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

[Tgace]

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]

Karma is the most powerful weapon available.

Bwahahahahaha

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.