What it's like to live in America where everybody can buy guns?

[Tez3]

Someone PM'd me KSD's comments, hence the answer because, believe it or not, not everyone wants to make snarky comments at and about me. Oh and yes I got a PM about the latest one as well.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Someone PM'd me KSD's comments, hence the answer because, believe it or not, not everyone wants to make snarky comments at and about me. Oh and yes I got a PM about the latest one as well.

Wow, considering how close my post was to yours (minutes) it is somewhat surprising that someone saw it, PM'd you about it, you were online and you read that PM and then responded. That's amazing!

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Given the statistically insignificant liklihood of any given individual being in a situation where firearms are needed (LEO, military, and security professionals exempted), those who want to be armed all the time are like frightened children who mistakenly believe that a bogey-man lurks in their closet waiting to come out and snatch them in their sleep.

I see you've resorted to juvenile responses

I was expecting rather more from you on this discussion. Be that as it may, let's take a look at your comments. Let's see, insignificant likelyhood was the phrase you used. Let's look at reality for a moment.

• According to the CDC: Low annual rape statistics are 300,000 annually. The high rate is 1.3 million.
• Percentage of unreported rapes: 54%
• Chance of being raped in the U.S. 20%
• In a 12 year study by the Department of Justice the likelyhood of someone from age 12 until death of being the victim of at least one violent crime is 83%
• Likelyhood of more than one incident 54%
• FBI stats for 2014: Estimated 1,165,383 violent crimes reported to L.E.

Your assessment doesn't hold water. Try telling a woman that was raped that she fell into an insignificant likelyhood catagory. By the way, less that 1% of women that are armed are successfully raped. I have posted multiple links from the FBI, DOJ and other government entities that demonstrate categorically that armed citizens successfully stop violent crime. According to the Cato Institute, after reviewing eight years of data concluded that, "the vast majority or gun owners are ethical and competent, and tens of thousands of crimes are prevented each year by ordinary citizens with guns".

The desire to be constantly armed, and to actively push that agenda reeks of paranoia and is the position of an extremely vocal, and extremely small, radical minority.

Your's is a biased opinion not based on factual data by official sources. Thus it is easily discounted as nonsense.

he vast vast majority of the population of this country do not hold these views, and that includes the population of gun owners, which includes myself.

I've provided actual data by verifiable sources, not biased opinion based emotion.

By far, the vast majority of the population, including gun owners, favor reasonable regulations and limits, and do not align themselves with radical organizations like the NRA, and certainly will not be starting a civil war over an issue like gun regulations.

Your statistics and link to the source to back this opinion up please. Some in media that have an anti-fun agenda consider the NRA a 'radical' organization. Millions of Americans whoever don't (their membership is in the millions). And you have an obvious biased (and an uneducated one) against the NRA. They favor specific gun control measures that actually work, stiff penalties for misuse of firearms and more importantly, due process for Americans. The fact that agenda-driven media outlets misrepresent what they stand for in no way reflects reality.

And it wouldn't be a civil war by the way, it would be a revolutionary war. There was a historical difference you may want to factually research.

I wasn't really interested in doing so, but you opened that gate so here we are

I have offered factual information as well as my expert, professional opinion (I'm recognized as both by the courts by the way). You have offered only your emotional opinion that isn't backed by the facts. Perhaps it is time for you to step out of the thread and actually do some research rather than post school-yard nonsense.

 

[pgsmith]

Night club #1 - 0 armed private citizens. + 1 armed bad guy = 100 people shot with a 50% fatality rate.

Night club #2 - 1 armed private citizen + 1 armed bad guy = 4 people shot (including the bad guy who is stopped from further aggression) with no fatalities.

You have obviously never spent any time in a night club in Texas. I've been to quite a few of them all over the state. I would never go to another one if I thought that the patrons were allowed to be armed in the club. Alcohol and firearms do not mix well, and that is one law that I feel needs to stay valid. You can site all of the statistics you wish to, but it doesn't change the fact that drunk people make stupid decisions. Stupid decisions and firearms do not belong together.

 

[Flying Crane]

I see you've resorted to juvenile responses

I was expecting rather more from you on this discussion. Be that as it may, let's take a look at your comments. Let's see, insignificant likelyhood was the phrase you used. Let's look at reality for a moment.

• According to the CDC: Low annual rape statistics are 300,000 annually. The high rate is 1.3 million.
• Percentage of unreported rapes: 54%
• Chance of being raped in the U.S. 20%
• In a 12 year study by the Department of Justice the likelyhood of someone from age 12 until death of being the victim of at least one violent crime is 83%
• Likelyhood of more than one incident 54%
• FBI stats for 2014: Estimated 1,165,383 violent crimes reported to L.E.

Your assessment doesn't hold water. Try telling a woman that was raped that she fell into an insignificant likelyhood catagory. By the way, less that 1% of women that are armed are successfully raped. I have posted multiple links from the FBI, DOJ and other government entities that demonstrate categorically that armed citizens successfully stop violent crime. According to the Cato Institute, after reviewing eight years of data concluded that, "the vast majority or gun owners are ethical and competent, and tens of thousands of crimes are prevented each year by ordinary citizens with guns".



Your's is a biased opinion not based on factual data by official sources. Thus it is easily discounted as nonsense.



I've provided actual data by verifiable sources, not biased opinion based emotion.



Your statistics and link to the source to back this opinion up please. Some in media that have an anti-fun agenda consider the NRA a 'radical' organization. Millions of Americans whoever don't (their membership is in the millions). And you have an obvious biased (and an uneducated one) against the NRA. They favor specific gun control measures that actually work, stiff penalties for misuse of firearms and more importantly, due process for Americans. The fact that agenda-driven media outlets misrepresent what they stand for in no way reflects reality.

And it wouldn't be a civil war by the way, it would be a revolutionary war. There was a historical difference you may want to factually research.



I have offered factual information as well as my expert, professional opinion (I'm recognized as both by the courts by the way). You have offered only your emotional opinion that isn't backed by the facts. Perhaps it is time for you to step out of the thread and actually do some research rather than post school-yard nonsense.

Ah, right, civil war vs revolutionary war. Interesting topic for you to be leaning toward, as an LEO, but that's none of my business.

You have referenced an FBI report, posted a link earlier that, so far as I could tell, only linked to an online news article and not the report itself. I would be interested in reading the actual report. Somehow I doubt the FBI authored and published a report that actually recommends that the population at large needs to be armed. I'm suspecting there is a bit of cherry-picking of excerpts from that report to support a message that the report itself does not support.

Got a link?

 

[Xue Sheng]

Got a link?

Violent Crime


FBI- Uniform Crime Report - 2014 Crime in the United States

Note: Weapons data are not collected for rape.

Information collected regarding types of weapons used in violent crime showed that firearms were used in 67.9 percent of the nation’s murders, 40.3 percent of robberies, and 22.5 percent of aggravated assaults. (Weapons data are not collected for rape.)

 

[Flying Crane]

Violent Crime


FBI- Uniform Crime Report - 2014 Crime in the United States

Note: Weapons data are not collected for rape.

Ok, so there is data there, but I was under the impression that there is some comprehensive report written and published by the FBI that supposedly recommends the population be armed. I'm not finding that. Have I misunderstood something that was said?

 

[Xue Sheng]

Ok, so there is data there, but I was under the impression that there is some comprehensive report written and published by the FBI that supposedly recommends the population be armed. I'm not finding that. Have I misunderstood something that was said?

Not having read the entre thread, I have no idea. However I find it highly unlikely that the FBI or the CDC would recommend arming the populace. I can say I have never seen a report on crime from the Feds. or the state Gov in which I work that has recommended arming people as the solution

 

[Kong Soo Do]

You have obviously never spent any time in a night club in Texas. I've been to quite a few of them all over the state. I would never go to another one if I thought that the patrons were allowed to be armed in the club. Alcohol and firearms do not mix well, and that is one law that I feel needs to stay valid. You can site all of the statistics you wish to, but it doesn't change the fact that drunk people make stupid decisions. Stupid decisions and firearms do not belong together.

Don't believe I or anyone has advocated for drunk people carrying firearms. In fact, I've advocated the exact opposite.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Ah, right, civil war vs revolutionary war. Interesting topic for you to be leaning toward, as an LEO, but that's none of my business.

You have referenced an FBI report, posted a link earlier that, so far as I could tell, only linked to an online news article and not the report itself. I would be interested in reading the actual report. Somehow I doubt the FBI authored and published a report that actually recommends that the population at large needs to be armed. I'm suspecting there is a bit of cherry-picking of excerpts from that report to support a message that the report itself does not support.

Got a link?

I've posted numerous links that also contain links to originating articles. They also contain the references to further articles/studies. It's up to you to actually look at them. The FBI and DOJ and other reports are referencing facts, not suggesting a course of action. They report, you decide what to do with the facts (heed or ignore). Many (hundreds) Sheriff's and Chiefs of Police on the other hand have publicly state that citizens should be armed. Many on social media. As a small example of a larger whole:

Ah, right, civil war vs revolutionary war. Interesting topic for you to be leaning toward, as an LEO, but that's none of my business.

Very ignorant statement. I took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. This includes our own government should it ever become tyrannical. That again is history that you seem to be ignoring. That is the main purpose (but not the only purpose) of the 2A. That's a fact. If the government ever tried to void the emancipation proclamation or any amendment or bill of rights then yes, it is time to take up arms. Many won't because they 'don't want to get involved' or it's 'outside their comfort zone' or they just don't understand history or the Constitution or that rights come with responsibility. But many will stand up for their rights. As a veteran and now active in L.E. it is my duty to stand up for the Constitution.

Again, just a small sampling. Hundreds of Sherriff's and Chiefs have openly stated their support for the 2A, suggested private citizens carry, offered training for private citizens (my agency does this) etc.

 

[Flying Crane]

I've posted numerous links that also contain links to originating articles. They also contain the references to further articles/studies. It's up to you to actually look at them. The FBI and DOJ and other reports are referencing facts, not suggesting a course of action. They report, you decide what to do with the facts (heed or ignore). Many (hundreds) Sheriff's and Chiefs of Police on the other hand have publicly state that citizens should be armed. Many on social media. As a small example of a larger whole:

Very ignorant statement. I took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. This includes our own government should it ever become tyrannical. That again is history that you seem to be ignoring. That is the main purpose (but not the only purpose) of the 2A. That's a fact. If the government ever tried to void the emancipation proclamation or any amendment or bill of rights then yes, it is time to take up arms. Many won't because they 'don't want to get involved' or it's 'outside their comfort zone' or they just don't understand history or the Constitution or that rights come with responsibility. But many will stand up for their rights. As a veteran and now active in L.E. it is my duty to stand up for the Constitution.

Again, just a small sampling. Hundreds of Sherriff's and Chiefs have openly stated their support for the 2A, suggested private citizens carry, offered training for private citizens (my agency does this) etc.

Thanks for the clarification on the FBI bit, apparently I got that mixed up with what some LEO people said (I'm not in a position to watch the videos, but I'll take it on faith for now that they say what you claim they say).

As for the rest, well, your statements are all very interesting and I doubt I'll convince you of my position,nor that you will convince me of yours, so we are back with agree to disagree.

I suspect there are a lot of people who carry but keep it on the down low and don't make a big deal about it. With those people we never even know. I have a lot less issue with that.

The militant extreme advocates are a different story. If there was ever a group that might make me reconsider my own decision about carrying, it would be them. That scary bunch, they make me nervous, and they are the ones I might actually need to arm myself against. Ironic, isnt it?

 

[Flying Crane]

Not having read the entre thread, I have no idea. However I find it highly unlikely that the FBI or the CDC would recommend arming the populace. I can say I have never seen a report on crime from the Feds. or the state Gov in which I work that has recommended arming people as the solution

Ayup.

 

[drop bear]

You have obviously never spent any time in a night club in Texas. I've been to quite a few of them all over the state. I would never go to another one if I thought that the patrons were allowed to be armed in the club. Alcohol and firearms do not mix well, and that is one law that I feel needs to stay valid. You can site all of the statistics you wish to, but it doesn't change the fact that drunk people make stupid decisions. Stupid decisions and firearms do not belong together.

Yeah. That.

We are on a bit of a "stop beating people to death" movement here.

There has to be some legislation restricting who carries. Just to separate responsible gun owners from those who should not really have a sharp pencil.

 

[pgsmith]

Don't believe I or anyone has advocated for drunk people carrying firearms. In fact, I've advocated the exact opposite.

Perhaps I'm just dense and don't understand what you're trying to say, but it certainly seems to me that in this post you advocate allowing armed patrons in a nightclub ...

Night club #1 - 0 armed private citizens. + 1 armed bad guy = 100 people shot with a 50% fatality rate.

Night club #2 - 1 armed private citizen + 1 armed bad guy = 4 people shot (including the bad guy who is stopped from further aggression) with no fatalities.

Armed citizen in #2 had options available that no one did in #1 and it made a difference. Doesn't mean it will always happen that way, but statistically (FBI stats) in normally does. But then the armed citizen lawfully defending themselves doesn't seem to get the drive-by media attention. Odd that it doesn't....

If you advocate armed patrons in a night club, you are advocating drunk people carrying firearms. Unless of course you are assuming that all of your average citizens would refrain from drinking because they're carrying, just as they all refrain from drinking because they're going to be driving.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Perhaps I'm just dense and don't understand what you're trying to say...

You haven't read the entire thread.

Unless of course you are assuming that all of your average citizens would refrain from drinking because they're carrying, just as they all refrain from drinking because they're going to be driving.

This is precisely what I mentioned in a post on a different page of this thread. Just as you have a designated driver, you could have a designated carrier. That would be rather easy to maintain as a policy. For example, a group of folks go out for an evening. One guy or gal decides they're not going to drink and be the ride home for the group. Okay, good and responsible plan. Let's say that guy or gal also has a CCW so they carry. Why not, they're sober. The club, for example, could wave the entrance fee for those 'designated' folks. Give them a wristband or different colored stamp or whatever. They get in free and drink club soda for free (or whatever non-alcoholic beverage) all night with the presentation of the wrist band or stamp (or whatever). So we've accomplished some common sense goals; We've got some sober folks in the club so we can tone down the damn drunk driving. That's a win. We have some sober people that are armed. Real world example in one of my previous links of a night club shooting that was stopped by an armed citizen, so that's a win. They get a free pass all night which really doesn't cost the club jack squat (sodas cost pennies to serve) so the club is now promoting safe driving and safe carry with a small, tangible reward. That's a win.

Can any system be abused? Sure, there is always a dumbass that will try to skirt around the system. But just like a designated driver that gets caught drunk driving there are penalties for shooting while stupid drunk. But again, and this is the important part, we have TENS OF THOUSANDS of examples annually of armed private citizens stopping/preventing violent crime. In the link above, night club shooting where the bad guy was stopped by an armed private citizen. If that person wasn't there.....

So I go back to my simple math:

0 armed private citizens + 1 armed bad guy = 100 people shot

1 armed private citizen + 1 armed bad guy = 4 people shot (including the bad guy who was stopped)

Will it always be that way? Every situation is different. But one things for sure, those 100 shot people in Orlando had only three options: run, hide, wait for help. The other night club folks had a fourth option: return fire. One yielded fewer casualties. The bottom line and take home message is simple; your personal security is up to YOU. Not the police, not the military and definitely not the mercy of the bad guy. It's up to YOU. If you outsource YOUR personal security to someone else then you've limited your options and you're dependent on things beyond your control i.e you're a victim. As the old saying goes, when seconds count the police are minutes away.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

This is the way it should be...

Tennessee Businesses That Disarm Concealed Carry Permit Holders Now Liable for Their Safety

 

[drop bear]

You haven't read the entire thread.



This is precisely what I mentioned in a post on a different page of this thread. Just as you have a designated driver, you could have a designated carrier. That would be rather easy to maintain as a policy. For example, a group of folks go out for an evening. One guy or gal decides they're not going to drink and be the ride home for the group. Okay, good and responsible plan. Let's say that guy or gal also has a CCW so they carry. Why not, they're sober. The club, for example, could wave the entrance fee for those 'designated' folks. Give them a wristband or different colored stamp or whatever. They get in free and drink club soda for free (or whatever non-alcoholic beverage) all night with the presentation of the wrist band or stamp (or whatever). So we've accomplished some common sense goals; We've got some sober folks in the club so we can tone down the damn drunk driving. That's a win. We have some sober people that are armed. Real world example in one of my previous links of a night club shooting that was stopped by an armed citizen, so that's a win. They get a free pass all night which really doesn't cost the club jack squat (sodas cost pennies to serve) so the club is now promoting safe driving and safe carry with a small, tangible reward. That's a win.

Can any system be abused? Sure, there is always a dumbass that will try to skirt around the system. But just like a designated driver that gets caught drunk driving there are penalties for shooting while stupid drunk. But again, and this is the important part, we have TENS OF THOUSANDS of examples annually of armed private citizens stopping/preventing violent crime. In the link above, night club shooting where the bad guy was stopped by an armed private citizen. If that person wasn't there.....

So I go back to my simple math:

0 armed private citizens + 1 armed bad guy = 100 people shot

1 armed private citizen + 1 armed bad guy = 4 people shot (including the bad guy who was stopped)

Will it always be that way? Every situation is different. But one things for sure, those 100 shot people in Orlando had only three options: run, hide, wait for help. The other night club folks had a fourth option: return fire. One yielded fewer casualties. The bottom line and take home message is simple; your personal security is up to YOU. Not the police, not the military and definitely not the mercy of the bad guy. It's up to YOU. If you outsource YOUR personal security to someone else then you've limited your options and you're dependent on things beyond your control i.e you're a victim. As the old saying goes, when seconds count the police are minutes away.

What guns were used in the shooting where 50 died and where 4 died?

Can we use simple math and draw a conclusion there?

 

[drop bear]

Double post.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

What guns were used in the shooting where 50 died and where 4 died?

Can we use simple math and draw a conclusion there?

All weapons involved required the trigger to be depressed for each round. No assault weapons were used in either attack.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Double post.

The home invader in the kitten suit had a lengthy rap sheet but was finally stopped by an armed home owner.