'Open Carry' Law Contoversy: Gun Owner Cited

[Jiro]

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?

1. I would never put myself in a situation where I would be confronted by gang.
2. I would SHIT in my pants if a gang confronted me.
3. I know very well that I will be killed if I take a gun out because chance is I will be outgunned and outnumbered.
4. I would be very screwed if I was confronted by a thug because chance is I wasn't packing a heat and I don't 99.9% of the time.... only cellphone

 

[Jiro]

What? More of your wild west ranting? I've seen them all, Jiro. You can't provide anything empirical to support your position.

my empirical evidence is in there. go and fetch it. you commented on it as well.

 

[Jiro]

Shooting someone in the back is not considered self defense in any state. Even a law enforcement officer would be charged.

nobody shot him in the back.

 

[Jiro]

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.

the reason for that is because such tragic incidents rarely happened. why add financial burden on taxpayers for something unnecessary?

Surely the government would enact more requirements but they didn't because it isn't needed.

 

[TWA]

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.

I lived in London for a semester. The "bobbies" are the nicest and most helpful people. This was in 2003, right before the Iraq war. I attended the anti-war rally to Hyde Park. Nearly two million people, and the cops were as calm and friendly as you can imagine, and not one of them had a gun.

The difference between police officers in America and Britain is that American cops look at the population as something that must be controlled, and therefore guns are necessary. The power struggle stems directly from the presence of the police officer's weapons, which intimidate the populace, no matter how necessary they are.

In Britain, the cops see themselves as public servants but still part of the general population. The number one job of a police officer in London is giving street directions to tourists. No joke.

 

[jillio]

1. I would never put myself in a situation where I would be confronted by gang.
2. I would SHIT in my pants if a gang confronted me.
3. I know very well that I will be killed if I take a gun out because chance is I will be outgunned and outnumbered.
4. I would be very screwed if I was confronted by a thug because chance is I wasn't packing a heat and I don't 99.9% of the time.... only cellphone

If you'd never put yourself in that situation, why do you need to carry a gun? Obviously, you have nothing to fear, or are afraid of boogey men around each corner.

 

[jillio]

I lived in London for a semester. The "bobbies" are the nicest and most helpful people. This was in 2003, right before the Iraq war. I attended the anti-war rally to Hyde Park. Nearly two million people, and the cops were as calm and friendly as you can imagine, and not one of them had a gun.

The difference between police officers in America and Britain is that American cops look at the population as something that must be controlled, and therefore guns are necessary. In Britain, the cops see themselves as public servants but still part of the general population. The number one job of a police officer in London is giving street directions to tourists. No joke.

Exactly! America is all about social control and heirarchy. That is the problem.

 

[jillio]

the reason for that is because such tragic incidents rarely happened. why add financial burden on taxpayers for something unnecessary?

Surely the government would enact more requirements but they didn't because it isn't needed.

How many times do you have to be proven wrong before you stop using words like "rarely". Why add the financial burden on society? So, you don't want to carry the burden of paying to insure safety, but you are fine with paying a million in medical costs for a man shot by a vigilante as he was running away?

 

[jillio]

nobody shot him in the back.

Was he running away? Was the gun toting vigilante still firing? Was the would be robber shot in the back. Yes, he was, Jiro.

 

[naisho]

Exactly! America is all about social control and heirarchy. That is the problem.

You gotta take into account US is the most diverse nation in the world. We are made up of a bunch of different ethnicities. It's not as monotone as it is in the UK... while it sounds ideal, it can't be that cut and dry about how to control society especially if your people come from different cultures and backgrounds.

 

[jillio]

my empirical evidence is in there. go and fetch it. you commented on it as well.

You must not understand the concept of empirical.

 

[TWA]

nobody shot him in the back.

Yes, the thug was shot in the back as he tried to flee the scene of the crime. Why are you blatantly lying about this?

 

[jillio]

You gotta take into account US is the most diverse nation in the world. We are made up of a bunch of different ethnicities. It's not as monotone as it is in the UK... while it sounds ideal, it can't be that cut and dry about how to control society especially if your people come from different cultures and backgrounds.

Great Britian and Canada are just as diverse.

 

[TXgolfer]

I lived in London for a semester. The "bobbies" are the nicest and most helpful people. This was in 2003, right before the Iraq war. I attended the anti-war rally to Hyde Park. Nearly two million people, and the cops were as calm and friendly as you can imagine, and not one of them had a gun.

The difference between police officers in America and Britain is that American cops look at the population as something that must be controlled, and therefore guns are necessary. The power struggle stems directly from the presence of the police officer's weapons, which intimidate the populace, no matter how necessary they are.

In Britain, the cops see themselves as public servants but still part of the general population. The number one job of a police officer in London is giving street directions to tourists. No joke.

Wow

 

[naisho]

Great Britian and Canada are just as diverse.

No ma'am.. where'd you hear that?

According to the 2001 Census, the ethnic composition of the United Kingdom was:

Ethnic group	Population	Proportion of total UK population
White British	50,366,497	85.67%
White (other)	3,096,169	5.27%
White Irish	691,232		1.2%
Mixed race	677,117		1.2%
Indian		1,053,411	1.8%
Pakistani	747,285		1.3%
Bangladeshi	283,063		0.5%
Other Asian 	247,644		0.4%
Black Caribbean	565,876		1.0%
Black African	485,277		0.8%
Black (others)	97,585		0.2%
Chinese		247,403		0.4%
Other		230,615		0.4%

 

[jillio]

Proportionately, they are just as diverse. UMMM...this is 2011. Your census info is a decade old.

But what exactly is your point? That diversity makes people fearful and believe they need to carry guns?

 

[naisho]

Proportionately, they are just as diverse.

But what exactly is your point? That diversity makes people fearful and believe they need to c

Just saying that it's not the same as the USA because they're not of the same ethnicity, they might not share the same culture and values on how to approach gun ownership and controversy. Ethnicity does play a major role in how one views these things and how laws are enacted.

 

[Steinhauer]

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.

Stop using religious arguments to determine a legal principle?

When that "legal principle" is religious in nature?

No one is trying to twist anything :roll:

 

[Reba]

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.

So too are the claims that they increase crime.

-- 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.--

I don't think anyone has disagreed that gun safety in homes with children is important.

It does show that all this anti-gun propaganda taught at schools doesn't do any good.

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.

"it does not show whether such associations reveal genuine patterns of cause and effect"

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.

You're totally overlooking the Second Amendment. That Amendment, along with the others in the Bill of Rights, doesn't depend on research to make it viable. The Bill of Rights isn't a policy that was based on statistical research.

Also, you keep overlooking the fact that there is nothing in this report that proves gun ownership or concealed carry permits by themselves cause 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.

Nothing to support claims otherwise, either.

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.

That goes both ways.

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.

That goes for both sides.

 

[Jiro]

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:

1. anything below 12-gauge has been proven ineffectual when it comes to home defense (do you know what 20 gauge for? bird shooting. plus it's cruel and inhumane to pump 20 pellets into his body when 12-gauge is just 5-8 pellets)
2. homeowners have been killed because of this.
3. even police officers and any gun experts recommend 12-gauge for home defense

so what should I use for home defense with 12 gauge? simple - use low-recoil 00 or 1 if you're that concerned. At that time when I bought a shotgun, a local police officer happened to be there to buy something and I asked him for recommendation in choosing shotgun shell type and I also expressed my concern about wall penetration and people's safety. He chuckled and strongly recommended 000.

I asked - "but.... isn't that overkill?"

He chuckled again and shrugged. Mind you - he's not just some street beat type. He is a "SWAT" so he obviously knows what he's talking about.

Lastly - when it comes to home defense, you should never.... ever..... ever.... use birdshot shell and anything below 00. Police officer has been killed by a crazed thug because he was using birdshot shell by mistake..... and officer emptied everything on him. After training and education, I came to realization that my fear for people's safety has been alleviated. I am 100% confident with my shotgun and 000. You're not gonna find any competent shotgun owner with anything less than 000 but I'm too nice so I have 00 too.

Educate yourself with this The Box O' Truth #3 - The Shotgun Meets the Box O' Truth - Page 1 as well

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.

I've already discussed about this at great length with my friend who is ex-Rangers couple years ago. I've said what you said and in the end.... it's unfounded. your argument that is.