcement, and decided against it because I realized I did not want to have to deal with those issues.

At any rate, the needs and intentions of military and law enforcement are not at issue here.  That is, and should be, something else altogether.  The issue is civilians killing civilians, and what tools are or ought to be available to them and under what circumstances, with which to do so.

But my main point to make there is that comparing deaths in car accidents with gun deaths, especially deliberate mass shootings, is not a comparison that makes any sense.  I actually feel that in many cases it is a deliberate distraction designed to take attention off the real issue: that tools designed specifically for killing many people are being used by civilians to kill many people, and that cannot be considered acceptable in our society.

That issue is a real problem, and sooner or later it will be dealt with in some manner.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Totally agree, FC. And there's also the issue of saturation.   I see hundreds of cars every day.   I ride in a car several times per day, and have direct contact with cars, either avoiding them, riding in them etc every day.
> 
> I see a firearm in real life, outside of LeO, maybe once a month, and have seen one fired once in the last 5 years, and that was when my brother took me to the range.
> 
> saturation makes a big difference, and if we consider how often people who see guns are injured or killed, the stats become quite a bit more alarming.   In my opinion.


Because some guns are concealed, we'd have to count the number of times people are in the immediate vicinity of a gun (which is probably unknowable, due to concealed carry). You can't hide a car like a gun. When a gun is deployed, it is nearly always visible, so counting only when they are visible skews the statistics radically.

Still, the comparison (as FC said) is apples to oranges.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Because some guns are concealed, we'd have to count the number of times people are in the immediate vicinity of a gun (which is probably unknowable, due to concealed carry). You can't hide a car like a gun. When a gun is deployed, it is nearly always visible, so counting only when they are visible skews the statistics radically.
> 
> Still, the comparison (as FC said) is apples to oranges.


I disagree. cars are actively being used for their intended purpose. and through this use, sometimes people are injured or killed. gun use is very rare. But as a percentage of times people are exposed to guns being used, the Tate of injury or death is pretty high. and this is being generous.

more Americans have been killed by guns since 1968 than in all US wars since the revolutionary war.


----------



## Flying Crane

Steve said:


> I disagree. cars are actively being used for their intended purpose. and through this use, sometimes people are injured or killed. gun use is very rare. But as a percentage of times people are exposed to guns being used, the Tate of injury or death is pretty high. and this is being generous.
> 
> more Americans have been killed by guns since 1968 than in all US wars since the revolutionary war.


And I just want to emphasize, the intended purpose of a car is benign.  It is not deliberately designed to kill.  In fact they are being designed to be as safe as possible.  If they kill, it is an accident, or someone is making a deliberate decision to use it in a way that it was not designed or intended.

Guns are designed and meant to kill.  That is their purpose.

Car use is heavily regulated.  We have speed limits, seat belt requirements, financial responsibility/insurance requirements, mandatory training and licensing, etc.  and that licensing can be revoked.

With guns, regulation varies tremendously from state to state, and in some areas it barely exists at all. The most vocal gun-rights advocates demand zero regulation.

I believe that some amount of regulation will be necessary, and some reasonable ground can be found.  If that is refused then eventually there will be draconian restrictions.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Flying Crane said:


> Sure, I understand this point of view and some of it I can find some agreement with and some of it I do not.  I personally do not feel that civilians need to have ready access to military grade weaponry.  The notion that the civilians will someday need to rise up and overthrow a tyrannical government in that fashion is something that I find completely uncompelling for a number of reasons.  But neither do I feel that civilians need to be completely and categorically disarmed.



This is how the United States began.  That was mainly why they were of a mind to ensure it could be done again and placed that as an inalienable right that cannot be infringed.  



Flying Crane said:


> The fact that the military, after doing research, chose a cartridge for its standard issue rifle that CAN be less than lethal, as part of a battlefield strategy of clogging the enemies resources with the needs of their own wounded soldiers, does not diminish the underlying lethality of the weapon and what it was designed for.
> 
> Same thing with law enforcement. I understand that firing at center of mass provides for the largest target. However, as we all know, a number of essential bodily organs are located there, and a shot to the torso can very easily be lethal. Redefining the intent as "stopping the threat" does not change that fact. I would wager that if an officer chooses to fire his weapon at a suspect, death is the assumed outcome. If the suspect survives, that is seen as a turn of luck.



This may be 'rabbit-trailing' the thread, but I think it's interesting and worthy of discussion.  Having been in the military and used an M16 I can attest that yes, it can be lethal.  But the overall intent is to wound and thereby using up the enemies resources.  This is why we changed from .45 ACP and .308 (among other calibers) from WWII to .223 in today's modern military.  In truth, the .223/5.56 is seen as inferior from a lethal perspective from a 7.63x39 or 2.63x54R as used by other military's around the world.  It is puffed up a bit by an uneducated media.

In terms of L.E. I would say that no, death is not the assumed and/or desired outcome for any officer firing their weapon.  Terminal ballistics is an odd and endlessly debated subject.  In short, a .22 LR could stop a 350lbs biker on meth in his tracks while multiple shotgun blasts fail to stop a small framed person.  Case in point that I've talked about before;  SSgt Carlos Hathcock (one of our best snipers ever) shot a small framed VC (IIRC) seven times in the upper torso with a Winchester Model 70 .308 sniper rifle.  The man was not only not stopped but charged Hathcock's position.  Only a head shot with that .308 in the head at close range stopped the VC.  People have been shot through the heart and not only lived but fought back (case in point the female LAPD officer shot through the heart with a .357 magnum and lived to return fire killing her attacker with three COM 9mm shots.

The COM (center of mass) does have vital organs but hitting a vital organ isn't the most reliable means of an instant stop.  The CNS (central nervous system) is more reliable.  But vital organs are the next best thing.  But the COM is the best/safest/thickest place to shoot someone from the perspective of hitting them and thereby reducing the risk of hitting bystanders or having a shoot-through.  Most people that get shot don't die.  They may be incapacitated (maybe), they may be maimed or they may be relatively unaffected.  Again, terminal ballistics is a rather odd duck to say the least.  But something like an AR15 has no special lethal properties to it above other rifles and as I've mentioned, is actually somewhat inferior to something like an AK-47 round (7.62x39) in some ways.  In other words, it is not the 'killer death ray' the media portrays it to be.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Flying Crane said:


> I believe that some amount of regulation will be necessary, and some reasonable ground can be found.  If that is refused then eventually there will be draconian restrictions.



More than enough regulation already exists.  The answer has never been to restrict law abiding citizens.  Depriving law abiding citizens of the means of defense AND the means to overthrow a tyrannical government is not the answer.  The answer has been with dealing harshly with criminals.  Three times as many bad guys are shot annually by law abiding armed citizens as are shot by police (FBI statistics).  

If truly draconian laws are ever attempted then you will see the second revolutionary war.


----------



## JowGaWolf

I can't  believe car deaths are being compared to gun deaths.  no one makes the argument to hop in a car when they want to kill someone.  with guns there is an intent to injure  or kills with the exception of target practice and accidental shootings. If I pull my gun out my intent is to hit what I'm pointing at. When I get in my car the goal is to travel without getting hit. Might as well compare health diseases as well.  if some wants to kill some else, a car is the last choice for a weapon


----------



## Kong Soo Do

JowGaWolf said:


> I can't  believe car deaths are being compared to gun deaths.  no one makes the argument to hop in a car when they want to kill someone.  with guns there is an intent to injure  or kills with the exception of target practice and accidental shootings. If I pull my gun out my intent is to hit what I'm pointing at. When I get in my car the goal is to travel without getting hit. Might as well compare health diseases as well.  if some wants to kill some else, a car is the last choice for a weapon



Your missing the point(s) that have been offered.  A tool is a tool.  The tool isn't to blame, the person misusing the tool is to blame.  Is a firearm designed to be a weapon?  Yes.  Is it to be feared in the hands of a law abiding citizen?  No.  Does violent crime go down in places where private citizens are routinely armed?  Yes.  Does crime go up with private citizen's (law abiding) Constitutional rights are infringed?  Yes.  

So again, the tool isn't the issue, it's the person using or misusing the tool that is the issue.  Attempting to take away the tool from law abiding citizens isn't the answer.


----------



## Flying Crane

Kong Soo Do said:


> This is how the United States began.  That was mainly why they were of a mind to ensure it could be done again and placed that as an inalienable right that cannot be infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> This may be 'rabbit-trailing' the thread, but I think it's interesting and worthy of discussion.  Having been in the military and used an M16 I can attest that yes, it can be lethal.  But the overall intent is to wound and thereby using up the enemies resources.  This is why we changed from .45 ACP and .308 (among other calibers) from WWII to .223 in today's modern military.  In truth, the .223/5.56 is seen as inferior from a lethal perspective from a 7.63x39 or 2.63x54R as used by other military's around the world.  It is puffed up a bit by an uneducated media.
> 
> In terms of L.E. I would say that no, death is not the assumed and/or desired outcome for any officer firing their weapon.  Terminal ballistics is an odd and endlessly debated subject.  In short, a .22 LR could stop a 350lbs biker on meth in his tracks while multiple shotgun blasts fail to stop a small framed person.  Case in point that I've talked about before;  SSgt Carlos Hathcock (one of our best snipers ever) shot a small framed VC (IIRC) seven times in the upper torso with a Winchester Model 70 .308 sniper rifle.  The man was not only not stopped but charged Hathcock's position.  Only a head shot with that .308 in the head at close range stopped the VC.  People have been shot through the heart and not only lived but fought back (case in point the female LAPD officer shot through the heart with a .357 magnum and lived to return fire killing her attacker with three COM 9mm shots.
> 
> The COM (center of mass) does have vital organs but hitting a vital organ isn't the most reliable means of an instant stop.  The CNS (central nervous system) is more reliable.  But vital organs are the next best thing.  But the COM is the best/safest/thickest place to shoot someone from the perspective of hitting them and thereby reducing the risk of hitting bystanders or having a shoot-through.  Most people that get shot don't die.  They may be incapacitated (maybe), they may be maimed or they may be relatively unaffected.  Again, terminal ballistics is a rather odd duck to say the least.  But something like an AR15 has no special lethal properties to it above other rifles and as I've mentioned, is actually somewhat inferior to something like an AK-47 round (7.62x39) in some ways.  In other words, it is not the 'killer death ray' the media portrays it to be.


Reality was very very different in the 1700s, from what it is today.  Our founding fathers could never have predicted or even dreamed of the weaponry we have now.

But that, and the ballistics discussion are still beside the point.  That point being, civilians are taking weapons designed to kill many people, and are using them to kill many people.  That is unacceptable.  I'd say there is still time to negotiate reasonable limits and regulations.  If nobody is willing to come to the table and have discussions in good faith, then the restrictions that come later will be much much stronger.


----------



## Flying Crane

Kong Soo Do said:


> If truly draconian laws are ever attempted then you will see the second revolutionary war.


no, we won't.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Flying Crane said:


> no, we won't.



Yes, we will.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kong Soo Do said:


> Your missing the point(s) that have been offered.  A tool is a tool.  The tool isn't to blame, the person misusing the tool is to blame.  Is a firearm designed to be a weapon?  Yes.  Is it to be feared in the hands of a law abiding citizen?  No.  Does violent crime go down in places where private citizens are routinely armed?  Yes.  Does crime go up with private citizen's (law abiding) Constitutional rights are infringed?  Yes.
> 
> So again, the tool isn't the issue, it's the person using or misusing the tool that is the issue.  Attempting to take away the tool from law abiding citizens isn't the answer.


what you say makes no sense. Everyone keeps talking about someone taking your guns and year after year more guns are sold. People have been using that excuse since Bill Clinton and nothing has happened. 
You can't control what people do but you can control what they get their hands on considerably better than the person.  You can't stop car wrecks from happening but you make laws that determines what type of vehicles can be on the road.


----------



## Flying Crane

Kong Soo Do said:


> Yes, we will.


Oh I realize the fantasy exists.  Some people believe they are going to lead a popular uprising and the masses of downtrodden oppressed gun owners will step up behind them and "take back" whatever America they think has been taken from them.  

But they will be sorely disappointed when it doesn't happen, and it's just them and a dozen buddies with their AR15s in their cinder block and tractor tire bunker, out on the prairie, and they look around and see nobody there to back them.

So then it becomes a standoff with government agents, until everyone gets hungry or bored or both and they all go home.  Unless someone gets REALLY stupid and opens fire on the agents.  Then they will all be mowed down, and the rest of us will watch it on the evening news as entertainment, and we will all shake our heads at the stupidity of it all.  And then we will all carry on with our lives and not even remember the names of the people involved.  It'll get a footnote in a history book somewhere.

That is what will happen.

Dump the fantasy.


----------



## Tgace

Instead of regurgitating what someone else wrote...

Why I “Need” an AR-15

What he said....


----------



## Tgace

JowGaWolf said:


> what you say makes no sense. Everyone keeps talking about someone taking your guns and year after year more guns are sold. People have been using that excuse since Bill Clinton and nothing has happened.
> You can't control what people do but you can control what they get their hands on considerably better than the person.  You can't stop car wrecks from happening but you make laws that determines what type of vehicles can be on the road.



Sorry...but after more than a decade and a half of LE work I disagree. Legislating "things" only restricts people who obey the rules. And this is from a Narcotics cop.

Laws work only when people are afraid of breaking them or are locked away from society after breaking them so they can't break them again.

If we want to keep bad things from happening with guns we need to look at the PERSON trying to buy the gun...not the slippery slope of gun banning. After semi-autos are outlawed and the next mass killing happens with a pump action shotgun I doubt everyone is going to say "well at least as wasn't as bad as if he had an AR". Hell the Virginia Tech shooter only had small caliber handguns...


----------



## Tgace

Flying Crane said:


> Reality was very very different in the 1700s, from what it is today.  Our founding fathers could never have predicted or even dreamed of the weaponry we have now.
> 
> But that, and the ballistics discussion are still beside the point.  That point being, civilians are taking weapons designed to kill many people, and are using them to kill many people.  That is unacceptable.  I'd say there is still time to negotiate reasonable limits and regulations.  If nobody is willing to come to the table and have discussions in good faith, then the restrictions that come later will be much much stronger.









The only functional difference between this hunting rifle and the "OMG DESIGNED TO KILL MANY PEOPLE" rifle is the magazine capacity of the mags most commonly used....

All the other stuff (pistol grips, collapsing stocks, bayonet lugs...seriously?) is just cosmetics that scare the ignorant.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I disagree. cars are actively being used for their intended purpose. and through this use, sometimes people are injured or killed. gun use is very rare. But as a percentage of times people are exposed to guns being used, the Tate of injury or death is pretty high. and this is being generous.
> 
> more Americans have been killed by guns since 1968 than in all US wars since the revolutionary war.


That has nothing to do with my assertion about the statistical validity of your statement. We have no accurate statistics about the rate of injury/death related to exposure, since we have no accurate statistics about actual exposure.


----------



## Tgace

Any discussion about the rate of "gun violence" coupled to "Assault Weapons" is a non-starter from the start.

Long guns of any sort are seldom used in "US Gun Crimes"...."Assault Weapons" dramatically less than that. 

Ya'll are falling victim to the "If it saves ONE life" mentality linked to media saturation of tragedies that are statistically minuscule. Handguns BY FAR do most of the killing in the USA. This hoopla over assault weapons is a side-show that allows politicians to bathe in the spot light.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tgace said:


> Any discussion about the rate of "gun violence" coupled to "Assault Weapons" is a non-starter from the start.
> 
> Long guns of any sort are seldom used in "US Gun Crimes"...."Assault Weapons" dramatically less than that.
> 
> Ya'll are falling victim to the "If it saves ONE life" mentality linked to media saturation of tragedies that are statistically minuscule. Handguns NY FAR do most of the killing in the USA. This hoopla over assault weapons is a side-show that allows politicians to bathe in the spot light.


Agreed. The statistical incidence of "assault weapon" (a difficult category to define properly, to begin with) violence is quite low. Most gun violence involves handguns, not long guns, yet it's the fear of "military-style weapons" that many use to promote change. I'm no adversary to changes if they are predicated on good principles, but please don't insult my intelligence by pointing at the scary-looking guns. Show me statistics, and aim at the weapons most likely to be used in crime.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Tgace said:


> Sorry...but after more than a decade and a half of LE work I disagree. Legislating "things" only restricts people who obey the rules. And this is from a Narcotics cop.
> 
> Laws work only when people are afraid of breaking them or are locked away from society after breaking them so they can't break them again.
> 
> If we want to keep bad things from happening with guns we need to look at the PERSON trying to buy the gun...not the slippery slope of gun banning. After semi-autos are outlawed and the next mass killing happens with a pump action shotgun I doubt everyone is going to say "well at least as wasn't as bad as if he had an AR". Hell the Virginia Tech shooter only had small caliber handguns...



I'm still waiting to see proof of where the government pushed to make a change to the second amendment.  Until you can show that then all of your "gun banning talks" are void.  It would take a constitutional amendment to ban guns in the U.S. and I yet to see one sent to congress.

Mass killings with a pump action shotgun?  Really.  That's the best you got? I guess that's why the army gives all of it's front line soldiers pump action shotguns to fight wars.  That's why in countries where there are hang gun bans, the weapon of choice for a mass shooting is a pump action shot gun.  

And as for you V.Tech shooter with small caliber handguns.  That just proves what many people already know including gun lovers.   Guns are made for killing.


----------



## Tgace

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. The statistical incidence of "assault weapon" (a difficult category to define properly, to begin with) violence is quite low. Most gun violence involves handguns, not long guns, yet it's the fear of "military-style weapons" that many use to promote change. I'm no adversary to changes if they are predicated on good principles, but please don't insult my intelligence by pointing at the scary-looking guns. Show me statistics, and aim at the weapons most likely to be used in crime.



And the statistics used regarding "Gun Violence" is so cooked and twisted that getting a clear picture of the problem is blocked by politics. Teenage gangbangers shooting each other with stolen (or straw purchased) guns in urban warzones are classified as "children killed with guns". Suicides are lumped into "gun violence" stats.

It's all so much ********.


----------



## Tgace

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm still waiting to see proof of where the government pushed to make a change to the second amendment.  Until you can show that then all of your "gun banning talks" are void.  It would take a constitutional amendment to ban guns in the U.S. and I yet to see one sent to congress.
> 
> Mass killings with a pump action shotgun?  Really.  That's the best you got? I guess that's why the army gives all of it's front line soldiers pump action shotguns to fight wars.  That's why in countries where there are hang gun bans, the weapon of choice for a mass shooting is a pump action shot gun.
> 
> And as for you V.Tech shooter with small caliber handguns.  That just proves what many people already know including gun lovers.   Guns are made for killing.



Y'all want to "ban assault rifles". What the F are you talking about?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tgace said:


> And the statistics used regarding "Gun Violence" is so cooked and twisted that getting a clear picture of the problem is blocked by politics. Teenage gangbangers shooting each other with stolen (or straw purchased) guns in urban warzones are classified as "children killed with guns". Suicides are lumped into "gun violence" stats.
> 
> It's all so much ********.


Yes. And I'd love to see some actual information. I'm not principally opposed to gun control. I simply won't accept it until there's some solid information presented. To date, all evidence presented in the US appears to be purposely skewed toward either gun control or gun ownership. Neither skewing is appropriate.


----------



## Tgace

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm still waiting to see proof of where the government pushed to make a change to the second amendment.  Until you can show that then all of your "gun banning talks" are void.  It would take a constitutional amendment to ban guns in the U.S. and I yet to see one sent to congress.
> 
> Mass killings with a pump action shotgun?  Really.  That's the best you got? I guess that's why the army gives all of it's front line soldiers pump action shotguns to fight wars.  That's why in countries where there are hang gun bans, the weapon of choice for a mass shooting is a pump action shot gun.
> 
> And as for you V.Tech shooter with small caliber handguns.  That just proves what many people already know including gun lovers.   Guns are made for killing.



BTW. The Navy Yard Shooter....look up what he used. I've seen the debrief.

Guns are made to send projectiles down range. I've competed in sports that used firearms that had nothing to do with "killing".


----------



## Tgace

And what are our politicians doing? Staging a sit-in because they could push through a "WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING" gun law that was based on a no-fly list.

While the idea had some bit of merit (terror suspects having limits to weapon purchases), the fact of the matter is that our current system is not "shovel ready" for this. 

As it exists, the no-fly list is a "zero due-process" system where anyone can wind up regardless of guilt or even accuracy. It's a mystery how people wind up on it and its a Byzantine monstrosity to get off of if you do. 

Denying people their Constitutional freedoms based on this list was a non-starter from the beginning and was FAR more politically motivated than it was ever a realistic proposition. Another one of those "lets pass it and see whats in it" proposals.

Some sort of database populated via a legal, just, and due-process controlled procedure IS the way to go IMO. But something is going to have to be "purpose built" to fit the bill.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Tgace said:


> Y'all want to "ban assault rifles". What the F are you talking about?


First of all who is "Y'all" referring to. Second,  Show me the legislation that was sent to congress to change the 2nd amendment. 

What people like you fail to realize, is that people like you aren't the only people with guns, and you sure aren't the only group in the U.S. that buys assault rifles.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Tgace said:


> BTW. The Navy Yard Shooter....look up what he used. I've seen the debrief.
> 
> Guns are made to send projectiles down range. I've competed in sports that used firearms that had nothing to do with "killing".


Your sport isn't made to kill.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Tgace said:


> Denying people their Constitutional freedoms based on this list was a non-starter from the beginning and was FAR more politically motivated than it was ever a realistic proposition. Another one of those "lets pass it and see whats in it" proposals.


Laws that go against the constitution can not be enforced which leads me back to what I've been asking for.

Show me where there was legislation that called for changes to the second amendment
""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  

I can tell you already what parts of this amendment has changed and it has nothing to do with guns.  A regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.  You couldn't get this even if you wanted it.  The military is so far advance than what any militia could be.  A militia couldn't defend a State even if they wanted to.  But even so.  Like I said. before.

Show me where there was legislation that called for changes to the second amendment.  As far as I know.  You can go to the store today or tomorrow and still buy a gun be it a rifle or a side arm.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Flying Crane said:


> Oh I realize the fantasy exists.  Some people believe they are going to lead a popular uprising and the masses of downtrodden oppressed gun owners will step up behind them and "take back" whatever America they think has been taken from them.
> 
> But they will be sorely disappointed when it doesn't happen, and it's just them and a dozen buddies with their AR15s in their cinder block and tractor tire bunker, out on the prairie, and they look around and see nobody there to back them.
> 
> So then it becomes a standoff with government agents, until everyone gets hungry or bored or both and they all go home.  Unless someone gets REALLY stupid and opens fire on the agents.  Then they will all be mowed down, and the rest of us will watch it on the evening news as entertainment, and we will all shake our heads at the stupidity of it all.  And then we will all carry on with our lives and not even remember the names of the people involved.  It'll get a footnote in a history book somewhere.
> 
> That is what will happen.
> 
> Dump the fantasy.



Hmmm, I guess the founding fathers leading a popular uprising of the masses against a tyrannical and oppressive government was a fantasy?  Seems that was history.

Hmmm, hundreds of Sheriff's and Chiefs publicly stating they will not enforce any legislation or E.O. that infringes on the 2A is fantasy.  Seems like that's public record.

Hmmm, people willing to stand up against any government that would attempt to strip them of their Constitutional rights is fantasy?  I think you'll be in for a big surprise should it ever happen.  Of the 80+ million gun owners some will cave and give away their rights one at a time.  Tens of millions won't.  

Perhaps, and I hope, we never have to find out who's right.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm still waiting to see proof of where the government pushed to make a change to the second amendment.  Until you can show that then all of your "gun banning talks" are void.  It would take a constitutional amendment to ban guns in the U.S. and I yet to see one sent to congress.



Technically it would take 3/4 of the states to make a Constitutional change in addition to congressional action.  I doubt that would happen honestly.  An E.O. overreach on the other hand could be a possibility.  Without getting into politics, Hillary has said that Australian style gun bans (read confiscation) are something she's 'look into'.  Not being political, simply stating something she's said on the campaign trail.  A university professor has already called for removing the 2A.  These in and of themselves don't amount to much.  But it is that 'slippery slope' concern that folks look at.  It is a Socialist tactic, again not being political, simply stating fact.  There ARE officials within the government that would very much like to see a disarmed population.  Would they ever actually attempt it?  Can't predict the future.  But much 'media' on the subject is being force feed to a population that only looks at headlines and sound bites but doesn't know about history, socialism, actual statistics on crime and self defense etc.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Tgace said:


> And the statistics used regarding "Gun Violence" is so cooked and twisted that getting a clear picture of the problem is blocked by politics. Teenage gangbangers shooting each other with stolen (or straw purchased) guns in urban warzones are classified as "children killed with guns". Suicides are lumped into "gun violence" stats.
> 
> It's all so much ********.



And as I mentioned, many anti-gun groups label police shootings and law abiding citizens lawfully defending themselves as 'gun violence' to skew the stats.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

gpseymour said:


> Yes. And I'd love to see some actual information. I'm not principally opposed to gun control. I simply won't accept it until there's some solid information presented. To date, all evidence presented in the US appears to be purposely skewed toward either gun control or gun ownership. Neither skewing is appropriate.



Then you didn't look at the links I posted a few pages back from the FBI, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology and numerous published articles on this topic.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kong Soo Do said:


> Then you didn't look at the links I posted a few pages back from the FBI, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology and numerous published articles on this topic.


No, I haven't yet done so. I hope to have some time this week to look through them, though. I'd love to see some statistics that don't appear to have a heavy bias in either direction.


----------



## Juany118

Kong Soo Do said:


> Technically it would take 3/4 of the states to make a Constitutional change in addition to congressional action.  I doubt that would happen honestly.  An E.O. overreach on the other hand could be a possibility.  Without getting into politics, Hillary has said that Australian style gun bans (read confiscation) are something she's 'look into'.  Not being political, simply stating something she's said on the campaign trail.  A university professor has already called for removing the 2A.  These in and of themselves don't amount to much.  But it is that 'slippery slope' concern that folks look at.  It is a Socialist tactic, again not being political, simply stating fact.  There ARE officials within the government that would very much like to see a disarmed population.  Would they ever actually attempt it?  Can't predict the future.  But much 'media' on the subject is being force feed to a population that only looks at headlines and sound bites but doesn't know about history, socialism, actual statistics on crime and self defense etc.


You are missing something else.  The right make up of a SCOTUS court could result in far more stringent gun control.  All it takes is a Court to focus on "well regulated militia" and then note that the last Federal Militia Act did away with the formal "well regulated Militia", replaced that with the Army Reserves and National Guard, and made the "Militia" an informal and unregulated entity.

This is why I am a fan of "reasonable" gun control.  Universal background checks for all sales (in my State I could sell AR-15's, and all other long guns, out of my house in an unlimited fashion without the need for background checks), mandate that all 50 States connect their databases on involuntary mental health commitments (there are documented cases of people ineligible for firearms purchases in their home State purchasing guns in another) and allow the ATF to digitize their sales database.  Both of these would be excellent in terms of addressing straw purchasing as well as preventing ineligible people from making a direct purchase.

I think it would also help politically.  Half the reason arguably more stringent measures are starting to gain traction, imo, is because these laws the NRA supported up until the end of Bush into the Obama Administration, are being fought HARD.  Politics are often like Newton's Laws of Physics, every action having an equal and opposite reaction.  If you do the reasonable thing, it tends to take the wind out of the unreasonable.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3

In the UK one doesn't shoot a man with a shotgun, it's not sporting. You use a rifle, shotguns are for taking game.
A man was out hunting when he came across a very beautiful naked young lady in the woods, he asked her 'are you game' she replied 'certainly' so he shot her...................


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Juany118 said:


> The right make up of a SCOTUS court could result in far more stringent gun control.



Agreed.  The next President will be be appointing perhaps between three and five Justices.  Depending upon whom is elected, the balance could be dynamically shifted.


----------



## Buka

This thread and all this talk of death by firearms and death by motor vehicles...how sad.

Unless, of course, you combine them and get this puppy.






Makes me want to rethink my choices for that Zombie thread.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

It's been said before, but is just as applicable now, _*A firearm should be a tool in the hands of a deadly weapon not a deadly weapon in the hands of a tool.*_


----------



## Flying Crane

The image you posted did not carry over for me so I can't see it.

However, I am in full understanding of the difference between cosmetics and actual function and performance.

Reasonable regulations need to focus on function and not get hung up on the cosmetics

Edit:this was in response to Tgace, I thought I had responded to his post and discover that I did not.


----------



## Flying Crane

Kong So Do said:


> Hmmm, I guess the founding fathers leading a popular uprising of the masses against a tyrannical and oppressive government was a fantasy?  Seems that was history.
> 
> Hmmm, hundreds of Sheriff's and Chiefs publicly stating they will not enforce any legislation or E.O. that infringes on the 2A is fantasy.  Seems like that's public record.
> 
> Hmmm, people willing to stand up against any government that would attempt to strip them of their Constitutional rights is fantasy?  I think you'll be in for a big surprise should it ever happen.  Of the 80+ million gun owners some will cave and give away their rights one at a time.  Tens of millions won't.
> 
> Perhaps, and I hope, we never have to find out who's right.


yeah I hope so to, for the sake of those involved.


----------



## drop bear

Kong Soo Do said:


> It's been said before, but is just as applicable now, _*A firearm should be a tool in the hands of a deadly weapon not a deadly weapon in the hands of a tool.*_



Which would be a pro legislation ideal.


----------



## moonhill99

kehcorpz said:


> On the one hand I think that being allowed to buy guns is good. If I lived in America I'd also buy lots and lots of guns and
> rifles. This must be really fun to shoot with them and just hold them in your hand and clean them carefully.
> 
> On the other hand though it's also really scary imo. I mean do you even feel safe outside in public places knowing that
> somebody could shoot at you at ANY time? I think I'd become paranoid and only walk around in public with a bullet proof
> vest and of course also have at least 1 gun with me, better 2 guns.
> But what do you do in the summer? You cant wear a gun holster under your shirt or a bullet proof vest.
> 
> Do you think about this when you go outside or do you suppress these thoughts that a terrorist or crazy person could stop
> opening fire at any second?
> 
> i'd rather have it that only i am allowed to have guns but nobody else. this would make me feel safe and i'd not have to worry
> about being shot at.



It some US cities police work is boring where 90% of the calls are burglary report, theft report, damage to vehicle, theft of vehicle, EMS or FD assist calls, suicidal person,person of meds, alarm , 911 hang up,  burglary of vehicle, medical call, assist person, shoplift, criminal mischief and theft so on.

In other US cities it is more action base and lot more criminal element.

I some US cities I would never buy home with out a gun and other US cities not big deal.

 In Los Angeles there is always car chase, shooting , shots fired call. 

The best thing is to get out of hood and bad crime areas.

I never had need to have gun in Arlington Texas, crime is there but nothing like Dallas.  Likewise in other cities I have been to I never feel unsafe and other cities I feel scared.

But it not like Hollywood. Police work is not that action base.

I spent time in Miami and feel safe. I just stick to main streets don't go in back alleys, apartment complex, residential streets.

Stick to areas with lot of foot traffic. Where Liberty city and Overtown is where lot of gangs are in Miami.

When you get into areas with very little foot traffic is when I feel unsafe.


----------



## moonhill99

Also Places like Miami, LA and New York that are really urban have faster police driving repose to calls than low density suburb where it can be 6 to 8 minutes driving time.

 I see lot more police cars driving around in Miami, LA and New York than low density suburb.

You could drive around all day and not see any police car in some suburbs.


----------



## moonhill99

Quote On the other hand though it's also really scary imo. I mean do you even feel safe outside in public places knowing that
somebody could shoot at you at ANY time? I think I'd become paranoid and only walk around in public with a bullet proof
vest and of course also have at least 1 gun with me, better 2 guns.
But what do you do in the summer? You cant wear a gun holster under your shirt or a bullet proof vest.Quote

Do a ride on with your police departments in your are and go to police station and talk to officers and you see what areas are safe and not safe.


----------



## Paul_D

moonhill99 said:


> Quote On the other hand though it's also really scary imo. I mean do you even feel safe outside in public places knowing that
> somebody could shoot at you at ANY time?.


Do you live in a country where they sell knives?  Someone could stab you anytime, do you feel unsafe outside, are you so paranoid you feel the need to wear a stab vest?


----------



## Flying Crane

Paul_D said:


> Do you live in a country where they sell knives?  Someone could stab you anytime, do you feel unsafe outside, are you so paranoid you feel the need to wear a stab vest?


I think he was quoting and responding to the OP, but it didn't carry over properly.  Your question ought to be directed to the OP.


----------



## Paul_D

Flying Crane said:


> I think he was quoting and responding to the OP, but it didn't carry over properly.  Your question ought to be directed to the OP.


My bad.

Apologies.


----------



## moonhill99

Paul_D said:


> Do you live in a country where they sell knives?  Someone could stab you anytime, do you feel unsafe outside, are you so paranoid you feel the need to wear a stab vest?



Are you asking if you can carry knife for self defense?  What country, city or state you from? So we can tell you the law in that area? If you can carry knife, pepper spray or stun gun.


----------



## moonhill99

Paul_D said:


> Do you live in a country where they sell knives?  Someone could stab you anytime, do you feel unsafe outside, are you so paranoid you feel the need to wear a stab vest?



If you asking what US cities get more knife calls than gun calls?

Detroit, Dallas and Houston have strong gun culture. 

But I would not even carry a gun in gang area.  I'm NOT getting in a shoot out with 5 to 10 gang members.

There are places where even two police officers don't drive. Don't play Rambo or Steven Seagal that will get you shot.

There are even apartment complex and areas in hot zones in city flag on dispatchers screen to send 4 officers if call comes in that area.

If you live in safe low crime neighborhood than be happy. 

Walking around with vest on and carry gun seem pointless of why you live in such rough area.


----------



## drop bear

By the way. My friends are in Vegas at the moment. Checking out the gun section at the shops as one of their stops so far.


----------



## Tez3

moonhill99 said:


> Are you asking if you can carry knife for self defense?  What country, city or state you from? *So we can tell you the law in that* *area*? If you can carry knife, pepper spray or stun gun.



Are you a qualified legal expert or police officer? The 'information' you have been giving out so far on matters criminal, legal and law enforcement as regards the UK and Europe is totally wrong, so much so that it is actually dangerous.



moonhill99 said:


> It some US cities police work is boring where 90% of the calls are burglary report, theft report, damage to vehicle, theft of vehicle, EMS or FD assist calls, suicidal person,person of meds, alarm , 911 hang up, burglary of vehicle, medical call, assist person, shoplift, criminal mischief and theft so on.



Interesting that you find this 'boring', I can assure you that police officers consider most of it vital, is the bread and butter of police work. The victims don't find it 'boring', they look to the police for many things, boredom isn't one of them. You are coming off trying to look like an expert when you are no such thing, I would prefer my information to come from reasoning, common sense people rather than someone who is pretending he is a police officer.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Tez3 said:


> The 'information' you have been giving out so far on matters criminal, legal and law enforcement as regards the UK and Europe is totally wrong,



The OP doesn't concern the UK or Europe.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Here's an example of an armed citizen stopping a bad guy:

Concealed carrier takes down shooter at South Carolina nightclub

As I mentioned, according to the FBI, armed citizens stop three times as many bad guys annually as the police.  And again, if police are the ones that respond and stop the threat, 18 people have already been shot (average).  If an armed citizen stops the threat only 2 people have been shot (average).  

If your not armed, your a victim-in-waiting that has outsourced your personal protection to another.


----------



## Tez3

Kong Soo Do said:


> The OP doesn't concern the UK or Europe.



Didn't say it did. The point _which you missed_, was that if the poster doesn't tell the truth about one subject why should anyone believe him on another related subject. He made up a lot of stuff about European policing so where does that show he can be trusted on American policing, he is not a police officer.
In court someone who tells lies is deemed untrustworthy to tell the truth about anything.


----------



## Flying Crane

Kong Soo Do said:


> If your not armed, your a victim-in-waiting that has outsourced your personal protection to another.



See, statements like this really are an enormous oversimplification of the issue that fails to do justice to any aspect of it.

As one who goes about my life unarmed, I can give an enormously oversimplified response: no I'm not.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Tez3 said:


> Didn't say it did. The point _which you missed_, was that if the poster doesn't tell the truth about one subject why should anyone believe him on another related subject. He made up a lot of stuff about European policing so where does that show he can be trusted on American policing, he is not a police officer.
> In court someone who tells lies is deemed untrustworthy to tell the truth about anything.



Hmm, you said you were putting me on ignore.  Yet you responded to my post.  Does this mean you lied?  And if so, does that deem you untrustworthy about anything you post?


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Flying Crane said:


> See, statements like this really are an enormous oversimplification of the issue that fails to do justice to any aspect of it.
> 
> As one who goes about my life unarmed, I can give an enormously oversimplified response: no I'm not.



Oversimplification?  No, not really.  That's what it boils down to whether it makes you uncomfortable to admit it or not.  You have chosen to go about your life unarmed.  That's fine. That's your choice.  No one is telling you that you should be armed.  But you won't have the options of an armed citizen should you ever find yourself in an active shooter situation (which of course I hope you never find yourself in).  Thus you have put the responsibility for your personal protection in the hands of others (i.e. first responders) which statistically won't be there at the time of the incident.  

Let's do some oversimplified math:

Night club #1 - 0 armed private citizens. + 1 armed bad guy = 100 people shot with a 50% fatality rate.

Night club #2 - 1 armed private citizen + 1 armed bad guy = 4 people shot (including the bad guy who is stopped from further aggression) with no fatalities.

Armed citizen in #2 had options available that no one did in #1 and it made a difference.  Doesn't mean it will always happen that way, but statistically (FBI stats) in normally does. But then the armed citizen lawfully defending themselves doesn't seem to get the drive-by media attention.  Odd that it doesn't....


----------



## Flying Crane

Kong Soo Do said:


> Oversimplification?  No, not really.  That's what it boils down to whether it makes you uncomfortable to admit it or not.  You have chosen to go about your life unarmed.  That's fine. That's your choice.  No one is telling you that you should be armed.  But you won't have the options of an armed citizen should you ever find yourself in an active shooter situation (which of course I hope you never find yourself in).  Thus you have put the responsibility for your personal protection in the hands of others (i.e. first responders) which statistically won't be there at the time of the incident.
> 
> Let's do some oversimplified math:
> 
> Night club #1 - 0 armed private citizens. + 1 armed bad guy = 100 people shot with a 50% fatality rate.
> 
> Night club #2 - 1 armed private citizen + 1 armed bad guy = 4 people shot (including the bad guy who is stopped from further aggression) with no fatalities.
> 
> Armed citizen in #2 had options available that no one did in #1 and it made a difference.  Doesn't mean it will always happen that way, but statistically (FBI stats) in normally does. But then the armed citizen lawfully defending themselves doesn't seem to get the drive-by media attention.  Odd that it doesn't....



Ok then, in reposte I offer the following oversimplified assessment of people who want to be armed all the time:  Given the statistically insignificant liklihood of any given individual being in a situation where firearms are needed (LEO, military, and security professionals exempted), those who want to be armed all the time are like frightened children who mistakenly believe that a bogey-man lurks in their closet waiting to come out and snatch them in their sleep.  

While I can certainly acknowledge that there are dangerous elements and certain exceptions out there, in the main, in most areas and for most people, life really is not so dangerous.  The desire to be constantly armed, and to actively push that agenda reeks of paranoia and is the position of an extremely vocal, and extremely small, radical minority.  The vast vast majority of the population of this country do not hold these views, and that includes the population of gun owners, which includes myself.  By far, the vast majority of the population, including gun owners,  favor reasonable regulations and limits, and do not align themselves with radical organizations like the NRA, and certainly will not be starting a civil war over an issue like gun regulations. 

So, we can take the discussion down that road if you like.  I wasn't really interested in doing so, but you opened that gate so here we are.  If we continue down that path it won't lead to anything worth while and will likely disintegrate into you calling me a victim and me calling you a paranoid chicken, and i don't see the value in it and I am disinclined to contribute further if that is the road we go down.


----------



## Tez3

Someone PM'd me KSD's comments, hence the answer because, believe it or not, not everyone wants to make snarky comments at and about me. Oh and yes I got a PM about the latest one as well.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Tez3 said:


> Someone PM'd me KSD's comments, hence the answer because, believe it or not, not everyone wants to make snarky comments at and about me. Oh and yes I got a PM about the latest one as well.



Wow, considering how close my post was to yours (minutes)  it is somewhat surprising that someone saw it, PM'd you about it, you were online and you read that PM and then responded.  That's amazing!


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Flying Crane said:


> Given the statistically insignificant liklihood of any given individual being in a situation where firearms are needed (LEO, military, and security professionals exempted), those who want to be armed all the time are like frightened children who mistakenly believe that a bogey-man lurks in their closet waiting to come out and snatch them in their sleep.



I see you've resorted to juvenile responses 

I was expecting rather more from you on this discussion.  Be that as it may, let's take a look at your comments.  Let's see,* insignificant likelyhood* was the phrase you used. Let's look at reality for a moment. 


According to the CDC:  Low annual rape statistics are 300,000 annually.  The high rate is 1.3 million.
Percentage of unreported rapes:  54%
Chance of being raped in the U.S.  20%
In a 12 year study by the Department of Justice the likelyhood of someone from age 12 until death of being the victim of at least one violent crime is 83%
Likelyhood of more than one incident 54%
FBI stats for 2014:  Estimated 1,165,383 violent crimes reported to L.E.
Your assessment doesn't hold water.  Try telling a woman that was raped that she fell into an insignificant likelyhood catagory.  By the way, less that 1% of women that are armed are successfully raped.  I have posted multiple links from the FBI, DOJ and other government entities that demonstrate categorically that armed citizens successfully stop violent crime.  According to the Cato Institute, after reviewing eight years of data concluded that, "*the vast majority or gun owners are ethical and competent, and tens of thousands of crimes are prevented each year by ordinary citizens with guns".

*


Flying Crane said:


> The desire to be constantly armed, and to actively push that agenda reeks of paranoia and is the position of an extremely vocal, and extremely small, radical minority.



Your's is a biased opinion not based on factual data by official sources.  Thus it is easily discounted as nonsense. 



Flying Crane said:


> he vast vast majority of the population of this country do not hold these views, and that includes the population of gun owners, which includes myself.



I've provided actual data by verifiable sources, not biased opinion based emotion. 



Flying Crane said:


> By far, the vast majority of the population, including gun owners, favor reasonable regulations and limits, and do not align themselves with radical organizations like the NRA, and certainly will not be starting a civil war over an issue like gun regulations.



Your statistics and link to the source to back this opinion up please.  Some in media that have an anti-fun agenda consider the NRA a 'radical' organization.  Millions of Americans whoever don't (their membership is in the millions).  And you have an obvious biased (and an uneducated one) against the NRA.  They favor specific gun control measures that actually work, stiff penalties for misuse of firearms and more importantly, due process for Americans.  The fact that agenda-driven media outlets misrepresent what they stand for in no way reflects reality. 

And it wouldn't be a civil war by the way, it would be a revolutionary war.  There was a historical difference you may want to factually research. 



Flying Crane said:


> I wasn't really interested in doing so, but you opened that gate so here we are



I have offered factual information as well as my expert, professional opinion (I'm recognized as  both by the courts by the way).  You have offered only your emotional opinion that isn't backed by the facts.  Perhaps it is time for you to step out of the thread and actually do some research rather than post school-yard nonsense.


----------



## pgsmith

Kong Soo Do said:


> Night club #1 - 0 armed private citizens. + 1 armed bad guy = 100 people shot with a 50% fatality rate.
> 
> Night club #2 - 1 armed private citizen + 1 armed bad guy = 4 people shot (including the bad guy who is stopped from further aggression) with no fatalities.


  You have obviously never spent any time in a night club in Texas. I've been to quite a few of them all over the state. I would never go to another one if I thought that the patrons were allowed to be armed in the club. Alcohol and firearms do *not* mix well, and that is one law that I feel needs to stay valid. You can site all of the statistics you wish to, but it doesn't change the fact that drunk people make stupid decisions. Stupid decisions and firearms do not belong together.


----------



## Flying Crane

Kong Soo Do said:


> I see you've resorted to juvenile responses
> 
> I was expecting rather more from you on this discussion.  Be that as it may, let's take a look at your comments.  Let's see,* insignificant likelyhood* was the phrase you used. Let's look at reality for a moment.
> 
> 
> According to the CDC:  Low annual rape statistics are 300,000 annually.  The high rate is 1.3 million.
> Percentage of unreported rapes:  54%
> Chance of being raped in the U.S.  20%
> In a 12 year study by the Department of Justice the likelyhood of someone from age 12 until death of being the victim of at least one violent crime is 83%
> Likelyhood of more than one incident 54%
> FBI stats for 2014:  Estimated 1,165,383 violent crimes reported to L.E.
> Your assessment doesn't hold water.  Try telling a woman that was raped that she fell into an insignificant likelyhood catagory.  By the way, less that 1% of women that are armed are successfully raped.  I have posted multiple links from the FBI, DOJ and other government entities that demonstrate categorically that armed citizens successfully stop violent crime.  According to the Cato Institute, after reviewing eight years of data concluded that, "*the vast majority or gun owners are ethical and competent, and tens of thousands of crimes are prevented each year by ordinary citizens with guns".
> 
> *
> 
> Your's is a biased opinion not based on factual data by official sources.  Thus it is easily discounted as nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> I've provided actual data by verifiable sources, not biased opinion based emotion.
> 
> 
> 
> Your statistics and link to the source to back this opinion up please.  Some in media that have an anti-fun agenda consider the NRA a 'radical' organization.  Millions of Americans whoever don't (their membership is in the millions).  And you have an obvious biased (and an uneducated one) against the NRA.  They favor specific gun control measures that actually work, stiff penalties for misuse of firearms and more importantly, due process for Americans.  The fact that agenda-driven media outlets misrepresent what they stand for in no way reflects reality.
> 
> And it wouldn't be a civil war by the way, it would be a revolutionary war.  There was a historical difference you may want to factually research.
> 
> 
> 
> I have offered factual information as well as my expert, professional opinion (I'm recognized as  both by the courts by the way).  You have offered only your emotional opinion that isn't backed by the facts.  Perhaps it is time for you to step out of the thread and actually do some research rather than post school-yard nonsense.



Ah, right, civil war vs revolutionary war.  Interesting topic for you to be leaning toward, as an LEO, but that's none of my business.

You have referenced an FBI report, posted a link earlier that, so far as I could tell, only linked to an online news article and not the report itself.  I would be interested in reading the actual report.  Somehow I doubt the FBI authored and published a report that actually recommends that the population at large needs to be armed.  I'm suspecting there is a bit of cherry-picking of excerpts from that report to support a message that the report itself does not support.

Got a link?


----------



## Xue Sheng

Flying Crane said:


> Got a link?



Violent Crime


FBI- Uniform Crime Report - 2014 Crime in the United States

Note: Weapons data are not collected for rape.



> Information collected regarding types of weapons used in violent crime showed that firearms were used in 67.9 percent of the nation’s murders, 40.3 percent of robberies, and 22.5 percent of aggravated assaults.* (Weapons data are not collected for rape.)*


----------



## Flying Crane

Xue Sheng said:


> Violent Crime
> 
> 
> FBI- Uniform Crime Report - 2014 Crime in the United States
> 
> Note: Weapons data are not collected for rape.


Ok, so there is data there, but I was under the impression that there is some comprehensive report written and published by the FBI that supposedly recommends the population be armed.  I'm not finding that.  Have I misunderstood something that was said?


----------



## Xue Sheng

Flying Crane said:


> Ok, so there is data there, but I was under the impression that there is some comprehensive report written and published by the FBI that supposedly recommends the population be armed.  I'm not finding that.  Have I misunderstood something that was said?



Not having read the entre thread, I have no idea. However I find it highly unlikely that the FBI or the CDC would recommend arming the populace. I can say I have never seen a report on crime from the Feds. or the state Gov in which I work that has recommended arming people as the solution


----------



## Kong Soo Do

pgsmith said:


> You have obviously never spent any time in a night club in Texas. I've been to quite a few of them all over the state. I would never go to another one if I thought that the patrons were allowed to be armed in the club. Alcohol and firearms do *not* mix well, and that is one law that I feel needs to stay valid. You can site all of the statistics you wish to, but it doesn't change the fact that drunk people make stupid decisions. Stupid decisions and firearms do not belong together.



Don't believe I or anyone has advocated for drunk people carrying firearms.  In fact, I've advocated the exact opposite.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Flying Crane said:


> Ah, right, civil war vs revolutionary war.  Interesting topic for you to be leaning toward, as an LEO, but that's none of my business.
> 
> You have referenced an FBI report, posted a link earlier that, so far as I could tell, only linked to an online news article and not the report itself.  I would be interested in reading the actual report.  Somehow I doubt the FBI authored and published a report that actually recommends that the population at large needs to be armed.  I'm suspecting there is a bit of cherry-picking of excerpts from that report to support a message that the report itself does not support.
> 
> Got a link?



I've posted numerous links that also contain links to originating articles.  They also contain the references to further articles/studies.  It's up to you to actually look at them.  The FBI and DOJ and other reports are referencing facts, not suggesting a course of action.  They report, you decide what to do with the facts (heed or ignore).  Many (hundreds) Sheriff's and Chiefs of Police on the other hand have publicly state that citizens should be armed.  Many on social media.  As a small example of a larger whole:























Flying Crane said:


> Ah, right, civil war vs revolutionary war. Interesting topic for you to be leaning toward, as an LEO, but that's none of my business.



Very ignorant statement.  I took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.  This includes our own government should it ever become tyrannical.  That again is history that you seem to be ignoring.  That is the main purpose (but not the only purpose) of the 2A.  That's a fact.  If the government ever tried to void the emancipation proclamation or any amendment or bill of rights then yes, it is time to take up arms.  Many won't because they 'don't want to get involved' or it's 'outside their comfort zone' or they just don't understand history or the Constitution or that rights come with responsibility.  But many will stand up for their rights.  As a veteran and now active in L.E. it is my duty to stand up for the Constitution. 

Again, just a small sampling.  Hundreds of Sherriff's and Chiefs have openly stated their support for the 2A, suggested private citizens carry, offered training for private citizens (my agency does this) etc.


----------



## Flying Crane

Kong Soo Do said:


> I've posted numerous links that also contain links to originating articles.  They also contain the references to further articles/studies.  It's up to you to actually look at them.  The FBI and DOJ and other reports are referencing facts, not suggesting a course of action.  They report, you decide what to do with the facts (heed or ignore).  Many (hundreds) Sheriff's and Chiefs of Police on the other hand have publicly state that citizens should be armed.  Many on social media.  As a small example of a larger whole:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very ignorant statement.  I took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.  This includes our own government should it ever become tyrannical.  That again is history that you seem to be ignoring.  That is the main purpose (but not the only purpose) of the 2A.  That's a fact.  If the government ever tried to void the emancipation proclamation or any amendment or bill of rights then yes, it is time to take up arms.  Many won't because they 'don't want to get involved' or it's 'outside their comfort zone' or they just don't understand history or the Constitution or that rights come with responsibility.  But many will stand up for their rights.  As a veteran and now active in L.E. it is my duty to stand up for the Constitution.
> 
> Again, just a small sampling.  Hundreds of Sherriff's and Chiefs have openly stated their support for the 2A, suggested private citizens carry, offered training for private citizens (my agency does this) etc.


Thanks for the clarification on the FBI bit, apparently I got that mixed up with what some LEO people said (I'm not in a position to watch the videos, but I'll take it on faith for now that they say what you claim they say).

As for the rest, well, your statements are all very interesting and I doubt I'll convince you of my position,nor that you will convince me of yours, so we are back with agree to disagree.

I suspect there are a lot of people who carry but keep it on the down low and don't make a big deal about it.  With those people we never even know.  I have a lot less issue with that.

The militant extreme advocates are a different story.  If there was ever a group that might make me reconsider my own decision about carrying, it would be them.  That scary bunch, they make me nervous, and they are the ones I might actually need to arm myself against.  Ironic, isnt it?


----------



## Flying Crane

Xue Sheng said:


> Not having read the entre thread, I have no idea. However I find it highly unlikely that the FBI or the CDC would recommend arming the populace. I can say I have never seen a report on crime from the Feds. or the state Gov in which I work that has recommended arming people as the solution


Ayup.


----------



## drop bear

pgsmith said:


> You have obviously never spent any time in a night club in Texas. I've been to quite a few of them all over the state. I would never go to another one if I thought that the patrons were allowed to be armed in the club. Alcohol and firearms do *not* mix well, and that is one law that I feel needs to stay valid. You can site all of the statistics you wish to, but it doesn't change the fact that drunk people make stupid decisions. Stupid decisions and firearms do not belong together.



Yeah. That.

We are on a bit of a "stop beating people to death" movement here.

There has to be some legislation restricting who carries. Just to separate responsible gun owners from those who should not really have a sharp pencil.


----------



## pgsmith

Kong Soo Do said:


> Don't believe I or anyone has advocated for drunk people carrying firearms.  In fact, I've advocated the exact opposite.



  Perhaps I'm just dense and don't understand what you're trying to say, but it certainly seems to me that in this post you advocate allowing armed patrons in a nightclub ...



Kong Soo Do said:


> Night club #1 - 0 armed private citizens. + 1 armed bad guy = 100 people shot with a 50% fatality rate.
> 
> Night club #2 - 1 armed private citizen + 1 armed bad guy = 4 people shot (including the bad guy who is stopped from further aggression) with no fatalities.
> 
> Armed citizen in #2 had options available that no one did in #1 and it made a difference.  Doesn't mean it will always happen that way, but statistically (FBI stats) in normally does. But then the armed citizen lawfully defending themselves doesn't seem to get the drive-by media attention.  Odd that it doesn't....



  If you advocate armed patrons in a night club, you are advocating drunk people carrying firearms. Unless of course you are assuming that all of your average citizens would refrain from drinking because they're carrying, just as they all refrain from drinking because they're going to be driving.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

pgsmith said:


> Perhaps I'm just dense and don't understand what you're trying to say...



You haven't read the entire thread.



pgsmith said:


> Unless of course you are assuming that all of your average citizens would refrain from drinking because they're carrying, just as they all refrain from drinking because they're going to be driving.



This is precisely what I mentioned in a post on a different page of this thread.  Just as you have a designated driver, you could have a designated carrier.  That would be rather easy to maintain as a policy.  For example, a group of folks go out for an evening.  One guy or gal decides they're not going to drink and be the ride home for the group.  Okay, good and responsible plan.  Let's say that guy or gal also has a CCW so they carry.  Why not, they're sober.  The club, for example, could wave the entrance fee for those 'designated' folks.  Give them a wristband or different colored stamp or whatever.  They get in free and drink club soda for free (or whatever non-alcoholic beverage) all night with the presentation of the wrist band or stamp (or whatever).  So we've accomplished some common sense goals;  We've got some sober folks in the club so we can tone down the damn drunk driving.  That's a win.  We have some sober people that are armed.  Real world example in one of my previous links of a night club shooting that was stopped by an armed citizen, so that's a win.  They get a free pass all night which really doesn't cost the club jack squat (sodas cost pennies to serve) so the club is now promoting safe driving and safe carry with a small, tangible reward.  That's a win.

Can any system be abused?  Sure, there is always a dumbass that will try to skirt around the system.  But just like a designated driver that gets caught drunk driving there are penalties for shooting while stupid drunk.  But again, and this is the important part, we have TENS OF THOUSANDS of examples annually of armed private citizens stopping/preventing violent crime.  In the link above, night club shooting where the bad guy was stopped by an armed private citizen.  If that person wasn't there.....

So I go back to my simple math:

0 armed private citizens + 1 armed bad guy = 100 people shot 

1 armed private citizen + 1 armed bad guy = 4 people shot (including the bad guy who was stopped)

Will it always be that way?  Every situation is different.  But one things for sure, those 100 shot people in Orlando had only three options:  run, hide, wait for help.  The other night club folks had a fourth option:  return fire.  One yielded fewer casualties.   The bottom line and take home message is simple;  your personal security is up to YOU.  Not the police, not the military and definitely not the mercy of the bad guy.  It's up to YOU.  If you outsource YOUR personal security to someone else then you've limited your options and you're dependent on things beyond your control i.e you're a victim.  As the old saying goes, _when seconds count the police are minutes away_.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

This is the way it should be...

Tennessee Businesses That Disarm Concealed Carry Permit Holders Now Liable for Their Safety


----------



## drop bear

Kong Soo Do said:


> You haven't read the entire thread.
> 
> 
> 
> This is precisely what I mentioned in a post on a different page of this thread.  Just as you have a designated driver, you could have a designated carrier.  That would be rather easy to maintain as a policy.  For example, a group of folks go out for an evening.  One guy or gal decides they're not going to drink and be the ride home for the group.  Okay, good and responsible plan.  Let's say that guy or gal also has a CCW so they carry.  Why not, they're sober.  The club, for example, could wave the entrance fee for those 'designated' folks.  Give them a wristband or different colored stamp or whatever.  They get in free and drink club soda for free (or whatever non-alcoholic beverage) all night with the presentation of the wrist band or stamp (or whatever).  So we've accomplished some common sense goals;  We've got some sober folks in the club so we can tone down the damn drunk driving.  That's a win.  We have some sober people that are armed.  Real world example in one of my previous links of a night club shooting that was stopped by an armed citizen, so that's a win.  They get a free pass all night which really doesn't cost the club jack squat (sodas cost pennies to serve) so the club is now promoting safe driving and safe carry with a small, tangible reward.  That's a win.
> 
> Can any system be abused?  Sure, there is always a dumbass that will try to skirt around the system.  But just like a designated driver that gets caught drunk driving there are penalties for shooting while stupid drunk.  But again, and this is the important part, we have TENS OF THOUSANDS of examples annually of armed private citizens stopping/preventing violent crime.  In the link above, night club shooting where the bad guy was stopped by an armed private citizen.  If that person wasn't there.....
> 
> So I go back to my simple math:
> 
> 0 armed private citizens + 1 armed bad guy = 100 people shot
> 
> 1 armed private citizen + 1 armed bad guy = 4 people shot (including the bad guy who was stopped)
> 
> Will it always be that way?  Every situation is different.  But one things for sure, those 100 shot people in Orlando had only three options:  run, hide, wait for help.  The other night club folks had a fourth option:  return fire.  One yielded fewer casualties.   The bottom line and take home message is simple;  your personal security is up to YOU.  Not the police, not the military and definitely not the mercy of the bad guy.  It's up to YOU.  If you outsource YOUR personal security to someone else then you've limited your options and you're dependent on things beyond your control i.e you're a victim.  As the old saying goes, _when seconds count the police are minutes away_.



What guns were used in the shooting where 50 died and where 4 died?

Can we use simple math and draw a conclusion there?


----------



## drop bear

Double post.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

drop bear said:


> What guns were used in the shooting where 50 died and where 4 died?
> 
> Can we use simple math and draw a conclusion there?



All weapons involved required the trigger to be depressed for each round.  No assault weapons were used in either attack.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

drop bear said:


> Double post.



The home invader in the kitten suit had a lengthy rap sheet but was finally stopped by an armed home owner.


----------



## drop bear

Kong Soo Do said:


> All weapons involved required the trigger t. But then I would o be depressed for each round.  No assault weapons were used in either attack.



Does semi auto vs auto make any real difference? Soldiers here never go full auto. It generally makes the gun less effective. (Also less accurate)





I mean if you have a machine gun and a belt they are devastating but the sort of guns these shooters use. Is in the same capacity as soldiers.

But my comparison was.

Semi auto high capacity rifle vs pistol? Vs revolver? I don't know what that guy went in with in the 4 dead shooting. 

If we are doing simple equations based on these two incidents. Then there is more than one equation we could do. And it would not tell the whole story if these equations were left out.


----------



## drop bear

Where are we getting this definitive definition of an assault weapon by the way?

I know the term is in contention due to the implications of the idea it represents.

But it seems there is a dedicated effort to define the term in your own favor.


As a side note.
when we discuss martial arts and there is always that call to to have set definitions. This discussion always comes to mind as two vested interests are trying to take control of the language.

So dictionary on line.
the definition of assault rifle
Automatic fire. So the shooter did not use an assault weapon.

Wiki. Says semi auto.
Assault weapon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oops he did use one.

Oxford says auto.
assault rifle - definition of assault rifle in English from the Oxford dictionary

And so on.


----------



## Dirty Dog

drop bear said:


> Does semi auto vs auto make any real difference? Soldiers here never go full auto. It generally makes the gun less effective. (Also less accurate)



In a "target rich" environment (you know, the sort of crowded places terrorists and lunatics looking for their 10 minutes of fame prefer) accuracy is pretty much irrelevant. The "spray and pray" school of marksmanship is adequate, because they simply don't care who they hit or where they hit them.
So, yes. In that circumstance a weapon with full auto capability would likely increase the number of bodies.

What doesn't seem to really matter is the size of the magazine, despite the claims of the anti-gun lobby.






That video does an excellent job of showing why the "smaller magazine" laws don't work. It shows both an experienced and novice shooter running the same drills.

Also... you're using the term "high capacity" incorrectly. If the weapon was designed to use a 30 round magazine, then 30 round magazines are not high capacity. They're standard capacity, for that gun.
My Glock 17 was designed to hold 17 rounds in the standard magazine.  My Glock 19 holds 15. The Glock 26 holds 10.
The magazines from the larger guns will fit the smaller just fine. So if I stick a 17 round magazine in my Glock 17, that's standard capacity. If I stick it in my G26, then it's reasonable to call it high capacity, since it is higher than the factory designed magazines.

Redefining terms to make them more scary (i.e. anything more than X rounds is "high capacity" and any rifle with Scary Black Plastic Bits is an "assault rifle" is a common tactic.

[Edit: removed comment that moved completely into the realm of politics.]


----------



## Dirty Dog

drop bear said:


> Where are we getting this definitive definition of an assault weapon by the way?
> 
> I know the term is in contention due to the implications of the idea it represents.
> 
> But it seems there is a dedicated effort to define the term in your own favor.



The term was "invented" by the military to describe a weapon with specific characteristics. Amoung them being the ability to fire multiple rounds each time the trigger is depressed.
The term has been hijacked by the anti-gun lobby and redefined. 
You can put a Ferrari badge on your Yugo, but it won't change what it really is.


----------



## Dirty Dog

drop bear said:


>





Kong Soo Do said:


> The home invader in the kitten suit had a lengthy rap sheet but was finally stopped by an armed home owner.



Considering the number of Tactical Assault Claws the home invader was carrying, it's a miracle the body count wasn't higher.


----------



## drop bear

Dirty Dog said:


> The term was "invented" by the military to describe a weapon with specific characteristics. Amoung them being the ability to fire multiple rounds each time the trigger is depressed.
> The term has been hijacked by the anti-gun lobby and redefined.
> You can put a Ferrari badge on your Yugo, but it won't change what it really is.



That's strange because the assault rifle here at the time the military invented it was a semi auto only. The l1A1.

England had one as well.
Assault Rifles

Of course mabye there was a definitive definition America had that England and Australia didn't.

But then we would probably need to be more specific than the military. As definitive.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> That's strange because the assault rifle here at the time the military invented it was a semi auto only. The l1A1.
> 
> England had one as well.
> Assault Rifles
> 
> Of course mabye there was a definitive definition America had that England and Australia didn't.
> 
> But then we would probably need to be more specific than the military. As definitive.



Oooo my lot (before I retired) gets a mention in there! On the other hand my other half, ex RAF Regiment was familiar with everything up to the SA60 which was issued after he retired.
Psst, a hint it's not 'England'... it's the UK (for the time being anyway)


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> Oooo my lot (before I retired) gets a mention in there! On the other hand my other half, ex RAF Regiment was familiar with everything up to the SA60 which was issued after he retired.
> Psst, a hint it's not 'England'... it's the UK (for the time being anyway)



You guys would have called the slr an assault rifle though?


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> You guys would have called the slr an assault rifle though?



I risked getting a long lecture about weapons from husband, loves his weapons. I'm an SA80 person, didn't use SLR.

Anyway, he says no they wouldn't have called the SLR an 'assault' rifle, it was just a rifle. Before it was modified it could fire single rounds or automatic, it was decided that as the basic infantry weapon it should only fire automatic so the safety was changed so it could no longer fire single rounds. he says he would say it was too bulky for an assault weapon. For him they are also too bulky to be called assault weapons. As a general term he says here automatic weapons would be classed as 'assault' weapons, a rifle ( which the SLR was) isn't. That it was turned into an automatic weapon doesn't make a difference.

I'm going for a coffee now, just sat though a talk on how the safety was modified lol, cheers!


----------



## Flying Crane

Dirty Dog said:


> In a "target rich" environment (you know, the sort of crowded places terrorists and lunatics looking for their 10 minutes of fame prefer) accuracy is pretty much irrelevant. The "spray and pray" school of marksmanship is adequate, because they simply don't care who they hit or where they hit them.
> So, yes. In that circumstance a weapon with full auto capability would likely increase the number of bodies.
> 
> What doesn't seem to really matter is the size of the magazine, despite the claims of the anti-gun lobby.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That video does an excellent job of showing why the "smaller magazine" laws don't work. It shows both an experienced and novice shooter running the same drills.
> 
> Also... you're using the term "high capacity" incorrectly. If the weapon was designed to use a 30 round magazine, then 30 round magazines are not high capacity. They're standard capacity, for that gun.
> My Glock 17 was designed to hold 17 rounds in the standard magazine.  My Glock 19 holds 15. The Glock 26 holds 10.
> The magazines from the larger guns will fit the smaller just fine. So if I stick a 17 round magazine in my Glock 17, that's standard capacity. If I stick it in my G26, then it's reasonable to call it high capacity, since it is higher than the factory designed magazines.
> 
> Redefining terms to make them more scary (i.e. anything more than X rounds is "high capacity" and any rifle with Scary Black Plastic Bits is an "assault rifle" is a common tactic.
> 
> [Edit: removed comment that moved completely into the realm of politics.]


I watched the video, please tell me you don't buy this as a valid study.  This is a sterile and staged situation at a shooting range, with replacement magazines laid out on a table, ready for use and easy to grab.  You can stage up anything, in that kind of setting.

In a real shooting situation, in a place like a nightclub, nothing will be so convenient.  Yes, the need to reload will create gaps where people can escape, or possibly tackle the shooter.

This video is absolutely uncompelling.

It is nonsense to say a particular gun is meant to be used with a magazine capacity of X.  Magazines come in many capacity variations, for the same gun make and model.  Yes, there are higher and lower capacity magazines, plain and simple.  It is simply about numbers.


----------



## Flying Crane

Dirty Dog said:


> The term was "invented" by the military to describe a weapon with specific characteristics. Amoung them being the ability to fire multiple rounds each time the trigger is depressed.
> The term has been hijacked by the anti-gun lobby and redefined.
> You can put a Ferrari badge on your Yugo, but it won't change what it really is.


The term is meaningless.  Getting hung up on a definition as a way of pretending that there ought to be no reasonable regulations is nonsense. 

The truth is, as I have pointed out already, civilians are using guns that are designed to kill many people, exactly as they are designed, to kill many people. The label on the gun is irrelevant.  Pretending otherwise is a smokescreen.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

drop bear said:


> Where are we getting this definitive definition of an assault weapon by the way?



DD was spot on.  I will expand if I may.  An assault rifle (as stated earlier in the thread) is a rifle that fires intermediate cartridges on select fire.  That is the definition used by the U.S government and also IIRC in the language of the 1934 Assault Weapons ban.  So assault rifles have been 'banned' for over 80+ years.  A citizen can only obtain an assault rifle with a class III license.  

Knowing correct terminology is important.  It prevents information being skewed by a biased media.  I don't want my news source telling me what to believe, I want it to report facts and leave the critical thinking and decision making to me.  An AR-15 is not an assault rifle.  High capacity magazines (as DD correctly explained) is a term used to intentionally mislead an uneducated public.  I don't use the term 'uneducated' in a derogatory manner.  Many people simply don't understand firearms.  As an instructor I routinely educate both L.E. and private citizens in this area.  

Common sense restrictions are already in place.  They've been in place for decades.  Saying we need gun control is like saying we need restraint systems in automobiles, we've had seat belts as standard for how long now?  A very long time.  So we've had common sense gun control measures in place for a very long time.  The Orlando shooter was not an issue of gun control failure, the failure was from other entities that failed to properly follow up on new and additional information.  At the time of purchase, he was not a felon, didn't have a domestic situation or any other area in which a firearm would have been denied.  No form of 'control' will stop someone from purchasing a firearm now and then becoming a radical later.  The tool isn't the problem, it's the person.  And of course a person can always illegally purchase or steal a firearm.  There is no other 'common sense' legislation that is needed.  That is a media buzz word to divert attention from the real problem.  Same with the 'gun show loop hole'.  That's not accurate.  Any dealer at a gun show runs a background check the same as if you were in his shop.  I'm in L.E. and I still have to have a background check run when I purchase a firearm from a dealer.  No big deal and I don't have an issue with it.  So there is NO gun show loop hole.  Same with purchasing a firearm from a company on the internet.  The gun isn't shipped to your home, it is shipped to a dealer who runs a background check prior to taking possession.  So when a politician says you can just 'buy a gun on the web' they aren't being honest.  Now a private citizen can sell a firearm to another private citizen without a background check.  But you'll notice that with almost every listing they sell only to those with CCW permits....which means they've already had a background check.  Can any system of 'control' be compromised?  Sure, but not like the media states.  So again, correct knowledge and correct terminology gives you power to know the facts from the media-created fiction.  

So any time an official or a journalist say 'assault rifle' or call for 'common sense gun control' tor 'gun show loop holes' or 'high capacity magazines' they are either ignorant of the facts or they are lying.  You'll have to determine which.  And that's important because getting your information from a sound bite or headline isn't your best option.


----------



## drop bear

Kong Soo Do said:


> DD was spot on.  I will expand if I may.  An assault rifle (as stated earlier in the thread) is a rifle that fires intermediate cartridges on select fire.  That is the definition used by the U.S government and also IIRC in the language of the 1934 Assault Weapons ban.  So assault rifles have been 'banned' for over 80+ years.  A citizen can only obtain an assault rifle with a class III license.
> 
> Knowing correct terminology is important.  It prevents information being skewed by a biased media.  I don't want my news source telling me what to believe, I want it to report facts and leave the critical thinking and decision making to me.  An AR-15 is not an assault rifle.  High capacity magazines (as DD correctly explained) is a term used to intentionally mislead an uneducated public.  I don't use the term 'uneducated' in a derogatory manner.  Many people simply don't understand firearms.  As an instructor I routinely educate both L.E. and private citizens in this area.
> 
> Common sense restrictions are already in place.  They've been in place for decades.  Saying we need gun control is like saying we need restraint systems in automobiles, we've had seat belts as standard for how long now?  A very long time.  So we've had common sense gun control measures in place for a very long time.  The Orlando shooter was not an issue of gun control failure, the failure was from other entities that failed to properly follow up on new and additional information.  At the time of purchase, he was not a felon, didn't have a domestic situation or any other area in which a firearm would have been denied.  No form of 'control' will stop someone from purchasing a firearm now and then becoming a radical later.  The tool isn't the problem, it's the person.  And of course a person can always illegally purchase or steal a firearm.  There is no other 'common sense' legislation that is needed.  That is a media buzz word to divert attention from the real problem.  Same with the 'gun show loop hole'.  That's not accurate.  Any dealer at a gun show runs a background check the same as if you were in his shop.  I'm in L.E. and I still have to have a background check run when I purchase a firearm from a dealer.  No big deal and I don't have an issue with it.  So there is NO gun show loop hole.  Same with purchasing a firearm from a company on the internet.  The gun isn't shipped to your home, it is shipped to a dealer who runs a background check prior to taking possession.  So when a politician says you can just 'buy a gun on the web' they aren't being honest.  Now a private citizen can sell a firearm to another private citizen without a background check.  But you'll notice that with almost every listing they sell only to those with CCW permits....which means they've already had a background check.  Can any system of 'control' be compromised?  Sure, but not like the media states.  So again, correct knowledge and correct terminology gives you power to know the facts from the media-created fiction.
> 
> So any time an official or a journalist say 'assault rifle' or call for 'common sense gun control' tor 'gun show loop holes' or 'high capacity magazines' they are either ignorant of the facts or they are lying.  You'll have to determine which.  And that's important because getting your information from a sound bite or headline isn't your best option.



So the definition 1994 assault weapon ban dosent count?
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and *two or more* of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher mount
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and *two or more* of the following:

Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.
Semi-automatic shotguns with *two or more* of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Detachable magazine.

The ban defined the following semi-automatic firearms, as well as any copies or duplicates of them in any caliber, as assault weapons:



There is more comprehensive car control than gun though.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

drop bear said:


> So the definition 1994 assault weapon ban dosent count?



No, not really.  To begin with, the term assault rifle had already been defined by the government as stated several times in this thread.  That definition came from the government as was used to define military grade weapons.  The 1994 ban specifically targeted semi-automatic weapons.  The ban didn't work and expired in 2004.  Thus it is no longer an applicable term.  So an assault rifle is simple a rifle that uses intermediate power cartridges on select fire.  Semi-automatic rifles do not fit into that definition thus it is either an error or a lie to refer to one as an assault rifle.


----------



## Tired_Yeti

What a juvenile discussion.


Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk


----------



## Dirty Dog

drop bear said:


> So the definition 1994 assault weapon ban dosent count?



No, it really doesn't. The term had already been defined for some 60 years. This was merely one of the early efforts to redefine the word to make guns that are, after all, standard semi-auto rifles modified with Scary Black Plastic Bits to look military seem more scary to the ignorant.


----------



## drop bear

Dirty Dog said:


> No, it really doesn't. The term had already been defined for some 60 years. This was merely one of the early efforts to redefine the word to make guns that are, after all, standard semi-auto rifles modified with Scary Black Plastic Bits to look military seem more scary to the ignorant.



So a term defined by the government can't then be redefined by the government.


----------



## Jaeimseu

drop bear said:


> So a term defined by the government can't then be redefined by the government.



Certainly not if it goes against your position on an issue. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3

Dirty Dog said:


> standard semi-auto rifles modified with Scary Black Plastic Bits



The early SA80s certainly had scary plastic bits.......they kept falling off. Very shoddy with a very long story of disasters behind it ( part of it being the US insistence that NATO use what they said) James Meek on the £470m rifle the British army hates. All that is why MoD police to get armour-piercing weapon. Much more fun.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

drop bear said:


> So a term defined by the government can't then be redefined by the government.



Sure.  They tried.  The attempt failed.  The law, and the revised term expired.


----------



## drop bear

Kong Soo Do said:


> Sure.  They tried.  The attempt failed.  The law, and the revised term expired.



And so that is the definitive term which decides whether a person in ignorant or lying.  Rather than having their own interpretation on the matter.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Correct.


----------



## pgsmith

Kong Soo Do said:


> You haven't read the entire thread.


  No, I have read the entire thread, but thanks for asking.




Kong Soo Do said:


> This is precisely what I mentioned in a post on a different page of this thread.  Just as you have a designated driver, you could have a designated carrier.  That would be rather easy to maintain as a policy.  For example, a group of folks go out for an evening.  One guy or gal decides they're not going to drink and be the ride home for the group.  Okay, good and responsible plan.  Let's say that guy or gal also has a CCW so they carry.  Why not, they're sober.  The club, for example, could wave the entrance fee for those 'designated' folks.  Give them a wristband or different colored stamp or whatever.  They get in free and drink club soda for free (or whatever non-alcoholic beverage) all night with the presentation of the wrist band or stamp (or whatever).  So we've accomplished some common sense goals;  We've got some sober folks in the club so we can tone down the damn drunk driving.  That's a win.  We have some sober people that are armed.  Real world example in one of my previous links of a night club shooting that was stopped by an armed citizen, so that's a win.  They get a free pass all night which really doesn't cost the club jack squat (sodas cost pennies to serve) so the club is now promoting safe driving and safe carry with a small, tangible reward.  That's a win.
> 
> Can any system be abused?  Sure, there is always a dumbass that will try to skirt around the system.  But just like a designated driver that gets caught drunk driving there are penalties for shooting while stupid drunk.  But again, and this is the important part, we have TENS OF THOUSANDS of examples annually of armed private citizens stopping/preventing violent crime.  In the link above, night club shooting where the bad guy was stopped by an armed private citizen.  If that person wasn't there.....
> 
> So I go back to my simple math:
> 
> 0 armed private citizens + 1 armed bad guy = 100 people shot
> 
> 1 armed private citizen + 1 armed bad guy = 4 people shot (including the bad guy who was stopped)
> 
> Will it always be that way?  Every situation is different.  But one things for sure, those 100 shot people in Orlando had only three options:  run, hide, wait for help.  The other night club folks had a fourth option:  return fire.  One yielded fewer casualties.   The bottom line and take home message is simple;  your personal security is up to YOU.  Not the police, not the military and definitely not the mercy of the bad guy.  It's up to YOU.  If you outsource YOUR personal security to someone else then you've limited your options and you're dependent on things beyond your control i.e you're a victim.  As the old saying goes, _when seconds count the police are minutes away_.


 
  That scenario would work just fine for someone like you that is a professional. However, the vast majority of people are not. Heck, the vast majority of people are idiots and wouldn't hesitate to get drunk when they're supposed to be the "designated driver". This has been proven a great many times every day.

  You want to talk about simple math, then here's some for you .... according to you, there were 100 people shot that *may* not have been if we allowed concealed carry in nightclubs. That's all well and good, however there were *9,967* deaths caused by drunk drivers. You know, the ones that are supposed to have penalties if they get caught driving drunk.  

  So you're advocating that we should let the general population carry firearms while they're at the club, even though they are already killing almost 10,000 people each year through their own drunken stupidity? The only way that would possibly be an improvement is if everyone was personally responsible for themselves. Unfortunately, that doesn't even happen in the movies, and is nothing remotely resembling real life.



Tired_Yeti said:


> What a juvenile discussion.



  You do realize that only kids use the word "juvenile", and then it is usually to refer to discussions that they don't understand right?


----------



## drop bear

Kong Soo Do said:


> Correct.



That is a pretty fanatical stance.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

pgsmith said:


> That scenario would work just fine for someone like you that is a professional.



I'm just a regular guy with specific skills in certain areas.  In regard to people acting responsibly, I think the majority would do the right thing but understand that idiots abound.  CCW carriers however are by-and-large responsible people.  Of a note of interest, police make a mistake in deadly force shootings 11% of the time whereas the armed private citizen only 3% of the time.  And since the armed private citizen shoots bad guys three time more than police it is a significant statistic.  What I'm suggesting is that of the % of nightclub goers that carry a firearm, I think the majority would act responsibly.  And as I suggested, the club offers the incentive of free cover charge and non-alcoholic beverages for the designated carrier.  And again, a stamp or wristband would/could identify such a person so that they aren't served alcohol.  Now to be clear, this isn't legislation but just an idea on an internet forum.  Not suggesting it is fool proof or couldn't be improved or even a better idea suggested.  Just tossing it around.

The genesis was the night club shooting in which a patron did stop an active shooter last week.  Don't know if the good guy was drinking, though I suspect not as it happened (IIRC) outside the club.  But it is an example (one of tens of thousands annually) where an armed private citizen stops a bad guy.


----------



## drop bear

Kong Soo Do said:


> I'm just a regular guy with specific skills in certain areas.  In regard to people acting responsibly, I think the majority would do the right thing but understand that idiots abound.  CCW carriers however are by-and-large responsible people.  Of a note of interest, police make a mistake in deadly force shootings 11% of the time whereas the armed private citizen only 3% of the time.  And since the armed private citizen shoots bad guys three time more than police it is a significant statistic.  What I'm suggesting is that of the % of nightclub goers that carry a firearm, I think the majority would act responsibly.  And as I suggested, the club offers the incentive of free cover charge and non-alcoholic beverages for the designated carrier.  And again, a stamp or wristband would/could identify such a person so that they aren't served alcohol.  Now to be clear, this isn't legislation but just an idea on an internet forum.  Not suggesting it is fool proof or couldn't be improved or even a better idea suggested.  Just tossing it around.
> 
> The genesis was the night club shooting in which a patron did stop an active shooter last week.  Don't know if the good guy was drinking, though I suspect not as it happened (IIRC) outside the club.  But it is an example (one of tens of thousands annually) where an armed private citizen stops a bad guy.



Another option is of course offer free entry and drinks to people ranked in jujitsu.

Bjj Eastern Europe   – US Hero Serviceman That Stopped Terrorist in France, Trains Jiu-Jitsu

As per this incident where a jujitsu armed person successfully prevented a shooting. And an example of the many times jujitsu is used to stop violence.

The math is simple. And shows how good guys armed with jujitsu can stop bad guys with guns.

1 person armed with jujitsu + 1 gunman= nobody dead.

Jujitsu armed practitioners 60% of the time are successful all of the time. And they are statistics.


----------

