Guns in bars: good, bad or null?

[themusicteacher]

Check this out:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31683427/ns/us_news-life/?GT1=43001

I sort of get the superhero-cum-everyman fantasy concealed-carry folks have. My father-in-law has a concealed-carry permit. In fact, he just requalified for it by shooting (without a miss) a letter size piece of paper from both 3 and 7 yards. Of course, nobody was shooting at him and, while he is an experienced shooter, he has no military or police training whatsoever. All the qualification proves is that he can hit an unarmed, inanimate small target from a particular distance(s). Most of the people who concealed-carry are responsible law abiding folks who aren't likely to go into a bar and pull their gun in the event of an argument. I do, however, think there is something to the argument that we don't allow people to drive after drinking alcohol (a car being a potential weapon used to kill people) so why should they be allowed to carry a gun into a bar?

The thing I wonder about: as gun-toting becomes more and more prevalent, as many gun-rights folks would have it, are we bound to see an escalation in violence? What I mean is: will we see more and more criminals carrying guns, pulling them and shooting people because they're afraid of being shot? Criminals are going to commit crime and they'll just pack enough power to counteract what they believe they're up against, right? The robber who once carried a knife now ups the stakes with a gun of his own in the face of poeple packing heat? I think that would result in more deaths both ways.

[MG1962]

Exceedingly bad idea - Given how many fights begin in bars fueled by booze and women issues. Anything to make the places more safe is a good move.

Obviously the vast majority of gunowners are going to behave and do the right thing. It only takes one SOB in a tightly packed bar to open fire, and you have real problems.

It is interesting I live in red neck central in western Kansas, and none of the bars allow weapons, even unloaded. My stepson is a bouncer and can only recall once seeing someone in a bar with a gun in 5 years

[Ixion]

I generally avoid the bars here in Arizona anyways. The fact that concealed handguns are going to be allowed (not passed yet, but the current governor is in favor of gun policies) just gives me another reason. When I moved to Arizona, there still seemed to be some residual feelings of the wild west. I am not, in the least bit, surprised this law will be passed.

[rwguinn]

Guns and alcohol do not mix at all-in deer camp, the range, or a bar.
Period.
When the bottle (or can) opens, the guns are put away-unloaded.

(10 year hunter ed instructor, former NRA firearms instructor)

[themusicteacher]

Guns and alcohol do not mix at all-in deer camp, the range, or a bar.
Period.
When the bottle (or can) opens, the guns are put away-unloaded.

(10 year hunter ed instructor, former NRA firearms instructor)

Good to hear some sanity from an obviously pro-gun person.

[Cainkane1]

As a gun owner and proponent of the right to keep and bear arms I say no.

[Monketey Ghost]

If I knew people could carry in a bar, I'd never never never go in.

[Upchurch]

I grew up in a hunting culture. I'll tell you right now that drinking and gun-toting happens. Often. From what I've seen/heard, it rarely causes more problems than what you'd get from just drinking.

That being said, I don't recall any incidents of guns in bars. Probably because people who are at all familiar with gun use know that it is a :rule10ing stupid idea along the lines of "Hey, if I want to smoke while pumping gas, that's my right!"

[GreNME]

Guns and alcohol do not mix at all-in deer camp, the range, or a bar.
Period.
When the bottle (or can) opens, the guns are put away-unloaded.

(10 year hunter ed instructor, former NRA firearms instructor)

Thank you. I was hoping this could be posted by someone who is more clearly pro-gun than I am-- at best, I only qualify as a fence-sitter-- but that needed to be pointed out clearly fro the get-go.

I'm cool with gun ownership, less so on the concealed-carry issue, but definitely fall into the 'aw hell no' camp as far as alcohol consumption and guns.

[ZirconBlue]

If I knew people could carry in a bar, I'd never never never go in.

It is currently illegal, but do you really think that means that no one does it now?

[rwguinn]

Thank you. I was hoping this could be posted by someone who is more clearly pro-gun than I am-- at best, I only qualify as a fence-sitter-- but that needed to be pointed out clearly fro the get-go.

I'm cool with gun ownership, less so on the concealed-carry issue, but definitely fall into the 'aw hell no' camp as far as alcohol consumption and guns.
There are some who will say "Well, if you don't drink, it would be OK". I'm not one of them. There are reasons I can think of to be in a bar and sober, but socialization with friends by a tee-totaler, really like the band, its the only dance-hall in town, or as a designated driver are the only peaceful reasons I can think of.
In any of those cases, a sober individual will be better able to see a situation escalating and either 1. call the cops, 2. leave, and/or 3. herd his flock out the door and leave with them.

[patchbunny]

It is currently illegal, but do you really think that means that no one does it now?

It all depends what state you're in. In Utah, I do believe you can carry in a bar.

Though I don't approve of drinking and arrying, it certainly would be easier if I could carry in a bar. I don't drink, so alcohol isn't an issue for me. But if I go to, say, Applebees and there's a wait to be seated, I don't have the option to go into the bar area and chow down on appetizers until my table is ready.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Though I don't approve of drinking and arrying, it certainly would be easier if I could carry in a bar. I don't drink, so alcohol isn't an issue for me. But if I go to, say, Applebees and there's a wait to be seated, I don't have the option to go into the bar area and chow down on appetizers until my table is ready.

Sure you do. Just leave the gun at home when you go out to Applebee's.

[shadron]

That being said, I don't recall any incidents of guns in bars. Probably because people who are at all familiar with gun use know that it is a :rule10ing stupid idea along the lines of "Hey, if I want to smoke while pumping gas, that's my right!"

That would sort of imply they are probably superfluous, am I right? That being the case, I see carrying a gun to go into town to be just about as useful as carrying a hand drill/screwdriver. True, you might just, someday, run into a crazed, homicidal maniac like Dennis Klebold or Seung-Hui Cho, if you live an average life for about 500 years, but the chances of find a maniacal loose screw out to rip, gash and inflict infection on you or your loved one's hand are far better.

Perspective. Live it.

[patchbunny]

Sure you do. Just leave the gun at home when you go out to Applebee's.
Which assumes I know I'm going out to a restaurant when I chose to leave the house.

[Cobalt]

If alcohol is capable of making you think your fridge is your bathroom, adding firearms into the mix is a wonderful idea! >_>

[SRW]

It seems a wide receiver on the NY Giants (Plexico Burris), went into a bar with a gun tucked in his sweat pants. He says he did not have a drink but still managed to shoot himself in the leg.

I own guns, and at times, was obliged to carry one most of the time. But if I were going to a bar it would be locked up at home.

[Upchurch]

That would sort of imply they are probably superfluous, am I right? That being the case, I see carrying a gun to go into town to be just about as useful as carrying a hand drill/screwdriver.
Only for those that think of, and have respect of, guns as tools. In my very regionally-limited experience, that is rarely the same group of people who want a concealed carry permit.

[Quad4_72]

As many know, I am probably the most pro gun rights person on this forum. I do not believe that guns should be allowed in a bar. The mix with alcohol and the environment just makes it a bad idea. While most are law abiding citizens, the alcohol changes that for many people. For example, law abiding citizens still feel the need to drive drunk.

With that being said, I DO believe that the owner of the bar and employees should be allowed to have weapons/carry in the bar. This I know from first hand experience. I worked at a very rowdy night club as a bouncer for a couple years. In my state, the employees/owner are allowed to carry in a bar. I have my concealed carry, and I had a pistol on me at all times (Ankle strap underneath my jeans). It was comforting knowing that I always had a means to defend myself and others. Many of the other bouncers carried as well. The guns were never an issue when removing people either. People never knew we had them cause they were concealed. Plus the employees were not allowed to drink.

[shadron]

Only for those that think of, and have respect of, guns as tools. In my very regionally-limited experience, that is rarely the same group of people who want a concealed carry permit.

That would seem to me to be the very ones who one should fear. They're the ones who would take the gun out to show around and handle, it being a surrogate of their manhood and measure of their patriotism.

[CelticRose]

From the article linked in the OP:
The measure would ban drinking while packing and allow restaurants to deny entry to gun-toting citizens by posting a sign next to their liquor license.
That's all well and good for the person carrying, but what about the alcohol-induced stupidity of the other patrons?

I don't like bars, but I've been known to go to one if friends want to. Not anymore. If my friends and I want to drink, there are plenty of restaurants that serve alcohol.

[Bikewer]

Back when I used to hang out at a particular bar, so did a variety of other law-enforcement types. This was not a "cop" bar, but a fairly high percentage of the regulars were in the field.
As a result, at any particular time, you knew pretty much who was going to be packing...

I lived in fear that some fool would come in and try to stick up the joint.

[jon]

:jaw-dropp I come from a society with much lower gun ownership, but the thought of people drinking (getting smashed?) while carrying guns fills me with horror. People do stupid things under the influence, and carrying a gun lets their stupidity have considerably more impact. Are police etc. allowed to drink while carrying loaded guns?

I'd also wonder how bars feel about customers carrying guns. Some places here are getting too paranoid about what constitutes a weapon (and therefore can't be brought into a bar/club): banning things like crutches. But you certainly wouldn't be allowed to take a knife in, let alone a gun.

[rwguinn]

That would seem to me to be the very ones who one should fear. They're the ones who would take the gun out to show around and handle, it being a surrogate of their manhood and measure of their patriotism.

Except at that point you are no longer carrying--you're Brandishing--and that, my friend, loses you the right to carry--and even own--a firearm.

[slingblade]

Legal or not, already done or not, whatever conditional or not...


Bad idea. All the way around, bad, bad, bad idea.

[Squidgy]

I think most people with the right to carry would leave their heat at home if drinking. Only wacko's want to get a life or death sentence.

[fuelair]

Sure you do. Just leave the gun at home when you go out to Applebee's.Not rational. Rational is don't go anyplace you can't carry, don't vote for people who try to make laws restricting it beyond bars(but do carry weapons, just not ones that are proscribed).:)

[fuelair]

That would seem to me to be the very ones who one should fear. They're the ones who would take the gun out to show around and handle, it being a surrogate of their manhood and measure of their patriotism.
Oddly, the only two times (not at a firing range) that I have seen people take out and display their pistols were at science fiction conventions - at one five people "proved their manhood and/or patriotism" this way - four pulling their's out of purses. The other was three people, two purses. In case this is too subtle: six women, two men. I should add, none handed theirs around, just showed.:)

[ponderingturtle]

Except at that point you are no longer carrying--you're Brandishing--and that, my friend, loses you the right to carry--and even own--a firearm.

Unless the jury agrees with you.

[arthwollipot]

I'm very glad to see everyone in agreement on this subject. I'm pretty much the opposite of Quad4_72. I can see the occasional need to own a firearm (especially living on a property), but I still just don't get the idea of people in cities feeling like they need to carry concealed guns. I don't understand it.

It was comforting knowing that I always had a means to defend myself and others.This comes closest. But still I think it's excessive. I've heard of rough neighbourhoods, but one that's so rough that people feel a need to carry a concealed firearm just to defend themselves from threats of attack? That's too rough. I believe you when you say that such neighbourhoods exist (although I still have trouble shaking the feeling that they just exist in movies and on TV), but it's so totally outside my experience that... I dunno - I just don't get it. I don't get it at all.

If I strain my brain, I can think of two firearm-related crimes that I know about in my home town of Canberra in the last ten years. In one, someone tried to hold up a secure transport with a shotgun outside a club at what were at the time my local shops. In the other, a man who was rumoured to have a firearm (he didn't) led police on a wild goose chase through a residential suburb. The first happened about six years ago, the other about two. And that's pretty much it as far as gun crime goes. But Canberra is a small place. There's more in Sydney and definitely in Melbourne (which has a whole organised-crime scene going on), and that scares me quite enough. I still wouln't consider that carrying a concealed gun might be necessary to protect myself.

But although Quad4_72 and I have had our differences in the past, I believe him to be at the very least honest. But it does make me want to seek indulgence for a brief derail and ask a question to anyone who has a concealed carry license.

Have you ever had to use your concealed firearm?

This is not a challenge. I am genuinely curious about your experiences.

[JoeyDonuts]

No, no, no, no, no, a thousand times no.

This is a horrible, horrible idea. Drinking and going hunting is one thing. Carrying a piece in a bar filled with half-drunk morons who think every innocent shoulder-bump in a crowd is an affront to their very manhood and start fights over the jukebox...well, that's just stupid.

Besides, if you ever have to USE the weapon, it doesn't matter if you're surrounded by 5 guys with knives very clearly saying they're going to kill you. (You'd be screwed in this situation, gun or no but still....) You are going to get hammered to the wall by the family of whoever you happen to kill or even injure with your firearm, regardless of whether or not it was justified. You've been drinking, and you're at a bar. Any single thing you do with that firearm is now unsupported by the law. This varies from state to state - most gun and pawn shops have a readily available reference for exactly what you can and cannot do in your area - but AFAIK, the alcohol stipulation is pretty much universal.

Besides, a gun is simply a tool. It doesn't replace the mindset required for self-defense which is situational awareness, and avoiding confrontations when possible. You don't need a gun in a bar. Hell, I could think of a few shootings that happened here in my hometown because somebody had a piece in a club. None of them were legal CCL holders - all 'gangbangers' with illegal pieces - but you can't have one law for them and one law for CCL holders when it comes to alcohol. Besides, doesn't anybody just "knuck up" anymore and trade punches? The few times this has happened to me it wasn't any big deal. One, maybe two shots, maybe some clumsy punches thrown - and then the bouncers or friends break the whole thing up. It's not like Road House where the crowd parts, picks their favorite, and starts putting bets on who's going to win. Most bar fights are over very quickly. I don't know why they scare people so much. I'm more afraid of a guy with a gun or knife overreacting and getting somebody killed in this environment.

You ingest even a drop of alcohol and anything you do with a firearm is not going to stand up in court, even if it was used in accordance with the "deadly force triangle." End of story.

ETA: Actually using a concealed firearm in self-defense is a dynamic, difficult, and dangerous exercise involving picking cover/concealment, constantly moving, target selection, suppressing fire, controlling your flank, hoping to God the police show up so you won't HAVE to kill anybody, keeping mental track of how many rounds are left in your magazine/chamber - and you have to do all of this in an adrenaline-pumping state of general fear for your life. Your aim is going to be shaky enough to begin with just from being freaked out. You can't effectively do all of this when you've had alcohol. Drinking and carrying is just as bad as drinking and driving IMHO.

[GreNME]

Except at that point you are no longer carrying--you're Brandishing--and that, my friend, loses you the right to carry--and even own--a firearm.

See? Now that's twice in a gun thread where you and I have agreed totally.

[Steelmage]

I generally avoid the bars here in Arizona anyways. The fact that concealed handguns are going to be allowed (not passed yet, but the current governor is in favor of gun policies) just gives me another reason. When I moved to Arizona, there still seemed to be some residual feelings of the wild west. I am not, in the least bit, surprised this law will be passed.

What ya' mean residual, there partner. ;)

The Old West is still alive in Arizona, heard it might still be alive in Texas as well.

[BTMO]

I don't live in the US, and we don't have concealed carry here but... I think you need to read what has been passed a little more closely.

People are allowed to carry in bars. They are NOT allowed to carry and drink in bars.

[Darth Rotor]

Good.

[Damien Evans]

Not rational. Rational is don't go anyplace you can't carry, don't vote for people who try to make laws restricting it beyond bars(but do carry weapons, just not ones that are proscribed).:)

I'm very glad I live nowhere near you. That sort of thinking worries me.

[patchbunny]

Have you ever had to use your concealed firearm?

This is not a challenge. I am genuinely curious about your experiences.

No. Been in a couple of situations where I wished I had a defensive option, though, as I wasn't carrying at the time.

[Damien Evans]

I'm very glad to see everyone in agreement on this subject. I'm pretty much the opposite of Quad4_72. I can see the occasional need to own a firearm (especially living on a property), but I still just don't get the idea of people in cities feeling like they need to carry concealed guns. I don't understand it.

This comes closest. But still I think it's excessive. I've heard of rough neighbourhoods, but one that's so rough that people feel a need to carry a concealed firearm just to defend themselves from threats of attack? That's too rough. I believe you when you say that such neighbourhoods exist (although I still have trouble shaking the feeling that they just exist in movies and on TV), but it's so totally outside my experience that... I dunno - I just don't get it. I don't get it at all.

If I strain my brain, I can think of two firearm-related crimes that I know about in my home town of Canberra in the last ten years. In one, someone tried to hold up a secure transport with a shotgun outside a club at what were at the time my local shops. In the other, a man who was rumoured to have a firearm (he didn't) led police on a wild goose chase through a residential suburb. The first happened about six years ago, the other about two. And that's pretty much it as far as gun crime goes. But Canberra is a small place. There's more in Sydney and definitely in Melbourne (which has a whole organised-crime scene going on), and that scares me quite enough. I still wouln't consider that carrying a concealed gun might be necessary to protect myself.

But although Quad4_72 and I have had our differences in the past, I believe him to be at the very least honest. But it does make me want to seek indulgence for a brief derail and ask a question to anyone who has a concealed carry license.

Have you ever had to use your concealed firearm?

This is not a challenge. I am genuinely curious about your experiences.

Melbourne is safe enough, since the OC guys aren't generally concerned with the rest of us, just with eliminating their competition. Most of the big fish are dead or in jail now anyway.

[SezMe]

People are allowed to carry in bars. They are NOT allowed to carry and drink in bars.
Yes, that's right. But it sure seems odd to me. How many people go to bars to not drink? And to head off the obvious answer, yes some people do but I'd guess not many.

[JoeyDonuts]

No. Been in a couple of situations where I wished I had a defensive option, though, as I wasn't carrying at the time.

I'd go for an I-package, and pull your safeties in about 5 yards. At any rate, you've gotta hope that the opposing QB sees the blitz and takes the bait...

[patchbunny]

I'd go for an I-package, and pull your safeties in about 5 yards. At any rate, you've gotta hope that the opposing QB sees the blitz and takes the bait...

Yeah, but what if he pulls the shotgun? ;)

[SezMe]

Do what Cheney did and have the victim apologize for getting in the way of his shot.

[JoeyDonuts]

Yeah, but what if he pulls the shotgun? ;)

Big play formation, on both sides, and notoriously difficult to defend against, particularly if the offense has athletic WR's.

Wait a minute. I see what you did there. You out pithed my pith.

Pith off.

[BTMO]

Yes, that's right. But it sure seems odd to me. How many people go to bars to not drink? And to head off the obvious answer, yes some people do but I'd guess not many.

Designated driver, person meeting friends who do drink, going for a meal (it includes restaurants)....

[JoeyDonuts]

Designated driver, person meeting friends who do drink, going for a meal (it includes restaurants)....

I look at it from a tactical point of view...it'd be a weapon retention nightmare in a bar brawl...too many angles, spotty cover, loud music that would confound figuring out who was who...Forget about exerting control in this situation, you're better off getting low and making for the exit.

Let's assume you did pull out your CW in a bar, and hadn't been drinking. That means you pulled it out with reasonable expectation that its use would be necessary, meaning somebody's threatening you with deadly force. If you're normally hanging out in the kind of gin joints that this is a problem, you should re-consider what bars you go to - so that you can not drink and still carry a weapon. :confused:

[Drudgewire]

People are allowed to carry in bars. They are NOT allowed to carry and drink in bars.


I'm glad someone noticed this. The law is in no way being changed to make drinking and carrying a gun legal.

ETA: Even pulling a gun while sober in a bar fight wouldn't be legal. It's simply escalating the situation. CCWs have a responsibility to walk away from fights.

[Quad4_72]

I'm very glad to see everyone in agreement on this subject. I'm pretty much the opposite of Quad4_72. I can see the occasional need to own a firearm (especially living on a property), but I still just don't get the idea of people in cities feeling like they need to carry concealed guns. I don't understand it.

This comes closest. But still I think it's excessive. I've heard of rough neighbourhoods, but one that's so rough that people feel a need to carry a concealed firearm just to defend themselves from threats of attack? That's too rough. I believe you when you say that such neighbourhoods exist (although I still have trouble shaking the feeling that they just exist in movies and on TV), but it's so totally outside my experience that... I dunno - I just don't get it. I don't get it at all.

If I strain my brain, I can think of two firearm-related crimes that I know about in my home town of Canberra in the last ten years. In one, someone tried to hold up a secure transport with a shotgun outside a club at what were at the time my local shops. In the other, a man who was rumoured to have a firearm (he didn't) led police on a wild goose chase through a residential suburb. The first happened about six years ago, the other about two. And that's pretty much it as far as gun crime goes. But Canberra is a small place. There's more in Sydney and definitely in Melbourne (which has a whole organised-crime scene going on), and that scares me quite enough. I still wouln't consider that carrying a concealed gun might be necessary to protect myself.

But although Quad4_72 and I have had our differences in the past, I believe him to be at the very least honest. But it does make me want to seek indulgence for a brief derail and ask a question to anyone who has a concealed carry license.

Have you ever had to use your concealed firearm?

This is not a challenge. I am genuinely curious about your experiences.

One thing I think you are struggling with is getting past your own experiences and realizing that what may be true for you may not be true for others. For example, I accept and understand that where you live may be extremely safe and you feel that a gun is not necessary (I would still carry but that's just me). You are having trouble accepting that where I live things are different and crime is more of an issue.

From my own experience, I have used my concealed firearm one time. After closing at the night club, an individual was loitering out back by our dumpsters. I informed him that he needed to leave. He then felt "disrespected" and started becoming belligerent. Eventually the situation escalated, and he said something along the lines of "F you man!" and reached behind his back like he was going to draw a weapon. After the club closes and people are all on the street, I move my ankle weapon to my right pocket for a quick draw. So in this situation, the second I saw him reach for something I immediately drew my weapon and pointed it right at his chest. I informed him that if his hand came from behind his back with any sort of weapon he would receive a magazine of bullets in his chest. He slowly brought his hand back, ended up apologizing and leaving the area.

Now I will never know if he actually had a weapon or not (I saw some sort of bulge as he was walking away), but if he did I was ready for it.

I have also been in one other situation where I did not have my weapon on me and it was definitely needed (Didn't have concealed carry license at the time). An individual actually started waving a gun around outside and threatening people at the club. I am still not sure what his problem was, but the gun was very real. Luckily someone was able to calm him down and he ran away before the cops arrived. But had things gone bad in that situation, me and everyone else would have been completely defenseless. I vowed from that day forward never to be caught with my pants down like that ever again.

[volatile]

I'm very glad I live nowhere near you. That sort of thinking worries me.

Don't forget this is the guy who has previously stated that he would manipulate a dangerous situation just so he could shoot someone dead and get away with it...

Fuelair is a rational and decent guy, until talk turns to firearms.

[Quad4_72]

Not rational. Rational is don't go anyplace you can't carry, don't vote for people who try to make laws restricting it beyond bars(but do carry weapons, just not ones that are proscribed).:)

Even when No Gun signs are posted I still carry concealed. In my state, if a business puts up a No Gun sign, it is not illegal for you to carry into their business. It is only illegal if they ask you to leave, and then if you refuse to do so it is criminal trespassing. Basically, just make sure no one can see it :)

[volatile]

Even when No Gun signs are posted I still carry concealed. In my state, if a business puts up a No Gun sign, it is not illegal for you to carry into their business. It is only illegal if they ask you to leave, and then if you refuse to do so it is criminal trespassing. Basically, just make sure no one can see it :)

Good for you.

[Drudgewire]

Even when No Gun signs are posted I still carry concealed. In my state, if a business puts up a No Gun sign, it is not illegal for you to carry into their business. It is only illegal if they ask you to leave, and then if you refuse to do so it is criminal trespassing. Basically, just make sure no one can see it :)


The way it works here is "no guns" doesn't cut it. The sign has to be exact, with the ghostbusters thingy over a pistol, a certain height, and even the letters on it have to be a certain size.

Very few places have it though. It seems sort of counter-productive to ask people to take their business elsewhere while at the same time advertising that there's no one capable of defending the store against armed robbery.

[Quad4_72]

Good for you.

Was just sharing a friendly anecdote with a fellow gun advocate. Nothing you should be concerned with.

[Quad4_72]

The way it works here is "no guns" doesn't cut it. The sign has to be exact, with the ghostbusters thingy over a pistol, a certain height, and even the letters on it have to be a certain size.

Very few places have it though. It seems sort of counter-productive to ask people to take their business elsewhere while at the same time advertising that there's no one capable of defending the store against armed robbery.

Definitely. No gun signs are ridiculous (I had a thread about that a while back I think).

[volatile]

The way it works here is "no guns" doesn't cut it. The sign has to be exact, with the ghostbusters thingy over a pistol, a certain height, and even the letters on it have to be a certain size.

Very few places have it though. It seems sort of counter-productive to ask people to take their business elsewhere while at the same time advertising that there's no one capable of defending the store against armed robbery.

Proof, if proof were ever needed, of the OP's description of everyman-cum-superhero.

I bet it'd be just like in Pulp Fiction, right Drudge? :rolleyes:

[Drudgewire]

Proof, if proof were ever needed, of the OP's description of everyman-cum-superhero.

I bet it'd be just like in Pulp Fiction, right Drudge? :rolleyes:


Too many laws and "what ifs" involved. Despite your belief we're all wannabe cowboys, most of us really don't want to pull a gun except as a last resort.

But putting up a big sign saying "we don't allow last resorts" honestly is about the most retarded kind of advertising there is.

[Jaxe]

Too many laws and "what ifs" involved. Despite your belief we're all wannabe cowboys, most of us really don't want to pull a gun except as a last resort.

But putting up a big sign saying "we don't allow last resorts" honestly is about the most retarded kind of advertising there is.
This has never been about most of us, it's always been about the few who do.

[volatile]

Too many laws and "what ifs" involved. Despite your belief we're all wannabe cowboys, most of us really don't want to pull a gun except as a last resort.

But putting up a big sign saying "we don't allow last resorts" honestly is about the most retarded kind of advertising there is.

The funny thing about "last resorts" is that, conveniently, you;re able to pretty much define anything as a last resort, should you so choose, and the question is more-or-less unfalsifiable.

Say you pull your gun "as a last resort", and shoot an innocent bystander by accident. Unless you're able to see the future, you have no way of knowing if that is a better or worse outcome than that which would have transpired anyway.

Armed robbers rob; they're not usually that into murder. Perhaps you drawing your weapon saves the day. Or perhaps you provoke the bad guy into killing 5 people, when all he would have done otherwise is empty the register of $500.

Your defence in either situation is "last resort", even though it was true in neither scenario. Your cowboy fantasies dilute your thinking.

[Ysidro]

For example, I accept and understand that where you live may be extremely safe and you feel that a gun is not necessary (I would still carry but that's just me).


This has me wondering. Would you still be carrying because you don't feel safe anywhere or because you feel some other need to have a firearm with you? Is there anywhere you wouldn't regularly carry?

FTR, I, as a fellow American (or USian, as the case may be), do support your 2nd amendment right to bare arms (or arm bears, ATCMB). I'm just curious as to your thoughts on my above questions.

Damn, too many commas in that one sentence.

[Drudgewire]

This has never been about most of us, it's always been about the few who do.


The few who do will face the same murder/assault with a deadly weapon/whatever charges anyone else would for using a firearm illegally.

The difference between the CCW holder and the public at large is we're required to learn exactly what is and isn't considered "justified," so we have even less of an excuse if we go outside the lines.

[Drudgewire]

The funny thing about "last resorts" is that, conveniently, you;re able to pretty much define anything as a last resort, should you so choose, and the question is more-or-less unfalsifiable.

Say you pull your gun "as a last resort", and shoot an innocent bystander by accident. Unless you're able to see the future, you have no way of knowing if that is a better or worse outcome than that which would have transpired anyway.

Armed robbers rob; they're not usually that into murder. Perhaps you drawing your weapon saves the day. Or perhaps you provoke the bad guy into killing 5 people, when all he would have done otherwise is empty the register of $500.

Your defence in either situation is "last resort", even though it was true in neither scenario. Your cowboy fantasies dilute your thinking.


As I just said, it's not about what I want to be a last resort. It's what the law says. Taking the risk of being wrong sets you up to face the same penalties as the robber.

Cowboy fantasies can lead to "don't drop the soap" fantasies. If you have them, you're probably not the kind of person who should be carrying a gun.

[ZirconBlue]

Guns and alcohol definitely do not mix.

I look at it from a tactical point of view...it'd be a weapon retention nightmare in a bar brawl...too many angles, spotty cover, loud music that would confound figuring out who was who...Forget about exerting control in this situation, you're better off getting low and making for the exit.

Not all bars are loud and crowded.

[volatile]

As I just said, it's not about what I want to be a last resort. It's what the law says.

Can the law see into the future?

[Drudgewire]

Can the law see into the future?


Once you've already been shot, the term "last resort" is sort of moot. As I've said before I've been robbed at gunpoint, but never felt my life was in enough danger to where I'd have pulled a gun.

If he'd wanted to move us to a back room however, the ante would've been upped. While I'm glad you're confident enough in the psychology of a criminal to know what they "usually" do, it doesn't mean we should all be willing to become fish in a barrel.

[Beady]

I'm not sure what the guns/bars rules are, here in Vermont but, generally, there's nothing recognizable as a gun law (other than no carrying in a school or other public building). Vermont doesn't issue CCW permits because everyone is allowed to carry concealed. Makes it kind of awkward, because no other State recognizes Vermont CCW permits simply because they don't exist. That means if a Vermonter wants to carry in another State, he has to get a non-resident permit from a State that issues them. Most Vermonters carry non-resident New Hampshire permits, which are recognised in about a quarter of the other States.

Anyway, my *real* point is that, even with some of the least-restrictive gun laws in the nation, there's no obviously elevated problem here with the guns/alcohol thing, beyond what other States experience.

Disclosure: I have a small collection of replica Old West firearms. I own six single-action revolvers, three rifles and a shotgun. I sometimes CC if I'm carrying a lot of cash, even to the bank. That's about the only time, though.

[linusrichard]

Designated driver, person meeting friends who do drink, going for a meal (it includes restaurants)....

Don't forget the rock show.

[Drudgewire]

Most Vermonters carry non-resident New Hampshire permits, which are recognised in about a quarter of the other States.


More than that actually. (http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/nhsp/ssb/permitslicensing/plupr.html) The number of states I can carry in went from like 13 to well over 30 when I got my NH permit, even with some of them already being covered by my SC permit.

Oh, and YIKES!

PLEASE NOTE:
Effective July 1, 2009, the fee for Non-Resident Applications increases from $20.00 to $100.00.

Good thing I got mine at the beginning of the year. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/clint.gif

[ZirconBlue]

Vermont doesn't issue CCW permits because everyone is allowed to carry concealed.

:mad: Dammit! I lived there for over two years and never knew that! To think I could've been packin' heat the whole time!

;)

[fishbob]

Well it is just hunky-dory that everybody is so agreeable on this subject.

But what if the bar is on an airplane??

[themusicteacher]

One thing I think you are struggling with is getting past your own experiences and realizing that what may be true for you may not be true for others. For example, I accept and understand that where you live may be extremely safe and you feel that a gun is not necessary (I would still carry but that's just me). You are having trouble accepting that where I live things are different and crime is more of an issue.

From my own experience, I have used my concealed firearm one time. After closing at the night club, an individual was loitering out back by our dumpsters. I informed him that he needed to leave. He then felt "disrespected" and started becoming belligerent. Eventually the situation escalated, and he said something along the lines of "F you man!" and reached behind his back like he was going to draw a weapon. After the club closes and people are all on the street, I move my ankle weapon to my right pocket for a quick draw. So in this situation, the second I saw him reach for something I immediately drew my weapon and pointed it right at his chest. I informed him that if his hand came from behind his back with any sort of weapon he would receive a magazine of bullets in his chest. He slowly brought his hand back, ended up apologizing and leaving the area.

Now I will never know if he actually had a weapon or not (I saw some sort of bulge as he was walking away), but if he did I was ready for it.

I have also been in one other situation where I did not have my weapon on me and it was definitely needed (Didn't have concealed carry license at the time). An individual actually started waving a gun around outside and threatening people at the club. I am still not sure what his problem was, but the gun was very real. Luckily someone was able to calm him down and he ran away before the cops arrived. But had things gone bad in that situation, me and everyone else would have been completely defenseless. I vowed from that day forward never to be caught with my pants down like that ever again.

Your anecdote is similar to what many CC'ers account: that simply brandishing or pointing their weapon was enough to difuse the situation. People rarely fire their gun and that is a very, very good thing. In your other anecdote about not having your gun, what were the possible outcomes had you actually had a gun? Two people pointing guns at each other is an escalation of an already tense situation. What if he sees your piece and starts shooting wildly before you can get off a shot? How many people die?

The biggest problem I have with CC'ers is that they rarely have police or military training. I am aware that most of you guys never even discharge your gun while "on the street" but left to your own judgment about what "my life is in danger" is, I'm afraid there will be too many escalations. I could be wrong. We could all start carrying guns and crime rates could plummet. I just don't like the idea of someone escalating a situation (like a robbery) where nobody was likely to get hurt but someone had to get all "Dirty Harry" up in there and someone gets maimed or killed. I realize the argument always comes back to "I have a right to defend myself, my family and my property" and I get that. I just think it's a gamble with people's lives.

[JimBenArm]

Guns and alcohol. What could possibly go wrong?

[Quad4_72]

This has me wondering. Would you still be carrying because you don't feel safe anywhere or because you feel some other need to have a firearm with you? Is there anywhere you wouldn't regularly carry?

FTR, I, as a fellow American (or USian, as the case may be), do support your 2nd amendment right to bare arms (or arm bears, ATCMB). I'm just curious as to your thoughts on my above questions.

Damn, too many commas in that one sentence.

I carry everywhere unless it is specified by law that I am not allowed to carry. If I am not allowed to carry into a certain building (Such as courthouse, daycare center, school, et.) then the gun stays in the car. But regardless, it is with me whenever I leave the house.

[Upchurch]

I carry everywhere...
Why?

[Quad4_72]

Your anecdote is similar to what many CC'ers account: that simply brandishing or pointing their weapon was enough to difuse the situation. People rarely fire their gun and that is a very, very good thing. In your other anecdote about not having your gun, what were the possible outcomes had you actually had a gun? Two people pointing guns at each other is an escalation of an already tense situation. What if he sees your piece and starts shooting wildly before you can get off a shot? How many people die?



In the second anecdote you just would have had to have been there to understand it. Had I had my gun in the second anecdote, The situation would have turned out the same. While even though he was brandishing the weapon, he never actually pointed it at anyone as if he was going to fire. Since he never did that, I would have never drew my weapon. The only time my weapon becomes visible outside of my house is if I am going to draw it for the purpose of protection, so he would have never even known I had it. Never show your cards unless you have to.

[shawmutt]

Hate to buck the hunky dory trend here, but I see no problem with this law. As was stated by a previous poster, and tucked away in the article linked, the ccw holder still cannot drink. This law covers all establishments that serve alcohol, not just seedy over-crowded bars in an inner city slum.

[Quad4_72]

Why?

That is why I got my concealed carry license, so I could carry everywhere...

While in some places that chance of having to use my weapon may be outlandishly rare, it's still possible. I am always prepared.

[Quad4_72]

Hate to buck the hunky dory trend here, but I see no problem with this law. As was stated by a previous poster, and tucked away in the article linked, the ccw holder still cannot drink. This law covers all establishments that serve alcohol, not just seedy over-crowded bars in an inner city slum.

You see I can understand where you are coming from here. The problem is temptation though. Even the people that know damn well their only means of getting home is their car, they still drink. What would be interesting though is if someone had a link to an incident where a CCL holder committed a crime with a gun in bar while drinking where the law specifically stated they cannot drink.

[shawmutt]

What would be interesting though is if someone had a link to an incident where a CCL holder committed a crime with a gun in bar while drinking where the law specifically stated they cannot drink.

Even that wouldn't be convincing to me. There are a few rotten eggs in any group, cc holders included. I'd be more interested in someone finding stats about the group of fine folks with cc permits :D

Here's some: http://www.azccw.com/More%20Facts%20&%20Statistics.htm

[themusicteacher]

Hate to buck the hunky dory trend here, but I see no problem with this law. As was stated by a previous poster, and tucked away in the article linked, the ccw holder still cannot drink. This law covers all establishments that serve alcohol, not just seedy over-crowded bars in an inner city slum.

Well, that's not a problem but a CC'er is being trusted to not drink. He/she does not have to show their weapon upon entering the bar, does not have to show their CCL and the bartender cannot pat them down for a piece so that is a caveat. Certainly, if a CC'er is found to have been drinking in a bar while in possession of their weapon even if an incident did not occur they would have their license pulled. However, are you going to trust a CC'er, completely on their own accord, to not drink while packing simply based on the popular notion that CC'ers are "responsible, law abiding citizens?" I'm not so sure that's a great idea. It may be begging the question but it is a valid one: How do we know we can trust a CC'er to always abide by the law and not drink while packing?

[themusicteacher]

Even that wouldn't be convincing to me. There are a few rotten eggs in any group, cc holders included. I'd be more interested in someone finding stats about the group of fine folks with cc permits :D

Here's some: http://www.azccw.com/More%20Facts%20&%20Statistics.htm

Those stats are pretty old (1996). Got anything a little more recent? You'd think, at those rates of "decline in crime", we'd have practically no violent crime at this point.

[Upchurch]

That is why I got my concealed carry license, so I could carry everywhere...

While in some places that chance of having to use my weapon may be outlandishly rare, it's still possible. I am always prepared.
But why do you feel the need to carry a gun everywhere. What do you think you are preparing for?

[shawmutt]

Those stats are pretty old (1996). Got anything a little more recent?

Is there an expiration date on stats that I'm not aware of? eta: You are now simply moving the goal post.

You'd think, at those rates of "decline in crime", we'd have practically no violent crime at this point.

Perhaps you would think that, I (eta: and most people) would not.

[shawmutt]

But why do you feel the need to carry a gun everywhere. What do you think you are preparing for?

http://www.guncite.com/kleckandgertztable1.html

Firearms are used defensively anywhere from 800,000 to 2,000,000 times a year. Why aren't you prepared?

[Quad4_72]

But why do you feel the need to carry a gun everywhere. What do you think you are preparing for?

If ever the situation may arise that I may need to defend myself with my handgun. Is it a rare possibility that I may have to use my weapon? Yes. But should that incident ever occur, I don't want to be bleeding on the ground wishing that I would have had a means to defend myself.

[Upchurch]

If ever the situation may arise that I may need to defend myself with my handgun.

That's circular reasoning. You are carrying a gun to be prepared for a situation that you may need to use a gun. What kind of situations might you need to use your gun?

[HeyLeroy]

From an e-mail:

Drill Sergeant Joe B. Fricks Rules For A Gunfight


1. Forget about knives, bats and fists. Bring a gun. Preferably, bring at least two guns. Bring all of your friends who have guns. Bring four times the ammunition you think you could ever need.

2. Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammunition is cheap - life is expensive. If you shoot inside, buckshot is your friend. A new wall is cheap - funerals are expensive

3. Only hits count. The only thing worse than a miss is a slow miss.

4. If your shooting stance is good, you're probably not moving fast enough or using cover correctly.

5. Move away from your attacker and go to cover. Distance is your friend. (Bulletproof cover and diagonal or lateral movement are preferred.)

6. If you can choose what to bring to a gunfight, bring a semi or full-automatic long gun and a friend with a long gun.

7. In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance, or tactics. They will only remember who lived.

8. If you are not shooting, you should be communicating, reloading, and running. Yell "Fire!" Why "Fire"? Cops will come with the Fire Department, sirens often scare off the bad guys, or at least cause then to lose concentration and will.... and who is going to summon help if you yell "Intruder," "Glock" or "Winchester?"

9. Accuracy is relative: most combat shooting standards will be more dependent on "pucker factor" than the inherent accuracy of the gun.

10. Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they should have to beat you to death with it because it is empty.

11. Stretch the rules. Always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose.

12. Have a plan.

13. Have a back-up plan, because the first one won't work. "No battle plan ever survives 10 seconds past first contact with an enemy."

14. Use cover or concealment as much as possible, but remember, sheetrock walls and the like stop nothing but your pulse when bullets tear through them.

15. Flank your adversary when possible. Protect yours.

16. Don't drop your guard.

17. Always tactical load and threat scan 360 degrees. Practice reloading one-handed and off-hand shooting. That's how you live if hit in your "good" side.

18. Watch their hands. Hands kill. Smiles, frowns and other facial expressions don't (In God we trust. Everyone else keep your hands where I can see them.)

19. Decide NOW to always be aggressive ENOUGH, quickly ENOUGH.

20. The faster you finish the fight, the less shot you will get.

21. Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet if necessary, because they may want to kill you.

22. Be courteous to everyone, overly friendly to no one.

23. Your number one option for personal security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.

24. Do not attend a gunfight with a handgun, the caliber of which does not start with anything smaller than "4".

25. Use a gun that works EVERY TIME. "All skill is in vain when an Angel blows the powder from the flintlock of your musket." At a practice session, throw you gun into the mud, then make sure it still works. You can clean it later.

26. Practice shooting in the dark, with someone shouting at you, when out of breath, etc.

27. Regardless of whether justified of not, you will feel sad about killing another human being. It is better to be sad than to be room temperature.

28. The only thing you EVER say afterwards is, "He said he was going to kill me. I believed him. I'm sorry, Officer, but I'm very upset now. I can't say anything more. Please speak with my attorney."

Finally, Drill Sergeant Frick's Rules For Un-armed Combat.

1. Never be unarmed.

[Quad4_72]

That's circular reasoning. You are carrying a gun to be prepared for a situation that you may need to use a gun. What kind of situations might you need to use your gun?

I don't see any circular reasoning. And usually people don't want to get into the whole 'Well what if this situation happens" thing because the number of situations that could be cited are endless. But if we must...

From my own experience that I stated earlier, what if that man had pulled a gun from behind his back and decided he wanted to kill me? That warrants use of a gun.

If someone attempts to mug me, that warrants the use of a gun.

If someone is attempting to rob a store with a weapon and I have a clear shot at taking out the robber, that warrants the use of a gun.

If I feel that my life is ever in danger, I will definitely use my gun.

If feel my wife or kids life is in danger, gun.

Do I really need to go on? Also keep in mind that using a gun is a LAST resort. All other methods must be exhausted first. But you better believe that if my life is threatened I will make no hesitation to shoot first.

[Quad4_72]

From an e-mail:

I saved that to my computer :)

[Upchurch]

I don't see any circular reasoning. And usually people don't want to get into the whole 'Well what if this situation happens" thing because the number of situations that could be cited are endless. But if we must...

From my own experience that I stated earlier, what if that man had pulled a gun from behind his back and decided he wanted to kill me? That warrants use of a gun.

If someone attempts to mug me, that warrants the use of a gun.

If someone is attempting to rob a store with a weapon and I have a clear shot at taking out the robber, that warrants the use of a gun.

If I feel that my life is ever in danger, I will definitely use my gun.

If feel my wife or kids life is in danger, gun.

Do I really need to go on? Also keep in mind that using a gun is a LAST resort. All other methods must be exhausted first. But you better believe that if my life is threatened I will make no hesitation to shoot first.

I saved that to my computer :)
And therein lies the problem. I don't trust your judgment to correctly analyze the situation and to know when to use your gun. In essence, you place me and my family in danger.

So the question is, what do I do about it? Because you have the vigilante fantasies, do I now need to carry a concealed weapon to protect myself from from you?

And if I happen carry a more powerful gun than yourself, do you then carry something even bigger to protect yourself from me?

[GreNME]

The funny thing about "last resorts" is that, conveniently, you;re able to pretty much define anything as a last resort, should you so choose, and the question is more-or-less unfalsifiable.

Say you pull your gun "as a last resort", and shoot an innocent bystander by accident. Unless you're able to see the future, you have no way of knowing if that is a better or worse outcome than that which would have transpired anyway.

Armed robbers rob; they're not usually that into murder. Perhaps you drawing your weapon saves the day. Or perhaps you provoke the bad guy into killing 5 people, when all he would have done otherwise is empty the register of $500.

Your defence in either situation is "last resort", even though it was true in neither scenario. Your cowboy fantasies dilute your thinking.

While I have my own reasons for opposing concealed carry, you're taking the hyperbole to the same extreme as the "cowboys" you're talking about. I know a guy who was doing time (I think he's out now) for manslaughter because he was attacked by some dude and happened to knock him down in such a way that the dude's head cracked on the floor badly. He was considered a show-off to some who knew him better than I did, but it was clear to everyone he got charged more heavily because of his family's name and the fact that it was well-known he was a very skilled martial artist. While he may have been a show-off (he performed exhibitions regularly, both as entertainment and promotion for his school), I couldn't name a single person who would call him a "cowboy" as far as his mentality. There was no deadly force intentionally applied by the guy, but he had no control over the attacking dude's bad fall.

I'm pointing it out to show that things can go wrong with plenty of things, and yes firearms are one of those things where something could go wrong. But just as this shouldn't mean people must be banned from taking martial arts classes, it doesn't provide a sufficient reasoning to ban firearms or concealed carry permits. As much as I'd like to argue that it does, that just can't be the policy for any potentially lethal force out there that could be wielded by people, which makes the policy about the gun itself and not misuse or improper use.

[GreNME]

From an e-mail:

Meh. Color me the color of unimpressed. Guys who talk like that are usually either the first to get knocked down in a fight or too scared to do anything in the first place. There are a few out there who match the crazy talk with, well, the crazy, but in my experience those types are few. More often than not, "taking control" of a bad situation involves not channeling a Charles Bronson character.

[Quad4_72]

And therein lies the problem. I don't trust your judgment to correctly analyze the situation and to know when to use your gun. In essence, you place me and my family in danger.

So the question is, what do I do about it? Because you have the vigilante fantasies, do I now need to carry a concealed weapon to protect myself from from you?

And if I happen carry a more powerful gun than yourself, do you then carry something even bigger to protect yourself from me?

Direct me to where I have demonstrated vigilante fantasies. And the Army seems to think I am qualified to drive a tank and use the following weapons:
M2 Browning .50 cal
M4
M240B
M9
M249SAW
AT-4 HEAT
M16A2
Hand grenades
Mk 19
etc....

Also, The issuing authority of my CCL seems to think I am qualified to carry a concealed weapon. What other training do you want to make you feel safe? Your BS about me having vigilante fantasies is not substantiated by evidence and I am MORE than qualified to use a weapon under stress.

[Quad4_72]

And if I happen carry a more powerful gun than yourself, do you then carry something even bigger to protect yourself from me?

Missed this part of your post in my response. This statement that you made is simply a demonstration of your severe lack of knowledge when it comes to firearms. This thread is about concealed carry. You can really carry only so big when concealing first of all. Second, it is more important if you are hitting your target not the size of the weapon. Perhaps you should stop posting until you have educated yourself more about firearms. It's for the best really.

[MG1962]

Also, The issuing authority of my CCL seems to think I am qualified to carry a concealed weapon. What other training do you want to make you feel safe? Your BS about me having vigilante fantasies is not substantiated by evidence and I am MORE than qualified to use a weapon under stress.

But look at it from the reverse side. You dont walk around with a name tag listing all your credentials. If something goes down, the people around you have no more reason to trust you over their own instincts

[Quad4_72]

But look at it from the reverse side. You dont walk around with a name tag listing all your credentials. If something goes down, the people around you have no more reason to trust you over their own instincts

What are you suggesting exactly? People should not be allowed to carry concealed because they cannot properly display their credentials?

[BTMO]

I'm glad someone noticed this. The law is in no way being changed to make drinking and carrying a gun legal.

ETA: Even pulling a gun while sober in a bar fight wouldn't be legal. It's simply escalating the situation. CCWs have a responsibility to walk away from fights.

I am amazed it took a foreigner, on the other side of the planet, to notice this...

;)

[MG1962]

What are you suggesting exactly? People should not be allowed to carry concealed because they cannot properly display their credentials?

No, because someone has a gun, it does not automatically follow the person is either responsible or capable with the firearm. Most responsible gunowners would never mix booze and guns, so to turn up in a bar drinking while carrying, suggests a certain suspision about a persons capability with a weapon

[rwguinn]

I'm glad someone noticed this. The law is in no way being changed to make drinking and carrying a gun legal.

ETA: Even pulling a gun while sober in a bar fight wouldn't be legal. It's simply escalating the situation. CCWs have a responsibility to walk away from fights.

I am amazed it took a foreigner, on the other side of the planet, to notice this...

;)
Oh, really?
There are some who will say "Well, if you don't drink, it would be OK". I'm not one of them. There are reasons I can think of to be in a bar and sober, but socialization with friends by a tee-totaler, really like the band, its the only dance-hall in town, or as a designated driver are the only peaceful reasons I can think of.
In any of those cases, a sober individual will be better able to see a situation escalating and either 1. call the cops, 2. leave, and/or 3. herd his flock out the door and leave with them.

[Kopji]

meh. This keeps their minds off the unpopular task of approving the Arizona state budget. The State park system almost closed on the eve of the 4th of July weekend because there was no budget. (They'd be some shootin' then.)

The recent Arizona 'gun thing' is not really much about law or being more safe. Simple matter is that we now have a Republican legislature AND (an unelected) Republican governor - and the priority is for getting the message out that things are getting better: we are more 'free' (except for pesky things like abortion or gay marriage).

I don't see this kind of law being more than a political message. I've been here almost 30 years and don't remember anyone ever being arrested for packing weapons in a bar.

[Upchurch]

This statement that you made is simply a demonstration of your severe lack of knowledge when it comes to firearms. This thread is about concealed carry.
Yes, but your argument is about always being armed for self-defense.

Perhaps you should stop posting until you have educated yourself more about firearms. It's for the best really.
Yes, poor reading skills and misplaced arrogance. THAT will make me trust your judgment all the more. :rolleyes:

As I said earlier, I grew up in a gun culture. My father took me out to the shooting range before I was old enough to hold a gun. In Scouts, I shot a large variety of things including black powder. My gym class included a gun and hunter's safety course starting as early as grade school. I outgrew my fascination with them by the time I was a teenager.

Also, The issuing authority of my CCL seems to think I am qualified to carry a concealed weapon.
Which required what kind of validation to certify your competence? Was there a whole 8 hours of training involved?

Your BS about me having vigilante fantasies is not substantiated by evidence...
No evidence? Tell me:
If someone is attempting to rob a store with a weapon and I have a clear shot at taking out the robber, that warrants the use of a gun.
How is that not vigilantism?


...and I am MORE than qualified to use a weapon under stress.
Says you. In this thread alone, without any real stress, you've made snap decisions that turned out to be incorrect. You've reacted without thinking about what things really mean.

And you want me to trust my life and the life of those I care about to your judgment when you haven't had time to think?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Not rational. Rational is don't go anyplace you can't carry, don't vote for people who try to make laws restricting it beyond bars(but do carry weapons, just not ones that are proscribed).:)I'm very glad I live nowhere near you. That sort of thinking worries me.

You're going to have to be more specific. He just said he agrees with banning guns from bars.

[Quad4_72]

Yes, but your argument is about always being armed for self-defense.


Yes, poor reading skills and misplaced arrogance. THAT will make me trust your judgment all the more. :rolleyes:

As I said earlier, I grew up in a gun culture. My father took me out to the shooting range before I was old enough to hold a gun. In Scouts, I shot a large variety of things including black powder. My gym class included a gun and hunter's safety course starting as early as grade school. I outgrew my fascination with them by the time I was a teenager.


Which required what kind of validation to certify your competence? Was there a whole 8 hours of training involved?


No evidence? Tell me:

How is that not vigilantism?



Says you. In this thread alone, without any real stress, you've made snap decisions that turned out to be incorrect. You've reacted without thinking about what things really mean.

And you want me to trust my life and the life of those I care about to your judgment when you haven't had time to think?

You really need to fix your quotes. And honestly most of what you said here makes little to no sense. Basically it doesn't even warrant a response. You have made no point whatsoever. Shooting someone who may possibly kill an innocent individual is being a vigilante? Glad you are not in charge of defending anything. Wow that's just awful. I also noticed that you chose to ignore my military training. Why is that?

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

.... That being the case, I see carrying a gun to go into town to be just about as useful as carrying a hand drill/screwdriver.


:) :eye-poppi :roll:

I went to a restaurant, once in 2002, and since the line to pay my bill was quite long, and because I'd noticed that the door handle/bar was quite loose... dangerously loose because of exposed sharp edges... I whipped out my pocket super tool, deburred the edges, broached out the old, peened-over screw hole, hammered in a few toothpicks to accept the threads of the screw, trimmed them flush, and reset the screw holding the handle/bar securely.

When it was my turn, I mentioned that I should get a discount for fixing the door. The waitress at the till looked at me coolly and asked, "do you carry that thing everywhere?"

So. Yeah. Almost exactly as useful, "as carrying a hand drill/screwdriver."

I saved the restaurant the effort and expense of calling a repairman. I may have saved a customer an injury and the restaurant a law suit. All it took me was a willingness to do something about a problem, the right (multi-)tool and... oh... maybe seven minutes.

I may be the last Boy Scout, but I do believe in being prepared.

As for allowing law-abiding people to take guns into bars:

Nearly all of the people that didn't take guns into bars before, simply because it was illegal, will now take guns into bars and not drink alcoholic beverages, simply because they know the hazards.

The guys that used to take guns into bars, despite it being illegal, will continue to take guns into bars and will continue to get drunk, despite knowing the hazards.

The only difference, as far as I can see, is that now the bars have a few sensible armed folks in them to sort of counterbalance the insensible armed folks that were already there.

(oh, yeah: Some friends of mine and I went in there about a month ago. My fix is still in place, judging from the 1/16th of an inch offset from the original position, and holding nicely, thank you.)

[BTMO]

No, because someone has a gun, it does not automatically follow the person is either responsible or capable with the firearm. Most responsible gunowners would never mix booze and guns, so to turn up in a bar drinking while carrying, suggests a certain suspision about a persons capability with a weapon

Actually, to get a concealed carry permit, that is *exactly* what it does demonstrate.

The person involved is investigated by the police, has a background check done and has to pass a safety and law course.

[BTMO]

I look at it from a tactical point of view...it'd be a weapon retention nightmare in a bar brawl...too many angles, spotty cover, loud music that would confound figuring out who was who...Forget about exerting control in this situation, you're better off getting low and making for the exit.

Let's assume you did pull out your CW in a bar, and hadn't been drinking. That means you pulled it out with reasonable expectation that its use would be necessary, meaning somebody's threatening you with deadly force. If you're normally hanging out in the kind of gin joints that this is a problem, you should re-consider what bars you go to - so that you can not drink and still carry a weapon. :confused:

And what happens if you just want to meet some folks after work for a (non-alcoholic) drink? Do you race home first? Drop the gun off with friends? Leave it in the car?

None of these make a lot of sense.

Having someone who has been vetted by the police, has been fingerprinted, has been trained and is skilled in carrying a gun ... and *not letting anyone know* just makes sense.

Most people don't go to bars looking for a gun fight.

We are talking about one of the most law-abiding and responsible groups of people in the US - demonstrably so - as the only way to get a concealed carry permit there is to jump through a number of police-administered hoops, including a background check.

They aren't loose cannons looking for a place to explode.

Incidentally, and I don't have the link to hand, I recall reading some years ago that concealed carry permit holders are something like 8 times less likely to shoot an innocent bystander than a police officer.

Do police disarm before they go into post offices, schools or bars?

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

....

How is that not vigilantism?

....

And you want me to trust my life and the life of those I care about to your judgment when you haven't had time to think?


First:

Vigilantism is the taking of the law into one's own hands to avenge a crime, said avengement taking place without due process.

Taking the law into your own hands to prevent a felony crime, or to arrest someone you know to have committed a felony or a breach of the peace misdemeanor in order to deliver him to the proper authorities, is accepting the responsibility of being a citizen acting under the rule of law.

Second:

Maybe we should have a special hat for people to wear that will indicate: "Do not use firearms in my defense." That way all of us guys that would otherwise be willing to engage a dangerous assailant on your behalf, risking taking a bullet on your behalf and willing to accept that risk, will know to call the police and wait around for the 15 to 30 minutes it takes for them to arrive.

Alternately, you, who say that you know so much about firearms, should be able to notice where the firearms in play are pointed: The ones pointing at YOU are in the hands of BAD GUYS. The ones pointing at THEM are NOT.

....

This is, of course, assuming that you're not in the process of committing a felony or breach of the peace misdemeanor.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Actually, to get a concealed carry permit, that is *exactly* what it does demonstrate.

The person involved is investigated by the police, has a background check done and has to pass a safety and law course.


"Having a gun," doesn't imply, "having a gun legally," right?

[BTMO]

"Having a gun," doesn't imply, "having a gun legally," right?

True enough.

I just assumed that, as we were talking about concealed carry permits and permit holders, we were *still* talking about concealed carry permit holders...

[king catfish]

Only for those that think of, and have respect of, guns as tools. In my very regionally-limited experience, that is rarely the same group of people who want a concealed carry permit.

That would seem to me to be the very ones who one should fear. They're the ones who would take the gun out to show around and handle, it being a surrogate of their manhood and measure of their patriotism.

Where do you people live? I live in the greater Philadelphia area, and quite a few of the people I know and associate with have carry permits. Not one of them would ever go into a bar with their respective weapons or tolerate a companion doing so. One can always lock it in the car if you get an unexpected invite to a bar.

And taking out and showing, using the weapon as a penis replacement or manhood booster...unbelievable. No one I know would do this. My wife has a carry permit and carries regularly, as do the wives of several of my friends. Do you think perhaps they need a manhood booster? I think your hoplophobia is showing. Shame on you.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

That would seem to me to be the very ones who one should fear. They're the ones who would take the gun out to show around and handle, it being a surrogate of their manhood and measure of their patriotism.


People who take out their firearms to sho off aren't the people who hold the CCLs. We're the guys that know that, if the environment becomes bullet-intensive, the guys that were showing off are on the Top Ten hit list.

That's why it's called 'CONCEALED' carry.

Actually, in several states with CCL, taking out your firearm for display, or for any reason but to discharge it in defense of yourself or others for that matter, is grounds for losing your CCL, so mostly, no, and severally, no by law.

[JoeyDonuts]

Not all bars are loud and crowded.

You wouldn't think you'd need a .357 in a jazz bar. But then a Dave Koz fan buys up two hours worth of mellow jams on the jukebox, and the Duke Ellington fans don't like it. Then those Kenny G ***************** in the chinos try to tell everybody what's what.

It's merlot-soaked, mock-turtleneck pandemonium I tell you. I will not go into a situation like that without at least enough knockdown power to drop a bull elk.

[JoeyDonuts]

There are a few out there who match the crazy talk with, well, the crazy, but in my experience those types are few. More often than not, "taking control" of a bad situation involves not channeling a Charles Bronson character.

Charles Bronson hand-holds a Browning M2 .50 cal machine gun by the barrel whilst spewing thousands of rounds, and yet somehow manages to not permanently melt his hand to the muzzle.

Then again, you are talking about a character whose whole shtick was shooting punks right in the back with overpowered handguns. And shot people point-blank with antitank rockets.

If that's anybody's model for a how a modern firearms engagement plays out, they have no business even owning a weapon.

That said, I've met people like that. Don't know if they have CCLs. God, I hope not.

[SezMe]

But putting up a big sign saying "we don't allow last resorts" honestly is about the most retarded kind of advertising there is.
Nope. Given a choice between two stores, one having a "no guns" sign and one that does, I'll choose the former every time. Of course, you and I don't have the same perspective on the issue so that accounts for the difference. I'm just showing you that your blanket statement is false because not everyone has the same attitude toward guns as you do.

[SezMe]

From my own experience that I stated earlier, what if that man had pulled a gun from behind his back and decided he wanted to kill me? That warrants use of a gun.
Let's follow that scenario. Suppose the guy pulls a gun from behind his back. You now see it. But you believe that you are going to reach down to your leg, pull up you pants, unholster your gun, pull it up, aim and shoot before your assailant simply pulls his trigger? Riiiight.

[BTMO]

Nope. Given a choice between two stores, one having a "no guns" sign and one that does, I'll choose the former every time. Of course, you and I don't have the same perspective on the issue so that accounts for the difference. I'm just showing you that your blanket statement is false because not everyone has the same attitude toward guns as you do.


Just curious...

Do the signs keep out people who have guns who have concealed carry permits, obey the law, have demonstrated they understand the law and have trained in and demonstrated safe handling to get their permit, or do they keep out people who *don't* have concealed carry permits, but carry guns anyway?

Which type of people do you prefer to shop with?

[SezMe]

From an e-mail:
Do you endorse the use of these principles in real life?

19. Decide NOW to always be aggressive ENOUGH, quickly ENOUGH.

21. Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet if necessary, because they may want to kill you.

[themusicteacher]

Is there an expiration date on stats that I'm not aware of? eta: You are now simply moving the goal post.



Perhaps you would think that, I (eta: and most people) would not.

Oh, you're a clever one, aren't you? I wasn't "moving the goalposts," I was simply asking if those stats had changed within the last, oh, 13 years (as they likely have, perhaps even in favor of CC). Those stats are completely valid...for 1996. Nice strawman.

Those stats you cite are the ones that claim crime goes down in proportion to the number of CCL's issued so it should follow that eventually we should get to a nominal rate of crime as more people carry. Nice snark though, Wentz.

[JoeyDonuts]

Let's follow that scenario. Suppose the guy pulls a gun from behind his back. You now see it. But you believe that you are going to reach down to your leg, pull up you pants, unholster your gun, pull it up, aim and shoot before your assailant simply pulls his trigger? Riiiight.

He'd said later that he'd transferred the gun to his pocket, but the problem still remains. If you already have a pistol aimed at you, your options are severely limited. The .5 second it'll take you to pull your pistol from your pocket is no better than the 2-3 it'll take you to ready one in your leg. In any case, you're counting on your assailaint being an abysmal marksman. He's already got the initiative, and at least one bullet. If you're in a confined alley with no real cover you can make a run for, and no options for misdirection, you are most likely going to be shot several times and die.

Without knowing what immediate options were in the area for cover/concealment, it's hard to say what the right tactical call would be in a situation like this. I keep a "dummy wad" of cash in my pocket for situations like this - for tossing in the opposite direction I intend to move. Very rarely is a situation going to come up where someone wants to just kill you outright - they most likely want money. Losing a couple 20 dollar bills is far better odds for success than rolling the dice in a gunfight when your opponent already has the initiative.

Even when I'm carrying my weapon, if I every get jumped and stuck up for cash, I have every intention of giving them what they want and then promptly high-tailing it out of there. In self defense situations, the ultimate goal is the same no matter what the weapons or tactics employed: Neutralize the threat and escape. If he wants money, remove the threat by giving him cash - preferably WHILE making your escape. If he wants something more than money, neutralizing the threat takes on a different form.

[SezMe]

Just curious...

Do the signs keep out people who have guns who have concealed carry permits, obey the law, have demonstrated they understand the law and have trained in and demonstrated safe handling to get their permit, or do they keep out people who *don't* have concealed carry permits, but carry guns anyway?
Probably neither.

Which type of people do you prefer to shop with?
That is not the issue upon which I make my decision. Rather, I simply don't want to be shopping in a store where guns are allowed. That someone may be carrying against the posted signage is not something I can control for.

[SezMe]

Even that wouldn't be convincing to me. There are a few rotten eggs in any group, cc holders included. I'd be more interested in someone finding stats about the group of fine folks with cc permits :D

Here's some: http://www.azccw.com/More%20Facts%20&%20Statistics.htm
shawmutt, do you realize that that article cites Lott for much of its basis. Lott has been involved in numerous controversies regarding gun statistics and, for my money, has been shown to fake data and results. He is a partisan hack for the gun lobby and should not be relied upon for any dispassionate discussion of the issue.

ETA: Ignoring Lott, take a look at the first paragraph. It's a horrible (perfect?) example of the mixing of correlation and causation.

[Damien Evans]

Well it is just hunky-dory that everybody is so agreeable on this subject.

But what if the bar is on an airplane??

Then, naturally, I'll kill the *******.:D

[Sword_Of_Truth]

No evidence? Tell me:

If someone is attempting to rob a store with a weapon and I have a clear shot at taking out the robber, that warrants the use of a gun.

How is that not vigilantism?

Maybe you should explain to us how it is vigilantiism?

[SezMe]

http://www.guncite.com/kleckandgertztable1.html

Firearms are used defensively anywhere from 800,000 to 2,000,000 times a year. Why aren't you prepared?
I seriously question that conclusion. Let's take a look at Table 1. The highest %Use is the Cambridge Reports column which did NOT exclude uses against animals and military use. The second highest %Use is the DMIa column which did not exclude use against animals. All other %Use cites are lower than these two by half.

So, again, I hesitate to draw any substantial conclusions from this data.

Finally, at the risk of commiting the logical error of incrdullity, the 2,000,000 figure implies that the defensive use of a gun occurs almost 5,500 times a day. I find this, well, incredible.

[SezMe]

Well it is just hunky-dory that everybody is so agreeable on this subject.

But what if the bar is on an airplane??
Pray that Larson is also a passenger so he can take the bastard out with his hands?

[arthwollipot]

One thing I think you are struggling with is getting past your own experiences and realizing that what may be true for you may not be true for others. For example, I accept and understand that where you live may be extremely safe and you feel that a gun is not necessary (I would still carry but that's just me). You are having trouble accepting that where I live things are different and crime is more of an issue.I've never made any bones about that. Even in my very safe city, there's one or two areas I wouldn't wander through after dark. What I'm curious about though is your conviction that a firearm is the appropriate solution to perceived problems. But we've already gone through that in the pacifism thread, so there's no need to rehash it all. :D

From my own experience, I have used my concealed firearm one timeSo you brought it out, but did not fire it. Thanks for sharing that story.

That is why I got my concealed carry license, so I could carry everywhere...

While in some places that chance of having to use my weapon may be outlandishly rare, it's still possible. I am always prepared.You'd better not come to Australia unless you're in uniform :) You would have to give up your gun. To my knowledge there's no such thing as a concealed carry permit here (could be wrong about that - never looked it up). and self-defence is not considered a valid "Genuine Reason" for obtaining a license. Australia has very strong firearm control legislation, partially because of the Port Arthur Massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_%28Australia%29) in 1996, which remains the worst gun crime in Australian history.

I would reluctantly grant what Quad_4_72 would say about this - that if he and his gun were at the Seascape on that morning, Bryant would not have gone on to kill 35 people. That's probably true. But one of the reasons the event was so shocking is that this kind of stuff just doesn't happen in Australia - especially in a place like Port Arthur. I've been there. It's quiet. Safe. No-one expected someone to come along and start killing people.

As a result of that event, federal legislation was enacted to ban or heavily restrict self-loading rifles and shotguns. Wikipedia has an article on gun politics in Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia). It's an interesting read. And unusually, doesn't have a disclaimer at the top saying that it's contentious, or unreferenced.

You're going to have to be more specific. He just said he agrees with banning guns from bars.That's not what he said. He said that he supports the right to carry concealed firearms all the time, everywhere, except in bars.

[BTMO]

Probably neither.


That is not the issue upon which I make my decision. Rather, I simply don't want to be shopping in a store where guns are allowed. That someone may be carrying against the posted signage is not something I can control for.

Ok, let's take a step further back.

Do police officers carrying firearms in stores worry you?

If not, why not?

[Quad4_72]

Let's follow that scenario. Suppose the guy pulls a gun from behind his back. You now see it. But you believe that you are going to reach down to your leg, pull up you pants, unholster your gun, pull it up, aim and shoot before your assailant simply pulls his trigger? Riiiight.

Your reading comprehension has failed you MISERABLY. From post 47:



From my own experience, I have used my concealed firearm one time. After closing at the night club, an individual was loitering out back by our dumpsters. I informed him that he needed to leave. He then felt "disrespected" and started becoming belligerent. Eventually the situation escalated, and he said something along the lines of "F you man!" and reached behind his back like he was going to draw a weapon. After the club closes and people are all on the street, I move my ankle weapon to my right pocket for a quick draw. So in this situation, the second I saw him reach for something I immediately drew my weapon and pointed it right at his chest. I informed him that if his hand came from behind his back with any sort of weapon he would receive a magazine of bullets in his chest. He slowly brought his hand back, ended up apologizing and leaving the area.



Perhaps you should retract your statement...

[Quad4_72]

I've never made any bones about that. Even in my very safe city, there's one or two areas I wouldn't wander through after dark. What I'm curious about though is your conviction that a firearm is the appropriate solution to perceived problems. But we've already gone through that in the pacifism thread, so there's no need to rehash it all. :D

So you brought it out, but did not fire it. Thanks for sharing that story.

You'd better not come to Australia unless you're in uniform :) You would have to give up your gun. To my knowledge there's no such thing as a concealed carry permit here (could be wrong about that - never looked it up). and self-defence is not considered a valid "Genuine Reason" for obtaining a license. Australia has very strong firearm control legislation, partially because of the Port Arthur Massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_%28Australia%29) in 1996, which remains the worst gun crime in Australian history.

I would reluctantly grant what Quad_4_72 would say about this - that if he and his gun were at the Seascape on that morning, Bryant would not have gone on to kill 35 people. That's probably true. But one of the reasons the event was so shocking is that this kind of stuff just doesn't happen in Australia - especially in a place like Port Arthur. I've been there. It's quiet. Safe. No-one expected someone to come along and start killing people.

As a result of that event, federal legislation was enacted to ban or heavily restrict self-loading rifles and shotguns. Wikipedia has an article on gun politics in Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia). It's an interesting read. And unusually, doesn't have a disclaimer at the top saying that it's contentious, or unreferenced.

That's not what he said. He said that he supports the right to carry concealed firearms all the time, everywhere, except in bars.

Other than being on a vacation somewhere, I will never live in a place where my right to defend myself is restricted.

[BTMO]

I would reluctantly grant what Quad_4_72 would say about this - that if he and his gun were at the Seascape on that morning, Bryant would not have gone on to kill 35 people. That's probably true. But one of the reasons the event was so shocking is that this kind of stuff just doesn't happen in Australia - especially in a place like Port Arthur. I've been there. It's quiet. Safe. No-one expected someone to come along and start killing people.

Or Milperra, or Hoddle Street, or(no guns required) Childers ...

Things like this DO happen in Australia. And New Zealand (eg, Raurima and Aromoana), and all sorts of other places.

[arthwollipot]

Other than being on a vacation somewhere, I will never live in a place where my right to defend myself is restricted.See, that's the bit that I just don't get about you. Your "right" to defend yourself. It just seems more than a little paranoid to me.

[Quad4_72]

See, that's the bit that I just don't get about you. Your "right" to defend yourself. It just seems more than a little paranoid to me.

I am not paranoid in the least. But why would I want to live somewhere that does not allow you to defend yourself should the situation arise however unlikely it may be?

[arthwollipot]

I am not paranoid in the least. But why would I want to live somewhere that does not allow you to defend yourself should the situation arise however unlikely it may be?I think you are a little paranoid, because you see every situation as one where someone might suddenly jump out and try to kill you. That's not realistic, in my experience.

And there's no law preventing you from defending yourself in Australia. In fact, although self-defence is not considered a "Proper Reason" for getting a gun license, there are circumstances where one is permitted to use a licensed firearm for self-defence. You are permitted to use up to lethal force to defend yourself if the threat is credible. You're just not permitted to get a gun license for the sole purpose of self-defence.

[BTMO]

And there's no law preventing you from defending yourself in Australia. In fact, although self-defence is not considered a "Proper Reason" for getting a gun license, there are circumstances where one is permitted to use a licensed firearm for self-defence. You are permitted to use up to lethal force to defend yourself if the threat is credible. You're just not permitted to get a gun license for the sole purpose of self-defence.


Sorry - but if you aren't permitted to own the most effective tool for self defence, you don't *really* have the right to self defence.

You have the right to be lucky.

[JoeyDonuts]

I think you are a little paranoid, because you see every situation as one where someone might suddenly jump out and try to kill you. That's not realistic, in my experience.

From my experience, these things don't wait for you to be prepared or in a "more likely area" to happen.

A concealed firearm is no substitute for situational awareness and good judgement, but it's one hell of an upgrade to it in the hands of a competent, trained, and responsible person should the situation warrant.

[arthwollipot]

Sorry - but if you aren't permitted to own the most effective tool for self defence, you don't *really* have the right to self defence.

You have the right to be lucky.I seriously disagree with this statement. But again, that was done to death in the pacifism thread and I"m not going to derail this one now.

[JoeyDonuts]

Now I'm beginning to wonder if there's any bars that'll let you in brandishing a morningstar or a poleaxe. :D

(Maybe if you're a performer at Medieval Times...)

[SezMe]

Your reading comprehension has failed you MISERABLY. From post 47:



Perhaps you should retract your statement...
I did not go back to your original post. I retract my statement...although you could have left out the "MISERABLY" part.

[arthwollipot]

Now I'm beginning to wonder if there's any bars that'll let you in brandishing a morningstar or a poleaxe. :D

(Maybe if you're a performer at Medieval Times...)I use neither. I would carry a sword. And not one of those wussy rapiers, either. I'd carry a proper English mortuary sword (http://www.theknightshop.co.uk/catalog/mortuary-hilt-sword-p-604.html).

In fact, this poses a dilemma for me - one that I haven't resolved yet. It's a bit of a paradox, actually. I study western martial arts and swordplay. I would collect swords if I could afford it, and I would consider carrying one for self-defence if it hadn't been made completely obsolete by the presence of firearms.

Furthermore, guns have several useful functions. You can use them for hunting, for sport, for humanely destroying livestock, etc. A sword has only one purpose - and that is to maim or kill human beings.

So if I'm cool with swords, why am I so against guns? I don't know. I recognise that it is a contradiction. Perhaps it's because swords are completely obsolete in modern society. I thought once that it was because it was far less likely for people to randomly attack other people with swords. But for a little while I was collecting links to reports of sword crimes (http://www.aaf.org.au/articles/inthenews/swordcrime/) around the world. So it seems that people do go around randomly attacking people with swords.

It may be that being armed with a sword is of absolutely no use when your assailant is armed with a gun - the very reason that swords became obsolete in the first place. So this means that guns are "worse" than swords.

I don't pretend that it's rational, or logical. It's something that I need to reconcile in my own head. Meanwhile, I'm trying to be a little less of a hard-ass about gun control. :D

[SezMe]

Ok, let's take a step further back.

Do police officers carrying firearms in stores worry you?

If not, why not?
At the risk of playing semantic game with you, no, cops carrying do not "worry" me.

To try to inform the discussion rather than obfuscate, when I see a cop in a store that I am in (happens with all too much frequency at the nearest 7-11 late at night) I am neither reassured nor .... I'm not sure what word to use... frightened. I have no doubt that a potential robber would go somewhere else if he was intent on commiting robbery but saw the cops in the store. But if an idiotic robber did, in fact, try something illegal, I am not convinced that cops with guns in the store reduces my chances of getting hurt.

More generally, my sense is that the presence of guns does not decrease the probability of violence. I am persuaded (well, that's not the right word either...maybe "influenced" is better) by Lott's horrible misuse of statistics to make the case for guns make us safer. Why fake the data if it is really true?

Yes, my response is fuzzy...but only because guns/concealed carry/probability of harm, etc. are a very complex issue. When folks like Quad try to make it simple, I am leery. It's a situation that has no easy answer so I distrust those who adopt a narrow perspective.

[JoeyDonuts]

It isn't easy - and it's a very narrow set of circumstances in which their lawful use by a private citizen is justified. However, those of us that carry believe that, should we ever find ourselves caught in that narrowest of circumstances, we have a tool that can save our lives and the lives of others. It can possibly stop a shooting spree. A private citizen can, using his training, and good judgement, use his weapon to prevent the loss of his own life and those around him. Those of us that carry believe in having a third option in addition to running or dying. Even though it seems simplistic on the surface, nothing about it is. It's a horrible thing to line up another human being in the sight picture of a weapon and move your finger that 1/8th of an inch that you know will unleash a piece of metal that will tear tendons, crush bone, puncture organs. The laws in U.S. states that allow private concealed carry allow us to at least have an honest shot at preventing the alternative.

I would much rather have to look a gunman's mother in the eye and know that I removed her son from the world, than to stare at the ceiling - life draining out of me. Or, to run, fleeing with the herd while people are being murdered in the distance behind me knowing that I was in the right place, the right time, with the right training and equipment to at least give the other people a chance.

(My hypothetical scenario is a workplace or public mall shooting - both of which have happened with increasing frequency in days of late.)

[BTMO]

I seriously disagree with this statement. But again, that was done to death in the pacifism thread and I"m not going to derail this one now.

Fair enough - and despite appearances, I am not really an argumentative person.

But consider this...

Here in NZ, owning a firearm for self defence is not permitted. However, every year, a number of people are shot in valid self-defence situations.

The most famous of these was a year or so ago. An Auckland gun shop had a guy burst in during the day, carrying a machete (and yes, I have taken onboard what you've said about swords!). He threatened the shop owners, and demanded guns.

One of the store owners loaded a semi automatic pistol and told him to drop the machete. The guy lunged at him, and was shot in the stomach.

About now, I just *know* that people are going to be thinking "well, it is a good thing that bad people can't get guns" - but consider this - we have *other* shops robbed, other people murdered, and all sorts of other violence.

NZ is considered a very safe place, btw.

The point of this story is this - the shooter had no right to own a gun for self defence (he was a competition shooter in addition to working in a gun shop) - but he DID have access to a gun when he needed it.

He was charged under the Arms Act (not for using excessive force, though), and the case was ultimately thrown out of court. He was lucky - because when he needed a gun, there was one near by.

At the risk of playing semantic game with you, no, cops carrying do not "worry" me.

This attitude confuses me. If you live in a state with concealed carry, potentially any person you walk past could be carrying a gun - legally - after demonstrating they can be trusted with one. What makes them being in a shop any more likely to be a problem?

They probably practice far more with it than police and ... they are drawn from exactly the same population pool as police. I don't believe they carry guns to be big men (or women) - they carry them for the same reason that a lot of homes have fire extinguishers. They'd prefer to have it and not need it rather than need it and not have it.

I understand they also freak out less often than police officers, and I understand they shoot innocent buystanders less regularly than police officers. I really must look those stats up again one day.

Incidentally, where I live, you occassionally see people with rifles in public. They've been, or are going, hunting. I usually talk to them....

[JoeyDonuts]

They'd prefer to have it and not need it rather than need it and not have it.

:clap:

[arthwollipot]

...after demonstrating they can be trusted with one.This is the statement that makes me think that carry laws can be okay. If it's really easy to get a permit, more people that I wouldn't trust with a gun can get them legally. By making it difficult to get a gun - mandatory wait periods, background checkes, psych evaluation, that sort of thing - only the people who can be trusted with a firearm will get them. Well, that's the theory anyway.

Through my discussions with Quad4_76 here, I've come to the position that I would trust him with a firearm. I can see no reason so far, through my limited contact with him, to feel that he shouldn't be permitted to have a legal firearm in his possession if he feels a need to have one (although I wouldn't be the one making the decision and if I were I'd need a lot more documentation). But I'm not deluded enough to believe that all firearm owners are like him. It's those other ones that concern me. Especially those who seem to feel that they deserve a firearm even if it isn't legal.

[arthwollipot]

I should point out here too that I'm about to go home and back for my TAM trip. I may not have another chance to post here until after TAM. Thanks for the discussion, everyone. I always like these gun threads. :D

[BTMO]

I should point out here too that I'm about to go home and back for my TAM trip. I may not have another chance to post here until after TAM. Thanks for the discussion, everyone. I always like these gun threads. :D

Go to the Gun Store while in Vegas!

You can shoot machine guns....

:bgrin:

[JoeyDonuts]

WHAT? Can't hear you with my Mickey's on.

*BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM*

*shoots a four-inch grouping at 15 yds*

[arthwollipot]

Go to the Gun Store while in Vegas!

You can shoot machine guns....

:bgrin:I was considering it, but I don't think I'll have time.

I'm shortly going to be making a post in Say What's On Your Mind Right Now with a link to my LiveJournal, which I will be updating as regularly as I can with reports and photos of my trip.

[billydkid]

I had a friend who became quite a gun expert and eventually a really small time gun dealer. Now, he went through a phase where he didn't get up in the morning without strapping on his gun and he went through his whole day with it. It always struck me as silly and big boy play/pretending. Mind you, he lived in a tiny rural town where the likelihood of ever being assaulted is relatively miniscule (which is apparently spelled wrong). Do I think he should have had the right to do this - absolutely. Do I think a bar owner (or any private property owner) should have the right to ban guns on their property - absolutely. Do I think that allowing guns in bars or other places will lead to wild west shootout - not remotely.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

I should point out here too that I'm about to go home and back for my TAM trip. I may not have another chance to post here until after TAM. Thanks for the discussion, everyone. I always like these gun threads. :D


Have a great and safe trip and lots of fun!

[JoeTheJuggler]

I forget what program I saw this on (maybe Dateline??), but not so long ago they did some simple tests of people where they did a mock up of a situation exactly like the concealed carry people are "prepared" for. IIRC, the people they used had more than the average firearms training. They were in a classroom lecture hall situation, and masked armed terrorists (everyone armed with dummy guns, including our concealed carrier). The extras were coached to panic--make lots of noise, a couple of them to run unpredictable directions (as people do in panic situations). In most cases, the concealed carry guy was shot before he could get his gun out. In one trial, he got his gun out and shot one of the panicking innocent bystanders (and didn't even know it until he watched the video and was told he fired without even realizing this person was running in front of him).

Anyone have better info about this sort of thing?

ETA: Here's the bit I was thinking of: 0MX3QtumSuE
And Part 2: xxNRLMWkjc8

I see a lot of pro-gun people claim that it's a rigged experiment. IMO, it's not really an experiment at all--just a demonstration. I think it makes a valid point.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

I had a friend who became quite a gun expert and eventually a really small time gun dealer. Now, he went through a phase where he didn't get up in the morning without strapping on his gun and he went through his whole day with it. It always struck me as silly and big boy play/pretending. Mind you, he lived in a tiny rural town where the likelihood of ever being assaulted is relatively miniscule (which is apparently spelled wrong). Do I think he should have had the right to do this - absolutely. Do I think a bar owner (or any private property owner) should have the right to ban guns on their property - absolutely. Do I think that allowing guns in bars or other places will lead to wild west shootout - not remotely.


One of the big Big BIG rules about carrying is, "either ALWAYS carry or ALWAYS DON'T carry," and if you always carry, always carry in the same place, in the same way, and in the same condition. Change is the enemy. When the air starts getting a bit thick and brown, it's no time to try to remember where it is and how you last left it, and, if you forget even for an instant long enough to exert 4.5 Lbs. worth of pressure in the wrong place, you can wind up being a source... or THE source... of thick, brown air.

You want everything just like it was when you drilled it so much you could do it in your sleep 100% of the time. That way, you've got about a 40% chance of doing it right during the adrenaline rush. Any change at all, and your chances of adequacy drop to close to nothing.

Remember the P's: Proper Practice Prevents Piss Poor Performance!

[JoeTheJuggler]

Do I think that allowing guns in bars or other places will lead to wild west shootout - not remotely.

I'm not sure what people think the Wild West was like, but I'll bet the number of gun deaths today is quite a bit higher than it was back then. I know we went through a period in St. Louis about 15 years back where there were 300+ shooting deaths per year--which is very nearly one every night. I think few places in the Wild West were actually that violent.

These days the number of firearm deaths in the U.S. is something like 30,000 per year.

On top of all of this, slightly more than half of these firearm deaths consistently over the years are suicides. To me, that's reason enough to keep guns locked up.

ETA: Some figures from the CDC database (http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html)

Year|Total Firearm Deaths|Firearm Suicides|U.S. Population
2006|30,896|16,883|298,754,819
2005|30,694|17,002|295,895,987
2004|29,569|16,750|293,191,511
2003|30,136|16,907|290,447,644
2002|30,242|17,108|287,888,021

At what number of firearm deaths have we reached "Wild West" conditions?

[shawmutt]

Oh, you're a clever one, aren't you? I wasn't "moving the goalposts," I was simply asking if those stats had changed within the last, oh, 13 years (as they likely have, perhaps even in favor of CC). Those stats are completely valid...for 1996. Nice strawman.

Yeah...how am I misrepresenting your argument? You don't offer any stats to counter mine, you just attack my stats as dusty. If I offered more recent stats, I'm sure you'd find some other way to move the goalpost, like as follows:

shawmutt, do you realize that that article cites Lott for much of its basis. Lott has been involved in numerous controversies regarding gun statistics and, for my money, has been shown to fake data and results. He is a partisan hack for the gun lobby and should not be relied upon for any dispassionate discussion of the issue.

sez you. Do you have any critique of the data or are you just going with the ad hom?

Ignoring Lott, take a look at the first paragraph. It's a horrible (perfect?) example of the mixing of correlation and causation.

How?

Finally, at the risk of commiting the logical error of incrdullity, the 2,000,000 figure implies that the defensive use of a gun occurs almost 5,500 times a day. I find this, well, incredible.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/about/crime_clock.html

It is an argument from incredulity. Crime happens often here in the US. According to the crime clock linked above, in 2007 there were, on average, 32,256 violent offences a day. I'm not sure how to extrapolate how many near misses, crimes prevented by intervention, etc., but it certainly is possible to have that many defensive uses of a firearm per day.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Furthermore, guns have several useful functions. You can use them for hunting, for sport, for humanely destroying livestock, etc. A sword has only one purpose - and that is to maim or kill human beings.

So if I'm cool with swords, why am I so against guns? I don't know.
I suspect it's because the statement I highlighted here isn't true.

I use swords in my juggling act. I know plenty of people who fence (and the object is not to maim or kill each other). There are also historical recreation enthusiasts (SCA and Medieval War Gamers). And many swords are highly ornamental and make nice wall decorations.

If you allow the non-lethal use of guns as other purposes, I don't know why you wouldn't count these other uses of swords.

______________
Even when No Gun signs are posted I still carry concealed. In my state, if a business puts up a No Gun sign, it is not illegal for you to carry into their business. It is only illegal if they ask you to leave, and then if you refuse to do so it is criminal trespassing. Basically, just make sure no one can see it :)
You'd be violating the law in Missouri.

From the MissouriCarry.com FAQ (http://www.missouricarry.com/mocarry_faq.htm): after a listing of places you can never carry a concealed weapon (including hospitals, large capacity stadiums, gated amusement parks, riverboat casinos, and so on) it says, "Additionally, private businesses can prohibit concealed carry within their business if they post 'No Concealed Carry' signs clearly at the entrance to the building."

And here's the part of the Missouri statute (http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5710000107.HTM) that covers the sign situation:

15) Any private property whose owner has posted the premises as being off-limits to concealed firearms by means of one or more signs displayed in a conspicuous place of a minimum size of eleven inches by fourteen inches with the writing thereon in letters of not less than one inch. The owner, business or commercial lessee, manager of a private business enterprise, or any other organization, entity, or person may prohibit persons holding a concealed carry endorsement from carrying concealed firearms on the premises and may prohibit employees, not authorized by the employer, holding a concealed carry endorsement from carrying concealed firearms on the property of the employer. If the building or the premises are open to the public, the employer of the business enterprise shall post signs on or about the premises if carrying a concealed firearm is prohibited. Possession of a firearm in a vehicle on the premises shall not be a criminal offense so long as the firearm is not removed from the vehicle or brandished while the vehicle is on the premises. An employer may prohibit employees or other persons holding a concealed carry endorsement from carrying a concealed firearm in vehicles owned by the employer;

The only requirement is that the sign be at least 11" x 14" (smaller than a sheet of tabloid paper) and the letters at least 1" tall and that the signs be displayed in a conspicuous place.

Are you quite certain your state has the added requirement that you have to be asked to leave? I doubt that claim very much. I suspect your state law is very similar to Missouri's in this regard.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

I forget what program I saw this on (maybe Dateline??), but not so long ago they did some simple tests of people where they did a mock up of a situation exactly like the concealed carry people are "prepared" for. IIRC, the people they used had more than the average firearms training. They were in a classroom lecture hall situation, and masked armed terrorists (everyone armed with dummy guns, including our concealed carrier). The extras were coached to panic--make lots of noise, a couple of them to run unpredictable directions (as people do in panic situations). In most cases, the concealed carry guy was shot before he could get his gun out. In one trial, he got his gun out and shot one of the panicking innocent bystanders (and didn't even know it until he watched the video and was told he fired without even realizing this person was running in front of him).

Anyone have better info about this sort of thing?


Welcome to The Wonderful World of Reality, wherein you can expect terrible things to happen and at the same time know that you have only two chances in the matter: Small and None.

One guy with a concealed handgun against several shooters with theirs already drawn is about as close to the, "none," side as you're ever likely to get. The Bad Guys get the first move. A lecture hall means limited cover and concealment. A crowd means <see above>, plus, someone in the crowd may look at you, scream, "HE HAS A GUN," and tackle you. Even if you get your weapon into play, your first shot immediately makes you the center of attention and your coefficient of unshottatnicity drops dramatically.

On the other hand, I wonder: Did they do a similar test with the terrorists shooting and no one armed?

Just asking.

[JoeTheJuggler]

On the other hand, I wonder: Did they do a similar test with the terrorists shooting and no one armed?

Just asking.
That's why I say it wasn't really a test or experiment, but just a demonstration designed to make a point.

On that program, they used some anecdotes to suggest that a cell phone is more likely to save lives.

ETA: I think the situation was an attempt to imitate one of the college campus shootings (not a terrorist, but an even less predicable mentally ill person). Actually, these cases of mentally ill homicidal/suicidal attacks are the rare cases when I think a concealed weapon would be helpful, but I think that's addressing the problem way too late. Again, more than half of the gun deaths in the U.S. are suicides.

<derail>Shortly after the Virginia Tech shootings, a group of us that do waltzing in public place were told we could no longer dance at one of our favorite places, a fountain on a college campus. We used to dance around and even in the fountain on hot days. The campus police said in the wake of that campus shooting they weren't allowing anyone on campus without a university ID. I bit my tongue rather than pointing out that the shooter at Virginia Tech had a student ID and wasn't one of those dangerous waltzers.</derail>

[MG1962]

I'm not sure what people think the Wild West was like, but I'll bet the number of gun deaths today is quite a bit higher than it was back then. I know we went through a period in St. Louis about 15 years back where there were 300+ shooting deaths per year--which is very nearly one every night. I think few places in the Wild West were actually that violent.

It depended on the time and location. In Hays Kansas, they had 27 shooting deaths out of a population of less than a 1000 people during Elizabeth Custers 6 month stay in the early 1870's.

There were an awful lot more accidental shootings than today, one account that stuck in my mind was a citizen was chasing two vagrants waving his gun. He fell over and shot a clerk in a store by accident

The biggest problem was the cattle towns. The cowboys would come in with a herd, get on the sauce, start being a little high spirited and the stats climbed lol

Many towns instituted a gun free zone. Usually cowboys could camp close to the town, but to enter the business district, had to surrender their weapons. This had a huge impact on gun deaths and was seen as a legitemate law enforcement tactic

[arthwollipot]

I suspect it's because the statement I highlighted here isn't true.

I use swords in my juggling act. I know plenty of people who fence (and the object is not to maim or kill each other). There are also historical recreation enthusiasts (SCA and Medieval War Gamers). And many swords are highly ornamental and make nice wall decorations.

If you allow the non-lethal use of guns as other purposes, I don't know why you wouldn't count these other uses of swords.Today, this is true. However, this is only after swords have been made obsolete.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

....

ETA: Here's the bit I was thinking of: 0MX3QtumSuE
And Part 2: xxNRLMWkjc8

I see a lot of pro-gun people claim that it's a rigged experiment. IMO, it's not really an experiment at all--just a demonstration. I think it makes a valid point.


It's an interesting demonstration. Did you notice that his draw training was with his shirt behind the firearm. The draw is one of the hardest things to accomplish under stress. One day's worth of training won't do it, and it's much worse when the training is wrong. They taught him open carry draw when he needed concealed draw training.

On the other hand, it is really very good at bringing out the stress-related stuff and the need for, "muscle memory." A lot of folks overlook that in their training.

Did you ever wonder why a Drill Sergeant is always yelling at the trainees and making them run everywhere?

AHA!! STRESS training!

[Quad4_72]

I suspect it's because the statement I highlighted here isn't true.

I use swords in my juggling act. I know plenty of people who fence (and the object is not to maim or kill each other). There are also historical recreation enthusiasts (SCA and Medieval War Gamers). And many swords are highly ornamental and make nice wall decorations.

If you allow the non-lethal use of guns as other purposes, I don't know why you wouldn't count these other uses of swords.

______________

You'd be violating the law in Missouri.

From the MissouriCarry.com FAQ (http://www.missouricarry.com/mocarry_faq.htm): after a listing of places you can never carry a concealed weapon (including hospitals, large capacity stadiums, gated amusement parks, riverboat casinos, and so on) it says, "Additionally, private businesses can prohibit concealed carry within their business if they post 'No Concealed Carry' signs clearly at the entrance to the building."

And here's the part of the Missouri statute (http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5710000107.HTM) that covers the sign situation:



The only requirement is that the sign be at least 11" x 14" (smaller than a sheet of tabloid paper) and the letters at least 1" tall and that the signs be displayed in a conspicuous place.

Are you quite certain your state has the added requirement that you have to be asked to leave? I doubt that claim very much. I suspect your state law is very similar to Missouri's in this regard.

Here is the info from Kentucky law (see bolding):
"In addition to the above restrictions, units of state and local governments and postsecondary education facilities (colleges, universities, technical schools and community colleges) have the authority to limit the carrying of concealed weapons on property owned or controlled by them (KRS 237.115). You should check with units of state and local government as well as postsecondary education facilities prior to carrying a concealed weapon on their property.
Also, KRS 527.070 prohibits unlawful possession (whether carried openly or concealed) of a weapon on school property, except for certain specified exceptions. KRS 244.125 prohibits loaded firearms (concealed or otherwise) in places where alcohol is sold by the drink, except for certain specified exceptions.
In addition, Kentucky law does not prohibit the owners of private premises from excluding persons carrying firearms. Failure to vacate private premises when asked to do so could result in a criminal trespass charge."

And you should have read Missouri law much closer. It is not a criminal act in Missouri either (This is from your link):

2. Carrying of a concealed firearm in a location specified in subdivisions (1) to (17) of subsection 1 of this section by any individual who holds a** concealed carry endorsement issued pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121 shall not be a criminal act but may subject the person to denial to the premises or removal from the premises. If such person refuses to leave the premises and a peace officer is summoned, such person may be issued a citation for an amount not to exceed one hundred dollars for the first offense. If a second citation for a similar violation occurs within a six-month period, such person shall be fined an amount not to exceed two hundred dollars and his or her endorsement to carry concealed firearms shall be suspended for a period of one year. If a third citation for a similar violation is issued within one year of the first citation, such person shall be fined an amount not to exceed five hundred dollars and shall have his or her concealed carry endorsement revoked and such person shall not be eligible for a concealed carry endorsement for a period of three years. Upon conviction of charges arising from a citation issued pursuant to this subsection, the court shall notify the sheriff of the county which issued the certificate of qualification for a concealed carry endorsement and the department of revenue. The sheriff shall suspend or revoke the certificate of qualification for a concealed carry endorsement and the department of revenue shall issue a notice of such suspension or revocation of the concealed carry endorsement and take action to remove the concealed carry endorsement from the individual's driving record. The director of revenue shall notify the licensee that he or she must apply for a new license pursuant to chapter 302, RSMo, which does not contain such endorsement. A concealed carry endorsement suspension pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121 shall be reinstated at the time of the renewal of his or her driver's license. The notice issued by the department of revenue shall be mailed to the last known address shown on the individual's driving record. The notice is deemed received three days after mailing.

[shadron]

I forget what program I saw this on (maybe Dateline??), ...

I'll preface this remark with the observation that after reading the forum here for three years, I'd be convinced that we have all the safest drivers, the most conscientious fast-food haters, the kindest family folk, the best parents, the strictest disciplinarians, the smartest technical people and the most enthusiastic lovers of 109 degree desert heat in the summer tam-mers that the world has ever known, bar none. If you sense that I'm being somewhat facetious, or that I don't really believe it in its entirety, then read on.

OK, I've read the thread, including gagglenash's send-up of my own feeble joke about screwdrivers, and I'm left with the impression that the people on the forum who do carry (or perhaps who carry wannabe) are all trained to the teeth and simultaneously are so serious about carrying that no one would ever detect the fact that they carry an extra two pounds of iron on them all the time just in case of the once-in-a-lifetime chance that something will go down where they will be able to make a difference. Oh, and no one carrying would ever touch a drop while "on duty", except maybe ********.

(I had to giggle when the one participant in the video just had to boast about carrying to his neighbor. I hope his neighbor was available for the after-action debrief as well. But, of course, no one in this forum would ever boast like that...)

As the videos point out, training is everything. I would point out that the training necessary to be effective with a weapon in a startle situation is hideously expensive to provide, involving 3 to 6 highly trained actor/weapons experts, training and scenario designers, and appropriate physical settings, plus a gaggle of standers-by. Only one person here might possibly qualify for that (AFAIK the roles) - quad4_72, and perhaps bikewar, although if quad's avatar is that of a cavalryman, then perhaps not, as well. And this training has to be on-going, not "been there, got the diploma". That is why trained personnel are rated as worth millions of dollars; they cost that much.

A second possibility is that a carrier is not under such immediate pressure as depicted in the videos - there's some warning, and he's able to get the piece out calmly and take cover. Still, in this situation you are going to be under psychological pressure, not the least of which is your own ego telling you to go for the shooter, rather than flee (the reasonable thing to do when you have warning). Your adrenaline is still going to be elevated, you'll suffer tunnel sensing, and you still will need that expensive training; all you can get a pass on is, perhaps, the lightening reflexes and getting your shirt out of the way.

Now, I've listened to several here say they believe that they are currently better situated to do this than police. True, your average policeman hasn't the training that is really necessary, and on the average they are probably just as lazy as anyone else - I don't think anyone except perhaps SWAT team members have it, but having some awareness and training is part of their job. By what right does the average carrier rate himself better than a policeman, and still have time to post on this forum, or have time to be with that family that they claim to be protecting?

Furthermore, the training that might be effective for this - SWAT team, or mlitary assault training, is mostly training to be able to handle situations as a team, not as an individual. That difference is crucial. They also almost never train with hand weapons - long rifles are the ticket.

So, it is my personal belief that no one is really trained to handle the situation in case of point. Those with the weapons training are trained to work in teams, because that is the best way to overcome opposition. The rest of us (and I think that includes everyone on this forum, with one or two possible exceptions), are sucking air as far as how effective they'll be when that once-in-a-lifetime possibility occurs. I think you'll likely be just as dangerous to anyone with a couple of hundred yards as you are to any gunman. I would really like to plumb the depths of the training that everyone here who carries think they have, and whether they can *prove* that they are able to handle a live-fire situation. How do you justify yourselves?

We haven't even plumbed the deaths of people caused by the fact that guns have to be stored, maintained and safely handled, and yet ignored most of the time, to be useful. And danger to people standing behind a drywall wall when something goes down in the next room. I think those stats would swamp any meaningful death count drawn from Columbine High and other murderous incidents that might be stopped by a carrier.

And I still think getting gashed on a loose screw and dying of an infection is a higher probability than winning a gunfight. If you don't carry a screwdriver, don't forget your bottle of Merthiolate (oops, different can of worms!).

[To stay on thread, this all goes double in a bar.]

[Holler Hoojer]

I live in an area where roughly 10% of the adults have concealed carry permits. Nobody knows how many actually use those regularly, but I know many who do. Shootings involving such people are extremely rare. Most of the gun crimes involve unlicensed weapons, often carried by people who are barred from having them. I am careful not to get in loud arguments over parking spaces or which channel we're gonna watch in a bar. I doubt I'd get shot, but polite seems a good precaution. Actually showing the weapon (brandishing) except in defense of life is a crime.

[JoeyDonuts]

I live in an area where roughly 10% of the adults have concealed carry permits. Nobody knows how many actually use those regularly, but I know many who do. Shootings involving such people are extremely rare. Most of the gun crimes involve unlicensed weapons, often carried by people who are barred from having them. I am careful not to get in loud arguments over parking spaces or which channel we're gonna watch in a bar. I doubt I'd get shot, but polite seems a good precaution. Actually showing the weapon (brandishing) except in defense of life is a crime.

The station I work at just ran a story about a lot of women who are carrying them in their purse now - UNLOADED. That way they can just "scare off the mugger."

That's ********. My muscle memory is trained to unholster, focus, sight in, and fire in one smooth motion. If the guy gets a warning it's going to be as I'm pulling the trigger.

And you are right about one thing. Mr. Miyagi said it better than anyone - "Best defense...No be there!"

[Quad4_72]

As the videos point out, training is everything. I would point out that the training necessary to be effective with a weapon in a startle situation is hideously expensive to provide, involving 3 to 6 highly trained actor/weapons experts, training and scenario designers, and appropriate physical settings, plus a gaggle of standers-by. Only one person here might possibly qualify for that (AFAIK the roles) - quad4_72, and perhaps bikewar, although if quad's avatar is that of a cavalryman, then perhaps not, as well.

Let me go out on a limb here, but I am willing to guess that you don't have the first clue about what a cav scouts training consists of do you?

[shadron]

Let me go out on a limb here, but I am willing to guess that you don't have the first clue about what a cav scouts training consists of do you?

Absolutely true - I don't. That's why I invited you and others to justify your claims to being trained. Tell me what that means for you being able to keep your cool in a bar fight. I'm here to be impressed, I trust you to be able to deliver. By definition, I'm not clairvoyant, so tell us the training that the other's here who carry need to aspire to.

[RandFan]

If Bars are not allowed to have guns then only guns will have bars... er... something like that.

Only from my cold dead hands can you take my rum and coke... hmm...

Charlton Heston and Michael Moore go into a bar...

[Quad4_72]

Absolutely true - I don't. That's why I invited you and others to justify your claims to being trained. Tell me what that means for you being able to keep your cool in a bar fight. I'm here to be impressed, I trust you to be able to deliver. By definition, I'm not clairvoyant, so tell us the training that the other's here who carry need to aspire to.

MOUT training (Military Operations on Urban terrian)-
Taking a squad or team and drilling on how to effectively enter and clear buildings and rooms. I have done many hours of this (The training is ongoing. You always practice it). Basically you take your guys and go into a fake town (It's actually pretty realistic though) and go find the bad guys. Real people are placed throughout the scenarios and you have to know how to react differently to each one. In an instant you must be able to tell if they are friendly or not.


Short range marksmanship-
Targets are placed in front of you and with live round you practice walking towards a target and shooting on the move.

Basic rifle marksmanship-
Shooting a rifle at pop up targets at various ranges from 50m up to 300m while assuming different positions.

Pistol marksmanship-
Kinda the same as rifle marksmanship, but with a pistol

Gone into shoot houses with live rounds-
This goes with the MOUT training, except it is the live fire version of it.

Squad live fire exercises-
This is where you lead a squad of soldiers with live rounds and run battle drill 1A on pop up targets over a very large range.

Ran countless missions-
This is where you incorporate your training into real life. The missions consist of running various battle drills, MOUT operations, squad movements, etc.

Drilled drawing my weapon over and over-
Taking the weapon out of the holster and putting accurate rounds on target as quickly as possible.

Individual Movement techniques-
This is how you move in combat with a rifle.

Like I said, this training is always ongoing. There is much more training than this as well. I really don't know what else better could be done to qualify a person to use a weapon. On top of all of that, I go to my local pistol range a couple times a month and train on my personal weapons.

Now I have a question for you. Why did you make a comment about a cavalrymen when you admitted to having no knowledge of their training whatsoever?

[fuelair]

Other than being on a vacation somewhere, I will never live in a place where my right to defend myself is restricted.

And I try to avoid even vacations in places like that - I do not wish to have to use my always legal weapons over/against a gun. Range is good.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

I was an Explosive Ordnance Disposal Specialist... one of those, "Army bomb squad," guys you read about.

While it isn't an endorsement for me with a firearm in a firefight, I do believe that it speaks to my ability to keep a cool head and a steady hand under duress... although I do puke up everything I've ever eaten... and a spleen... or two... after it's all over.

[fuelair]

This has me wondering. Would you still be carrying because you don't feel safe anywhere or because you feel some other need to have a firearm with you? Is there anywhere you wouldn't regularly carry?

FTR, I, as a fellow American (or USian, as the case may be), do support your 2nd amendment right to bare arms (or arm bears, ATCMB). I'm just curious as to your thoughts on my above questions.

Damn, too many commas in that one sentence.The only place I would not regularly carry is a swimming pool (of the places there is any likelihood of my being). To be clear on this (again, for the confused/anti-gun/whatever): Carrying a gun, for me, is no different from carrying a Leatherman w/flashlight with me everywhere (which I do, two if dining (sommelier version). I have tools, I may need them. I usually do not. I am not afraid of going anywhere - including "semi-dangerous" areas- gun or not under most circumstances - BUT I have this weird preference that if somehow I do ever come up against someone who plans to use a weapon offensively on me that I not be the one in the hospital or morgue. A gun, in my trained hand, makes that much more likely. As to the mention elsewhere of what robbers do - I really hate to stereotype people, so I do any robber the courtesy of believing he/she will use his/her weapon on me or others, so.... Basing defense on statistics is not nearly as safe as basing it on possibilities.
:):):)

[shadron]

Excellent. That is the kind of training that I would trust my life, and the life of those I love, with, just as I do trust with by property, and ultimately my country. I salute you and respect your training and your commitment.

I made the remark that I did because I was not aware that you are a cavalry scout, only that the emblem was that of the cavalry. You could have been a driver specialist, or a gunner, or a diesel mechanic (and perhaps you are; perhaps all cavalrymen are as trained as you are). To what extent are infantrymen, or heavy weapons tankers, or artillerymen, or signal corp, etc., etc. so trained? I suppose my military was a lot less urban than yours, not to speak of being much more technically oriented (engineering, not military technical). Different eras, different objectives.

So. Do you intend to continue that training after you leave the armed forces (assuming it is not a career or you intend to out at 20)? How could such a continuation be possible? What is your opinion of what they said in the videos about ongoing training being necessary to effectively use a weapon? I see three possibilities:

- after training ends, you'll hang up your weapon as you agree you cannot keep a sufficient level of proficiency.
- the level you describe above is not important for carrying a weapon, you'll remember enough to be effective, say ten years after ending it, or perhaps a yearly week with the reserves and a shooting league at the local range will suffice to justify carrying.
- you agree that you won't be able to keep the edge you now possess, but that that won't matter, and you'll carry anyway.

Can you articulate for me what your stance will be at that time? Of course, by extension, you are applying that same criteria to fellow carriers, practically all of which do not now and never have enjoyed your level of training? Knowing what you do about your training, do you really trust them to carry safely?

You seem to think I'm trying to carry some kind of personal grudge here. On the contrary, I'm trying to be rational about risks in our society. My personal theory is that many carry, not because it makes everyone safer, but because they have an ego/reputation to uphold (particularly in certain areas of the country, including my own), or they have a principle of freedom that their notion of patriotism requires, or because they like the feeling of potential power that the weight on their hip brings them, or they like the thrill of using weapons, and carrying is the closest they can bring that into their daily life, or because I'd need to pry them from their cold, dead hands (call that NRAism). These reasons also would be OK with me, but they aren't, IMHO, sufficient for endangering others, including my own precious hide. So, give me some insight here - am I wrong? Why?

Someone up above stated that he would use his weapon to stop a store robbery that he was not involved in. I see a high probability of innocent people being hurt over a matter of money. I shouldn't be concerned about that?

PS One more question - to what extent do you feel your training relies on being a member of a team rather than being an individual?

[shadron]

A gun, in my trained hand, makes that much more likely.

OK, so FuelAir, you are claiming to be trained in using firearms (handgun, I presume). Can you tell us what you mean specifically by your being trained, and what you would consider minimal training to carry safely as you do? I don't assume you'd say just anyone should do it.

[shadron]

If Bars are not allowed to have guns then only guns will have bars... er... something like that.

Only from my cold dead hands can you take my rum and coke... hmm...

Charlton Heston and Michael Moore go into a bar...

And a great, big, honest LOL to that one. Bravo!

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I grew up in a hunting culture. I'll tell you right now that drinking and gun-toting happens. Often. From what I've seen/heard, it rarely causes more problems than what you'd get from just drinking.

If you drive out Hwy 50 from St. Louis to Jeff City, there used to be a store in one of the small towns (might still be there) that had an ad painted on the side - "Guns, Beer, Ammo".

[JimBenArm]

If you drive out Hwy 50 from St. Louis to Jeff City, there used to be a store in one of the small towns (might still be there) that had an ad painted on the side - "Guns, Beer, Ammo".
If you don't see such signs every other mile in central Missouri, you're not looking.

[RandFan]

And a great, big, honest LOL to that one. Bravo!Thanks. :)

[HeyLeroy]

I saved that to my computer :)

I thought you might like that one.

Yes, but your argument is about always being armed for self-defense.


(Snip)

Ever heard of Suzanna_Hupp?

On... October 16, 1991, Hupp and her parents were having lunch at the Luby's Kitchen in Killeen. She had left her handgun in her car to comply with Texas state law at the time which forbade carrying a concealed weapon. When George Hennard drove his truck into the cafeteria and opened fire on the patrons, Hupp instinctively reached into her purse for her weapon, but it was in her vehicle... Hupp escaped through a broken window and believed that her mother... was behind her... Hupp's mother and father were killed along with twenty-one other persons. Hennard also wounded some twenty others. As a survivor of the Luby's massacre, Hupp testified across the country in support of concealed-handgun laws. She said that had there been a second chance to prevent the slaughter, she would have violated the Texas law and carried the handgun inside her purse into the restaurant.

Do you endorse the use of these principles in real life?
19. Decide NOW to always be aggressive ENOUGH, quickly ENOUGH.

Here in Canada it's extremely difficult to obtain a CC permit; I have, however, had to pull a folding pocket knife in self-defense on a few occasions. My patch of neighbourhood could be considered rough: I'm two houses from a corner where two men, on separate occasions, have been beaten to death and about a block from where a drug dealer shot (that's right) two men who were trying to rob his apartment.

So, yes, at 05:00, when I'm waiting for a bus to go to work and I'm approached by a largish man brandishing a bottle screaming, "DO I KNOW YOU? DO I KNOW YOU?", the Cold Steel Ti-Lite (http://www.rockynational.com/3416_26SXP_Cold_Steel_Ti-Lite_6_w_Zytel_Handle.html) came out, was held at my side as I slowly backed away and said, "Just waiting for the bus, dude,".

21. Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet if necessary, because they may want to kill you.

Not necessarily, but I'm not a Drill Sergeant.

[Quad4_72]

Excellent. That is the kind of training that I would trust my life, and the life of those I love, with, just as I do trust with by property, and ultimately my country. I salute you and respect your training and your commitment.

Thank you. I take my job with the utmost seriousness.

I made the remark that I did because I was not aware that you are a cavalry scout, only that the emblem was that of the cavalry. You could have been a driver specialist, or a gunner, or a diesel mechanic (and perhaps you are; perhaps all cavalrymen are as trained as you are).

To clarify here, I am not a cavalrymen (heavy armor for now) and I do not have the insignia of the cavalry either. Cav insignia does not have the tank in front of it, only the sabres. As far as training goes, Armor and Cavalry officers initially train together. Both must know the mounted aspect of Armor (to include driving, gunnery, basic maintenance, commanding, etc). Then, they both go through the dismounted aspects which include everything I previously listed.

To what extent are infantrymen, or heavy weapons tankers, or artillerymen, or signal corp, etc., etc. so trained? I suppose my military was a lot less urban than yours, not to speak of being much more technically oriented (engineering, not military technical). Different eras, different objectives.

Each branch trains differently for their specific aspects, but ALL soldiers receive a lot of the MOUT training and all of the weapons training. Infantry and Armor just do it more.

So. Do you intend to continue that training after you leave the armed forces (assuming it is not a career or you intend to out at 20)? How could such a continuation be possible? What is your opinion of what they said in the videos about ongoing training being necessary to effectively use a weapon?

I think maybe this is being looked into too much. I do not believe that you must train constantly to be able to use your weapon.
I see three possibilities:

- after training ends, you'll hang up your weapon as you agree you cannot keep a sufficient level of proficiency.
- the level you describe above is not important for carrying a weapon, you'll remember enough to be effective, say ten years after ending it, or perhaps a yearly week with the reserves and a shooting league at the local range will suffice to justify carrying.
- you agree that you won't be able to keep the edge you now possess, but that that won't matter, and you'll carry anyway.

Your second choice seems to be the most reasonable.

Can you articulate for me what your stance will be at that time? Of course, by extension, you are applying that same criteria to fellow carriers, practically all of which do not now and never have enjoyed your level of training? Knowing what you do about your training, do you really trust them to carry safely?

Yes I do trust them to carry safely. And I can predict that my stance will be the same 20 years from now.

Someone up above stated that he would use his weapon to stop a store robbery that he was not involved in. I see a high probability of innocent people being hurt over a matter of money. I shouldn't be concerned about that?

That was me who stated that he would. If I had a clear shot to take out a suspect who was demanding money from a clerk with a weapon I would make no hesitation to kill him. Why hope that he doesn't hurt anybody when you could make sure that he doesn't live another day to rob another store?

PS One more question - to what extent do you feel your training relies on being a member of a team rather than being an individual?

What you do as an individual makes the team. You must always stay in your lane when firing your weapon and moving with it. You have to make sure not to flag your buddies and always know who is to your left and your right and what position they are in.

[GreNME]

Just remember, Quad: that training you have, while I would definitely agree is sufficient, is something that has to be kept up or it gets dulled. I think you can agree that most people who have a CCL don't keep up to the same level of practice as you do.

Which, by the way, brings me to my main objection to concealed-carry licenses-- the bar is set way too low for them. I'm not saying that they aren't qualified to handle a firearm, but I will argue that they're not qualified to handle one in a stressful situation with a clear enough focus to be effective. I have just as much confidence in my ability to control a situation as someone who would carry concealed, and I do not (and unless my career changes to something requiring it, will not) carry a firearm. I say that because the rule for stressful situations as a citizen following laws is the same regardless of whether one is carrying: always, always do what is necessary to see that a stressful situation comes to an end and not get extended with a dangerous escalation*. If someone doesn't have the trained reflexes to react properly, firearm or no, they're putting themselves and others into greater danger by acting against that rule of thumb.

* which isn't to say that escalation is always unnecessary, though more often than not it isn't necessary.

[Brainster]

1. The law states that you cannot drink alcohol while you're packing.
2. Concealed carry in Arizona requires training (http://www.azccw.com/?gclid=CL-84o_AupsCFRBbagodYFnx_w).
3. Bars will be allowed to ban handguns.

That takes care of at least three of the objections I've seen in this thread so far. And if you think nobody in the bar is packing now, you're wrong.

[fuelair]

OK, so FuelAir, you are claiming to be trained in using firearms (handgun, I presume). Can you tell us what you mean specifically by your being trained, and what you would consider minimal training to carry safely as you do? I don't assume you'd say just anyone should do it.Minimum training would be a good (not all are) concealed weapons course, better would be military/police course (my initial was my ex military and hunting trained father - from the age of 5 (.22 single shot rifle) to 15 ( Colt .45 [grandfather's), Enfield, Mauser and an Italian carbine (I forget name). My first pistol (16)was a .22 fake Luger (where I learned a lot about clearing jams). Military(Army US 68-70) M-14/M16 (preferred the M-14). Brief hiatus after military, but took up .357, .44 mag,
9mm, .45 again but much better weapons, and have been headed to .50, but the much neater .460 will probably have me selling off the non.45s due to the reasonable kick and devastating hit of the .460 load or the .454 it can handle (scoped 10 inch and unscoped short for carry are my goals). No training on those (official), lots of practice at hitting what I aim at, pull and aim, pull and fire.

Rules for carry are either simple logic or legal so, basically: don't pull/brandish/show unless there is a real/legal threat (Florida is on your side in that area but more caution = less legal trouble) (and concealed permit MEANS concealed). If you pull make sure the area behind your target is clear (both of people/life forms and things that might cause a ricochet). Technically, aim for the center of mass - though I prefer double to com and one to head (and, yes, I practice head shots - and was doing that well before G.Liddy was suggesting that to his right wing B-boys).
As a technicality, if their weapon is not fully out, give them a chance to put it down, but your safety comes first. Also remember a person good with a knife can get you if you aren't drawn and he is and less than 20 feet away .

Otherwise, make sure nothing will snag the weapon and be sure to call out "Oh, I am in fear of my life!!" if there are witnesses.

[SezMe]

sez you. Do you have any critique of the data or are you just going with the ad hom?
When someone has been caught with his/her data and analytical pants down, it is NOT an ad hom to note that fact.

[SezMe]

How?
Because there is no evidence provided that the gun statistics and the crime statistics are causally related.


http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/about/crime_clock.html

It is an argument from incredulity. Crime happens often here in the US. According to the crime clock linked above, in 2007 there were, on average, 32,256 violent offences a day. I'm not sure how to extrapolate how many near misses, crimes prevented by intervention, etc., but it certainly is possible to have that many defensive uses of a firearm per day.
Yes, in fact I said it was. Duh.

The crime clock you cited contains no information about crimes in which guns were involved so I don't find the data relelvant nor interesting.

[SezMe]

That was me who stated that he would. If I had a clear shot to take out a suspect who was demanding money from a clerk with a weapon I would make no hesitation to kill him. Why hope that he doesn't hurt anybody when you could make sure that he doesn't live another day to rob another store?
Would you subsequently plead guilty to the crime you are going to charged with?

[BTMO]

Because there is no evidence provided that the gun statistics and the crime statistics are causally related.


Soooo... what you are saying is that in the 40-ish states were concealed carry is now permitted, there has been no evidence of increase in accidental or random shootings?

[shadron]

Minimum training would be a good (not all are) concealed weapons course, better would be military/police course ... lots of practice at hitting what I aim at, pull and aim, pull and fire.

... If you pull make sure the area behind your target is clear (both of people/life forms and things that might cause a ricochet). As a technicality, if their weapon is not fully out, give them a chance to put it down, but your safety comes first. ...

Otherwise, make sure nothing will snag the weapon and be sure to call out "Oh, I am in fear of my life!!" if there are witnesses.

To boil it all down, then, your opinion is a GOOD commercial CW course or police/military course. I won't quibble on calibers; whatever it is you'll be carrying. How good was the course you took? How many hours? What did it cover? Ever repeated? Refresher, ever? Have you ever had an opportunity to test this practice at all realistically outside the military?

OK. When the hammer comes down, you have to:
- scan the area behind the target(s) for bystanders.
- scan also for anything that looks hard enough to ricochet the bullet (however that might be done).
- presumably wonder if the background might be concealing a bystander, like most interior walls in buildings.
- look around to make sure no one or thing is close to your weapons travel, including shirts or jackets. Practice would, of course help with the latter, but having your wife beside you might be a problem.
- watch the perp for signs of not going all the way.
- draw, aim, fire ("muscle memory").

Yup, it certainly sounds like something that should be trained for. X-ray eyes wouldn't hurt, either. All in all, it still sounds sort of iffy to me.

[shadron]

Soooo... what you are saying is that in the 40-ish states were concealed carry is now permitted, there has been no evidence of increase in accidental or random shootings?

Ahhhh, come on. It is almost a mantra 'round here that lack of proof about problems is not the same as proof of the no problems. If you have proof, present it; else you're just muddying the waters.

[Quad4_72]

Would you subsequently plead guilty to the crime you are going to charged with?

Not a crime where I live. If you or another persons life is in danger you are allowed to use deadly force to neutralize the threat. That is the law whether you like it or not. Also where I live, you are allowed to use deadly force to defend your property. So if someone is stealing from you, you may use deadly force as well.

Here is the law for you:
503.070 Protection of another.
(1) The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when:
(a) The defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect a third person
against the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by the other
person; and
(b) Under the circumstances as the defendant believes them to be, the person
whom he seeks to protect would himself have been justified under KRS
503.050 and 503.060 in using such protection.
(2) The use of deadly physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable
when:
(a) The defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect a third person
against imminent death, serious physical injury, kidnapping, sexual
intercourse compelled by force or threat, or other felony involving the use of
force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to KRS 503.055; and
(b) Under the circumstances as they actually exist, the person whom he seeks to
protect would himself have been justified under KRS 503.050 and 503.060 in
using such protection.
(3) A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she
has a right to be.

[shadron]

Anyone want to answer the question I asked?

I'm trying to be rational about risks in our society. My personal theory is that many carry, not because it makes everyone safer, but because they have an ego/reputation to uphold (particularly in certain areas of the country, including my own), or they have a principle of freedom that their notion of patriotism requires, or because they like the feeling of potential power that the weight on their hip brings them, or they like the thrill of using weapons, and carrying is the closest they can bring that into their daily life, or because I'd need to pry them from their cold, dead hands (call that NRAism). These reasons also would be OK with me, but they aren't, IMHO, sufficient for endangering others, including my own precious hide. So, give me some insight here - am I wrong? Why?

[RandFan]

Anyone want to answer the question I asked?
My .02. Gun rights discussion are by and large a Rorschach test and reveal more about the people that make them then about the actual issues.


It is demonstrable that violent crime has been decreasing since the dawn of history. Steven Pinker: A brief history of violence (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ramBFRt1Uzk) (this includes the USA). On the other hand, many modern western Democracies are far less violent (and have less gun violence as well as less stranglings and stabbings) than the USA. This leads me to the conclusion that there are no hard and fast conclusions to be drawn when it comes to guns. They are very effective at causing harm and death. They are also capable of deterring crime and protecting those who carry them. It's likely that the way we feel about guns has more to do with our own personal views than about any objective evidence.

Perhaps we need more gun control. Perhaps we need less.
Perhaps carry laws work. Perhaps they don't.
Perhaps guns are intrinsically counter to the values of a modern liberal society. Perhaps they aren't.
Perhaps the right to own a gun is intrinsically valuable to a modern liberal society.
I don't know. I'm not even certain which premises are contradictory or exclusive of the others. I suspect there are costs and benefits and any objective analysis is not likely to lead to a consensus. I'm not convinced that the arguments made are ultimately about the truth. I think they are largely post hoc rationalization to justify personal preference. I think there is a lot of confirmation bias on both sides of this issue.

Ok, so that's my turd in the punch bowl. Enjoy. :)

[Quad4_72]

Anyone want to answer the question I asked?

I have already answered this many times in this thread. Even though it is rare that the situation may arise where I may need to use my gun, I am always prepared for it.

[Upchurch]

First:

Vigilantism is the taking of the law into one's own hands to avenge a crime, said avengement taking place without due process.

Taking the law into your own hands to prevent a felony crime, or to arrest someone you know to have committed a felony or a breach of the peace misdemeanor in order to deliver him to the proper authorities, is accepting the responsibility of being a citizen acting under the rule of law.
If Quad4_72 is taking a shot at someone in a crime in process, it isn't being prevented. Besides, neither Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigilante) nor Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vigilante) agrees with your definition, vis a vis timing.


Second:

Maybe we should have a special hat for people to wear that will indicate: "Do not use firearms in my defense." That way all of us guys that would otherwise be willing to engage a dangerous assailant on your behalf, risking taking a bullet on your behalf and willing to accept that risk, will know to call the police and wait around for the 15 to 30 minutes it takes for them to arrive.

Alternately, you, who say that you know so much about firearms, should be able to notice where the firearms in play are pointed: The ones pointing at YOU are in the hands of BAD GUYS. The ones pointing at THEM are NOT.
Ah, denial of reality through over-simplification. Black/white. Good guys/bad guys. It really is just that simple, do you think?

Experienced cops can make the mistake of who is the good guy and who is the bad in the heat of the moment. They, however, are the ones that we, as a society, have granted the authority to make that decision on our behalf. Who gave Quad4_72 the authority to make that determination?

If he makes a mistake, he is pointing a gun at me. In self-defense, I point my gun at him. Who is the BAD GUYS?


This is, of course, assuming that you're not in the process of committing a felony or breach of the peace misdemeanor.
Because Quad4_72 knows this, how?



Where do you people live?
Missouri (and briefly Texas).


I live in the greater Philadelphia area, and quite a few of the people I know and associate with have carry permits. Not one of them would ever go into a bar with their respective weapons or tolerate a companion doing so. One can always lock it in the car if you get an unexpected invite to a bar.

And taking out and showing, using the weapon as a penis replacement or manhood booster...unbelievable. No one I know would do this. My wife has a carry permit and carries regularly, as do the wives of several of my friends. Do you think perhaps they need a manhood booster?
As I said, no one I know who owns a gun would do this either. It's the ones who know next to nothing about firearms that want a concealed carry permit.


I think your hoplophobia is showing. Shame on you.
Then you also have not been paying attention.

[Upchurch]

If you drive out Hwy 50 from St. Louis to Jeff City, there used to be a store in one of the small towns (might still be there) that had an ad painted on the side - "Guns, Beer, Ammo".
One in the town I grew up in was nicknamed "Bait, Booze, and Bullets". The other one was affectionately called "Guns and Roses" (looking back on it, I'm not sure I understand that particular business model).

[RandFan]

One in the town I grew up in was nicknamed "Bait, Booze, and Bullets". ... (looking back on it, I'm not sure I understand that particular business model).:D Especially from a Darwinian perspective.

[Upchurch]

Maybe you should explain to us how it is vigilantiism?
It isn't self-defense nor is it protecting the life of another. As Quad4_72 stated it, it's using lethal force to stop a robbery. Further, unless I missed it somewhere, no one has given Quad4_72 the authority to act as police officer.

Stopping a crime + Self-appointed doer of justice (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vigilante) = Vigilantism.

[Upchurch]

:D Especially from a Darwinian perspective.
The first one, yes, but a flower shop that also sold fire arms? (The fire arms were a later addition.)

[Quad4_72]

If Quad4_72 is taking a shot at someone in a crime in process, it isn't being prevented. Besides, neither Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigilante) nor Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vigilante) agrees with your definition, vis a vis timing.

You are wrong on the vigilante thing. Just accept it.


Experienced cops can make the mistake of who is the good guy and who is the bad in the heat of the moment. They, however, are the ones that we, as a society, have granted the authority to make that decision on our behalf. Who gave Quad4_72 the authority to make that determination?Actually the law does. See my previous post.


Because Quad4_72 knows this, how?Pretty easy to tell if someone is robbing a store and who the bad guy is.

[Quad4_72]

It isn't self-defense nor is it protecting the life of another. As Quad4_72 stated it, it's using lethal force to stop a robbery. Further, unless I missed it somewhere, no one has given Quad4_72 the authority to act as police officer.

Stopping a crime + Self-appointed doer of justice (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vigilante) = Vigilantism.

I will go ahead and repeat the law for you:
503.070 Protection of another.
(1) The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when:
(a) The defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect a third person
against the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by the other
person; and
(b) Under the circumstances as the defendant believes them to be, the person
whom he seeks to protect would himself have been justified under KRS
503.050 and 503.060 in using such protection.
(2) The use of deadly physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable
when:
(a) The defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect a third person
against imminent death, serious physical injury, kidnapping, sexual
intercourse compelled by force or threat, or other felony involving the use of
force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to KRS 503.055; and
(b) Under the circumstances as they actually exist, the person whom he seeks to
protect would himself have been justified under KRS 503.050 and 503.060 in
using such protection.
(3) A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she
has a right to be.

[RandFan]

Further, unless I missed it somewhere, no one has given Quad4_72 the authority to act as police officer.It's a good question. Do citizens have a moral responsibiliy to stop crime? I'd say no. Are they prohibited from such an act?

When I was at university (I now but it's the way the English say it and I like it) I wanted to be a security gaurd because I believed that I could study while I worked (wrong).

Anyway, I took a week long course and 1 day was devoted to citizens arrest. Security gurards (by and large) have no authority to act as police officers nor do they have any other special authority. Any authority a security guard has is the same as a civilian. And it's much easier to sue a civlian than a police officer.

In short, citizens of The USA in any state other than North Carolina can intercede to stop a crime.

[Thunder]

hell..why not have guns in hospitals and prisons?

guns for everyone!! thats the solution!!!!

the more guns the merrier!!

[RandFan]

hell..why not have guns in hospitals and prisons?

guns for everyone!! thats the solution!!!!

the more guns the merrier!! On the other hand if we got rid of every gun we would live in peace and harmony. Utopia.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

It isn't self-defense nor is it protecting the life of another.

Yes it is.

If he has a weapon drawn and is pointing it at a person then there is a clear and present danger to the life of that individual. It's a clear cut case of self defense on behalf of an incapacitated third party. Anyone in that situation would be well within their rights to fire on the aggressor.

[shawmutt]

Anyone want to answer the question I asked?

My personal theory is that it really doesn't deserve to be dignified with a response--it's simply conjecture based on your own cognitive biases.

When someone has been caught with his/her data and analytical pants down, it is NOT an ad hom to note that fact.

sez you? What has the person been caught in?

Yes, in fact I said it was. Duh.

The crime clock you cited contains no information about crimes in which guns were involved so I don't find the data relelvant nor interesting.

So you knew you were commiting a logical fallacy, but continued with the train of thought anyway? And you followup with a lack of interest in the data....

What kind of point were you trying to make?

On the other hand if we got rid of every gun we would live in peace and harmony. Utopia.

Ahh...just like it was before guns were invented ;)

[Upchurch]

If he has a weapon drawn and is pointing it at a person then there is a clear and present danger to the life of that individual.
Deleted.

The above wasn't specified. Only that someone is attempting to rob a store with a weapon drawn and Quad4_72 has a clear shot.

[fuelair]

To boil it all down, then, your opinion is a GOOD commercial CW course or police/military course. I won't quibble on calibers; whatever it is you'll be carrying. How good was the course you took? How many hours? What did it cover? Ever repeated? Refresher, ever? Have you ever had an opportunity to test this practice at all realistically outside the military?

OK. When the hammer comes down, you have to:
- scan the area behind the target(s) for bystanders.
- scan also for anything that looks hard enough to ricochet the bullet (however that might be done).
- presumably wonder if the background might be concealing a bystander, like most interior walls in buildings.
- look around to make sure no one or thing is close to your weapons travel, including shirts or jackets. Practice would, of course help with the latter, but having your wife beside you might be a problem.
- watch the perp for signs of not going all the way.
- draw, aim, fire ("muscle memory").

Yup, it certainly sounds like something that should be trained for. X-ray eyes wouldn't hurt, either. All in all, it still sounds sort of iffy to me.My wife is CC also. You do not have to watch to see if the guy is going all the way - I prefer that unless I know he has done certain things which remove ANY compunction about dropping him. No, you don't worry about structure you can't determine, but some might do that. You dress for the gun, you know you aren't going to be blocked by your clothes (or, you are an idiot). Military training doesn't cover most of that - we were taught weapons safety, how to act so you do not shoot your own guys and how to shoot to be pretty sure you took out the other sides guys. Also note, you can keep coming up with oddities and to a point I will cover as best I can. But, the key is follow safety/law and follow good shooting procedureWHICH YOU WILL HAVE PRACTICED.

That said, I will point out that the descriptions given by officers involved in straight on gunfights are almost (I say this because I haven't heard/read any that differ but there are lots I haven't heard/read about) invariably done in a condition of tunnel vision and slowed time sense. For that reason, I do try to be very aware of my surroundings so IF it happens I will already be aware of the background/s. From two avoided traffic accidents I understand what the condition is like.

My favorite story of the type: store owner and bad guy, 3 feet apart, counter display between them, both have to change/add ammo, 40 some odd shots fired. Only the bad guy is hurt - has two bullets in (IIRC) his arm.


ETA: I probably should note, before someone else catches it: the technique I prefer (2 c of m, one head) actually has a name - though I did not know that when I started practicing it. It is called "Mozambiqueing". No one seems to know exactly why - general guess/theory are that outside troops had trouble with Moz. soldiers taking too long to realize they were dead so they started using a triple tap.

[Quad4_72]

Deleted.

The above wasn't specified. Only that someone is attempting to rob a store with a weapon drawn and Quad4_72 has a clear shot.

That is implied and you know it. Now that I have posted the law for you I take it you will stop posting things that don't make sense?

[dudalb]

hell..why not have guns in hospitals and prisons?

guns for everyone!! thats the solution!!!!

the more guns the merrier!!


You have a right to hate guns.
You do not have a right to take way my right to own one.

[SezMe]

Soooo... what you are saying is that in the 40-ish states were concealed carry is now permitted, there has been no evidence of increase in accidental or random shootings?
No, I don't want to suggest that...or the opposite either. I don't know anything about concealed carry and gun accidents.

I have NO special knowledge in this area. In fact, I'm not all that interested in it. It just happens that I knew the guy (he's dead now) who blew the whistle on Lott and discussed with him his evidence. It was an interesting story.

I have also owned a rifle and really enjoyed the little hunting I did and certainly had fun target shooting. So I'm not anti-gun. That said, I do think gun ownership is insufficiently regulated.

Beyond all that, I don't believe I have much to contribute to the conversation.

[GreNME]

1. The law states that you cannot drink alcohol while you're packing.
2. Concealed carry in Arizona requires training (http://www.azccw.com/?gclid=CL-84o_AupsCFRBbagodYFnx_w).
3. Bars will be allowed to ban handguns.

That takes care of at least three of the objections I've seen in this thread so far. And if you think nobody in the bar is packing now, you're wrong.

That twelve hours worth of training is hardly sufficient in my own opinion. Like I pointed out to Quad, this is the sort of training that requires a lot of reinforcement, and it's something that dulls with time if it's not reinforced.

As for people carrying in places already, I have to admit that I'm not exactly impressed. It was sort of a given in some of the places I used to hang out in NJ. The fact that there are stooges out there packing already doesn't change what I said about having the good sense to control yourself and the situation when one arises. Having a gun doesn't give that kind of control. But also, that doesn't mean I'm against owning a firearm, I just don't trust the vast majority of people out there to have the ability to manage themselves with one concealed in public.

-----

On the other hand if we got rid of every gun we would live in peace and harmony. Utopia.

You know, "utopia" comes from the Greek for "nowhere" if I recall correctly. ;)

[BTMO]

Beyond all that, I don't believe I have much to contribute to the conversation.

:)

Fair enough.

I am going fishing tomorrow...

[fuelair]

I'm very glad I live nowhere near you. That sort of thinking worries me.If it helps any, I do know what I am doing with weapons and I've never come close to harming an innocent bystander!!:)

[Ranb]

My personal theory is that many carry, not because it makes everyone safer, but because they have an ego/reputation to uphold (particularly in certain areas of the country, including my own), or they have a principle of freedom that their notion of patriotism requires, or because they like the feeling of potential power that the weight on their hip brings them, or they like the thrill of using weapons, and carrying is the closest they can bring that into their daily life, or because I'd need to pry them from their cold, dead hands (call that NRAism). These reasons also would be OK with me, but they aren't, IMHO, sufficient for endangering others, including my own precious hide. So, give me some insight here - am I wrong? Why?

I am wondering how you came up with this theory. Is it based on personal experience (or prejudice), or on those persons you have talked with about concealed carry?

I have a concealed weapons permit, but I rarely carry a gun as most of the time I am out of the house is to and from work. No personal weapons allowed where I work. As far as the feelings I have for carrying; the major one is "can anyone see the gun in my pocket"? I have never witnessed any altercation or had any concern for my safety while packing. The few times I hastily departed a potentially risky situation I was not armed.

Ranb

[GreNME]

I am wondering how you came up with this theory. Is it based on personal experience (or prejudice), or on those persons you have talked with about concealed carry?

I don't have quite the same view as shadron, but I have one similar enough that I can answer: I base my view on the fact that, as I said, a firearm does not imbue someone with the ability to handle a stressful situation any better, and without the level of training that at the very least is similar to what police get will have a greater chance of contributing to a bad situation getting worse if the firearm comes into play.

Now, I also recognize that there are many people out there like some posts in this thread who have expressed the good sense to avoid having that firearm come into play.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Deleted.

The above wasn't specified. Only that someone is attempting to rob a store with a weapon drawn and Quad4_72 has a clear shot.

I thought it was implicit.

[Upchurch]

That is implied and you know it.
Obviously not.

Since we're adjusting our hypothetical question, let's add some more details. You've walked into a store, you see someone holding a gun on the guy behind the counter. The guy with the gun hasn't noticed you or isn't paying attention to you. You're able to pull your gun and take aim without any change in the situation. There is no one down range from your shot.

Do you take the shot?

[JoeyDonuts]

Obviously not.

Since we're adjusting our hypothetical question, let's add some more details. You've walked into a store, you see someone holding a gun on the guy behind the counter. The guy with the gun hasn't noticed you or isn't paying attention to you. You're able to pull your gun and take aim without any change in the situation. There is no one down range from your shot.

Do you take the shot?

Absolutely. Aim for just behind the ear, in hopes of completely destroying his nervous system response with a single shot, and preventing sympathetic trigger-pull on the way down. Shouting an audible warning is probably not the thing to do, although it's always an option. I prefer to retain the initiative.

[shadron]

Anyone want to answer the question I asked?I'm trying to be rational about risks in our society. My personal theory is that many carry, not because it makes everyone safer, but because they have an ego/reputation to uphold (particularly in certain areas of the country, including my own), or they have a principle of freedom that their notion of patriotism requires, or because they like the feeling of potential power that the weight on their hip brings them, or they like the thrill of using weapons, and carrying is the closest they can bring that into their daily life, or because I'd need to pry them from their cold, dead hands (call that NRAism). These reasons also would be OK with me, but they aren't, IMHO, sufficient for endangering others, including my own precious hide. So, give me some insight here - am I wrong? Why?

My .02. Gun rights discussion are by and large a Rorschach test and reveal more about the people that make them then about the actual issues.

...

I don't know. I'm not even certain which premises are contradictory or exclusive of the others. I suspect there are costs and benefits and any objective analysis is not likely to lead to a consensus. I'm not convinced that the arguments made are ultimately about the truth. I think they are largely post hoc rationalization to justify personal preference. I think there is a lot of confirmation bias on both sides of this issue.

I have already answered this many times in this thread. Even though it is rare that the situation may arise where I may need to use my gun, I am always prepared for it.

My personal theory is that it really doesn't deserve to be dignified with a response--it's simply conjecture based on your own cognitive biases.

I am wondering how you came up with this theory. Is it based on personal experience (or prejudice), or on those persons you have talked with about concealed carry?

I suppose that should teach me something about this controversy. I asked why people would carry, and I listed a number of reasons that came to the top of my head. Yes, I have a personal viewpoint, and it may show in my choice of words, but I left it open for anyone to correct me. I figure I got one honest "I don't know", a "to be prepared", a "I don't like your biases", and a "how did you get that theory?". I conclude that all the possibilities I list are not accepted reasons (so much for my deductive powers), and the predominant reason is a urge to be prepared for the worst possibility (I'll lump FuelAir in with Quad4_72 as he seems to be dispassionate about it). The next most likely response is to become defensive, that asking the question means I'm got an agenda, and therefore I don't really want or deserve an answer.

So, I guess that plumbs the intellectual depths. My conclusions:

- You'd think after 50 years of controversy someone would be pulling together statistics on whether this is really a deterrent, or whether it has cost as many lives as it saves, but there are none that are reliable or accepted. So the arguments go on, with no reliable evidence in sight.
- Police and arms experts re-iterate the need for training to properly handle a tool with such potential for destruction. The consensus here seems to be that an 8-12 hours course and occasional (say, monthly) range work is sufficient, though a couple site extensive military training as a basis.
- The ones with military training background carry in order to be prepared for the absolute worst case. I think I can trust them to know what they are doing, but even they describe normal range work as sufficient to keep skills up. Worse, they trust others who may have only had the 8 hour mandatory class implicitly. I trust my skills with a chainsaw, but only because I use it at least several times a year for real work.
- Others seem to be simply defensive about it, so there is no way to know why they carry, and how much training they have or think is necessary. They are as worrying as unknowns with deadly weapons can be.

Not much to take away from a skeptics forum, especially considering the sample size. I say, "I'm trying to be rational about risks in our society." I find it impossible to feel reassured about it. YMMV, of course.

Thanks for your help.

[Quad4_72]

Obviously not.

Since we're adjusting our hypothetical question, let's add some more details. You've walked into a store, you see someone holding a gun on the guy behind the counter. The guy with the gun hasn't noticed you or isn't paying attention to you. You're able to pull your gun and take aim without any change in the situation. There is no one down range from your shot.

Do you take the shot?

Yep. And don't stop pulling the trigger until he is down and lifeless.

[GreNME]

Interesting. And what if the guy behind the counter was the crook who had just beaten the teller unconscious, and the guy holding the gun was an off-duty or plainclothes policeman in the middle of an arrest? Or, instead of being a policeman, it's just another person with a concealed-carry who was taking it upon themselves to stop the robber? Or if there's an accomplice you can't see?

[fuelair]

Interesting. And what if the guy behind the counter was the crook who had just beaten the teller unconscious, and the guy holding the gun was an off-duty or plainclothes policeman in the middle of an arrest? Or, instead of being a policeman, it's just another person with a concealed-carry who was taking it upon themselves to stop the robber? Or if there's an accomplice you can't see?That's why I would not automatically fire but would announce and warn - and fire if the gun holder turned toward me.

[shadron]

Yep. And don't stop pulling the trigger until he is down and lifeless.

Absolutely. Aim for just behind the ear, in hopes of completely destroying his nervous system response with a single shot, and preventing sympathetic trigger-pull on the way down. Shouting an audible warning is probably not the thing to do, although it's always an option. I prefer to retain the initiative.

I would consider this the difference between a police and a military response. Police are trained to take more risk trying to end a problem without bloodshed.

That's why I would not automatically fire but would announce and warn - and fire if the gun holder turned toward me.

Like that. Yeah it's risky, but it is one of the reasons why the US doesn't ordinarily employ soldiers for police work. They have different training, different goals, different enemies. National Guard deployed in riot situations when the police are stretched too thin are a risk; they will get the job done, but the butcher's bill may not be easy to view.

Is it wrong to want civilians handled with kid gloves relative to military combatants? Good question, but one that is answered by the public policy.

[Quad4_72]

I would consider this the difference between a police and a military response. Police are trained to take more risk trying to end a problem without bloodshed.



Like that. Yeah it's risky, but it is one of the reasons why the US doesn't ordinarily emply soldiers for police work. They have different training, different goals, different enemies. National Guard deployed in riot situations when the police are stretched too thin are a risk; they will get the job done, but the butcher's bill may not be easy to view.

Is it wrong to want civilians handled with kid gloves relative to military combatants? Good question.

The only difference is the police would probably give a verbal warning first.

[Quad4_72]

Interesting. And what if the guy behind the counter was the crook who had just beaten the teller unconscious, and the guy holding the gun was an off-duty or plainclothes policeman in the middle of an arrest? Or, instead of being a policeman, it's just another person with a concealed-carry who was taking it upon themselves to stop the robber? Or if there's an accomplice you can't see?

Obviously I would take all of this into account. I would first asses the situation and then decide from there what the course of action would be. I thought the scenario was if it was a robber holding up a clerk. I wold never take the shot unless I was absolutely sure what was going on.

[GreNME]

That's why I would not automatically fire but would announce and warn - and fire if the gun holder turned toward me.

That's not a bad way to address it, I believe that's how police are trained to react. It's a lot tougher to do in practice than it is intellectually, though, so be sure there's training to back it up.

Quad, I believe you that assessment would come part and parcel in your reaction. I was mainly pointing out that the reality is often much more complicated and less clear-cut when it comes to these types of situations. There are the occasional cases of "criminal stepped up, got knocked down" but by default people performing these types of criminal acts tend to avoid situations where this could happen. I don't cut an imposing figure-- I think Tricky is the only one here who has seen me personally to confirm-- but I've watched a potential mugger re-evaluate accosting my better half and me on at least one occasion. There's an avoidance mechanism and risk-assessment in all of us, and with criminals while it tends to get applied differently it still gets applied.

[Quad4_72]

That's not a bad way to address it, I believe that's how police are trained to react. It's a lot tougher to do in practice than it is intellectually, though, so be sure there's training to back it up.

Quad, I believe you that assessment would come part and parcel in your reaction. I was mainly pointing out that the reality is often much more complicated and less clear-cut when it comes to these types of situations. There are the occasional cases of "criminal stepped up, got knocked down" but by default people performing these types of criminal acts tend to avoid situations where this could happen. I don't cut an imposing figure-- I think Tricky is the only one here who has seen me personally to confirm-- but I've watched a potential mugger re-evaluate accosting my better half and me on at least one occasion. There's an avoidance mechanism and risk-assessment in all of us, and with criminals while it tends to get applied differently it still gets applied.

Alright....

Still doesn't change the fact that if there is a confirmed armed robbery in progress and I have a chance to kill the person performing the robbery that I would take the shot.

[GreNME]

Why?

[Quad4_72]

Why?

Why would it? If I can eliminate the threat why not take the shot?

[GreNME]

That's a good enough answer for me. I can understand that. It doesn't change my hesitancy to support CCL, but I think it's an understandable and reasonable answer.

[shawmutt]

Obviously not.

Since we're adjusting our hypothetical question, let's add some more details. You've walked into a store, you see someone holding a gun on the guy behind the counter. The guy with the gun hasn't noticed you or isn't paying attention to you. You're able to pull your gun and take aim without any change in the situation. There is no one down range from your shot.

Do you take the shot?

And what would you do?

[shadron]

The only difference is the police would probably give a verbal warning first.

No, police aren't taught, as they are in the military, that the only good enemy is a dead enemy. That is a consequence of the size of the foe, and again, it is a risk, but one that society requires. Despite any stance I may have taken in a thread about upshooting photogs, I, and most of society believe in measuring the punishment against the crime. So, you're average policemen, answering a call for armed robbery and not personally involved in the crime, may shoot a suspected perp, but won't continue shooting until the perp is dead without a doubt, whereas a prudent soldier might give a uniformed, suspected corpse in combat an extra to tide him over. Different goals, different enemy, different training.

[GeeMack]

No, police aren't taught, as they are in the military, that the only good enemy is a dead enemy. That is a consequence of the size of the foe, and again, it is a risk, but one that society requires. Despite any stance I may have taken in a thread about upshooting photogs, I, and most of society believe in measuring the punishment against the crime. So, you're average policemen, answering a call for armed robbery and not personally involved in the crime, may shoot a suspected perp, but won't continue shooting until the perp is dead without a doubt, whereas a prudent soldier might give a uniformed, suspected corpse in combat an extra to tide him over. Different goals, different enemy, different training.


If you'd like to better understand the position of those who consider guns an appropriate tool for the purpose of defense in some instances, it might help if you don't confuse the issues of defense and punishment.

[shadron]

If you'd like to better understand the position of those who consider guns an appropriate tool for the purpose of defense in some instances, it might help if you don't confuse the issues of defense and punishment.

I thought I was; I was pointing out at least one of those differences. Perhaps you want to be more explicit, because I didn't bring up any consideration of punishment, AFAIK.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Did you ever wonder why a Drill Sergeant is always yelling at the trainees and making them run everywhere?

AHA!! STRESS training!
And is stress training mandatory for a concealed carry permit? AFAIK, it's not in my state.


I'll preface this remark with the observation that after reading the forum here for three years, I'd be convinced that we have all the safest drivers, the most conscientious fast-food haters, the kindest family folk, the best parents, the strictest disciplinarians, the smartest technical people and the most enthusiastic lovers of 109 degree desert heat in the summer tam-mers that the world has ever known, bar none. If you sense that I'm being somewhat facetious, or that I don't really believe it in its entirety, then read on.

OK, I've read the thread, including gagglenash's send-up of my own feeble joke about screwdrivers, and I'm left with the impression that the people on the forum who do carry (or perhaps who carry wannabe) are all trained to the teeth and simultaneously are so serious about carrying that no one would ever detect the fact that they carry an extra two pounds of iron on them all the time just in case of the once-in-a-lifetime chance that something will go down where they will be able to make a difference. Oh, and no one carrying would ever touch a drop while "on duty", except maybe ********.

(I had to giggle when the one participant in the video just had to boast about carrying to his neighbor. I hope his neighbor was available for the after-action debrief as well. But, of course, no one in this forum would ever boast like that...)

As the videos point out, training is everything. I would point out that the training necessary to be effective with a weapon in a startle situation is hideously expensive to provide, involving 3 to 6 highly trained actor/weapons experts, training and scenario designers, and appropriate physical settings, plus a gaggle of standers-by. Only one person here might possibly qualify for that (AFAIK the roles) - quad4_72, and perhaps bikewar, although if quad's avatar is that of a cavalryman, then perhaps not, as well. And this training has to be on-going, not "been there, got the diploma". That is why trained personnel are rated as worth millions of dollars; they cost that much.

A second possibility is that a carrier is not under such immediate pressure as depicted in the videos - there's some warning, and he's able to get the piece out calmly and take cover. Still, in this situation you are going to be under psychological pressure, not the least of which is your own ego telling you to go for the shooter, rather than flee (the reasonable thing to do when you have warning). Your adrenaline is still going to be elevated, you'll suffer tunnel sensing, and you still will need that expensive training; all you can get a pass on is, perhaps, the lightening reflexes and getting your shirt out of the way.

Now, I've listened to several here say they believe that they are currently better situated to do this than police. True, your average policeman hasn't the training that is really necessary, and on the average they are probably just as lazy as anyone else - I don't think anyone except perhaps SWAT team members have it, but having some awareness and training is part of their job. By what right does the average carrier rate himself better than a policeman, and still have time to post on this forum, or have time to be with that family that they claim to be protecting?

Furthermore, the training that might be effective for this - SWAT team, or mlitary assault training, is mostly training to be able to handle situations as a team, not as an individual. That difference is crucial. They also almost never train with hand weapons - long rifles are the ticket.

So, it is my personal belief that no one is really trained to handle the situation in case of point. Those with the weapons training are trained to work in teams, because that is the best way to overcome opposition. The rest of us (and I think that includes everyone on this forum, with one or two possible exceptions), are sucking air as far as how effective they'll be when that once-in-a-lifetime possibility occurs. I think you'll likely be just as dangerous to anyone with a couple of hundred yards as you are to any gunman. I would really like to plumb the depths of the training that everyone here who carries think they have, and whether they can *prove* that they are able to handle a live-fire situation. How do you justify yourselves?

We haven't even plumbed the deaths of people caused by the fact that guns have to be stored, maintained and safely handled, and yet ignored most of the time, to be useful. And danger to people standing behind a drywall wall when something goes down in the next room. I think those stats would swamp any meaningful death count drawn from Columbine High and other murderous incidents that might be stopped by a carrier.

And I still think getting gashed on a loose screw and dying of an infection is a higher probability than winning a gunfight. If you don't carry a screwdriver, don't forget your bottle of Merthiolate (oops, different can of worms!).

[To stay on thread, this all goes double in a bar.]

You said it.

Even if we accept that all the gun toters here have impeccable qualifications to handle every crisis, at the very least we should note that such qualifications are not required for concealed carry. I doubt very much that all people carrying concealed weapons abstain from drinking alcohol or taking any meds that might dull the reflexes. (For those who carry all the time, that means abstaining all the time!)

This reminds me of how a stand-up comic performing in front of maybe 5000 people could rant about those idiot drivers who do x,y and z, confident that not one person in the audience ever does x, y or z.

[shawmutt]

Even if we accept that all the gun toters here have impeccable qualifications to handle every crisis, at the very least we should note that such qualifications are not required for concealed carry. I doubt very much that all people carrying concealed weapons abstain from drinking alcohol or taking any meds that might dull the reflexes. (For those who carry all the time, that means abstaining all the time!)

This reminds me of how a stand-up comic performing in front of maybe 5000 people could rant about those idiot drivers who do x,y and z, confident that not one person in the audience ever does x, y or z.

Instead of offering off-the-cuff conjecture, how about offering some stats? According to the stats, the number of CCL holders who get their license revoked is remarkably low. The number of CCL holders who commit crimes is also remarkably low. Your premise is flirting with the ridiculous.

[Quad4_72]

Joe did you read my post responding to you about the laws about no gun signs?

[Mr. Skinny]

I'll preface this remark with the observation that after reading the forum here for three years, I'd be convinced that we have all the safest drivers, the most conscientious fast-food haters, the kindest family folk, the best parents, the strictest disciplinarians, the smartest technical people and the most enthusiastic lovers of 109 degree desert heat in the summer tam-mers that the world has ever known, bar none. If you sense that I'm being somewhat facetious, or that I don't really believe it in its entirety, then read on.
Can't say I'd say people are that full of themselves, but I think I see where your headed.

OK, I've read the thread, including gagglenash's send-up of my own feeble joke about screwdrivers, and I'm left with the impression that the people on the forum who do carry (or perhaps who carry wannabe) are all trained to the teeth and simultaneously are so serious about carrying that no one would ever detect the fact that they carry an extra two pounds of iron on them all the time just in case of the once-in-a-lifetime chance that something will go down where they will be able to make a difference. Oh, and no one carrying would ever touch a drop while "on duty", except maybe ********.My impression is that most of the CC folks on this forum have at least the minimum training required by their state, and many have considerably more training than that.

(I had to giggle when the one participant in the video just had to boast about carrying to his neighbor. I hope his neighbor was available for the after-action debrief as well. But, of course, no one in this forum would ever boast like that...)

As the videos point out, training is everything. I would point out that the training necessary to be effective with a weapon in a startle situation is hideously expensive to provide, involving 3 to 6 highly trained actor/weapons experts, training and scenario designers, and appropriate physical settings, plus a gaggle of standers-by. Only one person here might possibly qualify for that (AFAIK the roles) - quad4_72, and perhaps bikewar, although if quad's avatar is that of a cavalryman, then perhaps not, as well. And this training has to be on-going, not "been there, got the diploma". That is why trained personnel are rated as worth millions of dollars; they cost that much.I think you are exagerating the costs/numbers of people required. There are several simulators that police officers can train on that teach shooting technique and decision making (shoot/don't shoot).

Totally agree that training needs to be ongoing. I personally feel that I was well qualified with a handgun because for five years I'd been going to a Sheriff's Office gun range (four times a year) to qualify with a certified range officer. Now however, I haven't even fired my weapon in nearly 7 years - I'm rusty as hell.


(snip)
Now, I've listened to several here say they believe that they are currently better situated to do this than police. True, your average policeman hasn't the training that is really necessary, and on the average they are probably just as lazy as anyone else - I don't think anyone except perhaps SWAT team members have it, but having some awareness and training is part of their job.
I think you are uninformed about the amount of training a police officer receives. Not sure what you mean by the "lazy" remark.

By what right does the average carrier rate himself better than a policeman, and still have time to post on this forum, or have time to be with that family that they claim to be protecting?:confused:

Furthermore, the training that might be effective for this - SWAT team, or mlitary assault training, is mostly training to be able to handle situations as a team, not as an individual. That difference is crucial. They also almost never train with hand weapons - long rifles are the ticket.

So, it is my personal belief that no one is really trained to handle the situation in case of point. Those with the weapons training are trained to work in teams, because that is the best way to overcome opposition.Most police officers are trained to act independently and in teams. Are you simply trying to say that military experience is not useful in, let's say, a convenience store stick-up?

The rest of us (and I think that includes everyone on this forum, with one or two possible exceptions), are sucking air as far as how effective they'll be when that once-in-a-lifetime possibility occurs. I think you'll likely be just as dangerous to anyone with a couple of hundred yards as you are to any gunman. I would really like to plumb the depths of the training that everyone here who carries think they have, and whether they can *prove* that they are able to handle a live-fire situation. How do you justify yourselves?
I might meet your qualifications as I'm a police academy graduate and worked as a volunteer cop for a number of years.

In my limited experience I've drawn my weapon and pointed it at someone on at least five occasions where there was a distinct possibility I might have to pull the trigger. Luckily, I never had to.

My personal experience was that I was very focused on my target, almost to the point of excluding some sights and sounds I probably should have been aware of. After it was all over, my hands would tremble as the adrenelin rush wore off.

So, I agree with you that more training is better, but it's the state that makes the rules. For example, I can get a CC permit without taking any training, simply because I graduated from the police academy, even though that was 25 years ago and (as I said earlier) I haven't fired my weapon in several years.

[Upchurch]

Absolutely. Aim for just behind the ear, in hopes of completely destroying his nervous system response with a single shot, and preventing sympathetic trigger-pull on the way down. Shouting an audible warning is probably not the thing to do, although it's always an option. I prefer to retain the initiative.

Yep. And don't stop pulling the trigger until he is down and lifeless.
And this is why I don't trust your judgment. Even GreNME saw what I was staging:
Interesting. And what if the guy behind the counter was the crook who had just beaten the teller unconscious, and the guy holding the gun was an off-duty or plainclothes policeman in the middle of an arrest?
You didn't think. You took all your preconceived notions and shot without thinking or asking any questions. You didn't ask for any clarification. You took what I gave you and forced it into the Dirty Harry scenario in your head. Fail.


Obviously I would take all of this into account. I would first asses the situation and then decide from there what the course of action would be.
But you didn't. Epic Fail.


I thought the scenario was if it was a robber holding up a clerk. I wold never take the shot unless I was absolutely sure what was going on.
And you were dead wrong. The death in this case being a cop. Mega Epic Fail.

No one is questioning your ability to use a fire arm. The question is your ability to know when to use it. This is everyday civilian life, not a war zone.

Which leads to the underlying question here that you are avoiding: What if you are wrong?

[Upchurch]

And what would you do?
Not applicable. I don't carry a fire arm.

[shadron]

My impression is that most of the CC folks on this forum have at least the minimum training required by their state, and many have considerably more training than that.

Yes, I'd say so. I've not claimed anyone here is cheating on the law.

I think you are exagerating the costs/numbers of people required. There are several simulators that police officers can train on that teach shooting technique and decision making (shoot/don't shoot).

OK, that's good. Excellent use of the technology, and I should have thought that that was going on, as I worked on fighter simulations 15 years ago. Did people in your department do any live exercises?

Totally agree that training needs to be ongoing. I personally feel that I was well qualified with a handgun because for five years I'd been going to a Sheriff's Office gun range (four times a year) to qualify with a certified range officer. Now however, I haven't even fired my weapon in nearly 7 years - I'm rusty as hell.

In the video the officers emphasized training which would help overcoming the haze of confusion in a real event - the violent sensory input, the tunnel vision, the slow reflexes (the muscle memory), the appropriate focus. None of these are handled on a range, I don't think; only the draw-aim-shoot reflexes and target practice.

I think you are uninformed about the amount of training a police officer receives. Not sure what you mean by the "lazy" remark.

Only that they are no more, and no less, lazy then average people, and that they likely don't train any more than required, just like everyone else.

Most police officers are trained to act independently and in teams. Are you simply trying to say that military experience is not useful in, let's say, a convenience store stick-up?

Perhaps not as useful as training for convenience store stick-ups might be, as opposed to general urban assault or armor support.

I might meet your qualifications as I'm a police academy graduate and worked as a volunteer cop for a number of years.

In my limited experience I've drawn my weapon and pointed it at someone on at least five occasions where there was a distinct possibility I might have to pull the trigger. Luckily, I never had to.

My personal experience was that I was very focused on my target, almost to the point of excluding some sights and sounds I probably should have been aware of. After it was all over, my hands would tremble as the adrenelin rush wore off.

So, I agree with you that more training is better, but it's the state that makes the rules. For example, I can get a CC permit without taking any training, simply because I graduated from the police academy, even though that was 25 years ago and (as I said earlier) I haven't fired my weapon in several years.

"The state makes the rules" is shorthand for "we make the rules", though sometimes I worry about the NRA and/or MAD or whoever opposes the NRA making the rules.

[shawmutt]

Not applicable. I don't carry a fire arm.

How is it not applicable? Are you trying to say you would never get into that situation due to the fact that you are unprepared for it? How about not copping out of the question? I'm wondering what your unarmed, unprepared butt would do in that situation--in other words, in a country full of crime, what do you think is the best way for citizens to protect themselves?

[Mr. Skinny]

Yes, I'd say so. I've not claimed anyone here is cheating on the law.

OK, that's good. Excellent use of the technology, and I should have thought that that was going on, as I worked on fighter simulations 15 years ago. Did people in your department do any live exercises?
Back in my day (I'm officially old fer sayin' that :D) we only had flip around targets with pictures of bad guys/women carrying groceries, etc.

Personally, I (and a few guys I worked with) did about of 75 hours of training (over three years) with the Army's MILES system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_Integrated_Laser_Engagement_System, but it wasn't required training.

In the video the officers emphasized training which would help overcoming the haze of confusion in a real event - the violent sensory input, the tunnel vision, the slow reflexes (the muscle memory), the appropriate focus. None of these are handled on a range, I don't think; only the draw-aim-shoot reflexes and target practice.
I'm on dial-up so I can't see this video, but these are exactly the things that are handled on the range and in simulators. Decision making is part of the process. Not just draw-aim-shoot.

Only that they are no more, and no less, lazy then average people, and that they likely don't train any more than required, just like everyone else.
Police officers typically train much more than everyone else.

Perhaps not as useful as training for convenience store stick-ups might be, as opposed to general urban assault or armor support.
OK

"The state makes the rules" is shorthand for "we make the rules", though sometimes I worry about the NRA and/or MAD or whoever opposes the NRA making the rules.
Agree. I also have my worries about gun control laws.

[Upchurch]

How is it not applicable? Are you trying to say you would never get into that situation due to the fact that you are unprepared for it?
Would I never be in the situation where I would have to choose whether or not to shoot because I don't carry a fire arm?

um... yes?


How about not copping out of the question?
Okay, were I somehow in that situation, I would take the time to figure out what is actually going on before simply reacting. Or at least, I would like to think I would.

The fact of the matter is that I've never been in that position before and I don't know how rationally I would behave.

Oh, and king catfish?
Where do you people live? ...

And taking out and showing, using the weapon as a penis replacement or manhood booster...unbelievable. No one I know would do this. My wife has a carry permit and carries regularly, as do the wives of several of my friends. Do you think perhaps they need a manhood booster?
Here's your answer:
I'm wondering what your unarmed, unprepared butt would do in that situation


in other words, in a country full of crime, what do you think is the best way for citizens to protect themselves?
How about a better funded police force? Crazy idea, I know.

[Quad4_72]

And this is why I don't trust your judgment. Even GreNME saw what I was staging:

You didn't think. You took all your preconceived notions and shot without thinking or asking any questions. You didn't ask for any clarification. You took what I gave you and forced it into the Dirty Harry scenario in your head. Fail.



But you didn't. Epic Fail.



And you were dead wrong. The death in this case being a cop. Mega Epic Fail.

No one is questioning your ability to use a fire arm. The question is your ability to know when to use it. This is everyday civilian life, not a war zone.

Which leads to the underlying question here that you are avoiding: What if you are wrong?

Lol of course. Make up your own scenario and then assume that I would just shoot without even thinking. You are not a very bright individual. It is pretty clear that your critical thinking skills are minimal or even non existent. I have extensive firearms training and ROE training. I would never go into a situation and just start shooting without knowing for sure what the whole scenario was. Shooting is a last resort. I have stated this many times. The fact that you ignore this shows your own personal agenda against firearms. You will do anything you can to try and make your point. Sad really.

[Upchurch]

Lol of course. Make up your own scenario and then assume that I would just shoot without even thinking.
You just DEMONSTRATED that you would just shoot without even thinking.

You knew I had been questioning your ability to assess a given situation and it didn't occur to you to carefully consider the scenario I had given? It didn't occur to you that I was asking a question designed to highlight your lack of critical thinking skills?

You are not a very bright individual. It is pretty clear that your critical thinking skills are minimal or even non existent.
Oh, the irony.


Shooting is a last resort. I have stated this many times. The fact that you ignore this shows your own personal agenda against firearms. You will do anything you can to try and make your point. Sad really.
And I have stated several times that I don't have a personal agenda against firearms. I have no problem with guns. I have a problem with individuals who place my life and the lives of my family in danger because they mean well but act without thinking.

[Quad4_72]

You just DEMONSTRATED that you would just shoot without even thinking.

You knew I had been questioning your ability to assess a given situation and it didn't occur to you to carefully consider the scenario I had given? It didn't occur to you that I was asking a question designed to highlight your lack of critical thinking skills?


Oh, the irony.



And I have stated several times that I don't have a personal agenda against firearms. I have no problem with guns. I have a problem with individuals who place my life and the lives of my family in danger because they mean well but act without thinking.

Yes. Keep making things up. That seems to be working out well for you:rolleyes: lol.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Instead of offering off-the-cuff conjecture, how about offering some stats? According to the stats, the number of CCL holders who get their license revoked is remarkably low. The number of CCL holders who commit crimes is also remarkably low. Your premise is flirting with the ridiculous.
:confused:
I never said that CCL holders commit more crimes than other people.

I was following up on Shadron's point that while I accept that the CCL holders posting on this thread have exemplary training, skills, and experience, that level is not required to get a license. Also, I doubt very much that CCL holders who carry a gun all the time also always refrain from drinking all the time. (Though I think Shadron was hinting a bit that since everyone thinks he is exceptionally well-qualified, maybe we should treat these claims with a bit of skepticism. Just as you can talk to people about bad drivers who do stupid and dangerous things on the road, but everyone you talk to is among the exemplary kind of driver who never does anything stupid or dangerous.)

The fact that few licenses are revoked has nothing to do with this point.

ETA: I'm not sure what statistic you want me to cite, but I'm pretty sure of this one: the number of states that require the kind of firearms training Quad has had before they'll give someone a concealed carry license: 0. In Missouri, a single 8 hour training class is enough (http://www.mocct.com/Courses/ConcealedCarryTraining/tabid/80/Default.aspx).

[fuelair]

And this is why I don't trust your judgment. Even GreNME saw what I was staging:

You didn't think. You took all your preconceived notions and shot without thinking or asking any questions. You didn't ask for any clarification. You took what I gave you and forced it into the Dirty Harry scenario in your head. Fail.



But you didn't. Epic Fail.



And you were dead wrong. The death in this case being a cop. Mega Epic Fail.

No one is questioning your ability to use a fire arm. The question is your ability to know when to use it. This is everyday civilian life, not a war zone.

Which leads to the underlying question here that you are avoiding: What if you are wrong?You won't like this, but: if the situation is exactly as described, even if you do not call out, you are pretty much certain to get off IF you are even charged BECAUSE you had reason to believe a victim was in imminent danger of death or major harm from an attacker - and the reasonable belief that you or another person are at such risk is sufficient for you to shoot. If the attacker has a knife or club and there is a barrier sufficient that he/she cannot directly assault you or the victim, it becomes more iffy - but that does not apply if it's a gun.

The key is the belief of imminent use of deadly force.


ETA: I am only willing to call out first because A) I know my weapons and what will happen once the trigger is pulled so I am not worried if the person does not know I am there until I am in position and ready to fire and B) if they stop dead still and follow instructions I won't shoot, if they explain and I can't verify we wait for known police, if they turn they drop.

I have no desire at all for any of these things to happen, but I enjoy life and if it's a choice between them and me I want them to be the dearly departed.

[Drudgewire]

How about a better funded police force? Crazy idea, I know.


Short of a true police state, better funding wouldn't help a whole lot. If I've already been shot to death, knowing there are more cops out there to solve my murder is of little comfort.

[Upchurch]

You won't like this, but: if the situation is exactly as described, even if you do not call out, you are pretty much certain to get off IF you are even charged BECAUSE you had reason to believe a victim was in imminent danger of death or major harm from an attacker - and the reasonable belief that you or another person are at such risk is sufficient for you to shoot.
Very probably. Does that make the cop Quad shot in that situation any less dead?

[Upchurch]

Yes. Keep making things up. That seems to be working out well for you:rolleyes: lol.
What I did was perform an experiment designed to test your reponse to a given situation. Your reaction confirmed my hypothesis and provided evidence for my claim.

I didn't make up your reaction. You did that yourself.

Now, you can either address the fact that you didn't think before deciding to shoot or you can continue to make personal attacks.

Again, I'm not questioning your ability to use a firearm. I'm questioning your ability to know when to use a firearm.

[epeeist]

[Originally Posted by fuelair
You won't like this, but: if the situation is exactly as described, even if you do not call out, you are pretty much certain to get off IF you are even charged BECAUSE you had reason to believe a victim was in imminent danger of death or major harm from an attacker - and the reasonable belief that you or another person are at such risk is sufficient for you to shoot.]


Very probably. Does that make the cop Quad shot in that situation any less dead?

Note: any commentary on likely legal consequences is totally hypothetical with made-up laws and sentences intended to be qualitatively rather than quantitatively expressive and is not intended to constitute legal advice, consult a lawyer in your jurisdiction before shooting anyone... :rolleyes:

Based on at least some news stories, if you shoot a cop in a situation like this then depending upon factors like your "stature" in the community etc., you may well be charged and convicted. Regardless of whether you "should" be or not (presumably depending upon state law).

You'll be charged with, say, first degree murder (killing a police officer). Maybe not, let's say you're charged with manslaughter. The video shows you gave no warning. Maybe the prosecutor offers the guy the police officer was holding a gun on (presumably for good reason!) a deal because he "remembers" that the police officer was loudly identifying himself as such and he offers to testify in exchange for consideration in his own case. Maybe if you're lucky the prosecutor offers you a plea deal to something like negligent use of a firearm causing death with a recommendation of 5 years probation (no jail time) and a lifetime ban on gun ownership. Let's say you reject the plea, if you're lucky the jury believes you, better hope you make a good impression or you may be facing the prospect of 5 or more years in prison... :(