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

[Tgace]

Actually neither is conjecture.
My reasoning is based on over 40 years experience in anti terrorism, it's my specialised subject if you like, it's the opinion, I know as well, of the security forces here of which I was a member until very recently.

[emoji108]

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

After political discussions became exceedingly disruptive, we (the Staff) initially tried quarantining them to a particular, paid subforum. That didn't work as well as we'd like, for lots of reasons, and when we joined the Forum Foundry family, they had dedicated political discussion forums, here at US Message Board. Sending all political discussions there allowed us to keep MartialTalk focused on the martial arts. Of course, there's the occasional overlap that pops up. If a topic, like gun control, starts to shift too far into the politics, we issue reminders and encourage folks to go there for the political chat. The lines can be somewhat fuzzy, of course, such as causes of crime, and legality of actions -- but, generally, when there's too much of a political trend -- we try to steer out of it.

Thanks, that makes sense. It was something I was wondering about, and figured it went either like you suggested, or the posters enacted an unspoken(unwritten?) rule that talking about politics was causing too many problems. Since it's an official policy, I'll be more cautious about going into political territory.

 

[Tez3]

i think clinton is also really scary. i heard many times that she should actually be in prison for lying.
to me she doesn't look like she's right in her mind. i watched a video on youtube which only consisted
of scenes where she laughed and this laughter already sounded disturbing. i think that by the way a person
laughs you can already draw conclusions. for example if somebody always laughs really loud so that everybody can
hear him it's a red flag to me.

.

Ok, it's YouTube is not actually reliable or even real. Like most of the martial arts stuff that's on there political stuff is better avoided. I don't know anything about Clinton and if I wanted to know more I would not be looking at social media to help me make an informed opinion.
If the video is of just of her laughing then it was manipulated and edited wasn't it so you can't judge what she's like from that. Her actions, her speeches ( without opponents edits), etc will help you decide about her not some cuckoo brained 'maker' of You Tube videos.

 

[Tgace]

Here in Texas, a single police officer with a handgun halted a planned ISIS assault (two terrorists with long guns). The old saw of "you will never be able to make a difference if you carry a gun" is poppycock....

May the odds be long?

Certainly.

But anyone who tells people that being unarmed and hoping you don't get killed is somehow preferable to carrying a sidearm and at least having the slim chance of making a difference is full of @#$%.


Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[Tez3]

Here in Texas, a single police officer with a handgun halted a planned ISIS assault (two terrorists with long guns). The old saw of "you will never be able to make a difference if you carry a gun" is poppycock....

May the odds be long?

Certainly.

But anyone who tells people that being unarmed and hoping you don't get killed is somehow preferable to carrying a sidearm and at least having the slim chance of making a difference is full of @#$%.


Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

I haven't said that being unarmed and hoping you don't get killed is preferable to carrying a weapon. The Paris attacks which included suicide bombers and IS trained militia was a different thing from two armed people planning attacks and we have stopped attacks here too by the way however Paris was a massive assault planned very carefully. It would be a mistake to think that terrorists always use the same MO. The IRA for example use car and pipe bombs often phoning a false warning so that an area is evacuated into the path of the real bombs. The anti gay bombings were similar in that the IEDs were left in pubs. The murder of Lee Rigby was different, he was run down by two men in a car who leapt out and hacked at him with knives. Certainly a civilian rather than the police officer could have shot them but it still wouldn't have saved Lee.
Looking in depth at the Paris situation it would be hard to see how an civilian could have made any difference as the combatants had carefully made sure of their position is the theatre so as not to be shot at. The other drive by shooters had shot and gone before anyone could react. Each incident has to be take by itself and no generalisations made, each incident is studied and lessons learnt.

An armed person military or civilian is not going to be able to do anything to prevent these, being vigilant but not paranoid may though. CAIN: Events: The Omagh Bomb - Main Events, 15 August 1998
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.../ira-manchester-bomb-anniversary-bomb-9451973
BBC ON THIS DAY | 8 | 1987: Bomb kills 11 at Enniskillen
BBC News | The nail bomb terror | Two dead in London nail bomb
BBC ON THIS DAY | 4 | 1974: Soldiers and children killed in coach bombing

 

[Dirty Dog]

Paris isn't a gun free zone no more than France is, you can buy guns of all types you just need permits.

This is sort-of true, but quite a distortion. You have to have a permit before you can buy anything. To get the permit you have to go through psych evals. Every year. And then you have to renew the permit every 3 years.
Not only is magazine capacity limited, the amount of ammo you're even allowed to own is strictly limited. About what I shoot in a month, at the range.
And, of course, unless you're a high ranking politico or wealthy enough to pay a lot of graft, you can forget about actually being able to carry a gun.
While guns are not illegal in France, it is entirely reasonable to say it's a gun free zone, given the draconian laws preventing the mere ownership of a gun, and the absolute impossibility of Jagues Citizen actually carrying one.

Gun laws in France are nearly as ridiculous as those of the UK. Which, as we all know, have a sterling reputation for effectiveness, given how well they stopped the violence during the troubles...

 

[pgsmith]

On the one hand I think that being allowed to buy guns is good. If I lived in America I'd also buy lots and lots of guns and
rifles. This must be really fun to shoot with them and just hold them in your hand and clean them carefully.

On the other hand though it's also really scary imo. I mean do you even feel safe outside in public places knowing that
somebody could shoot at you at ANY time? I think I'd become paranoid and only walk around in public with a bullet proof
vest and of course also have at least 1 gun with me, better 2 guns.
But what do you do in the summer? You cant wear a gun holster under your shirt or a bullet proof vest.

Do you think about this when you go outside or do you suppress these thoughts that a terrorist or crazy person could stop
opening fire at any second?

i'd rather have it that only i am allowed to have guns but nobody else. this would make me feel safe and i'd not have to worry
about being shot at.

Here's my take on it ... Remember the "knock out game" ? It got very popular with young guys trying to impress their buddies and get famous on-line. They tried doing it in Texas, and the guy they tried it on shot and killed the kid that tried to knock him out. All of the sudden it wasn't as fun anymore and it died out shortly thereafter. Don't know if they still have a problem with that in the UK or not.

 

[Tez3]

This is sort-of true, but quite a distortion. You have to have a permit before you can buy anything. To get the permit you have to go through psych evals. Every year. And then you have to renew the permit every 3 years.
Not only is magazine capacity limited, the amount of ammo you're even allowed to own is strictly limited. About what I shoot in a month, at the range.
And, of course, unless you're a high ranking politico or wealthy enough to pay a lot of graft, you can forget about actually being able to carry a gun.
While guns are not illegal in France, it is entirely reasonable to say it's a gun free zone, given the draconian laws preventing the mere ownership of a gun, and the absolute impossibility of Jagues Citizen actually carrying one.

Gun laws in France are nearly as ridiculous as those of the UK. Which, as we all know, have a sterling reputation for effectiveness, given how well they stopped the violence during the troubles...

Our laws are only ridiculous to you, we are a different society, different culture, different history so to us, whose laws they are they are fine. As I'm not insulting the US gun laws I see no reason for anyone to insult ours. I spend time in various countries in Europe, have done for years, a know a lot about France and about living there as I do Germany and the Netherlands. You can call Paris what you like but I find it easy to get a gun there, legally and without being rich.

I assume by 'the troubles' you mean the Irish situation, I'd be interested to see how you think arming citizens would sort that situation out.

 

[Steve]

Here in Texas, a single police officer with a handgun halted a planned ISIS assault (two terrorists with long guns). The old saw of "you will never be able to make a difference if you carry a gun" is poppycock....

May the odds be long?

Certainly.

But anyone who tells people that being unarmed and hoping you don't get killed is somehow preferable to carrying a sidearm and at least having the slim chance of making a difference is full of @#$%.


Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

Was it the gun, or was it the police officers training and experience in law enforcement that really made the difference? Or said another way, having every tool in Home Depot doesn't mean you can build a house. Tools in the hands of a trained person can be very effective, but tools in the hands of an untrained person are at best ineffective, and at worst very dangerous.

For all of the trained people executing good judgement, there are poorly or completely untrained people nurturing fantasies of being Jack Bauer.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Was it the gun, or was it the police officers training and experience in law enforcement that really made the difference? Or said another way, having every tool in Home Depot doesn't mean you can build a house. Tools in the hands of a trained person can be very effective, but tools in the hands of an untrained person are at best ineffective, and at worst very dangerous.

For all of the trained people executing good judgement, there are poorly or completely untrained people nurturing fantasies of being Jack Bauer.

Many gun owners, especially those who carry regularly, spend at least as much time training as the police do.
Tools in the hands of the untrained are still better than trying to build the house with your bare hands.

 

[Steve]

Many gun owners, especially those who carry regularly, spend at least as much time training as the police do.
Tools in the hands of the untrained are still better than trying to build the house with your bare hands.

Define "many." Is that like 80%? 50%? 25? If we don't know how many gun owners actually exist in America, how can you quantify your statement?

I can readily agree that some gun owners are well trained. Some are not. Some choose to educate themselves on use of force laws. Some do not. "Many" and "few" are subjective terms that speak to a bias.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Define "many." Is that like 80%? 50%? 25? If we don't know how many gun owners actually exist in America, how can you quantify your statement?

It's impossible to quantify on a national level. On a personal level, I would say that of the people I know who carry on a regular basis, at least 75% of them train at least monthly.
I'm sure one of the LEO members can give us an idea how often they train. But in my experience, those officers who are shooting enthusiasts (just like the civilians who are shooting enthusiasts) train much more often than those who only meet the Departments mandatory training.
Now, that is obviously a small sample size, but not unreasonably so. After all, we see political polls cited constantly that involve a minuscule percentage of the national population. A random sampling remains a random sampling.

And, as I said before, a tool in the untrained hand remains better than no tools at all. I'm not a great carpenter, but I can still do a better job of building a box if I have a saw, than if I have to chew through the wood.

 

[Steve]

It's impossible to quantify on a national level. On a personal level, I would say that of the people I know who carry on a regular basis, at least 75% of them train at least monthly.
I'm sure one of the LEO members can give us an idea how often they train. But in my experience, those officers who are shooting enthusiasts (just like the civilians who are shooting enthusiasts) train much more often than those who only meet the Departments mandatory training.
Now, that is obviously a small sample size, but not unreasonably so. After all, we see political polls cited constantly that involve a minuscule percentage of the national population. A random sampling remains a random sampling.

And, as I said before, a tool in the untrained hand remains better than no tools at all. I'm not a great carpenter, but I can still do a better job of building a box if I have a saw, than if I have to chew through the wood.

What percentage of gun owners have taken training? - AR15.Com Archive

I could only find one relevant source of information on the prevalence of gun training among gun owners, and it was on a gum forum... So also complete conjecture. For what it's worth, the consensus on that forum is that the percentage of gun owners who are trained at all is somewhere between 25% at the high end if you count military training, and .0000001%. Yikes.

If you have some more reliable information, I'd welcome it. Otherwise, it sounds like there is an important distinction to be made between how many gun owners relative to all gun owners are as well trained as LEO, And how many gun owners relative to the group you associate with are well trained.

Regarding the saw, comparing a firearm to a saw is also kind of unrealistic. I think the dangers of using a band saw or such is a little closer, along with the likelihood of trips to the ER. Surely you've seen your share of DIY accidents resulting from ignorance related negligence.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

What percentage of gun owners have taken training? - AR15.Com Archive

I could only find one relevant source of information on the prevalence of gun training among gun owners, and it was on a gum forum... So also complete conjecture. For what it's worth, the consensus on that forum is that the percentage of gun owners who are trained at all is somewhere between 25% at the high end if you count military training, and .0000001%. Yikes.

If you have some more reliable information, I'd welcome it. Otherwise, it sounds like there is an important distinction to be made between how many gun owners relative to all gun owners are as well trained as LEO, And how many gun owners relative to the group you associate with are well trained.

Regarding the saw, comparing a firearm to a saw is also kind of unrealistic. I think the dangers of using a band saw or such is a little closer, along with the likelihood of trips to the ER. Surely you've seen your share of DIY accidents resulting from ignorance related negligence.

Unfortunately, from what I read they don't have any distinct evidence for their estimates either. I always assumed it was upwards of 50%, but if not it feels like something that should be addressed before we get to the topic of whether or not guns should be banned/restricted.

 

[Buka]

The subject of training with firearms is probably similar to the subject of training in Martial Arts. Some do more, some do less. Some do it one way, some do it another, others are in the middle.Some are elite, some do the best they can.

May we all survive, prosper and get out alive.

 

[Steve]

Unfortunately, from what I read they don't have any distinct evidence for their estimates either. I always assumed it was upwards of 50%, but if not it feels like something that should be addressed before we get to the topic of whether or not guns should be banned/restricted.

My point was that when DD used the term "many" it's pretty much meaningless and subjective. The idea that most gun owners are well trained is a convenient fiction. No one really knows because actual statistics are discouraged. What that forum did show is simply how even among gun owners , there are wildly disparate opinions on the subject.

Im not suggesting guns should be or shouldn't be banned or restricted. I'm strictly saying that assertions about many gun owners being well trained is completely unsubstantiated bias.

@Buka has it right. Some is about all we can do... More than one.

 

[Dirty Dog]

What percentage of gun owners have taken training? - AR15.Com Archive

I think I made it clear that I was talking about people who carry, not just own. My father in law owns several guns. He doesn't train.
Of course, it's been about 25 years since there was any ammo in the house for the guns. I strip them and clean them when we visit. That's the only time they're even touched.
In case I wasn't clear before, allow me to be explicitly clear. I'm talking about people who regularly carry a gun as part of their personal defense.

 

[Tgace]

I'm strictly saying that assertions about many gun owners being well trained is completely unsubstantiated bias..

I can only comment on MY LEO experience...but that can cut both ways if the argument is to be "well cops are WELL trained".

When it comes to LEO's and weapons there is a difference between knowing WHEN to use force and HOW to actually use a weapon. In far too many PD's the good shooters are either getting advanced training only if they are on a special unit like SWAT....or they are training on their own.

Some are lucky that they remember which end the bullet comes out of.

It's a matter of time and money. Training means overtime, short staffing patrol while people train and ammo expense. While the politicians like to move their mouths in ways that sound like they want trained cops, they seldom want to pay any more than the cheapest they can get away with.

 

[Steve]

I think I made it clear that I was talking about people who carry, not just own. My father in law owns several guns. He doesn't train.
Of course, it's been about 25 years since there was any ammo in the house for the guns. I strip them and clean them when we visit. That's the only time they're even touched.
In case I wasn't clear before, allow me to be explicitly clear. I'm talking about people who regularly carry a gun as part of their personal defense.

how do you know this? As I said, I would welcome some reliable numbers. If I get some time, I'll look for some myself to support your most recent assertion, that people who regularly carry a gun are mostly well trained. Can you help me by pointing me to sime stats on how many people carry guns as part of their personal self defense, and then tell me what we'll trained means? because, even with the clarification, this still seems like self serving conjecture.

 

[pgsmith]

how do you know this? As I said, I would welcome some reliable numbers. If I get some time, I'll look for some myself to support your most recent assertion, that people who regularly carry a gun are mostly well trained. Can you help me by pointing me to sime stats on how many people carry guns as part of their personal self defense, and then tell me what we'll trained means? because, even with the clarification, this still seems like self serving conjecture.

While I agree with your assertion, I fail to see the point that you're trying to make. He made an unsupportable statement, you refuted it. To continue to belabor the point is totally irrelevant to just about any sort of discussion in my opinion.