'Open Carry' Law Contoversy: Gun Owner Cited

naisho said:
I guess according to what I understand jillio is saying, everyone carrying a gun in AZ is putting everyone else in danger and being irresponsible. :giggle:
Click to expand...

Then you misunderstand what jillio is saying.
 
jillio said:
Then you misunderstand what jillio is saying.
down_arrow_clip_art_16246.jpg
Click to expand...

jillio said:
Of course it matters, Jiro. That is the whole point. You don't seem to understand that having a gun in public places where you could put others in danger is a completely irresponsible act and doesn't say much for the stability of the person toting the loaded gun around.
Click to expand...

:confused: so whatcha mean about carrying a gun in public can put them in danger?
Everyone in Arizona can concealed carry a gun with or without a permit in public. There doesn't seem to be any imminent impending doom or danger for everyone walking around there today, right now.

At the same time, we don't see the recent crime statistics prove that AZ is any different from the norm of gun-related crimes in other states.
 
Jiro said:
um.... lol.

My shotgun with 000 or Brenneke will cause much more damage than my handgun. a big f'ing hole in the wall. if a person got shot by it.... I would be charged with domestic terrorism because my shotgun is a weapon of mass destruction :lol:
Click to expand...

That's why you don't use a 12 gauge slug round for home defense. Shot loads in a smaller gun, say a 16 or 20 gauge, are one of the most oft-recommended choices for home defense because the shot doesn't penetrate drywall. It will definitely cause some damage to your home, but the risk of a bullet passing through walls and injuring innocents is considerably less with a shot load than a handgun.

Surely, being the big tough guy gun expert that you are, you would have known this? :roll:

Jiro said:
*yawn* I wonder how many times must they (people like you and Jillio) use this same old tired argument like this.

FACT - nobody (with CCW) shoots in public like this.
FACT - CCW holders avoid conflicts and attention
FACT - majority of CCW holders have this specific mindset that you people can't understand until you're one of them - run away. and only shoot if you got cornered
FACT - this video is fantasy..... not a real life. got any link to any news with anything similar to this video?
FACT - the latest string of college shootings occurred at gun-friendly states. where are armed citizens? that's right! we're not packing heat like Rambo nor acting like Charles Bronson.
Click to expand...

You completely missed the point of these videos. (I doubt you even watched them all the way through or paid attention to the CC). The point this video made is that there are not many situations when you're life is really in danger from an armed shooter, and when it is, a gun is rarely going to help you (as shown by this video). Unless you've got advanced combat training and stay in practice often, all that sense of security the heat you're packing is going to slip away when faced by a real threat.

When a robber uses a gun, it is almost always for intimidation only. They do not intend to fire, and are probably just as scared by the possibly of firing the weapon as the victim is.

oh wait... I know one!
Good guy 1, Bad guy 0, CCW in action unedited - YouTube

oh wait... in this case - a stupid thug died, not mother. not child. not innocent people.

Law-Abiding Citizen: 1
Thug: 0

great success.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you brought this video up again and are holding it as a shining example of CCW, because it exposes your reckless ignorance. The CCW clerk in this video should have been charged with multiple offenses.

First: He put three innocent bystanders at risk, including a baby, by drawing his weapon and firing at a thug who most likely had no intention of shooting.

Second: he used his coworker as a shield so he could draw his weapon in secrecy and fire from behind her large frame. That's quite brave of him, doing that, don't you think?

Third: The thug flees (proving my point that he didn't intend to shoot or get in a standoff here; he just wanted money) but rambo keeps firing INTO HIS BACK as he attempts to flee. That is no longer self-defense. That is attempted murder.

So, there were two scenarios here:

1) Thug robs motel, leaves with a few hundred dollars cash, which is reimbursed by insurance company. Nobody is hurt. Thug most likely would have been apprehended after being identified by security cameras and eyewitnesses.

2) Thug attempts to rob motel but rambo intervenes, putting multiple people at risk, and ends up nearly killing a man, all because he wants to be a hero. Now we have a huge investigation, legal proceedings, police presence, and medical care for the wounded thug that is going to total thousands and thousands of dollars and come OUT OF OUR TAXPAYER MONEY.

Which sounds better to you?



That you would support this sort of "law abiding citizen" is really telling. Anyone who believes rambo here is a shining example of CCW holders is out of their mind. As for the rest of the inane micro-debating on this thread, I can't even begin to sort through it. What a waste of my time.
 
jillio said:
Yeah, and all background checks have predictive validity, too.:P
Click to expand...
Other than you, who said that?

Got any stats on that?
Click to expand...
Do you have any to prove otherwise?

Since there have been about 6 million permits issued in the USA, and there haven't been anywhere near that many convicted permit-carrying shooters, I would say that's a valid statement.
 
naisho said:
:confused: so whatcha mean about carrying a gun in public can put them in danger?
Everyone in Arizona can concealed carry a gun with or without a permit in public. There doesn't seem to be any imminent impending doom or danger for everyone walking around there today, right now.

At the same time, we don't see the recent crime statistics prove that AZ is any different from the norm of gun-related crimes in other states.
Click to expand...

Depends. Where are you carrying it? What is your mind set when you have that gun on your hip? How willing are you to put people in danger just to stop a bad guy from robbing a store of money?

You have to look beyond the moment. If you are comfortable with someone with something to prove going into a grocery store full of mothers and children packing a loaded weapon, then I guess it's your decision to be okay with that. I personally, am not okay with that. If you need to carry a concealed, or open weapon because you are making large cash deposits at the bank in the wee hours of the morning, that's one thing. If you just want to show everyone you can't be messed with, chances are, you will get messed with, and that gun is going to kill someone that didn't deserve to die.
 
Reba said:
Other than you, who said that?


Do you have any to prove otherwise?

Since there have been about 6 million permits issued in the USA, and there haven't been anywhere near that many convicted permit-carrying shooters, I would say that's a valid statement.
Click to expand...

You said people have to qualify for gun ownership and CCW. That includes a background check. Given the fact that people are not re-tested on a regular basis, nor have to have any refesher training in most states, that really doesn't mean much.
 
TheWriteAlex said:
That's why you don't use a 12 gauge slug round for home defense. Shot loads in a smaller gun, say a 16 or 20 gauge, are one of the most oft-recommended choices for home defense because the shot doesn't penetrate drywall. It will definitely cause some damage to your home, but the risk of a bullet passing through walls and injuring innocents is considerably less with a shot load than a handgun.

Surely, being the big tough guy gun expert that you are, you would have known this? :roll:



You completely missed the point of these videos. (I doubt you even watched them all the way through or paid attention to the CC). The point this video made is that there are not many situations when you're life is really in danger from an armed shooter, and when it is, a gun is rarely going to help you (as shown by this video). Unless you've got advanced combat training and stay in practice often, all that sense of security the heat you're packing is going to slip away when faced by a real threat.

When a robber uses a gun, it is almost always for intimidation only. They do not intend to fire, and are probably just as scared by the possibly of firing the weapon as the victim is.



I'm glad you brought this video up again and are holding it as a shining example of CCW, because it exposes your reckless ignorance. The CCW clerk in this video should have been charged with multiple offenses.

First: He put three innocent bystanders at risk, including a baby, by drawing his weapon and firing at a thug who most likely had no intention of shooting.

Second: he used his coworker as a shield so he could draw his weapon in secrecy and fire from behind her large frame. That's quite brave of him, doing that, don't you think?

Third: The thug flees (proving my point that he didn't intend to shoot or get in a standoff here; he just wanted money) but rambo keeps firing INTO HIS BACK as he attempts to flee. That is no longer self-defense. That is attempted murder.

So, there were two scenarios here:

1) Thug robs motel, leaves with a few hundred dollars cash, which is reimbursed by insurance company. Nobody is hurt. Thug most likely would have been apprehended after being identified by security cameras and eyewitnesses.

2) Thug attempts to rob motel but rambo intervenes, putting multiple people at risk, and ends up nearly killing a man, all because he wants to be a hero. Now we have a huge investigation, legal proceedings, police presence, and medical care for the wounded thug that is going to total thousands and thousands of dollars and come OUT OF OUR TAXPAYER MONEY.

Which sounds better to you?



That you would support this sort of "law abiding citizen" is really telling. Anyone who believes rambo here is a shining example of CCW holders is out of their mind. As for the rest of the inane micro-debating on this thread, I can't even begin to sort through it. What a waste of my time.
Click to expand...

Shooting someone in the back is not considered self defense in any state. Even a law enforcement officer would be charged.
 
jillio said:
Gee, I don't know. Would you consider shootings and gang activity to be violent?

Makes perfect sense to me. It wasn't hypothetical. Like I said, attitude portrays what others see.
Click to expand...
So, these gangs would attack Jiro but not you? How do you know what attitude he would display? Again I ask, how would anyone know that Jiro was wearing a concealed weapon?
 
There is no credible evidence that "right-to-carry" laws, which allow qualified adults to carry concealed handguns, either decrease or increase violent crime. To date, 34 states have enacted these laws.

Right. So the many claims made here that crime is reduced are false.

-- There is almost no evidence that violence-prevention programs intended to steer children away from guns have had any effects on their behavior, knowledge, or attitudes regarding firearms. More than 80 such programs exist.

So, then answer to children being killed accidentally by guns in the home is either to secure those guns, keep them unloaded with no easy access to ammunition, or don't have guns in the home.--

Research has found associations between gun availability and suicide with guns, but it does not show whether such associations reveal genuine patterns of cause and effect.

Simple correlation. There is an association between chronic pain and suicide, too. Doesn't really say much except the two are found together. Same thing with drugs.

Research linking firearms to criminal violence and suicide is seriously limited by a lack of credible information on who owns firearms and on individuals' encounters with violence, the report says. Moreover, many studies have methodological flaws or provide contradictory evidence; others do not determine whether gun ownership itself causes certain outcomes.

It is dangerous to base policy on research that is inconclusive and so weak in methodology. Unless there can be a proven benefit, good sense says don't risk the possible negative consequences.

Many Americans keep firearms to defend themselves against criminals, but research devoted to understanding the defensive and deterrent effects of guns has resulted in mixed and sometimes widely divergent findings, the report says. In addition, the accuracy of responses in gun-use surveys is a topic that has not been thoroughly investigated. The committee called for systematic research to define what is being measured in studies of defensive and deterrent effects of guns, to reduce reporting errors in national gun-use surveys, and to explore ways that different data sets may be linked to answer complex questions.

Nothing to support the claims that CCW or open carry deters crime.

Firearms are bought and sold in both formal markets, such as gun shops, and informal ones, such as the underground economy. Market-based interventions aimed at reducing criminals' access to guns include taxes on weapons and ammunition, limits on the number of firearms that can be purchased in a given time period, and gun "buy back" initiatives. Arguments for and against these approaches are largely based on speculation rather than scientific evidence. Data on gun markets -- on how many guns are sold through various channels, or how systematically background checks are performed, for instance -- are virtually nonexistent. Greater attention should be paid to research design and data needs regarding gun markets, the report says. More studies also should be conducted on potential links between firearms policies and suicide rates.

Exactly what I have been saying. Speculation, and data is non-existent regarding the safety of CCW laws.

Data limitations are immense in the study of firearms and violence, the committee emphasized. The report calls for the development of a National Violent Death Reporting System and a National Incident-Based Reporting System. No single data system can answer all questions about violent events, but it is important to start collecting accurate and reliable information that describes basic facts about violent injuries and deaths.

And I would say, accuracy in the statements made by a few people who are making unfounded claims.

National-Academies.org | Newsroom

Thanks for the link, Reba.
 
Reba said:
So, these gangs would attack Jiro but not you? How do you know what attitude he would display? Again I ask, how would anyone know that Jiro was wearing a concealed weapon?
Click to expand...

If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say "yeah". His attitude would put him at risk. I would say that my behavior in such a neighborhood is far different than Jiro's would be. I don't see threat around every corner so I don't slink around in fear, nor do I try to be a bad guy.

The most I ever get from the young men congregating on the corner, or the gang member walking down the street, is a "Wassup." I don't see that as a threat. I simply say, "Not much" and keep on walking. Guess what...they do the same.
 
Jiro said:
huh? why would you say such silly thing? why would I get involved in something that doesn't involve me? you should be calling 911, not me. I'm not a police nor a vigilante. It's your problem, not my problem.


that's fine. you have a choice to carry it or not. I don't. You don't see anything wrong with that?


that only happens in movies, not reality.


Does it matter? I should have that rights anytime, anywhere but it doesn't mean I will pack a heat to grocery or when I meet Snookie. So why are you so afraid about a law-abiding citizen carrying a gun? You live in a gun-friendly state and nothing happened to you.

This is comical. You've stated your stance in gay marriage thread that people have NO business in telling people what to do. And yet.... you're in this thread, telling me what to do and what not to do.

:hmm:
Click to expand...

Then you don't go into neighborhoods that are dangerous, if you believe it only happens in movies. As I suspected, your knowlege is a bit limited, and therefore, your ability to judge a threat is limited.

I said people had no business using religious arguments to determine a legal principle. Stop trying to twist my words, or read with more comprehension, whichever it takes.
 
Reba said:
Rarely is not the same as never. In those rare cases that do require shoot-to-kill responses for defense, at least that option is available.
Click to expand...

Raely means that it is highly improbable. Same reason I don't have hurricane insurance; chances of me suffering damage from a hurricane in my area is improbable. Just like you needing a gun for self defense is improbable. But, the research does show, and I have posted it on here prior, that a gun in the home is several times more likely to kill a family member than it is a stranger posing a threat. And the largest proportion of accidental deaths by firearms in the home is children. Risk is much greater than the probability that you will ever be placed in a position of needing a gun to protect yourself. Just as the cost of me carrying hurricane insurance is a cost greater than the benefit,
 
jillio said:
Yeah, it matters. It speaks volumes as to whether you see threat when no threat has been displayed. And anyone operating on that kind of hypervigilance and fear is liable to do something stupid with that loaded gun.
Click to expand...

so since British police officers do not carry guns but American cops do.... I guess they are hyper-vigilant and fearful?
 
 
naisho said:
:confused: so whatcha mean about carrying a gun in public can put them in danger?
Everyone in Arizona can concealed carry a gun with or without a permit in public. There doesn't seem to be any imminent impending doom or danger for everyone walking around there today, right now.

At the same time, we don't see the recent crime statistics prove that AZ is any different from the norm of gun-related crimes in other states.
Click to expand...

CCW permit is not needed in Arizona
 
Jiro said:
so since British police officers do not carry guns but American cops do.... I guess they are hyper-vigilant and fearful?
Click to expand...

See the difference an attititude in society can make? Brits are more humane about many things. Canadians, as well.

Some of them certainly are. You have posted articles about it about.
 
Jiro said:
looks like all of us are misunderstanding you then.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does. Your defensiveness is causing you to respond out of proportion and preventing you from actually comprehending. But your "all" is another misstatement. There are several posters who have actually understood what I am saying, and their posts reflect it. Again, you are atrributing the will misunderstanding of a very small minority to "all".
 
 
Back
Top