DescentBB

In this thread I've listed factual events that give support for my deciding to improve my capability to stop a deadly assailant.
Factual real life events.

In this thread slick and others have expressed concerns and fears for possible danger or outright attacks from a group of people that HAVE NOT actually committed any attacks. A group that is more law abiding than any other adult sub group....including yourselves.

Slick has claimed all sorts of cause and effect to support his fearful opinion of how CWP holders are a danger. Cause and effect that HAS NO EVIDENCE to support it.

When I call him out to prove his theory he has nothing. He avoids substance like a child avoids the darkness....

And you call me the paranoid one?!?

Lol!

Will, the NRA and other various people on this board continue to say that "not enough good guys have guns" and that's why this stuff happens, especially in gun free zones. So who exactly are these people that are going to be around to defend everyone at all times? It's that line that always makes me wonder, where are all these guards and who is going to pay them to work security? Does every school have the budget resources to pay for armed security at all times? Is this really the society we've chosen to live in? Personally, I don't believe in gun control. Not in the same sense as a nutjob like woodchip or Cuda, but merely for the fact that there are 200 million registered firearms in this country, god knows how many more that aren't registered--there is nothing that can be done to prevent violence.

Just curious when I hear your side say there needs to be more guns...curious as to who these people are and why they should be considered a saving grace...

I don't say there should be more guns. I don't hear the NRA say it either except maybe in the abstract, or as a hyperbolic debate tactic.

What a lot of us do say is disarming the law abiding is not a solution yet it is always the call made by the political left in the wake of any kind of death that involves a gun AND high publicity.

Like slick in this thread.
Despite the topic title/intent of poster and despite the actual circumstances of a retired policeman in a murderous rage, slick wants to turn the blame for it on the NRA and concealed weapons permit law!
Niether of those apply to the event.

And even you just now....why would you mention NRA tactics when the event didn't hinge on NRA activity at all!
You are buying into the talking points. Gun was used for something bad. Jerk knee and indict the gun lobby/ gun owners...
WTF?!? Why not question slicks tactics and get back on the subject if you aren't buying into what he's selling...
That tactic is so programmed into pop culture I think a lot of people don't even realize how they are being played!

And with those same kind of dishonest machinations constantly launched from a national political party, the mainstream media and countless pop culture loudmouths it makes us gun owners more than a little defensive and extremely suspicious of any legislative attempts to address the role gun ownership does play in any problem.

Just look at how many times in this thread slick and others cited cause and effect that is absolutely non existent....except in their own fears.
At how many times they ignored it when their logic or claims were shown to be completely unfounded and continued down the same tired trail of ad homenum attacks and unfounded guilt associations.

Give us an honest discussion if you want solutions otherwise we are stuck in a political fight with lobbiests and politicians as our best weapon. And no one can create more innocent casualties than politicians and big money players. (War on poverty, drugs, gangs,etc. See Detroit, Chicago, etc lots of bodies from all that political fighting going on...not much in the way of progress though!)

The political left and right are perfectly happy with the status quo. It's up to us to reject the game they are running if we are going to solve anything. Start by rejecting the tactics from both sides employed by players like slick.

CDN_Merlin wrote:If no one had a right to carry a concealed weapon, less people would have one to start with. Less weapons = less violence. I understand that sane law abiding citizens are less likely to use a gun in an argument but you can never be to sure.

Ever been the victim of a home invasion?

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote: As was stated by someone above, this has EVERYTHING to do with the attitude in this nation towards the appropriateness of carrying weapons in public, the public pronouncements by the NRA and yes, our gun nut culture.

This has nothing to do with the right to carry and everything about being courteous in public. This was a ex-cop that did the shooting so are you saying all off duty/retired cops should not carry? The only culture that is nuts is that of the left constantly finding a incident to bemoan the 2nd amendment.

Thank you woody. I wasn't commenting on the gun use. Any weapon would have had the same outcome in this situation, someone is dead. This been hashed over and over in this forum ad nauseum. I WAS trying to comment on courtesy and the lack thereof that most Americans seem to be afflicted with. Is it worse now with modern communication, or is it just my old fart imagination? I think my grandparents used to gripe about the "younger generation" being discourteous, so it must be an age old complaint. But now, it seems people like to solve their frustrations with one another using violence. Why are we all so angry?

Speaking of modern communication, despite laws against it, I still see drivers texting and talking on cell phones, and driving like blind idiots. It's very discourteous and dangerous to other drivers. What, is this a new drug or something, that people can't seem to disconnect from other people and just plain focus on the task at hand? Is it self-centeredness maybe, people lost in their own little world, not caring about what goes on around them, or the impact they are having on the people right next to them? Are people that addicted?

Fern, having a gun at home is different than carrying one in public.

CDN_Merlin wrote:Fern, having a gun at home is different than carrying one in public.

How so. Are you saying you are less safe in your home than in public? Millions of us carry in public and we are some of the most law abiding people around.

Woodchip, your home is your private place. If someone breaks in, you should be allowed to take whatever action is required to protect it/family. In public I find if everyone has a gun then the chance of someone getting shot rises. We have to many people with the mentality that they have no issues pulling out a gun and using it on anyone for any purpose.

I just read this morning on CNN that there was another shooting in Indiana where a man shot 2 women dead in a grocery store. Also another one in New Mexico where a 12 yr old brought a gun to school and shot 2 kids.

When does it end? I believe the more people who have guns won't help the problem of people getting shot in public places. More guns = more gun related issues.

Merlin I suggest you read Prof John Lotts work on the subject. From personal experience I shot on a pistol league with 50 other people. We used to joke how were were always polite with each other because we knew everyone was carrying a firearm. Perhaps we need to raise the awareness that the person you want to get in a argument with just may have a gun on his hip.

Your examples were not of law abiding people with CCW permits.

CDN_Merlin wrote:Woodchip, your home is your private place. If someone breaks in, you should be allowed to take whatever action is required to protect it/family. In public I find if everyone has a gun then the chance of someone getting shot rises. We have to many people with the mentality that they have no issues pulling out a gun and using it on anyone for any purpose.

Are any of those people CWP holders? If not should they be blamed for what criminals and crazies do?

CDN_Merlin wrote:I just read this morning on CNN that there was another shooting in Indiana where a man shot 2 women dead in a grocery store. Also another one in New Mexico where a 12 yr old brought a gun to school and shot 2 kids.

Again, are you citing the activity of one type and using it to unjustly assign blame to another? Cause and effect....not there....

CDN_Merlin wrote:When does it end?

When does what, exactly, end? You have been talking apples and oranges. Which fruit is posing a problem and which fruit is not? There is a difference.

CDN_Merlin wrote:I believe the more people who have guns won't help the problem of people getting shot in public places. More guns = more gun related issues.

Considering the nature of the CWP holders they are extremely unlikely to shoot non-criminals. Some "gun issues" are more of a deterrent to criminals than a problem problem to citizens.
For example, recently some punk tried to play the knockout game on a Michigan man dropping his daughter of at school. The punk picked a CWP holder as his victim. The punk was shot by the victim.
Will this event lead to problems for us citizens or will some punks think of a new game that doesn't cause gun owning victims to fight back?

Merlin, I respectfully suggest that your 'instincts' on the possession of guns by CWP holders are poisoned by the rhetoric of the political left.

Ferno wrote:

CDN_Merlin wrote:If no one had a right to carry a concealed weapon, less people would have one to start with. Less weapons = less violence. I understand that sane law abiding citizens are less likely to use a gun in an argument but you can never be to sure.

Ever been the victim of a home invasion?

what does that have to do with concealed carry in a movie theater?

woodchip wrote:Merlin I suggest you read Prof John Lotts work on the subject. From personal experience I shot on a pistol league with 50 other people. We used to joke how were were always polite with each other because we knew everyone was carrying a firearm. Perhaps we need to raise the awareness that the person you want to get in a argument with just may have a gun on his hip.

Your examples were not of law abiding people with CCW permits.

so, when everyone isn't armed, civil behavior doesn't happen? We need guns to enforce politeness? Wow, how pathetic....

ZOOOM

that one just screamed over your head

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:Merlin I suggest you read Prof John Lotts work on the subject. From personal experience I shot on a pistol league with 50 other people. We used to joke how were were always polite with each other because we knew everyone was carrying a firearm. Perhaps we need to raise the awareness that the person you want to get in a argument with just may have a gun on his hip.

Your examples were not of law abiding people with CCW permits.

so, when everyone isn't armed, civil behavior doesn't happen? We need guns to enforce politeness? Wow, how pathetic....

Wow, how pathetic. You take a story and lengthen it to match your Pinocchio type nose.

CUDA wrote:ZOOOM

that one just screamed over your head

Can't be! He is Captain Nuance!!

well,as you all continue the ad hominems, I note nothing in what you say that DOESN'T suggest that you are proposing carrying arms for the sake of maintaining civil society. Sorry, but I'll pass.

Will,

I just don't believe that if everyone had a gun it would take away the gun crime that is happening on a daily basis in the US. Yes, these people are most likely criminals to start with but the one in Florida was an ex cop. That tells me that even regular law abiding citizens can lose it. He was a cop and still did something stupid because he had a gun. That man would still be alive had he not had a gun.

That is my point.

The victim may be still alive if he didn't throw popcorn at the cop. Ban popcorn at all movies I say!

TC, a relativistic society inherently becomes selfish which eventually becomes violent. While not everyone will become THAT violent, it opens the doorway to a much larger "playground".

CDN_Merlin wrote:Will,

I just don't believe that if everyone had a gun it would take away the gun crime that is happening on a daily basis in the US.

And I don't believe that either, because all other things being the same criminals would force themselves to deal with the higher risk of being a criminal...

But then I haven't ever suggested ALL people should have guns. What I am trying to get you and others to see is, under current law regarding concealed weapons, the type of people who do qualify for the permit are unusually law abiding. In spite of that FACT they are being singled out as loose cannons and all sorts of criminal attacks by OTHER people are being assigned to them!
Both purposefully and with full knowledge that it is a dishonest tactic from the likes of slick...AND from people like yourself and Cob who are operating on a kind of programming that has been going on for decades to make your instincts tell you that all guns and all gun owners are the same problem.

Im asking you to question your instincts on this. Examine the substance, the details, the statistics and use that knowledge to question the rhetoric and the propaganda.

CDN_Merlin wrote:... Yes, these people are most likely criminals to start with but the one in Florida was an ex cop. That tells me that even regular law abiding citizens can lose it. He was a cop and still did something stupid because he had a gun. That man would still be alive had he not had a gun.

That is my point.

He did something stupid and that man might still be dead if he had a knife instead....
Yes the gun made it easy for him to kill the man but the gun didn't cause the crime. But if you want to focus on the gun then at least do it with your eyes, and mind, open.

Just remember that there are far more law abiding people around, with guns, that never go crazy. If you could wave a magic wand and wipe out all the guns owned by the non-criminals you would have caused the deaths of thousands of people every year who use them to stop violent attackers who have no concern for weapons laws.

That 'other side of the coin' isn't programmed into your thought process like the relative few instances of a cop going bad....but it is real.

Police, over a ten year period shot and killed 400 criminals per year, average, in justifiable homicides.
Civilians during that same time shot and killed just over 200 criminals per year, average, in justifiable homicides.
That is over 30% of the violent attackers that were shot in the act of the attack every year. Shot by civilians!
Do we really want to let those 200+ attacks per year go through instead of stopping them?!?

Additionally, every year, on average just over 100,000 times, civilians in America use a weapon to stop an attacker without killing the criminal. Are we going to let those attacks go through as well?!? That would be crazy!

There IS an up side to civilian gun ownership. But if it isn't acknowledged and it is under publicized by an enormous ratio compared to the sensationalism of the few times a 'good guy' goes bad how in the world can you make an informed opinion on gun ownership?

TC's original question is a damn good one. It highlights our behavior and how we treat each other which leads to problems. Behavior kills, guns are just a tool.

Will.

I see your point and agree with it. Always have but being in Canada it has shown me that we have less gun crime here (compared to the US) and we have guns laws. The US has on a daily basis a gun related shooting spree in a public mall, restaurant etc. In Canada, that happens very infrequently. I'm just saying that maybe if the US didn't have the mentality of "We have the right to bear arms" meaning you have the right to carry a concealed weapon then there could be a less gun related crimes like these ones we are talking about.

I know that law abiding gun owners aren't the issue. But I believe that people with guns tend to be more ballsy because of it.

CDN_Merlin wrote:Will.

I see your point and agree with it. Always have but being in Canada it has shown me that we have less gun crime here (compared to the US) and we have guns laws. The US has on a daily basis a gun related shooting spree in a public mall, restaurant etc. In Canada, that happens very infrequently. I'm just saying that maybe if the US didn't have the mentality of "We have the right to bear arms" meaning you have the right to carry a concealed weapon then there could be a less gun related crimes like these ones we are talking about.

I know that law abiding gun owners aren't the issue. But I believe that people with guns tend to be more ballsy because of it.

I agree for the most part and it is one of the problems we laid out for ourselves in our founding. But an unusual, and frankly encouraging thing is at work with the CWP holders.
In spite of human nature to get more aggressive in a confrontation when we think we have the upper hand, the permit holders seem to be more disciplined because there isn't the kind of uptick in aggressive behavior that tracks with that group. At least so far and it has been many years now since the group has grown large enough and data has become deep enough to chart results.

I think it is because the mentality of most of the people who get certified to carry truly want to do the right thing. Another example of that is there doesn't seem to be a lot of incidents where permit holders have tried to intervene outside their own personal space. No rush to act like a cop etc.
For myself I keep a lock and cable in most of our vehicles where I can unload the gun and lock it through the open chamber to the frame of my seat. I have been tempted a few times, by things I saw, to go to the truck and lock up the gun so I could return and be free to engage certain belligerent types without anyone being able to say I entered into a fight because I knew I could pull my pistol. But thats a lot of crap to go through just to be able to tell some jerk to cool it, or to stop verbally torturing his kid, etc....so I kept my mouth shut instead. All because I had a gun.
One of things I've told my children is to never tell Daddy to use his gun or mention it in any way no matter what they see because I may or may not want to get involved. I've run from more fights than I've fought in. I count those with my victories.

Anyway, we were told that there would be shootouts everywhere and people would act like vigilantes harassing their fellow citizens, etc. That behavior hasn't manifested itself as a characteristic of the group and yet the anti-gun crowd goes to great lengths to cement that stereotype even though it isn't close to the reality.
The rare occasion of a CWP holder screwing up is publicized with great zeal. The other side of the story, the much larger part of the picture, will probably get you fired from mainstream media if you try to run it. Even trying to talk about the behavior of certain groups who ARE responsible for higher than average violent attacks can be a problem.
There is a filter that these kind of discussions are supposed to be put through and it has no place for much of the truth to come out the other end.

CDN_Merlin wrote:Will.

I see your point and agree with it. Always have but being in Canada it has shown me that we have less gun crime here (compared to the US) and we have guns laws. The US has on a daily basis a gun related shooting spree in a public mall, restaurant etc. In Canada, that happens very infrequently. I'm just saying that maybe if the US didn't have the mentality of "We have the right to bear arms" meaning you have the right to carry a concealed weapon then there could be a less gun related crimes like these ones we are talking about.

I know that law abiding gun owners aren't the issue. But I believe that people with guns tend to be more ballsy because of it.

Population density? Income disparity? Drugs? Isn't Canada is also a fairly well armed country, I recall some study that said there were 9 million guns up there...

I see the issue here as less that America has a problem with guns and more that America has a problem with violent crime. While guns and violence aren't unrelated, I'm pretty sure the violence comes first. In the absence of violent crime, everyone could carry a gun and nobody would get shot.

CDN_Merlin wrote:The US has on a daily basis a gun related shooting spree in a public mall, restaurant etc.

Wrong

Ok, mass shootings happen about once every two weeks according to USA Today.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... n/1778303/

Yes, and they also blurred the line between multiple victims during gang shootings and robberies with the issue we normally associate with a “mass shootings” being where a person goes on a shooting spree as Merlin describes.

"A third of mass killings didn't involve guns at all. In 15 incidents, the victims died in a fire. In 20 others, the killer used a knife or a blunt object."

I also like this little tidbit...

"But for all the attention they receive, mass killings still accounted for only a tiny fraction — about 1% — of all the Americans who were murdered over those five years. During those five years, more died from migraines and falling out of chairs than were murdered by mass killers, according to death records kept by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Three times as many people perished from sunstroke."

Emphasis mine.

sunstroke is nasty. Just sayin'......I'm forever reviving folks down at the Shore House in Virginia.

callmeslick wrote:what does that have to do with concealed carry in a movie theater?

It was in response to his "less weapons=less death" portion. I just have a problem with absolutism, and I have actual experience of what it's like to be on the receiving end.. so I can't agree with the whole 'if less people carried guns..' train of thought that I see here.

so Fermo, it doesn't seem obviously logical to you that if a society loosens and near-encourages public carrying of weapons, one can expect to see a few more outliers emboldened by their newfound 'power' that go off like the fellow in the movie theater?

callmeslick wrote:so Fermo, it doesn't seem obviously logical to you that if a society loosens and near-encourages public carrying of weapons, one can expect to see a few more outliers emboldened by their newfound 'power' that go off like the fellow in the movie theater?

The retired cop has been carrying a gun since before the laws were changed.
He doesn't need the laws you are talking about to carry his weapon.
So how can those laws being adjusted 'cause' him to perceive a "new found power" and subsequently "go off" because of it?!?

Cause and effect....missing once again from your alleged logic.

The retired cop is a member of a different group than CWP holders. Please quit trying to drag them into something they had nothing to do with.

Perhaps you should be asking about government employees and their propensity for feeling superior to the average Joe who dares to text in a theater while the elite government member is there....

But if that nuance wasnt too much for you to grasp then please stop being so blatantly dishonest.

I was asking Fermo by way of clarification, Will. Need no more diversionary, "look at these people" anectdotes from you, as you've already laid out your position pretty well.

No problem. I don't mind helping you to find the path, especially since you have wandered so terribly far off course from your implied destination.
You really are trying to find the truth in the matter right? You weren't actually meaning to have anyone follow you down that wrong turn I hope!

callmeslick wrote:so Fermo, it doesn't seem obviously logical to you that if a society loosens and near-encourages public carrying of weapons, one can expect to see a few more outliers emboldened by their newfound 'power' that go off like the fellow in the movie theater?

Nice Assumption. and I'm sure you can produce some sort of study to support that "assumption" RIGHT?

CUDA wrote:

callmeslick wrote:so Fermo, it doesn't seem obviously logical to you that if a society loosens and near-encourages public carrying of weapons, one can expect to see a few more outliers emboldened by their newfound 'power' that go off like the fellow in the movie theater?

Nice Assumption. and I'm sure you can produce some sort of study to support that "assumption" RIGHT?

not really.....as I said a page or two back, it simply seems brain-dead obvious, for anyone with a grasp of basic human nature.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:Merlin I suggest you read Prof John Lotts work on the subject. From personal experience I shot on a pistol league with 50 other people. We used to joke how were were always polite with each other because we knew everyone was carrying a firearm. Perhaps we need to raise the awareness that the person you want to get in a argument with just may have a gun on his hip.

Your examples were not of law abiding people with CCW permits.

so, when everyone isn't armed, civil behavior doesn't happen? We need guns to enforce politeness? Wow, how pathetic....

Wanna bet? I've seen people use their cars as weapons when they get pissed off, even for relatively minor incidents. It's not the guns that's our problem, but an endemic gravitation towards outright hostility when dealing with strangers. More and more people seem to be willing to resort to some type of physical violence to respond to even minor issues, instead of saying "I'm sorry" or "My mistake" or even just walking away. More people are now likely to violate the law if it benefits them personally, or worse, willfully do something nasty or bad against another person, like they enjoy it or something. Why is this happening? Why are people carrying chips on their shoulders and more willing to fight when those chips are knocked off, even unintentionally? Are there too many people and can we no longer tolerate living with each other peacefully? Are we ending up like crowded rats in a cage?

On a similar note, our local channel 2 news does this question of the day thing every weekday morning. One question last week was interesting. The question was: "40% of male teenagers do what activity?" The answer kind of surprised me. It was: "Hold the door for a stranger." In fact, I have had high school kids hold the door for me on occasion, which did surprise me. I always thank them too. And they are always boys, not girls, who do this. I wonder why?

tunnelcat wrote: I've seen people use their cars as weapons when they get pissed off, even for relatively minor incidents. It's not the guns that's our problem, but an endemic gravitation towards outright hostility when dealing with strangers. More and more people seem to be willing to resort to some type of physical violence to respond to even minor issues, instead of saying "I'm sorry" or "My mistake" or even just walking away?

that is the implied corrolary of my point. If we've gotten to the point where one needs a gun to enforce or ensure civil behavior, we have deeper issues that guns are but a part of. But, as I've tried to point out, encouragement of more widespread public carry of firearms isn't a solution. It's more like putting gasoline on a fire.

callmeslick wrote:....But, as I've tried to point out, encouragement of more widespread public carry of firearms isn't a solution. It's more like putting gasoline on a fire.

You're right on that point. Putting more weapons in the hands of an already violent society will only make things worse. But you'd have to take every gun from every hand in the country to even make a difference in gun violence. As long as bad people have access to guns, good people will fear that fact and want their own guns for protection. You do know that we as a nation probably can't get rid of all the guns without a lot violence and mayhem don't you?, With so many guns out there now and so much violence abounding, people still think that they need to defend themselves. Some cases, they really have to. Most gun owners would never give theirs up in any case. They'd shoot first and tell you to f**k off later. We've lived with guns in our society far too long. They're a part of it, for better, or worse. The best but most difficult solution is to address the reason we have such a violent society, so that people don't want to use guns on each other in the first place. Otherwise, we'll eventually kill ourselves off, one way or another. I guess that would solve the problem.

callmeslick wrote:so Fermo, it doesn't seem obviously logical to you that if a society loosens and near-encourages public carrying of weapons, one can expect to see a few more outliers emboldened by their newfound 'power' that go off like the fellow in the movie theater?

No. What does seem logical is if someone tries to pull a boneheaded move like captain stupid did in the movie theatre, he'd have an entire group pointing their guns at HIM.

And this talk of 'emboldening'.. come on, really?

It'll play out like so: "Hey I know what! I'll just brandish this thing like Rambo, because I HAVE THE POWAH!" and everyone around him.. who are likely carrying (because you can't tell if they are or not) will pull theirs out and go, 'Yeah I don't think so buddy. Why don't you put that thing away."

Like I said, when everyone knows everyone else is armed, you'll be surprised at how polite everyone will be.

Wanna bet? I've seen people use their cars as weapons when they get pissed off, even for relatively minor incidents. It's not the guns that's our problem, but an endemic gravitation towards outright hostility when dealing with strangers. More and more people seem to be willing to resort to some type of physical violence to respond to even minor issues, instead of saying "I'm sorry" or "My mistake" or even just walking away. More people are now likely to violate the law if it benefits them personally, or worse, willfully do something nasty or bad against another person, like they enjoy it or something. Why is this happening? Why are people carrying chips on their shoulders and more willing to fight when those chips are knocked off, even unintentionally? Are there too many people and can we no longer tolerate living with each other peacefully? Are we ending up like crowded rats in a cage?

On a similar note, our local channel 2 news does this question of the day thing every weekday morning. One question last week was interesting. The question was: "40% of male teenagers do what activity?" The answer kind of surprised me. It was: "Hold the door for a stranger." In fact, I have had high school kids hold the door for me on occasion, which did surprise me. I always thank them too. And they are always boys, not girls, who do this. I wonder why?

Well said. I agree. We all have issues and need to figure out how to deal with them without violence.