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

[Juany118]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.