Police ambushed and killed in "start of revolution" in Vegas (2 Viewers)

[ATC1]

I carry a gun for 3 years now and it is because I believe less mass murders would occur if more responsible people carried and if there were no easy targeted areas. As such, I feel I should be one of those people. My folks are conservative, not hunters, and did own a shotgun (no pistols) for house protection only.

This is good schtick

What are your thoughts on Volunteer police departments?

Depends - we talking Neighborhood Watch like George Zimmerman, or are we talking fully trained, and continually trained, personnel?

If they are carrying weapons - without more knowledge, it is an exceptionally bad idea.

• Of course there would be a Criminal and psych background screen.

• Let's say there is an initial 6 weekend course (12 days) required for initial training and qualification.

• Must score 85% or better on shooting accuracy drills (Concealed carry only requires 80% in state of TN, I scored 100%).

• Semi-Annual 5-hour saturday class twice a year to go through a few drills and re qualify at 85% or better.

Would that make you comfortable with an individual carrying a firearm with the intent to engage any lethal threat to the public (case in point, shooting sprees)?

No.

Why not? That not only meets, but exceeds the firearms training regimen of New York State Troopers.

You're comfortable with paying people who have gone through that regimen to protect citizens, but you don't want additional folks helping that are willing to do it for free?

Just doesn't feel right.... Gun advocates tell me that non suicide deaths by gun are down. I don't think more guns on the street (even in the hands of those who, ideally, would use them for good) would be a solution to the perceived pandemic. I'm fine with municipalities and local governments adding more police. I don't have a problem with citizens having conceal or even open carry licenses.... but I think though if you start allowing volunteers to "posse up"....you start having more George Zimmerman situations.

I don't think these problems are solved by taking away guns or allowing more people "quasi" positions of authority. What we have is an overall societal sickness; a morbid fascination amongst some weak minded people that a killing spree or using guns to create public mayhem is the way to go....a way to make their mark.

HEre's the deal..

Anyone who would want to do this IS ALREADY CARRYING. Why not offer up the training?

That's my problem with the gun control crowd.... I'm not terribly sure they understand reality:

"Make them illegal!" - Yes because people using guns for crime are obviously concerned with following the law

"Make people register" - Like our government could maintain that database accurately, particularly with the repurcussions required for such registration to carry any teeth. Finally... nobody would enforce it. See examples in action now.

Looks guys... the guns aren't going anywhere. You can dig in your heels and scoff at the notion that guns on the street can be used for good. Or you could open your eyes, your minds, and understand that those firearms are GOING to be there, no matter what you do..... so perhaps it's time to look at intelligent alternatives and give the "Good guys" some training to make sure they're able to achieve their goals.

Limit their reach and role... these guys aren't given a badge and gun to wave around like full-fledged officers. HOWEVER, when push comes to shove, considering they're going to be carrying anyway...you WANT these guys educated and trained.

.... or we could just keep our heads in the sand and keep yelling for stupid #### like limiting magazine capacity and banning scary looking rifles.

Your call.

Adding more restrictions only hurts the responsible owners. Before adding anymore, let's start enforcing the current laws we have.

icon, the only pro argument I have heard on a registration is being able to see if current/newly felon criminals have guns. By law they should be jailed if they don't turn their guns in, correct?

 

[ATC1]

I carry a gun for 3 years now and it is because I believe less mass murders would occur if more responsible people carried and if there were no easy targeted areas. As such, I feel I should be one of those people. My folks are conservative, not hunters, and did own a shotgun (no pistols) for house protection only.

This is good schtick

What are your thoughts on Volunteer police departments?

Depends - we talking Neighborhood Watch like George Zimmerman, or are we talking fully trained, and continually trained, personnel?

If they are carrying weapons - without more knowledge, it is an exceptionally bad idea.

• Of course there would be a Criminal and psych background screen.

• Let's say there is an initial 6 weekend course (12 days) required for initial training and qualification.

• Must score 85% or better on shooting accuracy drills (Concealed carry only requires 80% in state of TN, I scored 100%).

• Semi-Annual 5-hour saturday class twice a year to go through a few drills and re qualify at 85% or better.

Would that make you comfortable with an individual carrying a firearm with the intent to engage any lethal threat to the public (case in point, shooting sprees)?

Beyond silly. The last thing we need are these Rambo wannabes actual believing they have official responsibilities.

Being able to shoot a gun accurately does not make one a law enforcement officer.

Who said anything about giving them law enforcement responsibilities beyond self defense?

Just being willing to go through this regimen tells me a person wants to be responsible and is not a Rambo wannabe.

Yeah so when things escalate we don't have a punch or punches... we have dead bodies.

People responsible enough to take these courses know how to avoid being in a fight and not let things "escalate"?

I now see where icon asked about volunteer police. I would need to know what the limitations of this person would be. If it is just to be able to carry for self defense vs ability to have some type of law enforcement responsibility. A law enforcement officer should have some distinction that he is a law officer such as a badge or uniform.

Are you here in reality? People carrying guns take on a different mind set.

Now you may say "well not everyone". So be it. I'll retort "most". I see it first hand continually. Its undeniable.

I don't understand. I carry and have managed to avoid getting into fights. It's not like I am able to carry in a bar and drink while carrying. The only mindset I have is I become more aware of my surroundings. I would bet that people that carry to have that "mindset" are not the ones that opt to take self defense and gun safety courses.

 

[[icon]]

I now see where icon asked about volunteer police. I would need to know what the limitations of this person would be. If it is just to be able to carry for self defense vs ability to have some type of law enforcement responsibility. A law enforcement officer should have some distinction that he is a law officer such as a badge or uniform.

Self defense. Just offering opportunity to calm the hand-wringers by turning "untrained" concealed carriers into trained concealed carriers. A common complaint here is that they don't like citizens carrying because they lack training. Well..what if they were offered proper training?

 

[[icon]]

Are you here in reality? People carrying guns take on a different mind set.

Now you may say "well not everyone". So be it. I'll retort "most". I see it first hand continually. Its undeniable.

I don't understand. I carry and have managed to avoid getting into fights. It's not like I am able to carry in a bar and drink while carrying. The only mindset I have is I become more aware of my surroundings. I would bet that people that carry to have that "mindset" are not the ones that opt to take self defense and gun safety courses.

You're responding to a guy who treats some crazy mad max scenario drawn up in his head as reality....

I wouldn't waste much effort with this guy.

 

[humpback]

Im in California. And here we have California Cadet Corp at nearly every public jr high and sr high school.

Every student can shoot guns. No pushback.

*But, like a background check that has frequent updates. To remain in the Cadets you must pass ALL classes and have no criminal, alcohol or drug charges. Otherwise you are removed.

You wanted something more loosey-goosey?

Not making stuff up would be nice, relevance would just be an unexpected bonus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Cadet_Corps

-You said there was no pushback, yet there is a section in the wiki titled "Opposition" which discusses the group opposing this and other programs in the state.

-You also said they are in nearly every public jr. and sr. high school in California. According to their website, they are in around 60 total schools (including prep, military, elementary, etc.). According to the California Public School System, there are over 1800 public high schools, 1300 public middle schools, and 5500 public elementary schools in the state.

- "Shooting guns" is only a small part of what they do, and it's obviously not a requirement to join so it's pretty irrelevant to the topic of mandated gun safety courses in schools.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Are you here in reality? People carrying guns take on a different mind set.

Now you may say "well not everyone". So be it. I'll retort "most". I see it first hand continually. Its undeniable.

I don't understand. I carry and have managed to avoid getting into fights. It's not like I am able to carry in a bar and drink while carrying. The only mindset I have is I become more aware of my surroundings. I would bet that people that carry to have that "mindset" are not the ones that opt to take self defense and gun safety courses.

You're responding to a guy who treats some crazy mad max scenario drawn up in his head as reality....

I wouldn't waste much effort with this guy.

I work with all forms of security all the time. Not sure what you are getting at.

From agencies, to casinos, to clubs, to personal, to training.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

According to their website, they are in around 60 total schools (including prep, military, elementary, etc.). According to the California Public School System, there are over 1800 public high schools, 1300 public middle schools, and 5500 public elementary schools in the state.

That cant be remotely right. Maybe for an area like Los Angeles.

You said there was no pushback, yet there is a section in the wiki titled "Opposition" which discusses the group opposing this and other programs in the state.

Yeah I saw an anti-military section. Not anti-gun.

The CACC was originally founded on 5 April 1911 by Brigadier General Edwin Alexander Forbes. At that time every California high school was required to have a California Cadet Corps unit if there were at least thirty-two students interested in the program.

I see it died out at some point from lack of interest. Currently at 8,000+ cadets. Might not be worth the $$$ anymore. Probably have made some "bigger" cadet schools.

Apologies on this end, didnt know people got disinterested in it. Was always an option at all my big-city public schools.

 

[Norman Paperman]

I now see where icon asked about volunteer police. I would need to know what the limitations of this person would be. If it is just to be able to carry for self defense vs ability to have some type of law enforcement responsibility. A law enforcement officer should have some distinction that he is a law officer such as a badge or uniform.

Self defense. Just offering opportunity to calm the hand-wringers by turning "untrained" concealed carriers into trained concealed carriers. A common complaint here is that they don't like citizens carrying because they lack training. Well..what if they were offered proper training?

Generally speaking, carrying a gun will cause more problems than it solves. I think it would escalate a situation, as it did here, far more often than it would defuse a situation - no matter how well trained an individual may be.

But for a part-timer, given semiannual training on gun safety, and even accuracy, is not the training needed to confront a gun wielding criminal. I suspect it would create a false-sense of bravado and lead to situations like this example.

The notion that someone wants to carry a weapon on the off-chance they may be in the wrong spot at the wrong time and can stop a mass murderer is laughable. You have a better chance of being struck by lightening.

I don't generally have a problem with anyone who wants to carry a gun - I would prefer background checks, but lets face it the kid in Connecticut had access to guns thanks to mom. But, we should realize that carrying a gun in public is not making anyone safer. It creates too many scenarios where you have to make a flash decision about whether you are really in danger, and since you have a gun, I fear that many would err on the side of pull and shoot. See Zimmerman, George. It creates scenarios where anger clouds judgment, or where alcohol/drugs cloud judgment. Carrying a weapon should only be done with a clear state of mind, or with an abundance of on-going training for dealing with stressful situations. Honestly, I doubt most police officers get enough training on this, and leads to unnecessary shots being fired.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I suspect it would create a false-sense of bravado and lead to situations like this example.

It absolutely does. But I'm not sure if its "false". It certainly puts forth bravado in people.

 

[humpback]

Not making stuff up would be nice, relevance would just be an unexpected bonus.

You don't believe in the California Cadet Corps?

No, I don't believe that the numbers he gave are anywhere remotely accurate (because they aren't), I don't believe that there hasn't been any pushback to this program (because there has been and continues to be), and I don't believe this voluntary program is comparable to required firearms education in schools (because it isn't).

 

[Henry Ford]

Not making stuff up would be nice, relevance would just be an unexpected bonus.

You don't believe in the California Cadet Corps?

No, I don't believe that the numbers he gave are anywhere remotely accurate (because they aren't), I don't believe that there hasn't been any pushback to this program (because there has been and continues to be), and I don't believe this voluntary program is comparable to required firearms education in schools (because it isn't).

Sex education is volutary, too, right? The school can't compel it?

 

[[icon]]

I love the ability of the anti-gun crowd to take their

I now see where icon asked about volunteer police. I would need to know what the limitations of this person would be. If it is just to be able to carry for self defense vs ability to have some type of law enforcement responsibility. A law enforcement officer should have some distinction that he is a law officer such as a badge or uniform.

Self defense. Just offering opportunity to calm the hand-wringers by turning "untrained" concealed carriers into trained concealed carriers. A common complaint here is that they don't like citizens carrying because they lack training. Well..what if they were offered proper training?

Generally speaking, carrying a gun will cause more problems than it solves. I think it would escalate a situation, as it did here, far more often than it would defuse a situation - no matter how well trained an individual may be.

But for a part-timer, given semiannual training on gun safety, and even accuracy, is not the training needed to confront a gun wielding criminal. I suspect it would create a false-sense of bravado and lead to situations like this example.

The notion that someone wants to carry a weapon on the off-chance they may be in the wrong spot at the wrong time and can stop a mass murderer is laughable. You have a better chance of being struck by lightening.

I don't generally have a problem with anyone who wants to carry a gun - I would prefer background checks, but lets face it the kid in Connecticut had access to guns thanks to mom. But, we should realize that carrying a gun in public is not making anyone safer. It creates too many scenarios where you have to make a flash decision about whether you are really in danger, and since you have a gun, I fear that many would err on the side of pull and shoot. See Zimmerman, George. It creates scenarios where anger clouds judgment, or where alcohol/drugs cloud judgment. Carrying a weapon should only be done with a clear state of mind, or with an abundance of on-going training for dealing with stressful situations. Honestly, I doubt most police officers get enough training on this, and leads to unnecessary shots being fired.

Okay so knowing full well that people will be carrying with or without training, you're against offering them training because you don't like guns?

Yep... sounds about right.

 

[humpback]

Not making stuff up would be nice, relevance would just be an unexpected bonus.

You don't believe in the California Cadet Corps?

No, I don't believe that the numbers he gave are anywhere remotely accurate (because they aren't), I don't believe that there hasn't been any pushback to this program (because there has been and continues to be), and I don't believe this voluntary program is comparable to required firearms education in schools (because it isn't).

Sex education is volutary, too, right? The school can't compel it?

Don't know, but that's not what this particular tangent is about.

 

[Thunderlips]

I carry a gun for 3 years now and it is because I believe less mass murders would occur if more responsible people carried and if there were no easy targeted areas. As such, I feel I should be one of those people. My folks are conservative, not hunters, and did own a shotgun (no pistols) for house protection only.

This is good schtick

What are your thoughts on Volunteer police departments?

Depends - we talking Neighborhood Watch like George Zimmerman, or are we talking fully trained, and continually trained, personnel?

If they are carrying weapons - without more knowledge, it is an exceptionally bad idea.

• Of course there would be a Criminal and psych background screen.

• Let's say there is an initial 6 weekend course (12 days) required for initial training and qualification.

• Must score 85% or better on shooting accuracy drills (Concealed carry only requires 80% in state of TN, I scored 100%).

• Semi-Annual 5-hour saturday class twice a year to go through a few drills and re qualify at 85% or better.

Would that make you comfortable with an individual carrying a firearm with the intent to engage any lethal threat to the public (case in point, shooting sprees)?

No.

Why not? That not only meets, but exceeds the firearms training regimen of New York State Troopers.

You're comfortable with paying people who have gone through that regimen to protect citizens, but you don't want additional folks helping that are willing to do it for free?

Just doesn't feel right.... Gun advocates tell me that non suicide deaths by gun are down. I don't think more guns on the street (even in the hands of those who, ideally, would use them for good) would be a solution to the perceived pandemic. I'm fine with municipalities and local governments adding more police. I don't have a problem with citizens having conceal or even open carry licenses.... but I think though if you start allowing volunteers to "posse up"....you start having more George Zimmerman situations.

I don't think these problems are solved by taking away guns or allowing more people "quasi" positions of authority. What we have is an overall societal sickness; a morbid fascination amongst some weak minded people that a killing spree or using guns to create public mayhem is the way to go....a way to make their mark.

HEre's the deal..

Anyone who would want to do this IS ALREADY CARRYING. Why not offer up the training?

That's my problem with the gun control crowd.... I'm not terribly sure they understand reality:

"Make them illegal!" - Yes because people using guns for crime are obviously concerned with following the law

"Make people register" - Like our government could maintain that database accurately, particularly with the repurcussions required for such registration to carry any teeth. Finally... nobody would enforce it. See examples in action now.

Looks guys... the guns aren't going anywhere. You can dig in your heels and scoff at the notion that guns on the street can be used for good. Or you could open your eyes, your minds, and understand that those firearms are GOING to be there, no matter what you do..... so perhaps it's time to look at intelligent alternatives and give the "Good guys" some training to make sure they're able to achieve their goals.

Limit their reach and role... these guys aren't given a badge and gun to wave around like full-fledged officers. HOWEVER, when push comes to shove, considering they're going to be carrying anyway...you WANT these guys educated and trained.

.... or we could just keep our heads in the sand and keep yelling for stupid #### like limiting magazine capacity and banning scary looking rifles.

Your call.

But I don't have a problem with their education (or I'm assuming to you...their lack of education) right now. Per my OP " I don't have a problem with citizens having conceal or even open carry licenses"...

 

[ATC1]

I now see where icon asked about volunteer police. I would need to know what the limitations of this person would be. If it is just to be able to carry for self defense vs ability to have some type of law enforcement responsibility. A law enforcement officer should have some distinction that he is a law officer such as a badge or uniform.

Self defense. Just offering opportunity to calm the hand-wringers by turning "untrained" concealed carriers into trained concealed carriers. A common complaint here is that they don't like citizens carrying because they lack training. Well..what if they were offered proper training?

Generally speaking, carrying a gun will cause more problems than it solves. I think it would escalate a situation, as it did here, far more often than it would defuse a situation - no matter how well trained an individual may be.

But for a part-timer, given semiannual training on gun safety, and even accuracy, is not the training needed to confront a gun wielding criminal. I suspect it would create a false-sense of bravado and lead to situations like this example.

The notion that someone wants to carry a weapon on the off-chance they may be in the wrong spot at the wrong time and can stop a mass murderer is laughable. You have a better chance of being struck by lightening.

I don't generally have a problem with anyone who wants to carry a gun - I would prefer background checks, but lets face it the kid in Connecticut had access to guns thanks to mom. But, we should realize that carrying a gun in public is not making anyone safer. It creates too many scenarios where you have to make a flash decision about whether you are really in danger, and since you have a gun, I fear that many would err on the side of pull and shoot. See Zimmerman, George. It creates scenarios where anger clouds judgment, or where alcohol/drugs cloud judgment. Carrying a weapon should only be done with a clear state of mind, or with an abundance of on-going training for dealing with stressful situations. Honestly, I doubt most police officers get enough training on this, and leads to unnecessary shots being fired.

The entire post is a great reason for taking self defense classes if you are going to carry.

As to the bolded part. I don't think people carry for the off chance they will stop a mass murderer. I personally carry because I think criminals that perform these mass murders find citizens that carry as a threat. My proof is that the place these murderers choose to pick out their targets are in gun free zones. Pick an area where there is less of a threat and more damage can be done.

Now does the presence of a citizen with a gun actually prevent more victims. icon has given us a study in another thread that this is actually the case. There are less victims when a citizen intervenes (Oregon mall shooting) then when we are in an area where the victims need to wait for police action. It seems like as soon as they feel a threat they turn the gun on themselves. Get rid of making it easier for them to pick off victims without a threat and the frequency this occurs and the number of victims will decrease.

 

[Norman Paperman]

I love the ability of the anti-gun crowd to take their

I now see where icon asked about volunteer police. I would need to know what the limitations of this person would be. If it is just to be able to carry for self defense vs ability to have some type of law enforcement responsibility. A law enforcement officer should have some distinction that he is a law officer such as a badge or uniform.

Self defense. Just offering opportunity to calm the hand-wringers by turning "untrained" concealed carriers into trained concealed carriers. A common complaint here is that they don't like citizens carrying because they lack training. Well..what if they were offered proper training?

Generally speaking, carrying a gun will cause more problems than it solves. I think it would escalate a situation, as it did here, far more often than it would defuse a situation - no matter how well trained an individual may be.

But for a part-timer, given semiannual training on gun safety, and even accuracy, is not the training needed to confront a gun wielding criminal. I suspect it would create a false-sense of bravado and lead to situations like this example.

The notion that someone wants to carry a weapon on the off-chance they may be in the wrong spot at the wrong time and can stop a mass murderer is laughable. You have a better chance of being struck by lightening.

I don't generally have a problem with anyone who wants to carry a gun - I would prefer background checks, but lets face it the kid in Connecticut had access to guns thanks to mom. But, we should realize that carrying a gun in public is not making anyone safer. It creates too many scenarios where you have to make a flash decision about whether you are really in danger, and since you have a gun, I fear that many would err on the side of pull and shoot. See Zimmerman, George. It creates scenarios where anger clouds judgment, or where alcohol/drugs cloud judgment. Carrying a weapon should only be done with a clear state of mind, or with an abundance of on-going training for dealing with stressful situations. Honestly, I doubt most police officers get enough training on this, and leads to unnecessary shots being fired.

Okay so knowing full well that people will be carrying with or without training, you're against offering them training because you don't like guns?

Yep... sounds about right.

link?

I never said I was against training, nor did I say I was against guns. I said that carrying guns in public do no make anyone safer, and probably makes everyone a little less secure.

 

[Norman Paperman]

As to the bolded part. I don't think people carry for the off chance they will stop a mass murderer. I personally carry because I think criminals that perform these mass murders find citizens that carry as a threat. My proof is that the place these murderers choose to pick out their targets are in gun free zones. Pick an area where there is less of a threat and more damage can be done.

Now does the presence of a citizen with a gun actually prevent more victims. icon has given us a study in another thread that this is actually the case. There are less victims when a citizen intervenes (Oregon mall shooting) then when we are in an area where the victims need to wait for police action. It seems like as soon as they feel a threat they turn the gun on themselves. Get rid of making it easier for them to pick off victims without a threat and the frequency this occurs and the number of victims will decrease.

I think that is more coincidence than careful planning imo. I think they are looking for high volume areas, more than they are looking for gun-free zones. But, thats just a guess on my part. These guys seem intent on dying - so I don't think guns scare them away from any particular target.

 

[top dog]

Also, a good study on the effectiveness of gun safety being taught to kids is mentioned in this op-ed by the person who did the study:

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/02/06/gun-safety-programs-dont-work-for-children

I can't speak of the effectiveness of that study. I can only speak from personal experience. A few years back my son came home from playing at the neighbors. He said, "Ethan was playing with a cowboy gun today. His dad gave it to him. I didn't want to play with it and came home. " I went down to talk to the dad who I have a pretty good relationship with. He told me yeah, he let the kids play with it. The gun was a real revolver that was his fathers. I politely told him that we were very pro gun at our house but we never let the kids "play" with a gun like that. It teaches them to treat the weapon like a toy. He said, "yeah.. I probably shouldn't have done that. I don't even have bullets in the house. I only have it because it was my fathers. I hate guns."

I was very happy that my son was educated enough to know: A) Don't play with guns. They are not a toy. B) Leave and come home. C) Tell Dad. I'll take that over my kid going "WOW! LET ME SEE THAT! I'VE NEVER SEEN A REAL GUN BEFORE!!"

 

[[icon]]

Reality is this:

1) Right to bear arms isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

2) Gun registration isn't going to be voted in (political suicide), would be a operational quagmire/nightmare, or unlikely to be widely enforced if it does pass.

3) There are about 10 Million active concealed carry permits in the US. I'd wager at least 25% of those carry regularly. That number is rising, and isn't going down anytime soon.

So... the guns aren't going anywhere. #####ing, moaning and stomping feet is one approach... albeit one that will get you nowhere. Another option is to look at realistic options that might actually have an impact:

1) Actual enforcement of existing gun laws.

2) Doing a better job of identifying / treating mental illness.
3) Improving training/education of law-abiding gun owners / concealed carriers.
4) Better identifying and reacting to nutjobs who frequently broadcast their intent before committing horrific acts.

 

[Henry Ford]

Also, a good study on the effectiveness of gun safety being taught to kids is mentioned in this op-ed by the person who did the study:

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/02/06/gun-safety-programs-dont-work-for-children

I can't speak of the effectiveness of that study. I can only speak from personal experience. A few years back my son came home from playing at the neighbors. He said, "Ethan was playing with a cowboy gun today. His dad gave it to him. I didn't want to play with it and came home. " I went down to talk to the dad who I have a pretty good relationship with. He told me yeah, he let the kids play with it. The gun was a real revolver that was his fathers. I politely told him that we were very pro gun at our house but we never let the kids "play" with a gun like that. It teaches them to treat the weapon like a toy. He said, "yeah.. I probably shouldn't have done that. I don't even have bullets in the house. I only have it because it was my fathers. I hate guns."

I was very happy that my son was educated enough to know: A) Don't play with guns. They are not a toy. B) Leave and come home. C) Tell Dad. I'll take that over my kid going "WOW! LET ME SEE THAT! I'VE NEVER SEEN A REAL GUN BEFORE!!"

I'm happy that he did that, too. Was that education he got at the school, or from you?

 

[[icon]]

I now see where icon asked about volunteer police. I would need to know what the limitations of this person would be. If it is just to be able to carry for self defense vs ability to have some type of law enforcement responsibility. A law enforcement officer should have some distinction that he is a law officer such as a badge or uniform.

Self defense. Just offering opportunity to calm the hand-wringers by turning "untrained" concealed carriers into trained concealed carriers. A common complaint here is that they don't like citizens carrying because they lack training. Well..what if they were offered proper training?

Generally speaking, carrying a gun will cause more problems than it solves. I think it would escalate a situation, as it did here, far more often than it would defuse a situation - no matter how well trained an individual may be.

But for a part-timer, given semiannual training on gun safety, and even accuracy, is not the training needed to confront a gun wielding criminal. I suspect it would create a false-sense of bravado and lead to situations like this example.

The notion that someone wants to carry a weapon on the off-chance they may be in the wrong spot at the wrong time and can stop a mass murderer is laughable. You have a better chance of being struck by lightening.

I don't generally have a problem with anyone who wants to carry a gun - I would prefer background checks, but lets face it the kid in Connecticut had access to guns thanks to mom. But, we should realize that carrying a gun in public is not making anyone safer. It creates too many scenarios where you have to make a flash decision about whether you are really in danger, and since you have a gun, I fear that many would err on the side of pull and shoot. See Zimmerman, George. It creates scenarios where anger clouds judgment, or where alcohol/drugs cloud judgment. Carrying a weapon should only be done with a clear state of mind, or with an abundance of on-going training for dealing with stressful situations. Honestly, I doubt most police officers get enough training on this, and leads to unnecessary shots being fired.

The entire post is a great reason for taking self defense classes if you are going to carry.

As to the bolded part. I don't think people carry for the off chance they will stop a mass murderer. I personally carry because I think criminals that perform these mass murders find citizens that carry as a threat. My proof is that the place these murderers choose to pick out their targets are in gun free zones. Pick an area where there is less of a threat and more damage can be done.

Now does the presence of a citizen with a gun actually prevent more victims. icon has given us a study in another thread that this is actually the case. There are less victims when a citizen intervenes (Oregon mall shooting) then when we are in an area where the victims need to wait for police action. It seems like as soon as they feel a threat they turn the gun on themselves. Get rid of making it easier for them to pick off victims without a threat and the frequency this occurs and the number of victims will decrease.

Yep. Though I'd say I carry 80% for a safety net for when I'm alone or with my GF in areas where we might be targets (gas station in bad part of town, quiet highway off ramp at night, walking back to car from social event in downtown memphis, etc)... 19% because I agree that the perception of many trained concealed carriers is a crime deterrent... and 1% because in the extremely unlikely scenario of something like a mass shooting that I won't feel helpless if I or a loved one is in harms way.

Yep. This has been shown to be fact.

 

[top dog]

Also, a good study on the effectiveness of gun safety being taught to kids is mentioned in this op-ed by the person who did the study:

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/02/06/gun-safety-programs-dont-work-for-children

I can't speak of the effectiveness of that study. I can only speak from personal experience. A few years back my son came home from playing at the neighbors. He said, "Ethan was playing with a cowboy gun today. His dad gave it to him. I didn't want to play with it and came home. " I went down to talk to the dad who I have a pretty good relationship with. He told me yeah, he let the kids play with it. The gun was a real revolver that was his fathers. I politely told him that we were very pro gun at our house but we never let the kids "play" with a gun like that. It teaches them to treat the weapon like a toy. He said, "yeah.. I probably shouldn't have done that. I don't even have bullets in the house. I only have it because it was my fathers. I hate guns."

I was very happy that my son was educated enough to know: A) Don't play with guns. They are not a toy. B) Leave and come home. C) Tell Dad. I'll take that over my kid going "WOW! LET ME SEE THAT! I'VE NEVER SEEN A REAL GUN BEFORE!!"

I'm happy that he did that, too. Was that education he got at the school, or from you?

Not from the school of course. Much like I wouldn't expect the school to teach my kids everything about sex education. That has to be supplemented at home. From a young age I've exposed my kids to firearms and have pounded the basics into their head. "Always, always, always assume the weapon is loaded. Always check the chamber of a firearm even if the person handing you JUST did it. Never point a gun barrel in someone's direction even if you are 100% positive the weapon is unloaded. Never, never put your finger on the trigger unless you are ready to shoot the weapon. Never treat as a toy. You can absolutely die if you do not respect the weapon."

He knew from being able to handle weapons at home that was a very dangerous situation. Whether the dad was letting them or not.

 

[top dog]

I now see where icon asked about volunteer police. I would need to know what the limitations of this person would be. If it is just to be able to carry for self defense vs ability to have some type of law enforcement responsibility. A law enforcement officer should have some distinction that he is a law officer such as a badge or uniform.

Self defense. Just offering opportunity to calm the hand-wringers by turning "untrained" concealed carriers into trained concealed carriers. A common complaint here is that they don't like citizens carrying because they lack training. Well..what if they were offered proper training?

Generally speaking, carrying a gun will cause more problems than it solves. I think it would escalate a situation, as it did here, far more often than it would defuse a situation - no matter how well trained an individual may be.

But for a part-timer, given semiannual training on gun safety, and even accuracy, is not the training needed to confront a gun wielding criminal. I suspect it would create a false-sense of bravado and lead to situations like this example.

The notion that someone wants to carry a weapon on the off-chance they may be in the wrong spot at the wrong time and can stop a mass murderer is laughable. You have a better chance of being struck by lightening.

I don't generally have a problem with anyone who wants to carry a gun - I would prefer background checks, but lets face it the kid in Connecticut had access to guns thanks to mom. But, we should realize that carrying a gun in public is not making anyone safer. It creates too many scenarios where you have to make a flash decision about whether you are really in danger, and since you have a gun, I fear that many would err on the side of pull and shoot. See Zimmerman, George. It creates scenarios where anger clouds judgment, or where alcohol/drugs cloud judgment. Carrying a weapon should only be done with a clear state of mind, or with an abundance of on-going training for dealing with stressful situations. Honestly, I doubt most police officers get enough training on this, and leads to unnecessary shots being fired.

The entire post is a great reason for taking self defense classes if you are going to carry.

As to the bolded part. I don't think people carry for the off chance they will stop a mass murderer. I personally carry because I think criminals that perform these mass murders find citizens that carry as a threat. My proof is that the place these murderers choose to pick out their targets are in gun free zones. Pick an area where there is less of a threat and more damage can be done.

Now does the presence of a citizen with a gun actually prevent more victims. icon has given us a study in another thread that this is actually the case. There are less victims when a citizen intervenes (Oregon mall shooting) then when we are in an area where the victims need to wait for police action. It seems like as soon as they feel a threat they turn the gun on themselves. Get rid of making it easier for them to pick off victims without a threat and the frequency this occurs and the number of victims will decrease.

Yep. Though I'd say I carry 80% for a safety net for when I'm alone or with my GF in areas where we might be targets (gas station in bad part of town, quiet highway off ramp at night, walking back to car from social event in downtown memphis, etc)... 19% because I agree that the perception of many trained concealed carriers is a crime deterrent... and 1% because in the extremely unlikely scenario of something like a mass shooting that I won't feel helpless if I or a loved one is in harms way.

Yep. This has been shown to be fact.

This is probably a pretty good breakdown on my feelings as well.

 

[[icon]]

Crossposting:

To those calling for universal gun registration:

1) What precisely do you hope to accomplish by requiring gun registration over the existing system and how do you plan to accomplish it?

2) What is a reasonable budget to achieve this system? Where does this money come from?

3) What level of accuracy would you consider acceptable within this government run system?

4) How do you plan to address inaccuracy in the system? (ie person is killed with gun that was reported stolen, former owner properly reported theft but wasn't accurate in database due to clerical/technical error and that individual is wrongly arrested/harassed) Who picks up the tab for resulting lawsuits?

5) How do you plan to enforce this requirement? (see CT registration failures)

6) what does this do to curb the vast majority of crimes which are committed using weapons that, under this law, would not have been registered to the offender

Spoiler

• 39.6% of criminals obtained a gun from a friend or family member
• 39.2% of criminals obtained a gun on the street or from an illegal source
• 0.7% of criminals purchased a gun at a gun show
• 1% of criminals purchased a gun at a flea market
• 3.8% of criminals purchased a gun from a pawn shop
• 8.3% of criminals actually bought their guns from retail outlets

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/11/where-criminals-get-their-guns/#ixzz34Lz2wT3n

 

[Henry Ford]

Also, a good study on the effectiveness of gun safety being taught to kids is mentioned in this op-ed by the person who did the study:

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/02/06/gun-safety-programs-dont-work-for-children

I can't speak of the effectiveness of that study. I can only speak from personal experience. A few years back my son came home from playing at the neighbors. He said, "Ethan was playing with a cowboy gun today. His dad gave it to him. I didn't want to play with it and came home. " I went down to talk to the dad who I have a pretty good relationship with. He told me yeah, he let the kids play with it. The gun was a real revolver that was his fathers. I politely told him that we were very pro gun at our house but we never let the kids "play" with a gun like that. It teaches them to treat the weapon like a toy. He said, "yeah.. I probably shouldn't have done that. I don't even have bullets in the house. I only have it because it was my fathers. I hate guns."

I was very happy that my son was educated enough to know: A) Don't play with guns. They are not a toy. B) Leave and come home. C) Tell Dad. I'll take that over my kid going "WOW! LET ME SEE THAT! I'VE NEVER SEEN A REAL GUN BEFORE!!"

I'm happy that he did that, too. Was that education he got at the school, or from you?

Not from the school of course. Much like I wouldn't expect the school to teach my kids everything about sex education. That has to be supplemented at home. From a young age I've exposed my kids to firearms and have pounded the basics into their head. "Always, always, always assume the weapon is loaded. Always check the chamber of a firearm even if the person handing you JUST did it. Never point a gun barrel in someone's direction even if you are 100% positive the weapon is unloaded. Never, never put your finger on the trigger unless you are ready to shoot the weapon. Never treat as a toy. You can absolutely die if you do not respect the weapon."

He knew from being able to handle weapons at home that was a very dangerous situation. Whether the dad was letting them or not.

I think that's probably the sticking point. Very few people are going to be a-okay with having the social studies teacher supervise handling an actual gun with their kids, and actually knowing how to handle a gun is key to the education.

 

[fatness]

The 23-second video clip shows the Millers on the floor in an aisle, with Jerad on his stomach facing her and Amanda on her back with a pistol in her hand. He can be seen pointing his pistol at her as she writhes with a gun in her right hand. She appears to have a wound to her right leg

Although the video shows her shooting at her 31-year-old husband, "None of the rounds that she fired hit him," McMahill said.

Based on the investigation and autopsies, Clark County authorities determined that Jerad Miller suffered a mortal chest wound from the rifle of one of three officers who fired at the pair.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/11/las-vegas-police-shot-killings-suspect/10348831/

 

[Guest]

I say this not knowing for sure how things went down in the Walmart. Maybe some video will eventually be shown.

Does anyone agree that once the civilian pulled his weapon that he should have immediately used it/fired? Maybe I'm being harsh, but once you make the decision to draw, the decision to shoot should have already been made.

This would be the difference between law enforcement and civilians.

Not sure if it hurts or helps in this particular situation unless video is eventually made public.

 

[[icon]]

I say this not knowing for sure how things went down in the Walmart. Maybe some video will eventually be shown.

Does anyone agree that once the civilian pulled his weapon that he should have immediately used it/fired? Maybe I'm being harsh, but once you make the decision to draw, the decision to shoot should have already been made.

Not sure if it hurts or helps in this particular situation unless video is eventually made public.

Yes. You are taught (and common sense dictates) if you draw in a scenario like this, you're doing it to act/fire. Drawing then hesitating or threatening just increases the odds you or someone else is going to get shot.

 

[Guest]

I say this not knowing for sure how things went down in the Walmart. Maybe some video will eventually be shown.

Does anyone agree that once the civilian pulled his weapon that he should have immediately used it/fired? Maybe I'm being harsh, but once you make the decision to draw, the decision to shoot should have already been made.

Not sure if it hurts or helps in this particular situation unless video is eventually made public.

Yes. You are taught (and common sense dictates) if you draw in a scenario like this, you're doing it to act/fire. Drawing then hesitating or threatening just increases the odds you or someone else is going to get shot.

That's what I thought. Again, we don't know for sure what happened, but was there a mini-standoff that gave the woman time to get behind the civilian?

Real life doesn't happen like movies/tv.

 

[Rove!]

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2014/06/10/couple-responsible-for-vegas-shooting-spree-recently-lived-in-indiana/

While living in Lafayette, Jerad and his wife Amanda took part in last November’s “Million Mask March” – a gathering of protesters from the Occupy movement, anarchists, and hacktivists.

surprise, surprise, surprise

 

[NCCommish]

I now see where icon asked about volunteer police. I would need to know what the limitations of this person would be. If it is just to be able to carry for self defense vs ability to have some type of law enforcement responsibility. A law enforcement officer should have some distinction that he is a law officer such as a badge or uniform.

Self defense. Just offering opportunity to calm the hand-wringers by turning "untrained" concealed carriers into trained concealed carriers. A common complaint here is that they don't like citizens carrying because they lack training. Well..what if they were offered proper training?

Generally speaking, carrying a gun will cause more problems than it solves. I think it would escalate a situation, as it did here, far more often than it would defuse a situation - no matter how well trained an individual may be.

But for a part-timer, given semiannual training on gun safety, and even accuracy, is not the training needed to confront a gun wielding criminal. I suspect it would create a false-sense of bravado and lead to situations like this example.

The notion that someone wants to carry a weapon on the off-chance they may be in the wrong spot at the wrong time and can stop a mass murderer is laughable. You have a better chance of being struck by lightening.

I don't generally have a problem with anyone who wants to carry a gun - I would prefer background checks, but lets face it the kid in Connecticut had access to guns thanks to mom. But, we should realize that carrying a gun in public is not making anyone safer. It creates too many scenarios where you have to make a flash decision about whether you are really in danger, and since you have a gun, I fear that many would err on the side of pull and shoot. See Zimmerman, George. It creates scenarios where anger clouds judgment, or where alcohol/drugs cloud judgment. Carrying a weapon should only be done with a clear state of mind, or with an abundance of on-going training for dealing with stressful situations. Honestly, I doubt most police officers get enough training on this, and leads to unnecessary shots being fired.

The entire post is a great reason for taking self defense classes if you are going to carry.

As to the bolded part. I don't think people carry for the off chance they will stop a mass murderer. I personally carry because I think criminals that perform these mass murders find citizens that carry as a threat. My proof is that the place these murderers choose to pick out their targets are in gun free zones. Pick an area where there is less of a threat and more damage can be done.

Now does the presence of a citizen with a gun actually prevent more victims. icon has given us a study in another thread that this is actually the case. There are less victims when a citizen intervenes (Oregon mall shooting) then when we are in an area where the victims need to wait for police action. It seems like as soon as they feel a threat they turn the gun on themselves. Get rid of making it easier for them to pick off victims without a threat and the frequency this occurs and the number of victims will decrease.

I personally carry this lucky rock. I have noticed that since I started carrying I have never been attacked by a tiger. Correlation and causation can be tricky things.

BTW in the Oregon Mall shooting even the concealed carry guy isn't sure the shooter saw him. And of course he didn't shoot. Which was good because he wasn't clear to. There is no evidence to suggest his presence changed anything. Well except to certain parties with a viewpoint to push.

 

[Rove!]

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2014/06/10/couple-responsible-for-vegas-shooting-spree-recently-lived-in-indiana/

While living in Lafayette, Jerad and his wife Amanda took part in last November’s “Million Mask March” – a gathering of protesters from the Occupy movement, anarchists, and hacktivists.

surprise, surprise, surprise

poor Fatness

 

[Henry Ford]

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2014/06/10/couple-responsible-for-vegas-shooting-spree-recently-lived-in-indiana/

While living in Lafayette, Jerad and his wife Amanda took part in last November’s “Million Mask March” – a gathering of protesters from the Occupy movement, anarchists, and hacktivists.

surprise, surprise, surprise

http://millionmaskmarch.org/

It was a gathering by Anonymous, not Occupy. That's why it was called the "Million Mask March."