Active shooter at Washington Navy Yard (1 Viewer)

[B-Deep]

Hopefully no one who is against a gun ownership database supports a mental health tracking database

'Cause if the government cannot be trusted to track voluntary ownership of guns i certainly would not trust them to track mental health issues. Throughout history they have treated the mentally ill far worse than they have treated gun owners. If they may be plotting to take our guns they CERTAINLY may be plotting to look our mentally impaired up away from [public view as they have done in the past.

 

[jon_mx]

More funding solves every problem! Well, except for the minor problem of where this limitless source of funding comes from......

Do you agree that more funding is necessary for treating mental illness, and that it might help to prevent these tragedies? Yes or no?

I don't care. The federal government is already grossly overspending. We can't spend ourselves to a perfect world. When you find a Trillion or two you are willing to cut off the annual federal budget, we can talk about funding for the mentally ill.

So you don't care that more spending, in terms of billions, not trillions, might save lives, because mental illness is not as important as making sure that we maintain a pretense of cutting spending?

I maintain that until we cut, I am completely uninterested in new ways to spend money. The amount of spending is creating unsurmountable obsticles for future generations. Our budget issues far outweighs any benefit which could be achieved by any shooting by the hip new spending program on a problem which is probably unfixable anyways. More spending has yet to fix poverty. More spending has yet to fix education. More spending has yet to fix Iraq. More spending has yet to fix our drug problem. More spending does not always work. We will always have mentally ill people and sometimes there just isn't a damn thing we can do about it.

 

[Rayderr]

Should the contractor he works for be taken to task for this? Is it reasonable for them to run their own background checks before they employ someone to work in secure areas?

I am not certain, just asking.

While it seems as if the government's background check/monitoring programs failed here, i am wondering if having a second layer at the company level, where they risk losing some money on these sweet government contacts, may be another way to provide a level of security. Kind of a free market approach, sorry, if your employee shoots up the joint you lose the contract, we'll find someone that does not send us shooters, so you had better make sure you send good people in

For secure jobs, companies default to whether or not the person has an active clearance. Security clearances are more thorough than what an employer can find out.

should they though?

the employer could have found out much of the info that raised red flags here, including the gun issues correct?

The gov't could've (and should've) found that info as well.

I agree

but all I ever hear is that the government is less efficient at doing everything than private business. Why not have a second check by holding business accountable for sending bad employees in?

and if two sources are looking at the same person for similar red flags, it would seem to increase the chances that one finds them.

The gov't checks employees that are going to work for them. In most cases, a gov't person is the one that makes the final determination if a person is allowed to be hired to work there or not (this is outside of the security check). Unless the gov't is going to give up that power (they won't) it seems a bit ridiculous to absolve them of responsibility and blame it on the company.

i am not absolving them

i think they have a supply issue as well as a quality control issue. This guy never should have been cleared by them, but he should have not been sent to them by their supplier. The company hires this guy and profits from him, why shuld they be absolved of responsibility? Two agencies checking is better than one

Contracting companies already have to pay to get their employees cleared (this is one of the main reasons why people who have an active clearance are so sought after.) I think the fed gov't demanding a company pay for the clearance and then telling the company that they have to do their own background check is a bit ridiculous.

 

[Steve Tasker]

I didn’t even know it was an argument that violent video games and movies can influence kids negatively. The whole reason I crashed my bike as a kid was being influenced by evil knievel on TV. I did stupid ski jumps because of Warren Miller.

The harder question is what you can do about it. I am not arguing you should ban evil kinievel, warren miller or video games, but to dismiss video games as complete non issue just isn’t true. Study after study says otherwise.

Really?

Yes, really

You might find this an interesting read as it points directly to the shooters and they admit the games warped or effected their mind set.

Yeah for the most part those studies are junk science that is paid for by someone with an agenda. The school of thought is that violent video games don't create shooters. Any more than violent books or movies do. Can people who are already off be effected by them? Sure. But then they can also be effected by the evening news for that matter. We would still have mass shootings without them. We make it so easy to score all the tools needed. It would just be some other excuse found by those who don't want to blame a permissive gun buying environment that is designed to get guns into as many people's hands as possible.

The link Johnny Bing linked doesn't even talk about a study. It's an article where the author spouts off about something he has no idea about and quotes some professor from Missouri who thinks the two may be related. But, well, that's a Fox News article for you.

You are correct, it is not an actual study. I thought the actual shooter admitting that violent video games played a role in his act was sufficient.

My post came off a little harsh, I apologize. It wasn't directed at you, but more at Fox News. The only reason I brought up an actual "study" was due to Fennis' comment.

 

[B-Deep]

Should the contractor he works for be taken to task for this? Is it reasonable for them to run their own background checks before they employ someone to work in secure areas?

I am not certain, just asking.

While it seems as if the government's background check/monitoring programs failed here, i am wondering if having a second layer at the company level, where they risk losing some money on these sweet government contacts, may be another way to provide a level of security. Kind of a free market approach, sorry, if your employee shoots up the joint you lose the contract, we'll find someone that does not send us shooters, so you had better make sure you send good people in

For secure jobs, companies default to whether or not the person has an active clearance. Security clearances are more thorough than what an employer can find out.

should they though?

the employer could have found out much of the info that raised red flags here, including the gun issues correct?

The gov't could've (and should've) found that info as well.

I agree

but all I ever hear is that the government is less efficient at doing everything than private business. Why not have a second check by holding business accountable for sending bad employees in?

and if two sources are looking at the same person for similar red flags, it would seem to increase the chances that one finds them.

The gov't checks employees that are going to work for them. In most cases, a gov't person is the one that makes the final determination if a person is allowed to be hired to work there or not (this is outside of the security check). Unless the gov't is going to give up that power (they won't) it seems a bit ridiculous to absolve them of responsibility and blame it on the company.

i am not absolving them

i think they have a supply issue as well as a quality control issue. This guy never should have been cleared by them, but he should have not been sent to them by their supplier. The company hires this guy and profits from him, why shuld they be absolved of responsibility? Two agencies checking is better than one

Contracting companies already have to pay to get their employees cleared (this is one of the main reasons why people who have an active clearance are so sought after.) I think the fed gov't demanding a company pay for the clearance and then telling the company that they have to do their own background check is a bit ridiculous.

is it?

it may have caught this guy

i think not requiring a company to do a background check before asking to have them work in a classified or restricted area is a bit ridiculous. Around here volunteers to work with children have to go through background checks many places. Why should a company that we the tax payers are paying VERY good money to not have to have some requirement to send only qualified candidates?

if they are not doing that find another company that will.Free market.

 

[[icon]]

I hate to even pay lip service to the incredibly stupid "gun free zones" argument because (1) it assumes that these people are rational, and (2) the vast majority of public gathering places are gun free, so the odds are that most of these things will happen in one.

WAT?

I carry daily... I VERY rarely have to remove my sidearm due to a "Gun free zone". I carry in bars, restaurants, stores, work, my bank, when walking around downtown. The only time I have to lock up my pistol is on the very rare occasion when I go into a federally owned building.

Gun free zones are the exception, not the rule.

If you carry in bars in texas you will lose your CHL. Carrying in bars is really dumb.

I don't live in Texas. I live in TN. It is perfectly legal to carry into any restaurant or bar unless posted (few places are posted).

Your opinion is that it's dumb. I personally disagree. We are both entitled to our opinions.

 

[NCCommish]

I hate to even pay lip service to the incredibly stupid "gun free zones" argument because (1) it assumes that these people are rational, and (2) the vast majority of public gathering places are gun free, so the odds are that most of these things will happen in one.

WAT?

I carry daily... I VERY rarely have to remove my sidearm due to a "Gun free zone". I carry in bars, restaurants, stores, work, my bank, when walking around downtown. The only time I have to lock up my pistol is on the very rare occasion when I go into a federally owned building.

Gun free zones are the exception, not the rule.

If you carry in bars in texas you will lose your CHL. Carrying in bars is really dumb.

I don't live in Texas. I live in TN. It is perfectly legal to carry into any restaurant or bar unless posted (few places are posted).

Your opinion is that it's dumb. I personally disagree. We are both entitled to our opinions.

No it's stupid regardless of your opinion. The first rule of gun ownership is never drink and shoot.

 

[[icon]]

I hate to even pay lip service to the incredibly stupid "gun free zones" argument because (1) it assumes that these people are rational, and (2) the vast majority of public gathering places are gun free, so the odds are that most of these things will happen in one.

WAT?

I carry daily... I VERY rarely have to remove my sidearm due to a "Gun free zone". I carry in bars, restaurants, stores, work, my bank, when walking around downtown. The only time I have to lock up my pistol is on the very rare occasion when I go into a federally owned building.

Gun free zones are the exception, not the rule.

If you carry in bars in texas you will lose your CHL. Carrying in bars is really dumb.

I don't live in Texas. I live in TN. It is perfectly legal to carry into any restaurant or bar unless posted (few places are posted).Your opinion is that it's dumb. I personally disagree. We are both entitled to our opinions.

No it's stupid regardless of your opinion. The first rule of gun ownership is never drink and shoot.

Who said anything about drinking. If I am carrying in a bar I'm not drinking alcohol. I agree that would be stupid.

 

[KCitons]

I hate to even pay lip service to the incredibly stupid "gun free zones" argument because (1) it assumes that these people are rational, and (2) the vast majority of public gathering places are gun free, so the odds are that most of these things will happen in one.

WAT?

I carry daily... I VERY rarely have to remove my sidearm due to a "Gun free zone". I carry in bars, restaurants, stores, work, my bank, when walking around downtown. The only time I have to lock up my pistol is on the very rare occasion when I go into a federally owned building.

Gun free zones are the exception, not the rule.

If you carry in bars in texas you will lose your CHL. Carrying in bars is really dumb.

I don't live in Texas. I live in TN. It is perfectly legal to carry into any restaurant or bar unless posted (few places are posted).

Your opinion is that it's dumb. I personally disagree. We are both entitled to our opinions.

No it's stupid regardless of your opinion. The first rule of gun ownership is never drink and shoot.

Hope their aren't any Wisconsin deer hunters reading this.

 

[NCCommish]

I hate to even pay lip service to the incredibly stupid "gun free zones" argument because (1) it assumes that these people are rational, and (2) the vast majority of public gathering places are gun free, so the odds are that most of these things will happen in one.

WAT?

I carry daily... I VERY rarely have to remove my sidearm due to a "Gun free zone". I carry in bars, restaurants, stores, work, my bank, when walking around downtown. The only time I have to lock up my pistol is on the very rare occasion when I go into a federally owned building.

Gun free zones are the exception, not the rule.

If you carry in bars in texas you will lose your CHL. Carrying in bars is really dumb.

I don't live in Texas. I live in TN. It is perfectly legal to carry into any restaurant or bar unless posted (few places are posted).Your opinion is that it's dumb. I personally disagree. We are both entitled to our opinions.

No it's stupid regardless of your opinion. The first rule of gun ownership is never drink and shoot.

Who said anything about drinking. If I am carrying in a bar I'm not drinking alcohol. I agree that would be stupid.

Sorry alcohol and guns don't mix. I think that gets proven nearly daily in this country.

And seriously this isn't the a failed nation state. You really aren't in all that much danger that you need to carry your gun everywhere you go anyway.

 

[dozer]

I just can't imagine being so scared that i feel like I need to arm myself everywhere I go. Seems kind of sissified.

 

[KCitons]

I just can't imagine being so scared that i feel like I need to arm myself everywhere I go. Seems kind of sissified.

The problem is, you don't know when you will need to have a gun. I'm sure lots of people thought they would be safe in a school, or a mall, or a movie theater, or a military base.

It's not a matter of being scared, it's about being prepared.

 

[[icon]]

I hate to even pay lip service to the incredibly stupid "gun free zones" argument because (1) it assumes that these people are rational, and (2) the vast majority of public gathering places are gun free, so the odds are that most of these things will happen in one.

WAT?

I carry daily... I VERY rarely have to remove my sidearm due to a "Gun free zone". I carry in bars, restaurants, stores, work, my bank, when walking around downtown. The only time I have to lock up my pistol is on the very rare occasion when I go into a federally owned building.

Gun free zones are the exception, not the rule.

If you carry in bars in texas you will lose your CHL. Carrying in bars is really dumb.

I don't live in Texas. I live in TN. It is perfectly legal to carry into any restaurant or bar unless posted (few places are posted).Your opinion is that it's dumb. I personally disagree. We are both entitled to our opinions.

No it's stupid regardless of your opinion. The first rule of gun ownership is never drink and shoot.

Who said anything about drinking. If I am carrying in a bar I'm not drinking alcohol. I agree that would be stupid.

Sorry alcohol and guns don't mix. I think that gets proven nearly daily in this country.

And seriously this isn't the a failed nation state. You really aren't in all that much danger that you need to carry your gun everywhere you go anyway.

The friend of mine that was gunned down in the parking lot of a bar (not by a patron but by an off duty officer who was working security) a few years back might disagree with your assertion.

 

[FUBAR]

1. How should we determine whether or not a person is mentally ill?

2. Should the authorities have a list of mentally ill people?

3. Should the government prohibit mentally ill people from working at certain jobs? Should they be terminated, offered help, forced into mental institutions, or what?

4. Should the police have lists of mentally ill people and watch them carefully?

5. Should mentally ill people be prevented from owning firearms? And is there a way to do this without infringing upon the rights of the majority?

I don't know the answer to any of these questions, but it seems to me that if we truly want to deal with the source of these mass shootings, we had better start thinking about them.

3 is easily yes to keeping them from certain jobs.5 should also be yes.

What would be the definition of mentally ill? Serious question. That's a tough line to draw. That article above stated that High Risk Teens were teens with ADD.

I don't think you could have any set line. It would have to be on a case by case basis. I've mentioned in the past that mental health officials should be allowed to put a patient/client on a no-gun list if they feel that person is a threat to themselves or others. Won't stop everything, but it would've stopped the VT shooter, and probably countless more that committed smaller shooting offenses.

That makes sense. I guess the only problem at that point becomes the HIPAA laws.

I'm no expert on HIPAA, but do they block this type of law? It doesn't in the military.

 

[FUBAR]

Sorry, haven't seen this stated as fact yet, but did the background check find these previous incidents (shooting out the tires and "accidentally" firing gun while cleaning it) and deem them ok or just not find them at all?

Don't think that's been determined yet. i honestly wouldn't be surprised if it's the former. The people who do the checking seem to be more concerned about a person's finances than anything. "What? You were 10 days late on a car payment? Well, that means you are reckless with money and are likely to sell secrets to pay off your debts. DENIED!"

Nice exaggeration, but finances are a prime area of concern when it comes to access to sensitive information.Also, I would guess that the government knew about the incidents and the discharge from the navy.

 

[TheIronSheik]

1. How should we determine whether or not a person is mentally ill?

2. Should the authorities have a list of mentally ill people?

3. Should the government prohibit mentally ill people from working at certain jobs? Should they be terminated, offered help, forced into mental institutions, or what?

4. Should the police have lists of mentally ill people and watch them carefully?

5. Should mentally ill people be prevented from owning firearms? And is there a way to do this without infringing upon the rights of the majority?

I don't know the answer to any of these questions, but it seems to me that if we truly want to deal with the source of these mass shootings, we had better start thinking about them.

3 is easily yes to keeping them from certain jobs.5 should also be yes.

What would be the definition of mentally ill? Serious question. That's a tough line to draw. That article above stated that High Risk Teens were teens with ADD.

I don't think you could have any set line. It would have to be on a case by case basis. I've mentioned in the past that mental health officials should be allowed to put a patient/client on a no-gun list if they feel that person is a threat to themselves or others. Won't stop everything, but it would've stopped the VT shooter, and probably countless more that committed smaller shooting offenses.

That makes sense. I guess the only problem at that point becomes the HIPAA laws.

I'm no expert on HIPAA, but do they block this type of law? It doesn't in the military.

I'm no HIPAA expert either, but I assume that a doctor can't make claims to authorities that a patient might be unstable. I think they can if they feel the person is a direct threat, but I really don't know.

 

[culdeus]

No assault rifle used says FBI.

May have just entered with a shotgun and pulls handguns off mp.

 

[NCCommish]

I hate to even pay lip service to the incredibly stupid "gun free zones" argument because (1) it assumes that these people are rational, and (2) the vast majority of public gathering places are gun free, so the odds are that most of these things will happen in one.

WAT?

I carry daily... I VERY rarely have to remove my sidearm due to a "Gun free zone". I carry in bars, restaurants, stores, work, my bank, when walking around downtown. The only time I have to lock up my pistol is on the very rare occasion when I go into a federally owned building.

Gun free zones are the exception, not the rule.

If you carry in bars in texas you will lose your CHL. Carrying in bars is really dumb.

I don't live in Texas. I live in TN. It is perfectly legal to carry into any restaurant or bar unless posted (few places are posted).Your opinion is that it's dumb. I personally disagree. We are both entitled to our opinions.

No it's stupid regardless of your opinion. The first rule of gun ownership is never drink and shoot.

Who said anything about drinking. If I am carrying in a bar I'm not drinking alcohol. I agree that would be stupid.

Sorry alcohol and guns don't mix. I think that gets proven nearly daily in this country.

And seriously this isn't the a failed nation state. You really aren't in all that much danger that you need to carry your gun everywhere you go anyway.

The friend of mine that was gunned down in the parking lot of a bar (not by a patron but by an off duty officer who was working security) a few years back might disagree with your assertion.

My uncle was killed at the liquor store he owned. I still don't feel the need to carry a gun to a liquor store. Because the chances are pretty good that just like the last 50 years of my life I won't need it.

 

[dozer]

I just can't imagine being so scared that i feel like I need to arm myself everywhere I go. Seems kind of sissified.

The problem is, you don't know when you will need to have a gun. I'm sure lots of people thought they would be safe in a school, or a mall, or a movie theater, or a military base.It's not a matter of being scared, it's about being prepared.

That sounds like massive paranoia, or you like to feel like, no matter what because you have your gun you won't get your ### kicked.

 

[NCCommish]

I just can't imagine being so scared that i feel like I need to arm myself everywhere I go. Seems kind of sissified.

The problem is, you don't know when you will need to have a gun. I'm sure lots of people thought they would be safe in a school, or a mall, or a movie theater, or a military base.

It's not a matter of being scared, it's about being prepared.

That sounds like massive paranoia, or you just like to feel like no matter what because you have your gun you won't get your ### kicked.

Too many people think just carrying a gun is the thing. They don't have the training to be calm and careful when it goes down, they don't put in the effort at the range to be good enough shooters when it goes down and when the time comes they will be just as dead as everyone else or worse they will kill the wrong person. It's ridiculous to think they are going to be the big hero more likely to be the goat.

 

[FUBAR]

I just can't imagine being so scared that i feel like I need to arm myself everywhere I go. Seems kind of sissified.

The problem is, you don't know when you will need to have a gun. I'm sure lots of people thought they would be safe in a school, or a mall, or a movie theater, or a military base.It's not a matter of being scared, it's about being prepared.

That sounds like massive paranoia, or you like to feel like, no matter what because you have your gun you won't get your ### kicked.

How many of the "if more people had guns, none of this would happen" crowd would actually be able to respond in a crisis? Without putting more people at risk, that is.

 

[Jewell]

Aside from Alexis being able to get and maintain a security clearance despite a criminal record involving discharging his gun and apparently known mental issues, it's disconcerting that Alexis was able to recently purchase a gun with those red flags on his record.

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

Aaron Alexiss Gun Purchase in Virginia Appears Legal

http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/BL-WB-40424

The early investigation indicates that Aaron Alexis legally bought a shotgun at a Lorton, Va., firearms dealer last week.

The law allows a buyer to purchase a long gun which is a rifle or shotgun without being a resident of the state where the firearm is bought.

The question then falls to whether Mr. Alexis was in any prohibited category that would have prevented him from buying a firearm.

His record paints a picture of a troubled individual who had several brushes with the law but none that crossed into felony conviction territory that would have prohibited him from buying a gun from a federally licensed gun dealer.

Although he recently began seeking mental health treatment through the Veterans Administration, seeking treatment and even having a diagnosed mental illness dont disqualify someone from purchasing a gun.

Since 1968, federal law has prohibited the sale of guns to anyone declared mentally unfit. But first, a court has to decide someone is unfita very high standard. Then, the residents state is supposed to supply the mental-health records to a Federal Bureau of Investigation database, created in 1998 to help carry out background checks of would-be gun buyers.

A diagnosis of mental illness by itself isnt enough to bar a gun purchase, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which enforces gun laws. Voluntary commitments and mental-health assessments are not disqualifiers either.

A person has to be adjudicated mentally ill or be involuntarily committed to enter the prohibited category.

A small number of states have greater restrictions. New York passed a law earlier this year requiring mental-health professionals warn third parties if a patient is believed dangerous. Critics said that law would prompt patients to stay away from treatment. Gun-rights advocates say although there are concerns that law could lead to gun-control abuses, so far they have seen none.

 

[Slapdash]

I hate to even pay lip service to the incredibly stupid "gun free zones" argument because (1) it assumes that these people are rational, and (2) the vast majority of public gathering places are gun free, so the odds are that most of these things will happen in one.

WAT?

I carry daily... I VERY rarely have to remove my sidearm due to a "Gun free zone". I carry in bars, restaurants, stores, work, my bank, when walking around downtown. The only time I have to lock up my pistol is on the very rare occasion when I go into a federally owned building.

Gun free zones are the exception, not the rule.

If you carry in bars in texas you will lose your CHL. Carrying in bars is really dumb.

I don't live in Texas. I live in TN. It is perfectly legal to carry into any restaurant or bar unless posted (few places are posted).Your opinion is that it's dumb. I personally disagree. We are both entitled to our opinions.

No it's stupid regardless of your opinion. The first rule of gun ownership is never drink and shoot.

Who said anything about drinking. If I am carrying in a bar I'm not drinking alcohol. I agree that would be stupid.

Sorry alcohol and guns don't mix. I think that gets proven nearly daily in this country.

And seriously this isn't the a failed nation state. You really aren't in all that much danger that you need to carry your gun everywhere you go anyway.

The friend of mine that was gunned down in the parking lot of a bar (not by a patron but by an off duty officer who was working security) a few years back might disagree with your assertion.

WTF?

 

[Drifter]

I just can't imagine being so scared that i feel like I need to arm myself everywhere I go. Seems kind of sissified.

The problem is, you don't know when you will need to have a gun. I'm sure lots of people thought they would be safe in a school, or a mall, or a movie theater, or a military base.

It's not a matter of being scared, it's about being prepared.

That sounds like massive paranoia, or you just like to feel like no matter what because you have your gun you won't get your ### kicked.

Too many people think just carrying a gun is the thing. They don't have the training to be calm and careful when it goes down, they don't put in the effort at the range to be good enough shooters when it goes down and when the time comes they will be just as dead as everyone else or worse they will kill the wrong person. It's ridiculous to think they are going to be the big hero more likely to be the goat.

Police actually get very little mandated dynamic shooting practice (SWAT and the like excepted).

 

[NCCommish]

I just can't imagine being so scared that i feel like I need to arm myself everywhere I go. Seems kind of sissified.

The problem is, you don't know when you will need to have a gun. I'm sure lots of people thought they would be safe in a school, or a mall, or a movie theater, or a military base.

It's not a matter of being scared, it's about being prepared.

That sounds like massive paranoia, or you just like to feel like no matter what because you have your gun you won't get your ### kicked.

Too many people think just carrying a gun is the thing. They don't have the training to be calm and careful when it goes down, they don't put in the effort at the range to be good enough shooters when it goes down and when the time comes they will be just as dead as everyone else or worse they will kill the wrong person. It's ridiculous to think they are going to be the big hero more likely to be the goat.

Police actually get very little mandated dynamic shooting practice (SWAT and the like excepted).

Yeah and that's why they do things like shoot civilian bystanders and miss the guy right in front of them. That's why they have shootouts at close range, unload their gun and never hit the perp. They have more training than your average wannabe Wyatt Earp and they still generally suck with their gun. What does that tell you about the amateurs chances?

 

[KCitons]

I just can't imagine being so scared that i feel like I need to arm myself everywhere I go. Seems kind of sissified.

The problem is, you don't know when you will need to have a gun. I'm sure lots of people thought they would be safe in a school, or a mall, or a movie theater, or a military base.It's not a matter of being scared, it's about being prepared.

That sounds like massive paranoia, or you like to feel like, no matter what because you have your gun you won't get your ### kicked.

I think you are confusing two different scenarios. I'm not advocating carrying a gun in order to get the upper hand in an argument, or to go looking for a fight. I'm talking about using it to prevent becoming a statistic.

I've mentioned in other threads the events that have happened that hit too close to home. (wife carjacked, mall that I worked at had a mass shooting, dealing with shoplifters)

You only need to pick up a newspaper or watch the 10 o'clock news to see the never ending stream of victims. Is carrying a gun a guarantee of protection? No. But, not carrying a gun is a guarantee of never having the option.

 

[Drifter]

I just can't imagine being so scared that i feel like I need to arm myself everywhere I go. Seems kind of sissified.

The problem is, you don't know when you will need to have a gun. I'm sure lots of people thought they would be safe in a school, or a mall, or a movie theater, or a military base.

It's not a matter of being scared, it's about being prepared.

That sounds like massive paranoia, or you just like to feel like no matter what because you have your gun you won't get your ### kicked.

Too many people think just carrying a gun is the thing. They don't have the training to be calm and careful when it goes down, they don't put in the effort at the range to be good enough shooters when it goes down and when the time comes they will be just as dead as everyone else or worse they will kill the wrong person. It's ridiculous to think they are going to be the big hero more likely to be the goat.

Police actually get very little mandated dynamic shooting practice (SWAT and the like excepted).

Yeah and that's why they do things like shoot civilian bystanders and miss the guy right in front of them. That's why they have shootouts at close range, unload their gun and never hit the perp. They have more training than your average wannabe Wyatt Earp and they still generally suck with their gun. What does that tell you about the amateurs chances?

Actually they do. I read a study back that examined situations where criminals and police exchange fire and the criminals (untrained civilians) actually displayed better accuracy than the police.

 

[DrJ]

I just can't imagine being so scared that i feel like I need to arm myself everywhere I go. Seems kind of sissified.

The problem is, you don't know when you will need to have a gun. I'm sure lots of people thought they would be safe in a school, or a mall, or a movie theater, or a military base.It's not a matter of being scared, it's about being prepared.

That sounds like massive paranoia, or you like to feel like, no matter what because you have your gun you won't get your ### kicked.

How many of the "if more people had guns, none of this would happen" crowd would actually be able to respond in a crisis? Without putting more people at risk, that is.

The idea is that there will be less instances of "crisis" because the shooter realizes they stand little chance against the army of citizens.

 

[Jewell]

Actually they do. I read a study back that examined situations where criminals and police exchange fire and the criminals (untrained civilians) actually displayed better accuracy than the police.

The type of person who exchanges fire with the police probably has more experience shooting at humans than police officers do.

 

[Drifter]

Actually they do. I read a study back that examined situations where criminals and police exchange fire and the criminals (untrained civilians) actually displayed better accuracy than the police.

The type of person who exchanges fire with the police probably has more experience shooting at humans than police officers do.

True but goes to my point is that people make assumptions about the training and skills that your average police officer has that far exceed the reality.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Actually they do. I read a study back that examined situations where criminals and police exchange fire and the criminals (untrained civilians) actually displayed better accuracy than the police.

The type of person who exchanges fire with the police probably has more experience shooting at humans than police officers do.

True but goes to my point is that people make assumptions about the training and skills that your average police officer has that far exceed the reality.

I have family that are cops and from what they have told me for the most part the training is focusing on enforcing the law and police procedures - not much time studying combat tactics like "cutting the pie". Unless of course they are SWAT team members - but a vast majority of those are ex-military anyway.

 

[[icon]]

I hate to even pay lip service to the incredibly stupid "gun free zones" argument because (1) it assumes that these people are rational, and (2) the vast majority of public gathering places are gun free, so the odds are that most of these things will happen in one.

WAT?

I carry daily... I VERY rarely have to remove my sidearm due to a "Gun free zone". I carry in bars, restaurants, stores, work, my bank, when walking around downtown. The only time I have to lock up my pistol is on the very rare occasion when I go into a federally owned building.

Gun free zones are the exception, not the rule.

If you carry in bars in texas you will lose your CHL. Carrying in bars is really dumb.

I don't live in Texas. I live in TN. It is perfectly legal to carry into any restaurant or bar unless posted (few places are posted).Your opinion is that it's dumb. I personally disagree. We are both entitled to our opinions.

No it's stupid regardless of your opinion. The first rule of gun ownership is never drink and shoot.

Who said anything about drinking. If I am carrying in a bar I'm not drinking alcohol. I agree that would be stupid.

Sorry alcohol and guns don't mix. I think that gets proven nearly daily in this country.

And seriously this isn't the a failed nation state. You really aren't in all that much danger that you need to carry your gun everywhere you go anyway.

The friend of mine that was gunned down in the parking lot of a bar (not by a patron but by an off duty officer who was working security) a few years back might disagree with your assertion.

My uncle was killed at the liquor store he owned. I still don't feel the need to carry a gun to a liquor store. Because the chances are pretty good that just like the last 50 years of my life I won't need it.

That's your opinion and you're certainly entitled to it. I have my own stance on the matter and thankfully the laws of this nation still permit me to carry for self defense if I so choose.

 

[DrJ]

Threads like these do make you want to go out and stockpile a bunch of weapons, preferably unregistered, just in case the crazies actually get their way at some point in the future.

 

[Slapdash]

Threads like these do make you want to go out and stockpile a bunch of weapons, preferably unregistered, just in case the crazies actually get their way at some point in the future.

It is expensive to do so nowadays. Better to wait till 2016.

But I agree. Some people are really scary how anti-gun they are.

 

[[icon]]

Actually they do. I read a study back that examined situations where criminals and police exchange fire and the criminals (untrained civilians) actually displayed better accuracy than the police.

The type of person who exchanges fire with the police probably has more experience shooting at humans than police officers do.

A buddy whos a swat team lead made a comment that alluded to this, that PDs generally don't mandate enough range time for their officers, and often many civilians are more experienced with their weapons.

I know for a fact I have more range time then all but 1 of my 7 police buddies over the last year or two. I am also a better shot than any that I have shot against at the range. That is unfortunate IMO as there is a lot of readily available training that makes people much more responsible and accurate with a handgun.

 

[[icon]]

Threads like these do make you want to go out and stockpile a bunch of weapons, preferably unregistered, just in case the crazies actually get their way at some point in the future.

Everything but my AR15 are unregistered for this exact reason.

 

[Fennis]

Threads like these do make you want to go out and stockpile a bunch of weapons, preferably unregistered, just in case the crazies actually get their way at some point in the future.

It is expensive to do so nowadays. Better to wait till 2016.

But I agree. Some people are really scary how anti-gun they are.

I think he means protecting himself from the pro gun crazies.

 

[DrJ]

Actually they do. I read a study back that examined situations where criminals and police exchange fire and the criminals (untrained civilians) actually displayed better accuracy than the police.

The type of person who exchanges fire with the police probably has more experience shooting at humans than police officers do.

A buddy whos a swat team lead made a comment that alluded to this, that PDs generally don't mandate enough range time for their officers, and often many civilians are more experienced with their weapons.

I know for a fact I have more range time then all but 1 of my 7 police buddies over the last year or two. I am also a better shot than any that I have shot against at the range. That is unfortunate IMO as there is a lot of readily available training that makes people much more responsible and accurate with a handgun.

It probably has to do with ROI, thanks in part to our army of lawyers. Proper procedure likely comes up all of the time for these guys. How often have your police buddies been in actual fire fights?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

I just can't imagine being so scared that i feel like I need to arm myself everywhere I go. Seems kind of sissified.

I just can't imagine being so scared that i feel like I need everyone around me to be disarmed everywhere I go. Seems kind of sissified.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

I just can't imagine being so scared that i feel like I need to arm myself everywhere I go. Seems kind of sissified.

The problem is, you don't know when you will need to have a gun. I'm sure lots of people thought they would be safe in a school, or a mall, or a movie theater, or a military base.It's not a matter of being scared, it's about being prepared.

That sounds like massive paranoia, or you just like to feel like no matter what because you have your gun you won't get your ### kicked.

Too many people think just carrying a gun is the thing. They don't have the training to be calm and careful when it goes down, they don't put in the effort at the range to be good enough shooters when it goes down and when the time comes they will be just as dead as everyone else or worse they will kill the wrong person. It's ridiculous to think they are going to be the big hero more likely to be the goat.

History of legal gun owners stopping shooting sprees disagrees with your paranoid logic.

 

[dozer]

Threads like these do make you want to go out and stockpile a bunch of weapons, preferably unregistered, just in case the crazies actually get their way at some point in the future.

It is expensive to do so nowadays. Better to wait till 2016.

But I agree. Some people are really scary how anti-gun they are.

Yeah, those guys walking around carrying no gun scare the #### out of me.

 

[Slapdash]

Threads like these do make you want to go out and stockpile a bunch of weapons, preferably unregistered, just in case the crazies actually get their way at some point in the future.

It is expensive to do so nowadays. Better to wait till 2016.

But I agree. Some people are really scary how anti-gun they are.

I think he means protecting himself from the pro gun crazies.

Ah.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Threads like these do make you want to go out and stockpile a bunch of weapons, preferably unregistered, just in case the crazies actually get their way at some point in the future.

It is expensive to do so nowadays. Better to wait till 2016.

But I agree. Some people are really scary how anti-gun they are.

I think he means protecting himself from the pro gun crazies.

If Sandy Hook did not change things then nothing will for these people. A classroom full of dead preschoolers and the NRA held their congressman and told them to toe the line.

 

[DrJ]

I hate to even pay lip service to the incredibly stupid "gun free zones" argument because (1) it assumes that these people are rational, and (2) the vast majority of public gathering places are gun free, so the odds are that most of these things will happen in one.

WAT?

I carry daily... I VERY rarely have to remove my sidearm due to a "Gun free zone". I carry in bars, restaurants, stores, work, my bank, when walking around downtown. The only time I have to lock up my pistol is on the very rare occasion when I go into a federally owned building.

Gun free zones are the exception, not the rule.

If you carry in bars in texas you will lose your CHL. Carrying in bars is really dumb.

I don't live in Texas. I live in TN. It is perfectly legal to carry into any restaurant or bar unless posted (few places are posted).Your opinion is that it's dumb. I personally disagree. We are both entitled to our opinions.

No it's stupid regardless of your opinion. The first rule of gun ownership is never drink and shoot.

Who said anything about drinking. If I am carrying in a bar I'm not drinking alcohol. I agree that would be stupid.

Sorry alcohol and guns don't mix. I think that gets proven nearly daily in this country.

And seriously this isn't the a failed nation state. You really aren't in all that much danger that you need to carry your gun everywhere you go anyway.

The friend of mine that was gunned down in the parking lot of a bar (not by a patron but by an off duty officer who was working security) a few years back might disagree with your assertion.

My uncle was killed at the liquor store he owned. I still don't feel the need to carry a gun to a liquor store. Because the chances are pretty good that just like the last 50 years of my life I won't need it.

Sounds like it's pretty safe out there even with all of the guns rolling around.

 

[Slapdash]

Threads like these do make you want to go out and stockpile a bunch of weapons, preferably unregistered, just in case the crazies actually get their way at some point in the future.

It is expensive to do so nowadays. Better to wait till 2016.

But I agree. Some people are really scary how anti-gun they are.

Yeah, those guys walking around carrying no gun scare the #### out of me.

It is fine if someone doesn't have a gun, but I don't like the contempt some people feel towards the second amendment.

 

[DrJ]

Threads like these do make you want to go out and stockpile a bunch of weapons, preferably unregistered, just in case the crazies actually get their way at some point in the future.

It is expensive to do so nowadays. Better to wait till 2016.

But I agree. Some people are really scary how anti-gun they are.

I think he means protecting himself from the pro gun crazies.

If Sandy Hook did not change things then nothing will for these people. A classroom full of dead preschoolers and the NRA held their congressman and told them to toe the line.

Crazy that some people aren't willing to sacrifice privacy and freedom on a knee jerk reaction.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Actually they do. I read a study back that examined situations where criminals and police exchange fire and the criminals (untrained civilians) actually displayed better accuracy than the police.

The type of person who exchanges fire with the police probably has more experience shooting at humans than police officers do.

I don't have info on percentage of hits civilian versus police, but Cato Policy Analysis No. 284 (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1143&full=1) by Jeff Snyder states the cops are 11 times more likely to shoot the wrong person than a "civilian."*

Consider, for example, an argument that is not made by opponents of licensing laws but that they could also use to suggest that citizens' carrying arms will result in needless deaths. The police, who are "extensively trained" in the use and security of their weapons, mistakenly kill about 330 innocent citizens a year. [77] How many more wrongful deaths, then, might one expect at the hands of poorly trained permit holders? Although the argument exhibits the same logic, opponents of licensing laws do not seize on it. Doubtless that is due in part to the fact that it does not show the police in too favorable a light, yet it is upon them that the opponents of licensing laws are asking us to rely when they try to disabuse us of the notion of relying also on ourselves. But a more telling reason is that the information is actually available to refute it. In fact, gun owners mistakenly kill about 30 innocent persons a year, one-eleventh of the number killed by police. [78]

 

[KCitons]

Threads like these do make you want to go out and stockpile a bunch of weapons, preferably unregistered, just in case the crazies actually get their way at some point in the future.

It is expensive to do so nowadays. Better to wait till 2016.

But I agree. Some people are really scary how anti-gun they are.

Yeah, those guys walking around carrying no gun scare the #### out of me.

I would feel safe as well if that was the case. But since we can't guarantee that everyone is NOT carrying a gun, let's guarantee that everyone IS.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Threads like these do make you want to go out and stockpile a bunch of weapons, preferably unregistered, just in case the crazies actually get their way at some point in the future.

It is expensive to do so nowadays. Better to wait till 2016.

But I agree. Some people are really scary how anti-gun they are.

I think he means protecting himself from the pro gun crazies.

If Sandy Hook did not change things then nothing will for these people. A classroom full of dead preschoolers and the NRA held their congressman and told them to toe the line.

Crazy that some people aren't willing to sacrifice privacy and freedom on a knee jerk reaction.

Sadly that some people don't give a #### about dead kids and taking some actions that might help prevent it from happening again. Kind of like ####ting on their graves actually, the NRA is so proud.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Sadly that some people don't give a #### about dead kids and taking some actions that might help prevent it from happening again. Kind of like ####ting on their graves actually, the NRA is so proud.

You really want this discussion to devolve around your warped opinions of failed gun legislation as a result of Sandy Hook and how it applies to the Navy Yard attack?