Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Left - Authoritarian

Left - Centre

Left - Libertarian

Centre - Authoritarian

Centre - Centre

Centre - Libertarian

Right - Authoritarian

Right - Centre

Right - Libertarian

Other

Don't care to do the test / View poll

[Forumsdwarf]

"righteous violence" ... people have this subconscious notion that if an "innocent" is armed, they will prevail against an armed bad guy

It's not a question of "righteous violence" magical thinking but of the simple weight of numbers.  An armed attacker shooting up a public place isn't facing a single armed defender blessed with magical powers but several armed defenders fighting to survive, all but one of whom (or all if the first victim is unarmed) will have a chance to return fire and limit the casualties of an otherwise much deadlier rampage.

As you can see it is not blind faith in "righteous violence" but intelligent application of the concept of "damage control" that proves the obvious wisdom of private gun ownership.

That calculation holds just as true on a university campus.  And the NRA is pushing for concealed carry laws to be recognized on university grounds, not for "open carry".  It only sounded crazy because you got your facts wrong.  Your "average frat boy" has to qualify for the license and pass the training to carry just like anyone else.  And if he passes he's not an "average frat boy" but, statistically speaking, far more law-abiding than the general population.
Here are the stats for Texas:
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba324

Graphs or it didn't happen.

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

Also: The link you provided has nothing to do with criminals pissing themselves.

The criminal who pissed himself was part of an anecdote that ended before the presentation of statistical data began.  Can you figure out on your own whether the link was part of the anecdote or part of the statistical presentation?

Also: Isn't it just as likely that you'll be the one pissing yourself if somebody breaks in with a gun?

No.

[Andir]

Also: Isn't it just as likely that you'll be the one pissing yourself if somebody breaks in with a gun?

No.

I have to agree.  You'd be pissing yourself if the criminal broke in with a gun (not sure how you'd know that, but let's play along) and you didn't have a gun.  On the other side of that, you are on your own turf.  You know all the places you can be in your house to see the criminal and they are in foreign territory (unless of course they own or have lived in the same prefab house in some rubber stamp community.)

[Aqizzar]

I have to agree.  You'd be pissing yourself if the criminal broke in with a gun (not sure how you'd know that, but let's play along) and you didn't have a gun.  On the other side of that, you are on your own turf.  You know all the places you can be in your house to see the criminal and they are in foreign territory (unless of course they own or have lived in the same prefab house in some rubber stamp community.)

Life is not a videogame.  If someone is going to rob your house, A) statistically is far more likely to be someone who know, and B) they're probably going to do it when you're not home.  But let's suppose for a moment that they do break into your house when you're there.  Guy's standing in your living room, pointing a pistol at you.  Is your gun in your pajamas?  Probably not.  You move for one of your prearranged stockpiles.  He shoots you in one third of a second.  Unless you're going to walk  around your house with a gun duct-taped to your palm, it's not going to change anything.

...several armed defenders fighting to survive, all but one of whom (or all if the first victim is unarmed) will have a chance to return fire and limit the casualties of an otherwise much deadlier rampage.

Yes, when I think "defusing a violent situation", the first things that comes to mind is "crossfire".  You're trying to dress up what's really happening - a bunch of idiots with metal penises imagining themselves as the lead role of an action movie - in this formalized language of a military encounter.  In the real world, where people are not expecting a gunfight to break out at any moment, everyone in the room but the guy who broke in are going to be flatfooted every time.  The first guy to resist loses his head, then there's a shootout where maybe the original perpetrator goes down, taking several with him.  What exactly has been prevented that a locked door and better campus security would not?

Allowing people to carry concealed weapons just makes it that much easier for someone who wants to commit a crime to get the drop on someone else.  I hate to break it to you, but allowing concealed carry on campuses will not turn the student body into a SWAT team.  It will mean maybe a dozen guys will strut around campus with Colt .45s they've never fired, just waiting for someone to start trouble so they can save the day.  Your bullcrap about frat boys taking training is the most laughable thing I've heard in the whole thread.

This whole conversation is an unending litany of machismo masquerading as expertise.  By definition, all statistics on gun violence, or crime prevented by gun violence, is anecdotal.  Mostly anecdotes made up by people who want to sound tough, in studies funded by people like Wayne LaPierre who watched too many old westerns and think the solution to urban crime is to turn America into Yemen.

[RedKing]

Allowing people to carry concealed weapons just makes it that much easier for someone who wants to commit a crime to get the drop on someone else.  I hate to break it to you, but allowing concealed carry on campuses will not turn the student body into a SWAT team.  It will mean maybe a dozen guys will strut around campus with Colt .45s they've never fired, just waiting for someone to start trouble so they can save the day.  Your bullcrap about frat boys taking training is the most laughable thing I've heard in the whole thread.

This. ^^^

Here's the likely scenario. Alert goes out on campus that there's a gunman loose. A dozen wannabe heroes lock-and-load to save the day. Hero #1 spots Hero #2 with a gun, assumes he's the gunman, and points his gun at him. Hero #3 sees Hero #1 pointing a gun at Hero #2, and shoots him. Hero #4 sees Hero #3 shoot Hero #1, assumes he's the gunman, and shoots him. Rinse and repeat. Congratulations, you now have a total clusterf**k!

If I want to create a shooting rampage, I don't even have to show up. Just spread the word that there's a gunman loose and let human nature take its course.

And yes, the training bit is a laugh. Everyone has to pass a driver's test to get a driver's license. And we all know that everyone with a license is a responsible driver. They wouldn't speed, or cut in and out of traffic, or get drunk and drive...

[Shades]

Criminals almost always surrender when confronted with a firearm.
Your training is for either when they don't or when the situation is too dangerous to allow them the opportunity.  (My trainer set 12 feet as the minimum safe distance to attempt to hold an attacker at gunpoint.  Under that and it's only safe to brandish your weapon if you immediately pull the trigger and shoot to kill.)
A lot of you are making the assumption that if you shoot at an attacker it will only make him mad and initiate a wild-west-style gunfight.  The reality is being shot at scares the piss out of most burglars, even if they're armed.
In at least one case that's literally true: a friend of mine shot an armed burglar in the ear and he pissed himself!  One might say he surrendered with a full magazine and an empty bladder.

But enough anecdotal evidence.  Here are some real statistics:

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

That page doesn't actually mention this subject, but it does refer to a number of studies the most relevent comment in which states

While only 14% of all violent crime victims face offenders armed with guns, [83] 18% of the gun-using victims in our sample faced adversaries with guns. [84] Although the gun defenders usually faced unarmed offenders or offenders with lesser weapons, they were more likely than other victims to face gun-armed criminals. This is consistent with the perception that more desperate circumstances call forth more desperate defensive measures. The findings undercut the view that victims are prone to use guns in "easy" circumstances which are likely to produce favorable outcomes for the victim regardless of their gun use. [85] Instead, gun defenders appear to face more difficult circumstances than other crime victims, not easier ones.

So your own data to 'disprove' this 'myth' shows gun toting victims are 28% more likely to have been involved in in a violent crime with a gun-armed criminal.

[Andir]

Allowing people to carry concealed weapons just makes it that much easier for someone who wants to commit a crime to get the drop on someone else.  I hate to break it to you, but allowing concealed carry on campuses will not turn the student body into a SWAT team.  It will mean maybe a dozen guys will strut around campus with Colt .45s they've never fired, just waiting for someone to start trouble so they can save the day.  Your bullcrap about frat boys taking training is the most laughable thing I've heard in the whole thread.

This. ^^^

Here's the likely scenario. Alert goes out on campus that there's a gunman loose. A dozen wannabe heroes lock-and-load to save the day. Hero #1 spots Hero #2 with a gun, assumes he's the gunman, and points his gun at him. Hero #3 sees Hero #1 pointing a gun at Hero #2, and shoots him. Hero #4 sees Hero #3 shoot Hero #1, assumes he's the gunman, and shoots him. Rinse and repeat. Congratulations, you now have a total clusterf**k!

If I want to create a shooting rampage, I don't even have to show up. Just spread the word that there's a gunman loose and let human nature take its course.

And yes, the training bit is a laugh. Everyone has to pass a driver's test to get a driver's license. And we all know that everyone with a license is a responsible driver. They wouldn't speed, or cut in and out of traffic, or get drunk and drive...

It's clearly obvious neither of you have taken the required training to get concealed carry weapons.  I had to take a minimum 12 hours of classes that covered legal issues, when and when not to draw/fire and what to announce.  It also covered how to stand, range time in both lit and "lights out" situations purely focused at home/personal defense situations.  There are certain requirements when you are carrying and a police officer walks up to you and your car...

Assuming that anyone that has a concealed carry permit is waiting for the wild west shootout scenarios is ignorant.  I'm sorry, but you're both showing how little you really know about these permits and actual gun laws.

[Andir]

Guy's standing in your living room, pointing a pistol at you.  Is your gun in your pajamas?  Probably not.  You move for one of your prearranged stockpiles.  He shoots you in one third of a second.  Unless you're going to walk  around your house with a gun duct-taped to your palm, it's not going to change anything.

I think you're reaching.  In the off chance that you got up in the middle of the night to get a drink while unaware.  There's not much you can do there, but I assume you will probably notice a sound and grab your weapon before leaving your bedroom.  Your scenario would likely require you and the criminal to be teleported to your living room and positioned in that situation.  I know if I got up in the middle of the night and something felt off (draft from an open window, door was open, noises...) I'd grab the gun before going downstairs to see who was in my living room trying to take my stereo.

[RedKing]

Allowing people to carry concealed weapons just makes it that much easier for someone who wants to commit a crime to get the drop on someone else.  I hate to break it to you, but allowing concealed carry on campuses will not turn the student body into a SWAT team.  It will mean maybe a dozen guys will strut around campus with Colt .45s they've never fired, just waiting for someone to start trouble so they can save the day.  Your bullcrap about frat boys taking training is the most laughable thing I've heard in the whole thread.

This. ^^^

Here's the likely scenario. Alert goes out on campus that there's a gunman loose. A dozen wannabe heroes lock-and-load to save the day. Hero #1 spots Hero #2 with a gun, assumes he's the gunman, and points his gun at him. Hero #3 sees Hero #1 pointing a gun at Hero #2, and shoots him. Hero #4 sees Hero #3 shoot Hero #1, assumes he's the gunman, and shoots him. Rinse and repeat. Congratulations, you now have a total clusterf**k!

If I want to create a shooting rampage, I don't even have to show up. Just spread the word that there's a gunman loose and let human nature take its course.

And yes, the training bit is a laugh. Everyone has to pass a driver's test to get a driver's license. And we all know that everyone with a license is a responsible driver. They wouldn't speed, or cut in and out of traffic, or get drunk and drive...

It's clearly obvious neither of you have taken the required training to get concealed carry weapons.  I had to take a minimum 12 hours of classes that covered legal issues, when and when not to draw/fire and what to announce.  It also covered how to stand, range time in both lit and "lights out" situations purely focused at home/personal defense situations.  There are certain requirements when you are carrying and a police officer walks up to you and your car...

Assuming that anyone that has a concealed carry permit is waiting for the wild west shootout scenarios is ignorant.  I'm sorry, but you're both showing how little you really know about these permits and actual gun laws.

You are correct, I haven't had concealed carry training. I have, however, had firearms training and observed others undergoing firearms training. And what I observe is that, as with most training, people tend to only retain information long enough to "pass the test" then promptly forget most of it. And I'm talking basics like muzzle safety (don't point a gun at ANYONE, even if not loaded) and target identification, including making sure there's nothing beyond the target. Heat of the moment, I don't trust an 18-year old college freshman to remember their classroom training. Hell, you have trained combat infantry that commit friendly fire in a moment of panic, you expect me to believe a random college kid with a few classes and a few hours of range time under their belt is going to have nerves of steel if they see a stranger walking around with a gun?

And at least at NC State University, they're not lobbying for concealed carry, they're lobbying for OPEN carry, no permit. Which would require only a basic gun safety course. Which, IMHO, a lot of its supporters would treat as any other test in college -- cram for the exam, then forget most of it after the fact.

[Andir]

...you expect me to believe a random college kid with a few classes and a few hours of range time under their belt is going to have nerves of steel if they see a stranger walking around with a gun?

And at least at NC State University, they're not lobbying for concealed carry, they're lobbying for OPEN carry, no permit. Which would require only a basic gun safety course. Which, IMHO, a lot of its supporters would treat as any other test in college -- cram for the exam, then forget most of it after the fact.

I'm not sure what you mean by a stranger walking around with a gun.  If there are open carry laws, then why do they have to have nerves of steel?  Are you talking about the person brandishing their weapon and pointing it at people?  That's situational and purely speculative.

Most of the subject matter covered in these classes is not specific definitions, names, and things that fall into what I would consider "crammable" content.  They are basic safety guidelines the you are likely to not forget.  The only thing I can think of that was remotely "cram worthy content" was the different parts of a gun, and you don't need to know the exact names of them to defend yourself.  You really only need to know what's behind your target, where to point your weapon, when to fire, and when to release aim.

I'm also sorry to inform you, but if a gunman in a school turns his gun to me, he'll be dead.  I regularly practice with my Sig and can put three bullets within 2 inches of each other from 50 feet... much faster if I'm closer.  Even if he gets off a shot on me it will most likely not be fatal since it's much harder to aim after moving than it is for me with a proper stance standing off to the side, behind, or behind cover.  I'd gladly welcome 2-3 other defenders on all sides of him with the same understanding, so if classes are needed for this permit... I'm in full support.  The only thing that worries me is vigilantes who don't have any training using guns as they would see them in the media, but these types are quickly dealt with in most situations if there is someone close by with proper training.  The more trained people there are, the more likely that is.  The more uninformed people, the worse off they all are.

[Dwarf]

Regularily training.

[RedKing]

I think I'm going to have throw my hands in the air and concede this argument. Andir, you and I just live on entirely different planes of reality, wherein you can't seem to see the self-evident danger in what you're advocating, and apparently I can't see the tyranny/overreaction/ignorance of what I'm advocating.

At least you can come away from this with the "win", as our society currently matches your position a lot more than mine.
 

[Dwarf]

Will agree with RedKings...

[Aqizzar]

It's clearly obvious neither of you have taken the required training to get concealed carry weapons.  I had to take a minimum 12 hours of classes that covered legal issues, when and when not to draw/fire and what to announce.  It also covered how to stand, range time in both lit and "lights out" situations purely focused at home/personal defense situations.  There are certain requirements when you are carrying and a police officer walks up to you and your car...

Assuming that anyone that has a concealed carry permit is waiting for the wild west shootout scenarios is ignorant.  I'm sorry, but you're both showing how little you really know about these permits and actual gun laws.

No, I have taken nor looked into any of the required training to get a concealed-carry permit.  I've never met anyone who has.  And being a white-trash Texan, I've met a whole lot of gun owners.  Not one of whom I'd trust or rely on anywhere near an armed incident.  From where I'm sitting, it's clearly obvious you've never really sat down with your average gun owner.  Because your average gun owner is a lot more like me, than you.  No training, no qualification, no real intention or ability to do anything with it besides shooting very stationary cans.  But God help anyone within three hundred yards if I dared to act on that testosterone-fuel urge to prove myself in a real situation.

I'm also sorry to inform you, but if a gunman in a school turns his gun to me, he'll be dead.  I regularly practice with my Sig and can put three bullets within 2 inches of each other from 50 feet... much faster if I'm closer.  Even if he gets off a shot on me it will most likely not be fatal since it's much harder to aim after moving than it is for me with a proper stance standing off to the side, behind, or behind cover.  I'd gladly welcome 2-3 other defenders on all sides of him with the same understanding, so if classes are needed for this permit...

Here's the likely scenario. Alert goes out on campus that there's a gunman loose. A dozen wannabe heroes lock-and-load to save the day. Hero #1 spots Hero #2 with a gun, assumes he's the gunman, and points his gun at him. Hero #3 sees Hero #1 pointing a gun at Hero #2, and shoots him. Hero #4 sees Hero #3 shoot Hero #1, assumes he's the gunman, and shoots him. Rinse and repeat. Congratulations, you now have a total clusterf**k!

If I want to create a shooting rampage, I don't even have to show up. Just spread the word that there's a gunman loose and let human nature take its course.

Andir, assuming that you're saying what you really believe about yourself, and that your assessment of your skills is accurate (and this being an Internet pissing match over manly shit like guns, the opposite is much more likely, but I'm a trusting guy), you are far and away the exception to the rule when it comes to American gun ownership.  But what's important is that you're only the exception in qualification.  In mindset, you're one among millions of gun-toting Americans who believes in their heart they'd be every bit as badass as you claim.  When realistically would just be a bunch of wannabe heroes running around looking for anyone else with a gun, provided they didn't cower in the fetal position the moment the heard a nearby ricochet.

[Dwarf]

I have to agree on that. Sorry Andir but the image I get of you is a conservative gunslinging christian who believes shooting people and getting shot at is cake.

I do not have any psychological qualifications, but I sincerely doubt anyone not apathic or with lots and lots of military drill and psychological armour would panic very, very fast.

[Andir]

I have to agree on that. Sorry Andir but the image I get of you is a conservative gunslinging christian who believes shooting people and getting shot at is cake.

I do not have any psychological qualifications, but I sincerely doubt anyone not apathic or with lots and lots of military drill and psychological armour would panic very, very fast.

Well, you're wrong on at least two aspects... for one, I'm atheist, secondly, I'm libertarian... but I do carry (what you did get right...) and have a membership to my local range which I use the first Saturday of every month.

And Aqizzar, I know plenty of the folks you speak of.  I grew up in a one traffic light town in Ohio.  Those untrained are my biggest worry, but it's not something I'm willing to step in and enforce regulation upon.  I'd much rather educate them than take their toys away.