Police in NY return fire and get their man ....and manage to shoot a lot of bystanders for good measure.

ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3610
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Police in NY return fire and get their man ....and manage to shoot a lot of bystanders for good measure.

   Incompetent NY cops will probably receive prosecutorial immunity simply because they're cops.  I can just hear their defense attorney saying of their victims "They're not innocent bystanders, they're collateral damage."

 

  http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57499732/multiple-people-shot-near-empire-state-building/

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3610
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
    Additionally, these

 

   Additionally, these supposedly highly trained officers were firing at the perp from less than 40' away and with perfect light conditions with which to see their target.  

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10540
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
*Wonders how many thousands

*Wonders how many thousands of people would have been shot if citizens had the right to carry guns in NYC*

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3610
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:*Wonders how

Vastet wrote:
*Wonders how many thousands of people would have been shot if citizens had the right to carry guns in NYC*

 

         What good is it when the police can barely hit their targets ( from point blank range ! ) and still end up shooting nine innocent bystanders ?  

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10540
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
If police can't even pull it

If police can't even pull it off, then average citizens most definitely could not have.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3610
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:If police can't

Vastet wrote:
If police can't even pull it off, then average citizens most definitely could not have.

 

                                               So who do you rely upon then ?

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Worse than that

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

 

   Additionally, these supposedly highly trained officers were firing at the perp from less than 40' away and with perfect light conditions with which to see their target.  

The cops were 8 feet from the perp and fired 16 rounds total, one fired 7 and the other 9. Only 7 rounds hit the perp.

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
A lot of police do not have

A lot of police do not have frequent occasion to fire their weapons, and do not maintain a safe standard of marksmanship. It sucks and we should change it.

Additionally there is phenomenon in the anyone except army soldiers, and even them too sometimes, where the brain will sabotage attempts to kill another human being. Especially with guns, which are so easy to throw the aim off completely if you shake it even alittle bit.

We really need better trained police everywhere, since, in reality, getting rid of guns is pretty much out of the question in America.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4429
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 If New York City didn't

 If New York City didn't have such strict regulations perhaps the police officers might have owned personal handguns and spent more time at the range. In this case, I would trust a gun nut who goes to the range several times a week over a police officer who only fires their duty weapon. I don't know about NYC but many police departments only allow their officers 400-600 rounds for practice a year. I personally will burn about a hundred rounds every time I go to the range and I try to do so once a week, sometimes more if the weather is nice. It is safe to say I have probably fired many thousands more rounds in my life than the average beat cop on the NYC police force.

Several police officers around here routinely go to the range because they like to shoot, but they are doing so on their own dime. I doubt most NYC police have the same habits as living in such a large city with strict gun regulations makes it far more difficult and expensive than pulling over at our local gun club (where law enforcement members are not charged a penny) and firing a few clips every day is not a big deal.  

So I am almost shooting in a month what many police do in a year, and in two months more than most in a year. Which person would you trust more to accurately shoot a bad guy? 

It is ironic that the bad guy fired five shots, all of which went into the intended victim (a victim who if carrying a gun may have had a chance to defend himself or if any of the witnesses around had a gun may have attempted to stop it before Ercolino died). Also note that NYC has by far the most strict handgun laws in the country, yet the bad guy still had a .45 caliber handgun and still carried it in public without a permit. *gasp* Can you believe he broke a gun law? 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:It is

Beyond Saving wrote:
It is ironic that the bad guy fired five shots, all of which went into the intended victim (a victim who if carrying a gun may have had a chance to defend himself or if any of the witnesses around had a gun may have attempted to stop it before Ercolino died). 

Right, cos when someone starts shooting a gun in a crowded area and everyone pulls their own weapons as soon as they hear gunfire, everyone's immediately gonna know who the asshole starting the firefight was and no one will make the mistake of shooting at the guy who was in fact defending the victim of the attack and shot the criminal.


 


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:Beyond Saving

Manageri wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
It is ironic that the bad guy fired five shots, all of which went into the intended victim (a victim who if carrying a gun may have had a chance to defend himself or if any of the witnesses around had a gun may have attempted to stop it before Ercolino died). 

Right, cos when someone starts shooting a gun in a crowded area and everyone pulls their own weapons as soon as they hear gunfire, everyone's immediately gonna know who the asshole starting the firefight was and no one will make the mistake of shooting at the guy who was in fact defending the victim of the attack and shot the criminal.

The guy who had been shot knows damn well that he is not the one who started it. He could whip it out and maybe defend himself.

Others can pull their guns, keep them low, and try to tell what is going on and what they can do to help.

Just because it is a dangerous situation does not mean we should make it easier for a psycho to start gunning everyone down.

Anyone well trained (not the average NYC cop, apparently. A problem we should fix) with firearms is unlikely to go shooting willy nilly.

The point is moot anyway, because there is no way in hell America can be like the UK and ensure there are very few guns on the street. Not sure I would want that anyway. I think the right to bear arms and defend your property and your family effectively is extremely important. That does not excuse idiots who don't get training, and are trigger-happy, but what is the alternative to allowing guns and requiring training and education for those that bear them?

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
ThunderJones wrote:Anyone

ThunderJones wrote:

Anyone well trained (not the average NYC cop, apparently. A problem we should fix) with firearms is unlikely to go shooting willy nilly.

Well trained at what, an actual firefight? Going to the range to shoot at a target doesn't do a damn thing to stop you from panicking like hell when there's bullets flying around you.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4429
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:Beyond Saving

Manageri wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
It is ironic that the bad guy fired five shots, all of which went into the intended victim (a victim who if carrying a gun may have had a chance to defend himself or if any of the witnesses around had a gun may have attempted to stop it before Ercolino died). 

Right, cos when someone starts shooting a gun in a crowded area and everyone pulls their own weapons as soon as they hear gunfire, everyone's immediately gonna know who the asshole starting the firefight was and no one will make the mistake of shooting at the guy who was in fact defending the victim of the attack and shot the criminal

He didn't start shooting in a crowded area, he murdered his old boss in an uncrowded office and was making his escape into the crowded streets of New York when the police approached him. Had someone in the office had a gun the situation could have been resolved with far fewer bystanders around. No one did, so he was able to get out to the crowded street before police had a chance to show up. 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3610
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:Well trained

Manageri wrote:

Well trained at what, an actual firefight? Going to the range to shoot at a target doesn't do a damn thing to stop you from panicking like hell when there's bullets flying around you.

  You are absolutely right. 

  Shooting paper targets ( or reactive targets ) is to build a foundation of basic marksmanship.  Learning to hit what you are aiming at is the first step. ( I have abandoned the typical "one eye closed" target style aiming procedure and now only shoot both eyes open. )

 Here in the States there are schools that for a fee will instruct a student on purely defensive /  combat oriented tactics.   Static shooting will not be on the main menu, instead tactics and proper procedures will be taught.  Shooting / reloading on the move, clearing weapon malfunctions, the difference between "concealment" and "cover", etc.

The instructors are almost always ex-military and ex-law enforcement.  

 

 Of course any student can go back and re-enter the training cycle which is also rated as to the students previous level of training.  All it takes is commitment.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3610
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:The

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

The cops were 8 feet from the perp and fired 16 rounds total, one fired 7 and the other 9. Only 7 rounds hit the perp.

 

                                      

              Thanks for the clarification.  Jesus, did the cops even have their eyes open when they were shooting ?  LOL !

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Manageri wrote:

Well trained at what, an actual firefight? Going to the range to shoot at a target doesn't do a damn thing to stop you from panicking like hell when there's bullets flying around you.

  You are absolutely right. 

  Shooting paper targets ( or reactive targets ) is to build a foundation of basic marksmanship.  Learning to hit what you are aiming at is the first step. ( I have abandoned the typical "one eye closed" target style aiming procedure and now only shoot both eyes open. )

 Here in the States there are schools that for a fee will instruct a student on purely defensive /  combat oriented tactics.   Static shooting will not be on the main menu, instead tactics and proper procedures will be taught.  Shooting / reloading on the move, clearing weapon malfunctions, the difference between "concealment" and "cover", etc.

The instructors are almost always ex-military and ex-law enforcement.  

 

 Of course any student can go back and re-enter the training cycle which is also rated as to the students previous level of training.  All it takes is commitment.

 

And opportunity and money.  If the nearest school is 500 miles away, many people will not be able to afford to go or to get the time off the job.

You are absolutely correct that in order to accurately fire a weapon in a situation like that, you need more practice than shooting at stationary targets.  And if we could ensure that everyone who owned a gun, had that training, we could all breathe easier.

I once had a friend whose father died.  Her mother, in her late 60s, had never handled a gun before in her life.  But she wanted to get a pistol for "protection."  I told my friend I doubted she would able to learn to handle a gun well enough given the mother's physical disabilities.  And that she should tell her mother to be sure to set aside some redecorating money.  If she ever managed to shoot someone inside the house, she would need new carpets and the room repainted at the very least.  Her mother decided not to get a gun and we all breathed a sigh of relief.

The problem with having most everyone carry is you have no idea who can't hit the broad side of a barn.  And people will either freeze or shoot wildly.  Make it a requirement that anyone who owns a gun has to attend one of those combat oriented schools, and I will be more willing to support "conceal and carry" laws.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:ThunderJones

Manageri wrote:

ThunderJones wrote:

Anyone well trained (not the average NYC cop, apparently. A problem we should fix) with firearms is unlikely to go shooting willy nilly.

Well trained at what, an actual firefight? Going to the range to shoot at a target doesn't do a damn thing to stop you from panicking like hell when there's bullets flying around you.

Wasn't the issue that the NYC police missed their target and hit civilians? How does this statement refute other things I said anyway?

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3610
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote: And opportunity

cj wrote:

 

And opportunity and money.  If the nearest school is 500 miles away, many people will not be able to afford to go or to get the time off the job.

You are absolutely correct that in order to accurately fire a weapon in a situation like that, you need more practice than shooting at stationary targets.  And if we could ensure that everyone who owned a gun, had that training, we could all breathe easier.

I once had a friend whose father died.  Her mother, in her late 60s, had never handled a gun before in her life.  But she wanted to get a pistol for "protection."  I told my friend I doubted she would able to learn to handle a gun well enough given the mother's physical disabilities.  And that she should tell her mother to be sure to set aside some redecorating money.  If she ever managed to shoot someone inside the house, she would need new carpets and the room repainted at the very least.  Her mother decided not to get a gun and we all breathed a sigh of relief.

The problem with having most everyone carry is you have no idea who can't hit the broad side of a barn.  And people will either freeze or shoot wildly.  Make it a requirement that anyone who owns a gun has to attend one of those combat oriented schools, and I will be more willing to support "conceal and carry" laws.

 

 

     The reason I cited this example of police shooting innocent bystanders is in response to persons like yourself who are against civilian self-defense using fire arms.    Okay, keep them out of civilian hands as you would prefer, now what ?     You've done nothing but shift the responsibility to a very, very small number of peace officers who may end up killing you by mistake.  Given the example I have provided does that sound like a good trade off to you ?

 

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
ThunderJones wrote:Wasn't

ThunderJones wrote:

Wasn't the issue that the NYC police missed their target and hit civilians? How does this statement refute other things I said anyway?

I was responding to the idea of civvies on the scene having guns and how that would pose a risk.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3610
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:I was

Manageri wrote:

I was responding to the idea of civvies on the scene having guns and how that would pose a risk.

   

                     Life is full of risks.  Fight back or run and hide, it your choice.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4429
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:And opportunity and

cj wrote:

And opportunity and money.  If the nearest school is 500 miles away, many people will not be able to afford to go or to get the time off the job.

Such schools are commonplace and in most concealed carry states the lower level classes are required, but every school I have seen that covers the CCW permit classes always has more advanced classes as well. The classes are relatively inexpensive (usually a couple hundred dollars plus ammo) which when you consider that a quality concealed carry weapon is easily going to cost $600-$1000+ isn't that unreasonable. If you want really hardcore training through like the ICE schools it is a little more expensive ($500-$800 per course) but those are SWAT/Special forces level courses that are generally a little overkill for a civilian defense situation (unless you are defending yourself from the SWAT team).

 

cj wrote:

The problem with having most everyone carry is you have no idea who can't hit the broad side of a barn.  And people will either freeze or shoot wildly.  Make it a requirement that anyone who owns a gun has to attend one of those combat oriented schools, and I will be more willing to support "conceal and carry" laws. 

I wouldn't have a problem with requiring more advanced training for people to carry guns in public. The current classes here in Ohio are ok, but focus mostly on safety, deciding whether or not to use the gun, CCW laws etc. and spend little time actually using the weapons. The one I took for my permit had 2 hours of range time and 100 rounds- the most boring range time ever. It would be great if everyone who carried got advanced training, however if the government imposes classes I suspect that most of them end up looking more like the CCW/firearms safety classes and less like advanced handgun training. For some reason, legislatures feel a need to write the curriculum rather than leaving it to the experts and they are not very good at it.

However, as a practical matter, most people who choose to carry are also gun nuts who like to shoot a lot for the sake of shooting. I don't think it is as much a problem in practice as one might imagine in the abstract. I do believe that anyone who is careless with a firearm and causes harm or risks harm to others ought to face legal punishment. Like the dumbass who shot himself in the ass in a movie theater a little while ago.   

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:ThunderJones

Manageri wrote:

ThunderJones wrote:

Wasn't the issue that the NYC police missed their target and hit civilians? How does this statement refute other things I said anyway?

I was responding to the idea of civvies on the scene having guns and how that would pose a risk.

I think it would pose more of a risk for civvies to be defenseless with only poorly trained police on the scene.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3610
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:However,

Beyond Saving wrote:

However, as a practical matter, most people who choose to carry are also gun nuts who like to shoot a lot for the sake of shooting. 

                                 word.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10540
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:Vastet

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Vastet wrote:
If police can't even pull it off, then average citizens most definitely could not have.

 

                                               So who do you rely upon then ?

Who do you rely on to prevent a drunk driver from smashing into you at 120kph? A FAR more likely occurrence than someone pointing a gun at you.

The world is neither safe nor controllable. Accept it and move on. Giving everyone a gun will simply make it more dangerous.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3610
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Who do you

Vastet wrote:
Who do you rely on to prevent a drunk driver from smashing into you at 120kph? A FAR more likely occurrence than someone pointing a gun at you.

 

  Yes, I'm with you so far...

 

Vastet wrote:
The world is neither safe nor controllable. Accept it and move on.

 

    Okay....

 

Vastet wrote:
Giving everyone a gun will simply make it more dangerous.

 

    Awww, dude you just lost me.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10540
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Because you resort to

Because you resort to emotion instead of logic. But don't worry, I never expected you to understand the simple logistics of a thousand confused, scared, and untrained civilians opening fire on a crowded street surrounded by office towers or houses.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Because you

Vastet wrote:
Because you resort to emotion instead of logic. But don't worry, I never expected you to understand the simple logistics of a thousand confused, scared, and untrained civilians opening fire on a crowded street surrounded by office towers or houses.

Thousands?

I don't think anyone wants EVERYONE to have a gun at all times and EVERYONE to use it in a crisis.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10540
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Which is why I said

Which is why I said thousands instead of tens of thousands.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Which is why I

Vastet wrote:
Which is why I said thousands instead of tens of thousands.

Thousands is still crazy high. A few well-trained (preferably by law) citizens would do much more to help a shooting situation then harm it.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
There's plenty of people

There's plenty of people arguing we'd be safer if almost everyone had a gun.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3610
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Because you

Vastet wrote:
Because you resort to emotion instead of logic. But don't worry, I never expected you to understand the simple logistics of a thousand confused, scared, and untrained civilians opening fire on a crowded street surrounded by office towers or houses.

  

               I know there's supposed to be a message in there somewhere....

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4429
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Who do you rely

Vastet wrote:
Who do you rely on to prevent a drunk driver from smashing into you at 120kph?

The only person who has even a small chance to stop it by trying to get out of the way, me. If I see a vehicle being controlled erratically I try to avoid it. The cops generally arrive AFTER the vehicle already crashed into me, I would prefer to avoid that. 

Vastet wrote:

The world is neither safe nor controllable. Accept it and move on.

Sensible

Vastet wrote:

Giving everyone a gun will simply make it more dangerous.

Giving? I'm not for giving anyone anything. But yeah, they can purchase a gun. Allowing everyone to purchase a car simply makes the world more dangerous too. Allowing everyone to purchase booze makes the world more dangerous. Allowing humans to live makes the world a little more dangerous. But as you put so well a moment ago,

Vastet wrote:

The world is neither safe nor controllable. Accept it and move on.

Why don't you take your own advice and stop trying to control the world by outlawing guns? I accept it, take what small steps I can to protect myself, and move on. 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3610
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Who do you

Vastet wrote:
Who do you rely on to prevent a drunk driver from smashing into you at 120kph?

 

  Considering that Texas has an exceptionally high rate of drunk driving fatalities I think you should choose another example for how the police are keeping us "safe".

 

Vastet wrote:
A FAR more likely occurrence than someone pointing a gun at you.

 

If more people die from drinking and driving than from firearms does that mean you're for banning alcohol, too ?

 

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10540
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
ThunderJones wrote:Vastet

ThunderJones wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Which is why I said thousands instead of tens of thousands.

Thousands is still crazy high. A few well-trained (preferably by law) citizens would do much more to help a shooting situation then harm it.

We're talking downtown NYC. Within two blocks of the Empire State Building, during business hours, I'm quite sure there are a good 50k people in the area. Give them all guns and you have a war zone, not a few civilian sharpshooters.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10540
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
Considering that Texas has an exceptionally high rate of drunk driving fatalities I think you should choose another example for how the police are keeping us "safe".

I wasn't giving you an example of police keeping you safe. I was giving you the most likely way for you to die (cutting or not cutting the alcohol from the equation), where a gun won't help you one bit. To point out that noone and nothing can ever guarantee your safety.

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
If more people die from drinking and driving than from firearms does that mean you're for banning alcohol, too ?

I'm not for banning guns or alcohol.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10540
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Why don't you take your own

"Why don't you take your own advice and stop trying to control the world by outlawing guns? I accept it, take what small steps I can to protect myself, and move on. "

Right wingers amuse me. If I was ever for banning guns, it was many years ago. I haven't argued to ban all firearms.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:ThunderJones

Vastet wrote:
ThunderJones wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Which is why I said thousands instead of tens of thousands.

Thousands is still crazy high. A few well-trained (preferably by law) citizens would do much more to help a shooting situation then harm it.

We're talking downtown NYC. Within two blocks of the Empire State Building, during business hours, I'm quite sure there are a good 50k people in the area. Give them all guns and you have a war zone, not a few civilian sharpshooters.

Ok, but Im not saying give lots of people guns (which would cause tons of people to have them in certain situations, which very well could cause a serious problem). Im saying guns should stay the way they are, but more effort should be made towards the level of training of people with firearms. Police should definitely be better marksman, since they are supposed to be protecting us.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10540
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I have absolutely no problem

I have absolutely no problem with cops getting better training. In fact it is desperately needed, and in more areas than marksmanship. But noone has ever provided a credible argument for arming the masses.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
ThunderJones wrote:Vastet

ThunderJones wrote:

Vastet wrote:
ThunderJones wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Which is why I said thousands instead of tens of thousands.

Thousands is still crazy high. A few well-trained (preferably by law) citizens would do much more to help a shooting situation then harm it.

We're talking downtown NYC. Within two blocks of the Empire State Building, during business hours, I'm quite sure there are a good 50k people in the area. Give them all guns and you have a war zone, not a few civilian sharpshooters.

Ok, but Im not saying give lots of people guns (which would cause tons of people to have them in certain situations, which very well could cause a serious problem). Im saying guns should stay the way they are, but more effort should be made towards the level of training of people with firearms. Police should definitely be better marksman, since they are supposed to be protecting us.

 

For all of you - Thunder, PDW, BS - everyone who has a gun should have more training.  Do we require it?  Insist people take the classes before they can own a gun?  No?  You don't think everyone should be armed?  Then how do you choose who gets armed and who doesn't?  Oh, it should be you and not my friend's elderly mom.  And how does that work without stomping on everyone's "rights"? 

The police need more training.  If it is a requirement of their job, then the department has to pay for the training (no? yes? ), and they need more people on board - to cover for those who are at training.  I wouldn't have a clue as to how many more officers would be required as I would guess it depends on how many you have to start with and how large an area you have to cover.  If it is only one more - that may be not doable for a small community.  More tax dollars at work, guys.  Are you paying out of your pocket? 

If not everyone should own a gun - who should?  Who determines who should?  How do we determine how many at what time? - "Oh, there will be a nutjob on 45th and Vine (thanks, Hollies) today at 3pm.  Have PDW and BS over there at 2:30pm - they can take care of it.  No need to send officers."  So if you are running an office, do you arrange to have a certain number of your workers armed?  "Billy Jo is on vacation, make sure Mary brings her piece while he is out.  No, wait, she hasn't been trained, make it Sue as she just finished her training."  This is nuts, guys.

Let's take the movie shooting.  So everyone in the theater is carrying.  Everyone.  They all have a right, they all have permits.  'K?  So, the nut case starts shooting - and the theater erupts in a blaze of gun fire.  Who is shooting at whom?  How do you know?  Oh, wait, i forgot, only those who know how to take down a sniper will be armed.  And who are those people?  How do you know?  How do you coordinate?  "If you are going to see the Batman movie, we need three people to carry in each showing.  Please sign up before you come in, otherwise leave your weapon at home.  Thank you."  Crazy.  Insane.

I know, Thunder, not all of this is your position.  It just sort of rolled out.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4429
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:For all of you -

cj wrote:

For all of you - Thunder, PDW, BS - everyone who has a gun should have more training.  Do we require it?  Insist people take the classes before they can own a gun?  No?  You don't think everyone should be armed?  Then how do you choose who gets armed and who doesn't?  Oh, it should be you and not my friend's elderly mom.  And how does that work without stomping on everyone's "rights"? 

I am all for people deciding for themselves, I do think it is a really good idea for everyone to at least have a gun in their home, but I will not force it on anyone. I don't particularly care if everyone carries guns- it would certainly make society much more polite. But the reality is that on a small portion of the population will choose to carry.

 

cj wrote:
 

The police need more training.  If it is a requirement of their job, then the department has to pay for the training (no? yes? ), and they need more people on board - to cover for those who are at training.  I wouldn't have a clue as to how many more officers would be required as I would guess it depends on how many you have to start with and how large an area you have to cover.  If it is only one more - that may be not doable for a small community.  More tax dollars at work, guys.  Are you paying out of your pocket? 

Police cannot effectively prevent crimes or effectively stop crimes in progress, in the vast majority of cases police arrive after the crime is committed and attempt to determine who is guilty, track them down and arrest them. I do not like the idea of living in a country where the police force is so large that there is a police officer nearby. I would prefer to defend myself, and the police take care of sorting things out after the fact. 

 

cj wrote:

If not everyone should own a gun - who should?  Who determines who should?  How do we determine how many at what time? - "Oh, there will be a nutjob on 45th and Vine (thanks, Hollies) today at 3pm.  Have PDW and BS over there at 2:30pm - they can take care of it.  No need to send officers."  So if you are running an office, do you arrange to have a certain number of your workers armed?  "Billy Jo is on vacation, make sure Mary brings her piece while he is out.  No, wait, she hasn't been trained, make it Sue as she just finished her training."  This is nuts, guys.

People can choose whether or not to carry themselves. Anyone who chooses to carry has a responsibility to know how to safely handle their weapon, just like anyone who drives a vehicle has a responsibility to learn how to drive it safely. I don't see what the big deal is. Personally, I don't think you even need a CCW license, just allow people to carry and punish anyone who poses a danger to others, but I am willing to concede to license requirements because I am a decent compromising person like that. As long as the licensing requirements are not so strict as to make it impossible or ridiculously difficult for a citizen to get one. 

 

cj wrote:

Let's take the movie shooting.  So everyone in the theater is carrying.  Everyone.  They all have a right, they all have permits.  'K?  So, the nut case starts shooting - and the theater erupts in a blaze of gun fire.  Who is shooting at whom?  How do you know?  Oh, wait, i forgot, only those who know how to take down a sniper will be armed.  And who are those people?  How do you know?  How do you coordinate?  "If you are going to see the Batman movie, we need three people to carry in each showing.  Please sign up before you come in, otherwise leave your weapon at home.  Thank you."  Crazy.  Insane.

Let's take god, up in the sky. Waves his hands and sends lightening bolts down and strikes people dead.... Colorado has a concealed carry law, not everyone in the theater was carrying, NO ONE in the theater was carrying. This fear that everyone is going to run around with guns shooting at each other just because you legalize concealed carry is completely baseless. There simply are not that many of us that wish to carry and even many of us who carry do not carry 100% of the time. You might as well argue that because cigarettes are legal, everyone in the country is a smoker. 

In Ohio it is fairly easy to get a CCW, how many have one? Approximately 250,000 people, that represents 2% of our population. Other states that track CCW permits see similar rates. 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I have

Vastet wrote:
I have absolutely no problem with cops getting better training. In fact it is desperately needed, and in more areas than marksmanship. But noone has ever provided a credible argument for arming the masses.

I don't understand, who is saying we should arm 'the masses'?

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10540
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Completely legalised

Completely legalised firearms is arming the masses. Which is not to say everyone will have a gun, but I (and many others) would sure as hell buy one if they were completely legal, just to try and protect myself from everyone else who has one. Since they aren't, I don't have to. It's exceptionally unlikely that anyone will point a gun at me.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Do we require it?

cj wrote:
Do we require it? Insist people take the classes before they can own a gun

Maybe. Perhaps reduce some of the current regulation on guns, and instead insist that everyone have basic marksmanship classes first.

It would be something to consider, at least, but I don't know that it is workable.

cj wrote:
You don't think everyone should be armed?

If by that you mean the government handing out weapons to everyone (or anyone, except police), then no. People should be free to buy their own weapons however. I don't see how gun ownership has anything to do with the Gov throwing out guns like Halloween candy.

cj wrote:
  Then how do you choose who gets armed and who doesn't?

Anyone willing to go through the process, has the money, no history of gun violence would be nice, no felonies, that kind of stuff. Just an idea. Like I said, we aren't wanting the Gov to hand guns out to anyone, just that people have the right to get their own guns.

cj wrote:
Oh, it should be you and not my friend's elderly mom.  And how does that work without stomping on everyone's "rights"? 

Uh. Your friend's elderly mom isn't a repeat offending felon, or has a history of violent mental illness? Then I am totally fine with her getting a gun.

cj wrote:
The police need more training.  If it is a requirement of their job, then the department has to pay for the training (no? yes? ), and they need more people on board - to cover for those who are at training.  I wouldn't have a clue as to how many more officers would be required as I would guess it depends on how many you have to start with and how large an area you have to cover.  If it is only one more - that may be not doable for a small community.  More tax dollars at work, guys.  Are you paying out of your pocket? 

I'd be ok with increasing expenditure on quality and training of local and state police, with a small tax increase to cover it. Sounds like a good cause to me. I'm not saying there would not be issues, but when is there ever not problems with a policy?

cj wrote:
If not everyone should own a gun - who should?  Who determines who should? 

With some mitigating factors like I have gone over above, anyone should be able to buy a gun. Not that many will, anyway, as Beyond has pointed out.

cj wrote:
How do we determine how many at what time? - "Oh, there will be a nutjob on 45th and Vine (thanks, Hollies) today at 3pm.  Have PDW and BS over there at 2:30pm - they can take care of it.  No need to send officers." 

Not really sure what you are talking about here. Civilians with guns are for self defense, not government abetted vigilantism.

cj wrote:
So if you are running an office, do you arrange to have a certain number of your workers armed?  "Billy Jo is on vacation, make sure Mary brings her piece while he is out.  No, wait, she hasn't been trained, make it Sue as she just finished her training."  This is nuts, guys.

This is nuts. Good thing no one here is saying that. A bit of a strawman, don't you think?

This is a personal choice for people who wish to have firearms. Most offices would likely wish to prohibit firearms, and I think that should probably be their choice. Just because people can own guns does not mean businesses start forming militias.

cj wrote:
Let's take the movie shooting.  So everyone in the theater is carrying.  Everyone.  They all have a right, they all have permits.  'K?  So, the nut case starts shooting - and the theater erupts in a blaze of gun fire.  Who is shooting at whom?  How do you know?  Oh, wait, i forgot, only those who know how to take down a sniper will be armed.  And who are those people?  How do you know?  How do you coordinate?  "If you are going to see the Batman movie, we need three people to carry in each showing.  Please sign up before you come in, otherwise leave your weapon at home.  Thank you."  Crazy.  Insane.

Beyond has covered why this scenario is not a good example. No one is saying everyone should be given guns. People should, however, be generally free to purchase guns. They should also, within reason, be allowed to carry those weapons given proper regulation in many situations. Many places can say they don't want guns on their private property, and that is fine. Public places, though...

I'm really confused why this idea that everyone will suddenly have/be given guns keeps popping up.

cj wrote:
I know, Thunder, not all of this is your position.  It just sort of rolled out.

That's ok. It was helpful that you noted that you weren't speaking directly to me, though. For clarity.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Completely

Vastet wrote:
Completely legalised firearms is arming the masses. Which is not to say everyone will have a gun, but I (and many others) would sure as hell buy one if they were completely legal, just to try and protect myself from everyone else who has one. Since they aren't, I don't have to. It's exceptionally unlikely that anyone will point a gun at me.

But... who is even saying that guns should be completely legalized and have no regulations?

Even that is hardly arming the masses. Arming the masses would be the government handing out weapons and ammunition.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10540
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"But... who is even saying

"But... who is even saying that guns should be completely legalized and have no regulations?"

Most right wingers, in my experience.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:"But... who is

Vastet wrote:
"But... who is even saying that guns should be completely legalized and have no regulations?" Most right wingers, in my experience.

I thought we were discussing a specific incident, and our beliefs about it (and gun ownership)?

How am I supposed to defend someone else's belief that hadn't even been part of the discussion until you whipped it out?

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10540
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Why would you want to defend

Why would you want to defend someone elses beliefs in the first place?

Also, you asked. If you don't like the answer, it's not my problem.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Forgive if I just reply to

Forgive if I just reply to those points I feel need clarified.

 

ThunderJones wrote:

cj wrote:
Do we require it? Insist people take the classes before they can own a gun

Maybe. Perhaps reduce some of the current regulation on guns, and instead insist that everyone have basic marksmanship classes first.

It would be something to consider, at least, but I don't know that it is workable.

 

As far as I am aware, in the US, in every state, no classes of any kind are required.  Gun regulations are state by state here, not national.  So it can get confusing.  I do know the discussion of requiring some sort of class has been brought up in some states, but it has been shot down.  Part of my frustration is that the responsible people do take classes, do practice, do not mind other safety requirements - trigger locks or locked storage.  It is the irresponsible people who shoot up movie theaters, etc.  And those irresponsible people are within their legal rights to own those weapons.

BS and others have made the point that there are irresponsible people driving, drinking, smoking, getting high, etc.  I am not arguing with that.  And yes, a vehicle can be a lethal weapon that can kill many people all at once.  It just occurred to me that maybe we need weapon insurance, similar to car insurance.  You have to have insurance for every weapon you own.  The insurance companies would quickly figure out the actuarial tables for type and number of weapons.  That would be a limit on it for some people.  Sure, there would be people without weapon insurance, just like there are people without car insurance.  But it would put some brakes on the problem.

 

ThunderJones wrote:

cj wrote:
You don't think everyone should be armed?

If by that you mean the government handing out weapons to everyone (or anyone, except police), then no. People should be free to buy their own weapons however. I don't see how gun ownership has anything to do with the Gov throwing out guns like Halloween candy.

cj wrote:
  Then how do you choose who gets armed and who doesn't?

Anyone willing to go through the process, has the money, no history of gun violence would be nice, no felonies, that kind of stuff. Just an idea. Like I said, we aren't wanting the Gov to hand guns out to anyone, just that people have the right to get their own guns.

 

No, I did not mean that everyone should be issued a weapon like in Switzerland.  I meant that if we are sure that more people carrying would mean less crime, maybe if everyone carried we would be too scared to be anything but on our best behavior.  If 2% (BS' number) are armed, then surely 99% would be best?  Maybe I'm being sarcastic, and maybe not.  I haven't made up my mind.

 

ThunderJones wrote:

cj wrote:
Oh, it should be you and not my friend's elderly mom.  And how does that work without stomping on everyone's "rights"? 

Uh. Your friend's elderly mom isn't a repeat offending felon, or has a history of violent mental illness? Then I am totally fine with her getting a gun.

 

Sorry, I mentioned her in another post.  She was pushing 70 and had never owned a gun before, never shot one before.  Her husband died and she was thinking about getting a pistol "for protection."  I don't know about you, but the idea gave me the willies when my friend told me about her mom. 

Other grandma's might be okay with a gun.  My grandmother-in-law grew up in Nebraska in a sod house.  She could handle a pistol and was a dead shot, even in her 70s.  She refused to have one in the house.  She had been a nurse all her life and knew all about gunshot wounds.  When she wanted protection, she put a flooring hammer by her bed where it was easy to swing up and hit an intruder with the pointy end.  Vicious.

 

ThunderJones wrote:

cj wrote:
How do we determine how many at what time? - "Oh, there will be a nutjob on 45th and Vine (thanks, Hollies) today at 3pm.  Have PDW and BS over there at 2:30pm - they can take care of it.  No need to send officers." 

Not really sure what you are talking about here. Civilians with guns are for self defense, not government abetted vigilantism.

cj wrote:
So if you are running an office, do you arrange to have a certain number of your workers armed?  "Billy Jo is on vacation, make sure Mary brings her piece while he is out.  No, wait, she hasn't been trained, make it Sue as she just finished her training."  This is nuts, guys.

This is nuts. Good thing no one here is saying that. A bit of a strawman, don't you think?

 

Well, this is where I was responding more to BS or PDW than you.  (Can't remember which said it, and I'm too lazy to go look)  He said (paraphrasing) that the perpetrator shot his ex-boss in an office.  And if someone in the office had had a weapon, maybe the perp could have been stopped right then and there.  Which led to my rather sarcastic response.  I just have a hard time seeing how that might work.

 

ThunderJones wrote:

Beyond has covered why this scenario is not a good example. No one is saying everyone should be given guns. People should, however, be generally free to purchase guns. They should also, within reason, be allowed to carry those weapons given proper regulation in many situations. Many places can say they don't want guns on their private property, and that is fine. Public places, though...

I'm really confused why this idea that everyone will suddenly have/be given guns keeps popping up.

 

I am not intending it to be a strawman or a slippery slope argument.  It just seems logical that if you are going to argue that the fact that 2% of the population carry a weapon and that makes people safer, then surely, more people carrying would be even safer yet.  (See above) 

I don't see how carrying a weapon makes you safer at all.  How does having one in the house make you safer?  "Excuse me, my gun is in the bottom of my backpack/purse somewhere.  Would you mind holding off robbing me until I can get it out?"

 

And before anyone jumps on the bandwagon - yes, I have had weapons in my house in the past.  Yes, I have gone target shooting and hunting in the past.  No, I am not particularly squeamish about handling them or shooting someone else under the right conditions. 

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3610
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:I don't see how

cj wrote:

I don't see how carrying a weapon makes you safer at all.

 

  Then ask a civilian who's used one to successfully defend themselves against a criminal attack.  If not then follow the news, sooner or later there's always an account of some store owner in a seedy neighborhood who successfully defends himself / herself.   If you still truly can't see how being armed provided for a positive outcome in these instances then you are merely yielding to your own biases.

 

 

cj wrote:
How does having one in the house make you safer?  "Excuse me, my gun is in the bottom of my backpack/purse somewhere.  Would you mind holding off robbing me until I can get it out?"

 

  How about this as a non-gun alternative ? 

"Excuse me my cell phone is at the bottom of my back pack /purse somewhere.  Would you mind holding off robbing me until I get it out and call the police ?"  

 

What is even more pathetic is that during the commission of a violent crime and you are able to successfully contact the police but by the time they actually arrive you are already dead.   

Like Deanna Cook in Dallas did.  On August 17'th she dialed 911 when her ex-boyfriend came to her home to attack her. The police took over 40 minutes to arrive and by then she was already dead.  

   

                If relying upon the police is your only chosen alternative then I guess you'd better hope you get better police response times than this young lady did.

 

 

 

 

cj wrote:
And before anyone jumps on the bandwagon - yes, I have had weapons in my house in the past.  Yes, I have gone target shooting and hunting in the past.  No, I am not particularly squeamish about handling them or shooting someone else under the right conditions

 

 

   What "right" conditions would those be ?  You just stated in your last post that carrying a gun...

cj wrote:
I don't see how carrying a weapon makes you safer at all.

or even keeping one at home...

cj wrote:
How does having one in the house make you safer ?
  for protection is ineffective.  

 

      You're sending out mixed messages.

 

 

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4429
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:As far as I am

cj wrote:

As far as I am aware, in the US, in every state, no classes of any kind are required.  Gun regulations are state by state here, not national.  So it can get confusing.  I do know the discussion of requiring some sort of class has been brought up in some states, but it has been shot down.  Part of my frustration is that the responsible people do take classes, do practice, do not mind other safety requirements - trigger locks or locked storage.  It is the irresponsible people who shoot up movie theaters, etc.  And those irresponsible people are within their legal rights to own those weapons.

For gun ownership you are correct. For the right to carry concealed you are not. The only thing that will currently prevent you from legally purchasing a gun is failing the FBI background check. Currently you are disqualified if you are a convicted felon, convicted of domestic assault, dishonorably discharged from the military, not a citizen, indicted for a felony, mentally ill, or have any outstanding warrants.

What I have been talking about is the right for a citizen who already legally owns a gun to carry it in public. In most states, classes are required to get the permit to do so. Off the top of my head, the only states you can carry concealed without taking any classes are Vermont, Alaska and Arizona. (At least you used to be able to, not sure if the laws remain the same today and too lazy to look pre-coffee. Although if other states classes are as much fluff as Ohio's class was, well required classes don't give me a lot of confidence in a person's ability to use the weapon in a high stakes situation. Government classes are simply crap whether it is driving, insurance licensing or concealed carry. 

 

cj wrote:

BS and others have made the point that there are irresponsible people driving, drinking, smoking, getting high, etc.  I am not arguing with that.  And yes, a vehicle can be a lethal weapon that can kill many people all at once.  It just occurred to me that maybe we need weapon insurance, similar to car insurance.  You have to have insurance for every weapon you own.  The insurance companies would quickly figure out the actuarial tables for type and number of weapons.  That would be a limit on it for some people.  Sure, there would be people without weapon insurance, just like there are people without car insurance.  But it would put some brakes on the problem.

 

Interesting idea, I wouldn't be completely opposed to it depending on the details of course. 

 

cj wrote:

I am not intending it to be a strawman or a slippery slope argument.  It just seems logical that if you are going to argue that the fact that 2% of the population carry a weapon and that makes people safer, then surely, more people carrying would be even safer yet.  (See above) 

I don't see how carrying a weapon makes you safer at all.  How does having one in the house make you safer?  "Excuse me, my gun is in the bottom of my backpack/purse somewhere.  Would you mind holding off robbing me until I can get it out?"

The point of carrying is to have your weapon accessible. There are several carrying methods which allow for complete concealment and quick access to your weapon. The only time I may not have time to draw and fire my weapon is if the attacker already has a gun pointed at me, at which point he better be willing to pull the trigger, because his time is extremely limited. With practice (and you should practice your draw a lot) most people can learn to draw and fire their weapon in about 3 seconds. If you are a gun nut and practice a lot you should be able to get it to under 2 seconds.

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Why would you

Vastet wrote:
Why would you want to defend someone elses beliefs in the first place? Also, you asked. If you don't like the answer, it's not my problem.

You misunderstand. The point is I was under the impression we were talking about our beliefs, and so your post confused me since it didn't seem related to the discussion (since none of us had endorsed it).

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker