Open Carry: Oklahoma scores partial victory

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by Xulld

Yep, same for me. I have no problems with background check regulation. Keep guns away from violent felons. I do have a problem that felonies for non violent reasons get lumped in. I have a friend who was abandoned by his parents when he was 16 who wrote a ton of bad checks, mostly for food, and continues to this day to not be able to vote or own firearms for his indiscretion (he has long since made restitution). Sure there are ways to get his rights back, they all involve a good deal of money.

I also have problems with some of the seemingly arbitrary restrictions on weapons. The assault ban is a good example of emotional legislation with little to no rational reasons. Some weapons that look scary get restricted, while others that are actually more capable are ok becuase they are not evil looking black guns that you can attach a knife to.

I would love to have an SBR (short barreled rifle) I have a bad back, and love light weight short quick pointing rifles. But I really dont want to go through the hassle, and be on a list somewhere.

I am in complete agreement.

Originally Posted by Xulld

That is strange, I wonder if that is a state thing. I know if I go get sights put on my hand gun and leave the gun with them I do not have to get a BG check to pick it up, is it only for certain durations(over a year, month)? Never heard of that myself. Then again Ive never tried to sell a gun on consignment.

I suspect (but only suspect) that it was simply an abundance of caution. I imagine they had a regular lawyer they consulted, and when the background checks became necessary the lawyer advised them to take a broad interpretation of what it meant to sell a gun. I imagine the thought process went something like this:

Selling means transferring ownership.
Ownership means possession.
He gave me a gun to sell which means I have possession, therefore I have ownership.
He wants the gun back which means I have to give him possession.
Ergo, I am virtually selling it.

Another gun shop might interpret it a bit more loosely and be just as correct.

Note: I speculate all the above without done one whit of research regarding how the law is worded, so judge its value accordingly.

[Resume]

Originally Posted by Garrette

In my experience, most gun rights advocates do not object to some regulation of gun ownership (those who do object are not a tiny percentage, but they are not the majority).

I don't mind regulation, either, just as I don't mind the regulation of vehicles. I would mind if I were told I cannot own or sell a car, though, just as I would mind if I were told I had to pay a yearly tax on my handguns (like we have to pay a yearly registration fee for our vehicles).

The arguments, then, are generally about the degree of regulation as opposed to the existence of it.

The FOID card system in Illinois is a pain in the ass imo. Mine has expired twice and neither time was I sent a renewal 60 days in advance as they claim to do. I was very lucky not to be in violation of the law.

[tomwaits]

From the brief time when I was in Europe, if I ever told someone I was from Chicago they would go "OOHH! Chicago!" and then they would make this motion:



Since the '20's Chicago has made many attempts to get rid of this reputation but has had no success. There's no easy solution. I'd love to get rid of them all but that's impractical. Even so, the personal Mutually Assured Destruction that open carry implies makes me even more uncomfortable. Damn this country's not-so-distant frontier origins!

[CORed]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Second amendment says arms not guns. People just decided that what it said was stupid and what it mentioned was something else.

See everyone is for some arms being outlawed and some not, it is all where you draw the line.

Well yes. Of course, at the time the second amendment was passed, the most dangerous "arm" would have been a large muzzle-loading cannon, rather than a strategic nuclear warhead. If the founding fathers had anticipated the development of nuclear weapons, or even of machine guns, they might have worded it a little differently.

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by CORed

Well yes. Of course, at the time the second amendment was passed, the most dangerous "arm" would have been a large muzzle-loading cannon, rather than a strategic nuclear warhead. If the founding fathers had anticipated the development of nuclear weapons, or even of machine guns, they might have worded it a little differently.

At the time the Second was written, the writers were well aware of the different technology at the time - ie: Flintlock v. matchlock, battery guns (multi barrel multi shot weapons) cannon, moratr etc.

They made no differentiation between types, caliber or weight of shell.

The writers meant for the citizens to be armed like the standing military of the time as a counterbalance against military tyranny.

No - this does not mean that the guy down the block has a BLU 82, but it does mean (imo) he can have a M4.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by CORed

Well yes. Of course, at the time the second amendment was passed, the most dangerous "arm" would have been a large muzzle-loading cannon, rather than a strategic nuclear warhead. If the founding fathers had anticipated the development of nuclear weapons, or even of machine guns, they might have worded it a little differently.

Chain shot... Grape shot... enfilade guns that could fire dozens of rounds in a second (the earliest form of 'machine guns'), had already been developed, and the Framers were well aware of what 'arms' meant, having just been through a war.

Being rational, they were also well aware that by using the broadest possible category of 'arms', instead of narrower language, they were *not* making anything infinite or unlimited.

[Xulld]

Originally Posted by tomwaits

There's no easy solution. I'd love to get rid of them all but that's impractical. Even so, the personal Mutually Assured Destruction that open carry implies makes me even more uncomfortable. Damn this country's not-so-distant frontier origins!

What does that even mean? Are you really implying that by carrying a gun openly you are going to create a situation where everyone dies?

Yea, you are going to have to unpack your rationale of that for me . . .

[Lithrael]

Even as a person who's not a huge fan of guns, I do support open carry, as it seems to me that open carry is more conducive to the purpose of having a gun with you in the first place than concealed carry is.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by Lithrael

Even as a person who's not a huge fan of guns, I do support open carry, as it seems to me that open carry is more conducive to the purpose of having a gun with you in the first place than concealed carry is.

Last I checked, the purpose of a gun was simply to put holes in things. Period.

What purpose do you think is enhanced by open carry?

[Xulld]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

Last I checked, the purpose of a gun was simply to put holes in things. Period.

What purpose do you think is enhanced by open carry?

Its easy (vs worrying about concealment), and thus more likely to be done. It is IMHO more comfortable as well. It is also faster to draw, less likely to get tangled on a garment and thus more reliable.

An article I found here that talks about the trend of women getting involved in OC.

http://edsfiles.us/article/girlswithguns.pdf

[Howie Felterbush]

Originally Posted by Garrette

I suspect (but only suspect) that it was simply an abundance of caution. I imagine they had a regular lawyer they consulted, and when the background checks became necessary the lawyer advised them to take a broad interpretation of what it meant to sell a gun. I imagine the thought process went something like this:

Selling means transferring ownership.
Ownership means possession.
He gave me a gun to sell which means I have possession, therefore I have ownership.
He wants the gun back which means I have to give him possession.
Ergo, I am virtually selling it.

Another gun shop might interpret it a bit more loosely and be just as correct.

Note: I speculate all the above without done one whit of research regarding how the law is worded, so judge its value accordingly.

I work in a huge gun store (at any given time we probably have around ten thousand guns in the building, fewer during presidential elections ). We have to inventory our guns every other week. The gun store you were dealing with may have inventoried your gun as theirs (since it was in their store and they were responsible for it) and reported it as so to the ATF. Then, when it left their posession, there had to be a 4473 filled out.

Just guessing. We don't sell on consignment, so I have no real experience with this situation, but I know how picky the feds are.

[Xulld]

Quote:

Just guessing. We don't sell on consignment, so I have no real experience with this situation, but I know how picky the feds are.

For sure, and no one wants 10 years for a lack of caution.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

Just the ones that have been posted over, and over, and over, and over.

Do you have a point?

One day you might just try to be a little civil to people. Just the once. You might find that people respond in kind rather than ignore your posts.

[Ranb]

Originally Posted by lionking

One day you might just try to be a little civil to people. Just the once. You might find that people respond in kind rather than ignore your posts.

You might try taking some of your own advice. Making an unfounded accusation like you did earlier in this thread is not how we discuss critical thinking in a friendly and lively way.

Ranb

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by lionking

One day you might just try to be a little civil to people. Just the once. You might find that people respond in kind rather than ignore your posts.

People stick their fingers in their ears and ignore, when they don't want to learn anything.
They shout things down when they don't want *other* people to learn anything.
When they are uneasy, they make up strawmen, and project that the people presenting facts 'aren't civil'.

Asking a question in one thread, and when someone takes the time to give a thoughtful, well researched answer, running away and coming back later asking the same cookie cutter question, isn't an accident.
That sort of pooh flinging is nothing more than trying to drown out rational thought, and JREF is saturated with it.

Why does dragging down discourse with these same tired old games deserve so much respect that no one should call it out when it happens, but actual discourse doesn't?

People getting killed with firearms isn't an internet game to score points with for me. It is a serious social problem, and one that needs to be talked about using accurate and rational assessments.
Posts that derail useful discussions by simply regurgitating the same old obdurate sound bites (which have been repeatedly debunked), do nothing to help solve anything.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Garrette

The arguments, then, are generally about the degree of regulation as opposed to the existence of it.

Right. Sometimes it's easy to forget that.

[Lithrael]

Originally Posted by Xulld

Its easy (vs worrying about concealment), and thus more likely to be done. It is IMHO more comfortable as well. It is also faster to draw, less likely to get tangled on a garment and thus more reliable.

This, and also it removes the crime-drama scenario of being in a tense situation, reaching into your jacket for a phone and someone deciding you are reaching for a gun, since there is a gun right there on your hip.

In the Trayvon Martin case, open carry is one of a thousand things that could have averted the tragedy. No matter what really happened that night, if Martin had known for sure that Zimmerman had a gun on him I bet you dollars to doughnuts there would never have been a fight.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by Lithrael

This, and also it removes the crime-drama scenario of being in a tense situation, reaching into your jacket for a phone and someone deciding you are reaching for a gun, since there is a gun right there on your hip.

In the Trayvon Martin case, open carry is one of a thousand things that could have averted the tragedy. No matter what really happened that night, if Martin had known for sure that Zimmerman had a gun on him I bet you dollars to doughnuts there would never have been a fight.

Thank you for clarifying.

For myself, I would balance those possible factors against someone deciding to shoot you in the back in order to take your purse or wallet, because they see you carrying.

[Xulld]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

Thank you for clarifying.

For myself, I would balance those possible factors against someone deciding to shoot you in the back in order to take your purse or wallet, because they see you carrying.

You know I worried about this at first when I started to carry openly. So I tried to find statistics about people carrying openly being shot/assaulted for their weapons. The only ones I could find were for police officers (not surprisingly being that they are the largest group carrying openly) it is not very common, and then we have to wonder how often is the assault not to secure the firearm, but to kill a cop.

I think ambushing armed people is a risky affair and even if large numbers of folks carried openly I think it would remain a statistically unlikely event, even more so than needing the weapon to begin with.

But this is mostly speculation on my part. I wish we had better statistics.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Xulld

You know I worried about this at first when I started to carry openly. So I tried to find statistics about people carrying openly being shot/assaulted for their weapons. The only ones I could find were for police officers (not surprisingly being that they are the largest group carrying openly) it is not very common, and then we have to wonder how often is the assault not to secure the firearm, but to kill a cop.

I think ambushing armed people is a risky affair and even if large numbers of folks carried openly I think it would remain a statistically unlikely event, even more so than needing the weapon to begin with.

But this is mostly speculation on my part. I wish we had better statistics.

I never understood carrying a fire arm. I've given some thought about it. When I first started to hear about carry laws I thought it was paranoia. But then I thought for most it was simply being prudent, kind of like putting on my seat belt when I get into a car. It's not something I would do but I don't think it's necessarily irrational.

I don't know if you carry openly (if you stated so and I missed it then I'm sorry) and this isn't meant as a slight. I've no idea what your reasons and motivations are. From my perspective, I would feel like I was projecting to everyone else either my insecurities or my desire to intimidate. A gun isn't a seat belt. Given that there are 300 thousand thousand people in America and that less than 10 thousand a year, on average, that are killed in America by a hand gun, I don't get it.

Again, not a sleight, not calling for changes in the law. And I love guns, I really do. It's just that open carry seems to me more as a fetish and not prudence. I just don't understand.

[Xulld]

Originally Posted by RandFan

I never understood carrying a fire arm. I've given some thought about it. When I first started to hear about carry laws I thought it was paranoia. But then I thought for most it was simply being prudent, kind of like putting on my seat belt when I get into a car. It's not something I would do but I don't think it's necessarily irrational.

I don't know if you carry openly (if you stated so and I missed it then I'm sorry) and this isn't meant as a slight. I've no idea what your reasons and motivations are. From my perspective, I would feel like I was projecting to everyone else either my insecurities or my desire to intimidate. A gun isn't a seat belt. Given that there are 300 thousand thousand people in America and that less than 10 thousand a year, on average, that are killed in America by a hand gun, I don't get it.

Again, not a sleight, not calling for changes in the law. And I love guns, I really do. It's just that open carry seems to me more as a fetish and not prudence. I just don't understand.

I grew up in a nice area, but when my parents divorced I moved into the ghetto with my mom at age 12. I could relate tons of stories of people being stabbed, or friends getting a beat down, or even a time when I was jumped by 5 guys, or the time a crack dealer took an AK-47 down to a crack house becuase the people who lived there stole a bunch of crack from him, he killed 9 people less than a block from where I lived, however none of that really drove me to carry a pistol. But I never did crack or hard drugs, I could always rationalize my decision to not carry.

In fact I never carried a firearm before my best friend, and high-school sweetheart was murdered. I was going to recount what happened but honestly even now it is really hard.


Statistics like any other abstract idea tend to fail at creating an impetus. However when something happens to you, or people you care about, it becomes a whole other matter.

Couple this together with an uptick in the quantity of mass shootings, and living in relatively high crime areas and you start to get a sense of need that motivates action.

When I first started to carry I also decided I needed to be competent, so I signed up for classes. What I learned was that I was terrible, terrible at drawing, terrible at shooting, terrible at holding the gun correctly, and needed lots of help. I signed up for USPSA competitions to help bolster my skill and confidence. I learned to love the sport. This also helped me get up off the couch and stay active. I have ruptured several discs in my back and staying active helps a lot.

This was all while I lived in Florida, and in Florida you cannot open carry except in extremely specific circumstances so really it wasn't even on my radar.

I moved to North Carolina to train technicians for my company and spent a couple years there while completing that task. While there I learned of the open carry laws, and discovered I really like carrying openly. Really for me it is a comfort issue. Concealing a weapon is literally a pain in the but, in fact for me it is a pain in the sciatica.

In competition I learned that I can reduce my draw time from 2-3 seconds to below 1 second with a good holster openly carried. With retention It takes some added training, but is still much faster.

So for me it is practical.

I can also honestly tell you that if I saw someone killing a bunch of people I would move to engage. I would not hesitate. For me carrying has become an obligation. Not only for my own safety, but for the safety of my loved ones and the innocent people who find themselves without the ability to defend themselves. I WILL NOT allow someone I love, or some innocent to be killed for a lack of preparation or concern or willingness to get involved.

I know this may sound like a desire to be the hero, but its not. It is a desire to stop violence. Deep down I share the principles of my best friend, she was a pacifist, and would have never hurt anyone out of anger or spite.

It is a personal philosophy, it is part of a non-aggression principle. Without the capability to stop violence you cannot represent the ideal you hope to achieve.

Gun free zones are what create situations such as V-tech. It is what allows things to happen like occurred at Fort Hood. The likes of Jeanne Assam are who I represent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gIHDHZf1TA
This is a good vid that represents my feelings on why carrying a firearm in society is the right thing to do.

Statistics may inform you and allow you to conclude that the need is limited or even not needed at all, but ask the people at Lubey's that are alive now becuase of a gun. Ask every person who has ever found themselves in a deadly situation where the shooter killing people was taken down by an armed sheepdog.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEbXu...feature=relmfu
. . and this is how I feel about gun free zones.

http://1withabullet.wordpress.com/20...fords-shooter/ We need more people willing to get involved, and that have the capability when its needed. This guy showed restraint, and understood tactically that shooting was not the best option. He is a hero, no less than the others that helped wrestle the gunman to the ground, just better prepared.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by Xulld

I grew up in a nice area, but when my parents divorced I moved into the ghetto with my mom at age 12. I could relate tons of stories of people being stabbed, or friends getting a beat down, or even a time when I was jumped by 5 guys, or the time a crack dealer took an AK-47 down to a crack house becuase the people who lived there stole a bunch of crack from him, he killed 9 people less than a block from where I lived, however none of that really drove me to carry a pistol. But I never did crack or hard drugs, I could always rationalize my decision to not carry.

In fact I never carried a firearm before my best friend, and high-school sweetheart was murdered. I was going to recount what happened but honestly even now it is really hard.


Statistics like any other abstract idea tend to fail at creating an impetus. However when something happens to you, or people you care about, it becomes a whole other matter.

Couple this together with an uptick in the quantity of mass shootings, and living in relatively high crime areas and you start to get a sense of need that motivates action.

When I first started to carry I also decided I needed to be competent, so I signed up for classes. What I learned was that I was terrible, terrible at drawing, terrible at shooting, terrible at holding the gun correctly, and needed lots of help. I signed up for USPSA competitions to help bolster my skill and confidence. I learned to love the sport. This also helped me get up off the couch and stay active. I have ruptured several discs in my back and staying active helps a lot.

This was all while I lived in Florida, and in Florida you cannot open carry except in extremely specific circumstances so really it wasn't even on my radar.

I moved to North Carolina to train technicians for my company and spent a couple years there while completing that task. While there I learned of the open carry laws, and discovered I really like carrying openly. Really for me it is a comfort issue. Concealing a weapon is literally a pain in the but, in fact for me it is a pain in the sciatica.

In competition I learned that I can reduce my draw time from 2-3 seconds to below 1 second with a good holster openly carried. With retention It takes some added training, but is still much faster.

So for me it is practical.

I can also honestly tell you that if I saw someone killing a bunch of people I would move to engage. I would not hesitate. For me carrying has become an obligation. Not only for my own safety, but for the safety of my loved ones and the innocent people who find themselves without the ability to defend themselves. I WILL NOT allow someone I love, or some innocent to be killed for a lack of preparation or concern or willingness to get involved.

I know this may sound like a desire to be the hero, but its not. It is a desire to stop violence. Deep down I share the principles of my best friend, she was a pacifist, and would have never hurt anyone out of anger or spite.

It is a personal philosophy, it is part of a non-aggression principle. Without the capability to stop violence you cannot represent the ideal you hope to achieve.

Gun free zones are what create situations such as V-tech. It is what allows things to happen like occurred at Fort Hood. The likes of Jeanne Assam are who I represent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gIHDHZf1TA
This is a good vid that represents my feelings on why carrying a firearm in society is the right thing to do.

Statistics may inform you and allow you to conclude that the need is limited or even not needed at all, but ask the people at Lubey's that are alive now becuase of a gun. Ask every person who has ever found themselves in a deadly situation where the shooter killing people was taken down by an armed sheepdog.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEbXu...feature=relmfu
. . and this is how I feel about gun free zones.

http://1withabullet.wordpress.com/20...fords-shooter/ We need more people willing to get involved, and that have the capability when its needed. This guy showed restraint, and understood tactically that shooting was not the best option. He is a hero, no less than the others that helped wrestle the gunman to the ground, just better prepared.

Sadly, the only person at Luby's with a gun was the shooter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby%27s_massacre

And I agree with you, that acting to stop violence in the most direct and efficient manner fits within the definition of pacifism.

[RandFan]

Thanks for the response.

Originally Posted by Xulld

I can also honestly tell you that if I saw someone killing a bunch of people I would move to engage. I would not hesitate. For me carrying has become an obligation. Not only for my own safety, but for the safety of my loved ones and the innocent people who find themselves without the ability to defend themselves. I WILL NOT allow someone I love, or some innocent to be killed for a lack of preparation or concern or willingness to get involved.

John Madden of NFL fame would not fly on a plane except on rare occasions. I don't have a problem with John but think his reasoning a bit irrational.

Quote:

I know this may sound like a desire to be the hero, but its not. It is a desire to stop violence. Deep down I share the principles of my best friend, she was a pacifist, and would have never hurt anyone out of anger or spite.

It is a personal philosophy, it is part of a non-aggression principle. Without the capability to stop violence you cannot represent the ideal you hope to achieve.

Again, not a slight, but this strikes me as rationalization. Do you carry a first aid kit with you wherever you go? If you have it in your car do you carry it with you when you get out?

Quote:

Gun free zones are what create situations such as V-tech. It is what allows things to happen like occurred at Fort Hood. The likes of Jeanne Assam are who I represent.

How many Jeanne Assam's are there?

Quote:

Statistics may inform you and allow you to conclude that the need is limited or even not needed at all, but ask the people at Lubey's that are alive now becuase of a gun. Ask every person who has ever found themselves in a deadly situation where the shooter killing people was taken down by an armed sheepdog.

But this is basing behavior on statistical outliers. Which is fine. If you are motivated to contribute to society in this way I'm okay with it. I don't think it would be a reason to motivate most others to carry guns. It doesn't motivate me. There are lots of ways one can contribute to society and this one doesn't strike me as particularly helpful when we are talking about 10 thousand out of 300 million. If I were so motivated to contribute I could volunteer in many different capacities.

Quote:

http://1withabullet.wordpress.com/20...fords-shooter/ We need more people willing to get involved, and that have the capability when its needed. This guy showed restraint, and understood tactically that shooting was not the best option. He is a hero, no less than the others that helped wrestle the gunman to the ground, just better prepared.

I understand your argument and I'm fine with it. I just suspect strongly that there is much more going on there. However, it wasn't my intent to change your opinion or get into a debate. I wanted to understand better and I believe you are sincere in your response to me. I accept that this is what you honestly believe.

[luchog]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Or are we trying to pretend that handguns are militarily meaningful weapons now?

The US Army seems to think so, since officers and vehicle crewmembers are routinely issued handguns; typically the Beretta 92F for the former, and Colt 1911 for the latter.

[Xulld]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Do you carry a first aid kit with you wherever you go? If you have it in your car do you carry it with you when you get out?

No it stays in the truck, in much the same way that police call in ambulance after the danger has been taken care of, id run back to my truck after any altercations.

Quote:

How many Jeanne Assam's are there?

Not enough.

Quote:

But this is basing behavior on statistical outliers.

All emergency planning is modifying behavior and preparing for statistical outliers.

A single question for you, and anyone else that wants to answer.

What would you do if you found yourself in a mass shooting situation? A person is indiscriminately shooting people and you find yourself in the middle of it. It seems to me you either run, try to charge the guy, or pray, unless of course you are armed.

[Madalch]

Originally Posted by Garrette

Since the open-carry law was passed there have unequivocally been zero sightings of kings in Oklahoma.

Proof that open-carry works.

Good thing that Martin Luther King's not going to be in Oklahoma in the near future.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Xulld

What would you do if you found yourself in a mass shooting situation? A person is indiscriminately shooting people and you find yourself in the middle of it. It seems to me you either run, try to charge the guy, or pray, unless of course you are armed.

How many mass shootings are there every year? How many automobile fatalities?

From my perspective, to carry a gun because I'm worried about a mass shooting is as rational as staying home from work to avoid accidents on the road. Not very. To be sure carrying a gun doesn't come with the downside of skipping work but as a fear, death by car is far more rational.

It's simple. You are surrounded by danger. If you focused on all of the things that can kill you or seriously harm you then you would go crazy. So, you have picked the danger of gun homicide and you have focused on that. I'm guessing you haven't built a fall out shelter in case of nuclear attack. Am I right? Okay, that's fine. Hey, it's prudent to take precautions. If you find it prudent to carry a gun then I would not label that irrational and personally I don't really care. I like guns. I just find the mentality of some who are worried about dying from a gun a bit off kilter. That said, appealing to emotion with an example of an extremely unlikely event is pointless. I could just as easily sit here and wonder how my life would change should I win the lottery. A far more likely event even though I only play it a few times a year. But I know that it is just as pointless. It's just more fun.

But to answer your question. I've not a clue. It's not something I care to give a moments thought to. I'd rather spend my time worrying about alien invasions. Steven Hawking seems to think they are a real dangers. Have you ever seen M. Night Shyamalan's Sightings?

[arthwollipot]

Good post, RandFan. That largely echoes my opinion.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Good post, RandFan. That largely echoes my opinion.

...

Quote:

I just find the mentality of some who are worried about dying from a gun a bit off kilter. That said, appealing to emotion with an example of an extremely unlikely event is pointless. I could just as easily sit here and wonder how my life would change should I win the lottery. A far more likely event even though I only play it a few times a year. But I know that it is just as pointless. It's just more fun.

But to answer your question. I've not a clue. It's not something I care to give a moments thought to. I'd rather spend my time worrying about alien invasions. Steven Hawking seems to think they are a real dangers. Have you ever seen M. Night Shyamalan's Sightings?

So if the danger of dying from a gun is such a non-issue, why so many posts worrying about people you don't even know, and whether or not they might have a gun?

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by luchog

The US Army seems to think so, since officers and vehicle crewmembers are routinely issued handguns; typically the Beretta 92F for the former, and Colt 1911 for the latter.

Having the M9 as a backup in Iraq was definitely reassuring. Not to mention Sheiks/government officials will trust you more if you leave the rifle in the truck and just go in with a pistol to whatever meeting it is you were conducting (Don't ask me why that was just the way it was).

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by RandFan

How many mass shootings are there every year? How many automobile fatalities?

From my perspective, to carry a gun because I'm worried about a mass shooting is as rational as staying home from work to avoid accidents on the road. Not very. To be sure carrying a gun doesn't come with the downside of skipping work but as a fear, death by car is far more rational.

While a mass shooting may be a bad example, armed robberies/muggings are much more common and serve as a better example.

Quote:

It's simple. You are surrounded by danger. If you focused on all of the things that can kill you or seriously harm you then you would go crazy. So, you have picked the danger of gun homicide and you have focused on that. I'm guessing you haven't built a fall out shelter in case of nuclear attack. Am I right? Okay, that's fine.

This is not a valid argument. For one, a nuclear attack has only occurred twice in Planet Earth history, and that was in Japan. To compare the likeliness of gun homicide and a nuclear attack is beyond irrelevant. Also, building a fallout shelter would take lots of manhours/money/know-how. Carrying a gun however takes little money, no man hours, and minimal amounts of know how. Again, the two aren't comparable and I think you are well aware of this.

Quote:

Hey, it's prudent to take precautions. If you find it prudent to carry a gun then I would not label that irrational and personally I don't really care. I like guns. I just find the mentality of some who are worried about dying from a gun a bit off kilter.

This is all dependent on where you live. If you grew up in a place where gun homicide was much more frequent, it might not be such a bad idea for some individuals to protect themselves, just in case. Even if you live in a very low crime rate area, there is no harm in taking a precaution.

Quote:

That said, appealing to emotion with an example of an extremely unlikely event is pointless. I could just as easily sit here and wonder how my life would change should I win the lottery. A far more likely event even though I only play it a few times a year. But I know that it is just as pointless. It's just more fun.

Again, the likeliness can greatly vary depending upon where you live.

Quote:

But to answer your question. I've not a clue. It's not something I care to give a moments thought to. I'd rather spend my time worrying about alien invasions. Steven Hawking seems to think they are a real dangers. Have you ever seen M. Night Shyamalan's Sightings?

This is another argument that people like to use that I just simply don't understand. You think people who have guns for self defense spend their time worrying about being attacked? I'm sorry but that is extremely ignorant. I carry a gun everywhere I go, and I don't worry in the slightest about being attacked. I simply know that it is an outside possibility and I have my gun just in case. Other then that I carry on about my business.

[Xulld]

Quote:

If you focused on all of the things that can kill you or seriously harm you then you would go crazy.

You didn't answer my question. What would you do if you found yourself in a rare event in which you where unarmed and someone was armed who wanted to hurt or kill you?

Quote:

But to answer your question. I've not a clue.

Ahh my bad.

The answer is you would have to run or kiss your ass good bye, and what is worse is that you would be powerless to save the people you love, all because you thought it couldn't happen to you.

How many millions of people throughout history have thought that exact same thing?

Quote:

You are surrounded by danger.

Some danger may occur more often, some is more severe. Most people get into car accidents, but they are not fatal. A smaller % is fatal. When someone wants to kill you, and you are powerless, its far more severe.

The fact is this stuff happens, and while the amount of people killed is small, the amount of people effected is large. When my friend was murdered 3 families where devastated, and will never be the same. We have a large group of friends, almost all of them think about her regularly. We where at a camping trip and she came up, and people looked around and wondered what they would do in that situation. What would you do? If you seriously have not posed this question . . . . who is being irrational?

Its interesting this thread when looked at from the perspective of the other thread that talks about how we react emotionally to a statistic vs an individual. It is easy to be rather disconnected from the statistics, it is much harder when someone you know and love has been killed, it seems to me if you have a certain threshold of imagination, and empathy, you can get into the mind set of what it would be like to loose someone very dear to you, and then at that point carrying a weapon for a worst case scenario seems like much less of a burden.

Also do you wash vegetables? Are you careful with how you handle meat? Again lets talk about fire extinguishers? Who keeps them in their house? Anyone? No one? It is rare to have a house fire. Whats the statistics on deadly ecoli poisoning? Really? You are really going to use an argument from statistics and not for a moment think about the other precautions we take in society against rare events? Flood insurance? Renters insurance? Life insurance? Your argument is just as weak as the argument against any of these things when dealing with only the statistics and that these are preparations for a rare event.

Quote:

some who are worried about dying from a gun a bit off kilter.

I dont worry . . . I have a gun and training, and know how to handle myself.
This reminds me of that vid where someone asks a lady why she is so worried, she racks the slide on her shotgun and says, "who me worried?"

[3point14]

Does anyone on the thread take a parchute with them when they fly?

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Xulld

You didn't answer my question. What would you do if you found yourself in a rare event in which you where unarmed and someone was armed who wanted to hurt or kill you?

Ahh my bad.

The answer is you would have to run or kiss your ass good bye, and what is worse is that you would be powerless to save the people you love, all because you thought it couldn't happen to you.

How many millions of people throughout history have thought that exact same thing?

Some danger may occur more often, some is more severe. Most people get into car accidents, but they are not fatal. A smaller % is fatal. When someone wants to kill you, and you are powerless, its far more severe.

The fact is this stuff happens, and while the amount of people killed is small, the amount of people effected is large. When my friend was murdered 3 families where devastated, and will never be the same. We have a large group of friends, almost all of them think about her regularly. We where at a camping trip and she came up, and people looked around and wondered what they would do in that situation. What would you do? If you seriously have not posed this question . . . . who is being irrational?

Its interesting this thread when looked at from the perspective of the other thread that talks about how we react emotionally to a statistic vs an individual. It is easy to be rather disconnected from the statistics, it is much harder when someone you know and love has been killed, it seems to me if you have a certain threshold of imagination, and empathy, you can get into the mind set of what it would be like to loose someone very dear to you, and then at that point carrying a weapon for a worst case scenario seems like much less of a burden.

Also do you wash vegetables? Are you careful with how you handle meat? Again lets talk about fire extinguishers? Who keeps them in their house? Anyone? No one? It is rare to have a house fire. Whats the statistics on deadly ecoli poisoning? Really? You are really going to use an argument from statistics and not for a moment think about the other precautions we take in society against rare events? Flood insurance? Renters insurance? Life insurance? Your argument is just as weak as the argument against any of these things when dealing with only the statistics and that these are preparations for a rare event.


I dont worry . . . I have a gun and training, and know how to handle myself.
This reminds me of that vid where someone asks a lady why she is so worried, she racks the slide on her shotgun and says, "who me worried?"

You completely missed my point. And I went out of my way to say that if you find it prudent to have a gun then fine. What exactly do you think my point is? Your example is simply an appeal to fear. People should make informed decisions. I was involved in the gun debate for a long time. I used to argue passionately for gun rights (I'm not against gun rights I'm just not passionate about them anymore.) I read John Lott's book (can't remember which one and I didn't read it all the way through as I think he is a piss poor writer). I'm informed. I made a decision. Your example doesn't frighten me. Now what?

Carrying a gun isn't without risk. So, comparing that to a fire extinguisher is just plain silly. Having done a crude cost benefit analysis I find carrying a gun irrational. That's my decision. Now, I could ask you what would you do if your gun was taken away from you and you were shot with it. And yeah, I'm sure you are certain that it could never happen to you but you cannot know that it won't. It happens. It happnes all the time to people trained in the use of fire arms. Stuff happens. Right? So, just as I wouldn't insult your intelligence with an absurd example of a rare event I would ask you treat me in kind.

I have a fire extinguisher. I have a smoke detector but not a fire alarm system. I don't have renters insurance. Like most humans I make decisions on a case by case basis. I never sit and worry about "what if" China launches nuclear weapons. I mean "stuff happens", right? You are not going to scare me into thinking carrying a gun is per se prudent. End of story.

[Giz]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Carrying a gun isn't without risk. .

Isn't the New Scientist story better summarized as "gun wielding gangbangers are more likely to get into gunfights than regular folks"?

i.e. the applicability of the study to ordinary concealed carriers is minimal. It would be as logical to say that American tourists should avoid visiting Normandy due to the high chance of getting shot (conflating gun-wielding soldiers experience with that of normal visitors).

[Xulld]

Quote:

Having done a crude cost benefit analysis I find carrying a gun irrational.

The results of any given cost benefit analysis does not make something rational or irrational, it makes it less or more important. Now if the cost is high and the benefit is low and you choose that over a better option that would be irrational. But the cost is low, the benefit is high. So I do not think you have made a case for the choice being irrational. Unless the study controlled for only concealed carry permit holders, controlling for other groups such as Giz mentioned, then its not a valid set of data. I will read the study here in a bit when I have time.

Quote:

I have a fire extinguisher. I have a smoke detector but not a fire alarm system.

The fact that you prepare for unlikely events makes your argument from statistics invalid. It does not matter what the unlikely event actually is. Preparing for one unlikely event, and not another without some overriding distinction makes your choice irrational. Fire extinguishers and guns are both emergency tools for unlikely events. The actual cost is low in both examples, choosing one way or the other is not rational or irrational without context and an understanding of resources. It is irrational if you cant afford food, but if you have disposable income and can afford a pistol it is hardly irrational when it could save your life, the very most valuable asset one has.

My argument is not an argument from fear, I agree that emotion is usually what brings some across the threshold for behaviors that have been stigmatized as much as carrying a gun, but that is not the same as saying my argument is an argument from fear, it is an argument about the severity of the consequences of not being prepared.

If you forget/choose to not own a fire extinguisher most likely you loose your home. Hopefully you had insurance. If not you are out resources, not your life.

Quote:

Now, I could ask you what would you do if your gun was taken away from you and you were shot with it.

Begging the question.

If someone took my gun from me id draw my back up gun and shoot to kill.

When I was open carrying in North Carlina I used a level III retention holster, which makes it extremely difficult for a person to get the gun out of the holster without knowledge of its use, and the ability to be behind me all the while my training is kicking in to help retain the weapon and get distance or make use of my BUG.

Concealed carry make retention holsters more difficult and less appealing.

[Elypsis44]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

And crime-enablers, AKA gun-control leftists.

Like this guy?

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by RandFan

You completely missed my point. And I went out of my way to say that if you find it prudent to have a gun then fine. What exactly do you think my point is? Your example is simply an appeal to fear. People should make informed decisions. I was involved in the gun debate for a long time. I used to argue passionately for gun rights (I'm not against gun rights I'm just not passionate about them anymore.) I read John Lott's book (can't remember which one and I didn't read it all the way through as I think he is a piss poor writer). I'm informed. I made a decision. Your example doesn't frighten me. Now what?

Carrying a gun isn't without risk. So, comparing that to a fire extinguisher is just plain silly. Having done a crude cost benefit analysis I find carrying a gun irrational. That's my decision. Now, I could ask you what would you do if your gun was taken away from you and you were shot with it. And yeah, I'm sure you are certain that it could never happen to you but you cannot know that it won't. It happens. It happnes all the time to people trained in the use of fire arms. Stuff happens. Right? So, just as I wouldn't insult your intelligence with an absurd example of a rare event I would ask you treat me in kind.

I have a fire extinguisher. I have a smoke detector but not a fire alarm system. I don't have renters insurance. Like most humans I make decisions on a case by case basis. I never sit and worry about "what if" China launches nuclear weapons. I mean "stuff happens", right? You are not going to scare me into thinking carrying a gun is per se prudent. End of story.

'Those who carry' guns, include the police, the military, and criminals in large numbers.

You know this, it has been proven specifically to you over and over, and yet here you are flinging the same stale pooh once again.

Yes they are 'more likely' to get shot than people who never carry gun... because their environment may create more opportunities to encounter shooters, not because of your pretzel karma that gives gun toters what they deserve.

And if they would just not let people 'scare' them into carrying, they would be safer?

The schadenfreude is almost tangible.

[Giz]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

'Those who carry' guns, include the police, the military, and criminals in large numbers.

You know this, it has been proven specifically to you over and over, and yet here you are flinging the same stale pooh once again.

Yes they are 'more likely' to get shot than people who never carry gun... because their environment may create more opportunities to encounter shooters, not because of your pretzel karma that gives gun toters what they deserve.

And if they would just not let people 'scare' them into carrying, they would be safer?

The schadenfreude is almost tangible.

Makes you wonder why police bother with expensive body armor when just taking away their guns would make them far safer! Maybe I should run for sheriff with that life-saving & cost-cutting proposal? I mean, it was in the New Scientist... it's science, right? Surely statistics can never be misleading!

[lionking]

So is Australia a safer or more dangerous place because people don't carry guns?