Atlanta Airport Bans Guns

[Cryozombie]

Unless you're a LEO or bouncer who may rely on that training, how often does the average citizen rely on it? The same can be said for the gun.

This is very true. But, the Boy scout motto is "Be Prepared" and I'd rather have it and never need it, than need it and never have it.

I admit freely. Illinois has NO provisions for concealed carry, and I am often a criminal in my state. I weigh the risks, living in a neighborhood rife with gang violence against the paranoia voted in my the corrupt Mayor of Chicago and his lackeys Goblowabitch and Obama and choose to be a "bad guy" rather than a victim or statistic. *shrug* just me tho.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Unless you're a LEO or bouncer who may rely on that training, how often does the average citizen rely on it? The same can be said for the gun.

This is a summary of Dr. Gary Klecks book, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America.

http://homepage.usask.ca/~sta575/cdn-firearms/Kleck/point-blank-summary.html

In it, based on a study that he performed, there are between 600,000 to 1 million defensive uses of a firearm every year.

Each year about 1500-2800 criminals are lawfully killed by gun-wielding American civilians in justifiable or excusable homicides, far more than are killed by police officers. There are perhaps 600,000-1 million defensive uses of guns each year, about the same as the number of crimes committed with guns. These astounding totals may be less surprising in light of the following facts. About a third of U.S. households keep a gun at least partially for defensive reasons; at any one time nearly a third of gun owners have a firearm in their home (usually a handgun) which is loaded; about a quarter of retail businesses have a gun on the premises; and perhaps 5% of U.S. adults regularly carry a gun for self-defense.

 

[MJS]

This is very true. But, the Boy scout motto is "Be Prepared" and I'd rather have it and never need it, than need it and never have it.

I admit freely. Illinois has NO provisions for concealed carry, and I am often a criminal in my state. I weigh the risks, living in a neighborhood rife with gang violence against the paranoia voted in my the corrupt Mayor of Chicago and his lackeys Goblowabitch and Obama and choose to be a "bad guy" rather than a victim or statistic. *shrug* just me tho.

Good points especially the first paragraph!!

 

[Cryozombie]

This is very true. But, the Boy scout motto is "Be Prepared" and I'd rather have it and never need it, than need it and never have it.

Look, I'm quoting myself like a nerd. But... this concept came up today because of somthing in the police blotter in my local paper:

Battery: An 18-year-old man told police at 3:42 p.m. Tuesday he was assaulted by five men while walking on Hazard Road. The victim said his attackers beat him until he lost consciousness after he wouldn't give them $1, according to reports.

That is 2 streets away from where I live and a street I frequently walk/ride to get to the main highway. It's the second attack in that area this week, this one occuring 1 block over

A 14-year-old told police at 5:45 p.m. Monday that he had been assaulted while riding his bike. The youth told police he was riding his bike near Robin and Wren roads when seven persons in a white Chevrolet called to him from the car and then chased him. The victim told police that one of the car's passengers hit him in the lower back with a baseball bat.

Not to sidetrack the thread from this being about carrying in airports, but both of those are, IMO, valid reasons to carry. Granted In both cases, even if Concealed Carry were an option neither victim was old enough to do so, but perhaps a witness/bystander could have helped, as Hazard, at least, is a fairly busy street. But its also near 2 section 8 housing projects and a park well known for drug activity.

 

[thardey]

Bold part mine. So it goes back to what I've said before. If we take our MA training, it can be adapted to whats presented to us at the time. We can use something as mild as a controlling technique all the way to a killing or maiming. How can that be done with a gun? Shooting the person in the leg? The very same thing that people say about LEOs, and the reply is they shoot center mass.

So, if the situation has to fit the part you said which I bolded, even if it is carried, its still something that may not be able to be used. Someone pulls a gun on me during a simple verbal argument, they better plan on using it or prepare for a long court battle.

Bingo. Both legally and tactically, "shooting to wound" is a bad idea. The only time you should even consider using a weapon for any reason, (same as a knife) is if you are willing to use deadly force. That is not to say that you are intending to kill, but that you are forced to use a level of force that is likely to kill. There's a subtle, but important difference. Using a gun to win an argument is just plain stupid.

However, most legally-carrying people understand this.

That's why LEO's and self-defense minded individuals should also know how to use "appropriate force" without resorting to the gun. Empty hand fighting is like a rheostat, that can go from gentle, to extreme, and a wide range in between. Once any weapon (a baseball bat, or a knife, up to a gun) is included, it's more like an on/off switch.

I'd have to say yes and no to this. Comparing a gun to MA training is IMO, apples to oranges. MA training is something that we do take with us everywhere we go. Unless we actually say something, nobody will know that we train. A gun is something that we have an option to take with us. Taking it into an airport...well, there is a very good chance it'll be detected.

Why? We're not talking about inside the security zones. We're talking about outside the metal detectors.

 

[MJS]

Bingo. Both legally and tactically, "shooting to wound" is a bad idea. The only time you should even consider using a weapon for any reason, (same as a knife) is if you are willing to use deadly force. That is not to say that you are intending to kill, but that you are forced to use a level of force that is likely to kill. There's a subtle, but important difference. Using a gun to win an argument is just plain stupid.

However, most legally-carrying people understand this.

That's why LEO's and self-defense minded individuals should also know how to use "appropriate force" without resorting to the gun. Empty hand fighting is like a rheostat, that can go from gentle, to extreme, and a wide range in between. Once any weapon (a baseball bat, or a knife, up to a gun) is included, it's more like an on/off switch.



Why? We're not talking about inside the security zones. We're talking about outside the metal detectors.

Let me ask you a few questions.

1) Do you feel that people should be able to carry anywhere?

2) Should there be any places that guns should not be allowed?

3) Do you feel that crime will go down if more people are able to carry?

4) Do you feel that more citizens will take it upon themselves to involve themselves in a situation, where violence is present, when the citizen really has no place getting involved in the first place?

 

[thardey]

Let me ask you a few questions.

1) Do you feel that people should be able to carry anywhere?

No

2) Should there be any places that guns should not be allowed?

No

3) Do you feel that crime will go down if more people are able to carry?

Yes

4) Do you feel that more citizens will take it upon themselves to involve themselves in a situation, where violence is present, when the citizen really has no place getting involved in the first place?

Yes


#1: "People" should not be allowed to carry anywhere. That is I'm reading "anywhere" to really mean "everywhere". So there should be some places off limits to the general public. Courthouses, police stations, Federal Buildings, and inside the secured area of airports, don't bother me as "gun free zones."

(Otherwise, read literally, nobody would be ably to carry anywhere at all, and I don't think that's what you meant.)

#2 There should not be places (in the U.S.) where there is a total ban on all guns. At least LEO's and soldiers should be allowed to have them.

#3 I believe that violent crime will go down. Blue-collar crime, identity theft, etc, won't be affected. However, even if the rules are relaxed, there are many people who will chose not to take advantage of them. It's a societal issue to me, more than a legal issue.

#4 Technically, more people will get involved over their heads, simply because the percentage of "unwise" involvement will stay the same, while the overall number of people with guns will rise. However, If maybe 2% of shootings involving guns are dealing with innocent third-party intervention, then the remaining 98% will mean that more crime will have been stopped. If you count all defensive uses of a gun that amounts to one in 26,000. Statistically speaking, that's 25,999 crimes deterred, compared to 1 innocent person killed.

About 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by citizens
kill an innocent person. The odds of a defensive gun user killing an innocent person are less than
1 in 26,000.113 And that is with citizens using guns to prevent crimes almost 2,500,000 times
every year. http://www.keepandbeararms.com/downloads/GunFacts_v3.2.pdf

My turn: (Although I won't be able to see your response until Tuesday.)

1.) Do you believe that the act of carrying a gun gives the person an overpowering "Hero" mentality?

2.) Do you believe that unarmed people's lack of comfort with the proximity of guns is primarily a logical, or emotional one?

3.) Do you believe that the average daily gun carrier is incompetent with the use of his/her firearm? (compared to a.) LEO's and b.) soldiers.)

4.) Do you believe that the average daily gun carrier is unaware of their local, State, and Federal laws regarding use of force, even though that is the most basic instruction given before a permit is issued?

5.) Again, why would there be a high chance being detected in the unsecured area of an airport with a gun?

 

[MJS]

No

No


Yes

Yes


#1: "People" should not be allowed to carry anywhere. That is I'm reading "anywhere" to really mean "everywhere". So there should be some places off limits to the general public. Courthouses, police stations, Federal Buildings, and inside the secured area of airports, don't bother me as "gun free zones."

(Otherwise, read literally, nobody would be ably to carry anywhere at all, and I don't think that's what you meant.)

My bad. Yes, everywhere is what I should have said.

#2 There should not be places (in the U.S.) where there is a total ban on all guns. At least LEO's and soldiers should be allowed to have them.

Im sure some or a good portion of my posts seem anit-gun. I'm not anti gun. I do feel that there should be places that guns should not be allowed.

#3 I believe that violent crime will go down. Blue-collar crime, identity theft, etc, won't be affected. However, even if the rules are relaxed, there are many people who will chose not to take advantage of them. It's a societal issue to me, more than a legal issue.

Ok.

#4 Technically, more people will get involved over their heads, simply because the percentage of "unwise" involvement will stay the same, while the overall number of people with guns will rise. However, If maybe 2% of shootings involving guns are dealing with innocent third-party intervention, then the remaining 98% will mean that more crime will have been stopped. If you count all defensive uses of a gun that amounts to one in 26,000. Statistically speaking, that's 25,999 crimes deterred, compared to 1 innocent person killed.

Ok.

My turn: (Although I won't be able to see your response until Tuesday.)

No problem, as my time over the next week will be limited as well.

1.) Do you believe that the act of carrying a gun gives the person an overpowering "Hero" mentality?

Depends on the person.

2.) Do you believe that unarmed people's lack of comfort with the proximity of guns is primarily a logical, or emotional one?

Don't know.

3.) Do you believe that the average daily gun carrier is incompetent with the use of his/her firearm? (compared to a.) LEO's and b.) soldiers.)

Again, I'd say it depends on the person.

4.) Do you believe that the average daily gun carrier is unaware of their local, State, and Federal laws regarding use of force, even though that is the most basic instruction given before a permit is issued?

You would think that people would know. However, look at drivers ed. Basic rules of the road are taught, yet how many people violate them on a daily basis?

5.) Again, why would there be a high chance being detected in the unsecured area of an airport with a gun?

Forgive me if I missed it, but I don't believe I mentioned anything about a gun in the unsecure area.

 

[thardey]

My bad. Yes, everywhere is what I should have said.



Im sure some or a good portion of my posts seem anit-gun. I'm not anti gun. I do feel that there should be places that guns should not be allowed.

They don't seem aniti-gun at all, they just seem to be anti-stupid people with guns, which is fine with me.

You would think that people would know. However, look at drivers ed. Basic rules of the road are taught, yet how many people violate them on a daily basis?

Good point, but there's as much of a fundamental difference there as there is between MA and guns.

Sure, a car can be a deadly weapon, but that's not what it was designed for. When you turn the keys, or when you "practice" driving, you don't think "This could very well be used to intentionally kill someone." A car is designed to move you and yours from point A to point B. If you use the car improperly, you may kill someone while following that other objective.

Now, granted that a lot of people just buy a gun, load it, and stuff it in their closet for "protection." They've shot maybe 50 rounds through it, then they forget about it. These people are dangerous. They're the ones who have heard the rules, but forget them when the time comes.

Fortunately, that type of person rarely puts in the day-to-day effort that comes with daily carry.

--------------------------
This next bit isn't directed at anyone in particular - it's just something I've been thinking about since this thread started.

I know for myself, I had a lot of mis-conceptions about daily carry before I started doing it, myself. At first, I did have a strong sense of "responsibility" -- almost a "Hero" mentality. After about 4 days it wore off, to be replaced by a different sense of responsibility. The gun became a burden to bear, after the novelty wore off. Not a heavy burden, but a healthy one.

I became very aware of that family sitting next to me in the restaurant, with the kids, who would have been bothered if they knew that I had a gun, and so I worked hard to keep it hidden. Certain parts of town that didn't bother me before, now became places where a situation could turn bad very quickly. Now I don't like those places, and get uncomfortable being there. I found out that those were places I didn't need to be anyway. I was expecting the opposite feeling -- I figured I would get a sense of invulnerability that would have to be constantly checked and controlled.

In fact, having a gun makes me even more careful, vulnerable, and polite, (and I was a very polite guy before.) Confident, yes, but confident in a way that made me even less aggressive. It also made me constantly be aware of my surroundings, because even walking, I could feel the gun on my hip as a reminder. It is a constant reminder that the world is not safe, but that alertness and preparedness go a long way toward survival.

Even now, I often like to carry because I prefer the attitude that comes with it. That is, I like who I am better when I am armed. I am more considerate, more aware of others, more patient, more forgiving, more confident, with more self-control. In short, a better, more mature person.

I think, at some level, that is what keeps that minority of private citizens who carry, carrying.

People who try to carry to cover up some lack of personal power in their lives won't be able to keep it up, because a gun just doesn't make you feel invulnerable in the long run, in fact, it does the opposite. For a couple of days you feel powerful, but after that it won't give the "rush" that these people seek, and they'll leave their gun at home, looking for another type of power that is more visible to others.
-------------------------------

Forgive me if I missed it, but I don't believe I mentioned anything about a gun in the unsecure area.

That's what I got from this quote:

I'd have to say yes and no to this. Comparing a gun to MA training is IMO, apples to oranges. MA training is something that we do take with us everywhere we go. Unless we actually say something, nobody will know that we train. A gun is something that we have an option to take with us. Taking it into an airport...well, there is a very good chance it'll be detected.

Since the rest of the conversation was about the unsecured area, I read this as referring to the same. Forgive me if I assumed too much.

 

[MJS]

They don't seem aniti-gun at all, they just seem to be anti-stupid people with guns, which is fine with me.

Thanks.

Good point, but there's as much of a fundamental difference there as there is between MA and guns.

Sure, a car can be a deadly weapon, but that's not what it was designed for. When you turn the keys, or when you "practice" driving, you don't think "This could very well be used to intentionally kill someone." A car is designed to move you and yours from point A to point B. If you use the car improperly, you may kill someone while following that other objective.

Now, granted that a lot of people just buy a gun, load it, and stuff it in their closet for "protection." They've shot maybe 50 rounds through it, then they forget about it. These people are dangerous. They're the ones who have heard the rules, but forget them when the time comes.

Fortunately, that type of person rarely puts in the day-to-day effort that comes with daily carry.

Well, thats true. Regarding your original question that led me to the reply I gave, I have to wonder, and I really don't know because I've never taken a course, but how in-depth do they get with the laws in your basic firearms course?


--------------------------

This next bit isn't directed at anyone in particular - it's just something I've been thinking about since this thread started.

I know for myself, I had a lot of mis-conceptions about daily carry before I started doing it, myself. At first, I did have a strong sense of "responsibility" -- almost a "Hero" mentality. After about 4 days it wore off, to be replaced by a different sense of responsibility. The gun became a burden to bear, after the novelty wore off. Not a heavy burden, but a healthy one.

I became very aware of that family sitting next to me in the restaurant, with the kids, who would have been bothered if they knew that I had a gun, and so I worked hard to keep it hidden. Certain parts of town that didn't bother me before, now became places where a situation could turn bad very quickly. Now I don't like those places, and get uncomfortable being there. I found out that those were places I didn't need to be anyway. I was expecting the opposite feeling -- I figured I would get a sense of invulnerability that would have to be constantly checked and controlled.

In fact, having a gun makes me even more careful, vulnerable, and polite, (and I was a very polite guy before.) Confident, yes, but confident in a way that made me even less aggressive. It also made me constantly be aware of my surroundings, because even walking, I could feel the gun on my hip as a reminder. It is a constant reminder that the world is not safe, but that alertness and preparedness go a long way toward survival.

Even now, I often like to carry because I prefer the attitude that comes with it. That is, I like who I am better when I am armed. I am more considerate, more aware of others, more patient, more forgiving, more confident, with more self-control. In short, a better, more mature person.

I think, at some level, that is what keeps that minority of private citizens who carry, carrying.

People who try to carry to cover up some lack of personal power in their lives won't be able to keep it up, because a gun just doesn't make you feel invulnerable in the long run, in fact, it does the opposite. For a couple of days you feel powerful, but after that it won't give the "rush" that these people seek, and they'll leave their gun at home, looking for another type of power that is more visible to others.
-------------------------------


That's what I got from this quote:

Since the rest of the conversation was about the unsecured area, I read this as referring to the same. Forgive me if I assumed too much.

 

[thardey]

Well, thats true. Regarding your original question that led me to the reply I gave, I have to wonder, and I really don't know because I've never taken a course, but how in-depth do they get with the laws in your basic firearms course?

I can only speak for the class I've taken, but in Oregon all that's required is an NRA or government-approved handgun "safety" course. Officially around here they're known as a "handgun cleaning class" since that satisfies some strange requirement as the law is written.

Practically, the class is 4 hours of legal explanation about the use of force laws in Oregon. It includes lots of questions and answers, case histories, and a thorough examination of the Oregon Revised Statutes, along with a workbook that has all of this in writing.

This stuff covers a lot more than what you would find in something related to a driving manual, for instance. Very rarely in a driving class do you go to the laws as written -- only a summary, or study case histories. I really believe that this stuff needs to be taught in Marital arts, as well.

There are a couple of laws specific to firearms, but most of them relate to general use of force, physical, deadly, and weapons. It's a lot of the stuff you see written here - see this article on use of force if you want a general idea.

From what I understand, Oregon has one of the lowest requirements for class time, and almost all of it is related to legal issues. The end result is that here (in S. Oregon, at least), nearly all of the police and community leaders encourage responsible people to get and use a CCW permit.

 

[MJS]

Came across this update:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26144087/


"ATLANTA - A federal judge on Monday upheld a gun ban at the world’s busiest airport, dealing a blow to gun rights groups who argued a new Georgia law authorized them to pack heat in certain parts of the Atlanta airport.
U.S. District Judge Marvin Shoob expressed concern that allowing guns at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport could cause significant economic damage and could be a “serious threat to public safety and welfare.”

 

[KenpoTex]

Interesting discussion...I'll try to not rehash too much of what's already been said but I do have a few comments/thoughts.

People worry about a CCW-holder going nuts or getting mad and pulling out a gun when it's not necessary, or shooting someone over a simple argument. In reality, such incidents are so rare as to be statistically insignificant. CCW holders are arguably the most law-abiding group of people in the country. The number of CCW holders who have been convicted of a violent crime in which their weapon was a factor is literally a fraction of a percent. I'd just about guarentee that if you look at any other group of people who have a similar profession, association, etc. that the numbers are going to be higher.
I think tardey made an excellent point when he spoke about the fact that carrying a gun makes him more careful about avoiding potential problems. I know that I am the same way and that many, if not most, other CCW holders share similar thoughts.

Another argument seems to be "lets leave the gun carrying to the professionals." In other words, "LEOs have more training/skill than regular citizens." Unfortunately, this is very often not the case. I have no problem asserting that a CCW holder who actually takes his responsibility seriously and obtains professional instruction beyond the basic CCW course is probably just as competent (if not more so) than the average cop. The statistics have already been posted regarding the number of defensive gun uses per year as well as the percentage of "wrongful" deaths due to police shootings as opposed to citizen encounters...those numbers are, I feel, very telling.
Another piece of data would be the "hit percentages." The average accuracy rate for LE in this country is less than 50% (sometimes far less). In contrast, let's look at just one shooting school as an example. There is an instructor named Tom Givens who owns a training school in Memphis,Tn (Rangemasters). Over the years, something like 90 people who have been to [at least] one of his classes have been involved in SD shootings. His students enjoy a hit percentage of somewhere in the area of 80-90%.

As to the argument that if people carry guns, they will involve themselves unecessarily in incidents, I just don't see that happening all that often. There are places where a large number of people carry guns on a regular basis. For example, states like Florida and Texas where CCW has been in place for a long time and there are hundreds of thousands of CCW holders. Take another look at the stats already posted (number of incidents, low percentage of wrongful deaths, etc.), I'm not seeing a problem.

Then there is the argument that there are places where guns just shouldn't be allowed. Usually the list includes churches and schools ("why would anyone need a gun there?"). All I'm going to say about that is to look at the majority of the active-shooter incidents that have occurred (Va-Tech, Columbine, etc.) and then think about the one at the church in Colorado Springs, Co where a CCW holder used her weapon to stop the bad guy before he could get into the church with a rifle. I'm glad she didn't buy into the "I don't need a gun at church...what could possibly happen to me there" mindset.

I guess my thoughts on this issue can be summarized with the statement that: regardless of the location or situation currently being discussed, I feel that more good guys with guns (i.e. the ability to deal with a deadly encounter) the better.