Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ouze wrote:
Open carry is legal in my state, and I'm glad it is, but I would never do it. I carry concealed.

Washington State is both open carry and "shall issue". We're certainly doing just fine with this policy. I really don't understand what NJ is trying to achieve by being asshats about their (lack of) permitting.

 skyth wrote:
Personally, I don't want to live in a society where everyone needs to carry around a gun.

I suspect no-one does.
I'm happy enough to not require a firearm where I live.

Consider though that a single Luger, Glock, Browning or Thirty-eight could have saved 100 lives from injury and death this weekend.

 =Angel= wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Personally, I don't want to live in a society where everyone needs to carry around a gun.

I suspect no-one does.
I'm happy enough to not require a firearm where I live.

Consider though that a single Luger, Glock, Browning or Thirty-eight could have saved 100 lives from injury and death this weekend.

I disagree. A dark, crowded nightclub with hundreds of panicked people fleeing for their lives, is the last place you want to see another gun being pulled out.

 CptJake wrote:

A major reason to conceal is because it aids in de-escalation of a situation. You have options you can take that are not available once it is known you have a gun. The gun is the last resort.

When you talk about "having more options to use when you have a gun concealed", please have in mind the one with evil intentions will do exactly the same than what you are suggesting here. Just, you know, for evil intentions. And the true difficulty is that it's damn hard to know what is in the mind of another man you don't know (hell, even if you know him you can never be sure) while he still has a concealed weapon...until the time he shows it and it's too late.

So, I can see your point really. It's just that it doesn't justify at all the dangerosity of the situation. You may know that you will not do that yourself, sure...but how the other people who don't know you will? And what happens if they also have concealed weapons, take your reaction as a threat and overreact with their own gun? I believe it's something important to think about it.

There are a large number of people who for whatever reason are uncomfortable around guns (unless the guy with the gun also has a badge visible).

Of course they are. It's a natural reaction. When I see someone that has a knife ready to be used, I'm also cautious because I know the possibility is here and real.

Thing is, people using guns "as a mean to defend themselves" usually think they can't be safe without a gun on themselves "just in case".

And that's something the carriers would never understand when non-carriers tell them than in reality, you also have options to solve a potential conflictual situation. You just don't use the gun at all as an excuse.

Honestly, I know most people having guns don't want to willingly kill people. There is also the possibility to own them in my country, but it's severily restricted. Mind you, it didn't go to full chaos.

Also, having weapons don't stop from crimes from happening. If a terrorist decides to make himself explode next to you, I doubt you will have the time to react just at the right second when you didn't expect it to happen at first. That's the same if you have a gun or not on yourself.

After all, the criminal is the first one to use concealed weapons for obvious reasons. I thus can understand why the gouvernment would try to do something to have less possibilities of a potential terrorist to happen. It's way easier to hide when everyone can do the same with their own weapons, after all.

I have ZERO issues living with the fact folks like you may consider me a 'dangerous man' because they choose to be unarmed and I don't. The very vast majority of legal gun owners never seek to threaten another person.

If you carry something that is obviously meant to kill (that's the main purpose of guns, after all, they weren't made to grow flowers), of course you become a potential danger.

It's the same thinking that makes you carry a gun for your own safety; that the others people you may encounter could be threatening your life or your family/friends/loved ones/people just around you.

Most of the time, these people are like the majority of gun carriers, though; they do not really want to make trouble/endanger another life if they can avoid it. That's what life taught me so far. Sure, there are criminals and really bad humans out there - but if they were the huge majority, Earth would be a lifeless orb where humanity went extinct. Might still happen because of a bunch of really stupid people, but so far we're still there.


What I don't understand is that you can't see this as anything else as a threat to your right to own a weapon. I can totally see the reason for obvious national/even local security management. The other option is to put a drone in your brain to make sure you're not a criminal/bad human trying to harm your fellow humans.

And that would be a much more invasive threat of your own privacy, IMHO.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I disagree. A dark, crowded nightclub with hundreds of panicked people fleeing for their lives, is the last place you want to see another gun being pulled out.

This is always a weird argument, to me. "It's more important for me to die without adding to confusion than it is for me to be afforded a chance to protect myself." There are people who had time to text that they were being located by the shooter, rounded up, and knew they were going to be shot. If you genuinely believe passive non-resistance is the way all humans should meet their deaths by homicide, fine, I can't disabuse you of that notion, but it seems a gakky thing to deny other people the right to fight for their lives.

I don't think anybody's saying that all mass shootings would be prevented or terminated early with more concealed carry. I'm certainly not. There was a cop on-scene when this one started, and he and the shooter exchanged ineffectual fire around the time it started. That was probably the best chance of nipping this in the bud, and it didn't happen. That doesn't mean failure to stop it will always be the case. Sometimes it will, sometimes it won't. I for one am not comfortable telling people that when faced with a situation like this, I'm more comfortable with them dying than I am with them trying to defend themselves.

Seaward wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I disagree. A dark, crowded nightclub with hundreds of panicked people fleeing for their lives, is the last place you want to see another gun being pulled out.

This is always a weird argument, to me. "It's more important for me to die without adding to confusion than it is for me to be afforded a chance to protect myself." There are people who had time to text that they were being located by the shooter, rounded up, and knew they were going to be shot. If you genuinely believe passive non-resistance is the way all humans should meet their deaths by homicide, fine, I can't disabuse you of that notion, but it seems a gakky thing to deny other people the right to fight for their lives.

I don't think anybody's saying that all mass shootings would be prevented or terminated early with more concealed carry. I'm certainly not. There was a cop on-scene when this one started, and he and the shooter exchanged ineffectual fire around the time it started. That was probably the best chance of nipping this in the bud, and it didn't happen. That doesn't mean failure to stop it will always be the case. Sometimes it will, sometimes it won't. I for one am not comfortable telling people that when faced with a situation like this, I'm more comfortable with them dying than I am with them trying to defend themselves.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't defend themselves if the situation warrants it. I'm saying that if you're trying to return fire, and dozens of innocent people are crossing your line of fire, and knocking into you as they run past, it's not always a good idea.

Even a highly trained Navy Seal or SAS member, would struggle to get a clear shot at a bad guy in that type of situation.

One doesn't CC for a mass shooting-your best bet is typically GTFO. One CCs in case of a mugging, stalker, or wannabe rapist.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Seaward wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I disagree. A dark, crowded nightclub with hundreds of panicked people fleeing for their lives, is the last place you want to see another gun being pulled out.

This is always a weird argument, to me. "It's more important for me to die without adding to confusion than it is for me to be afforded a chance to protect myself." There are people who had time to text that they were being located by the shooter, rounded up, and knew they were going to be shot. If you genuinely believe passive non-resistance is the way all humans should meet their deaths by homicide, fine, I can't disabuse you of that notion, but it seems a gakky thing to deny other people the right to fight for their lives.

I don't think anybody's saying that all mass shootings would be prevented or terminated early with more concealed carry. I'm certainly not. There was a cop on-scene when this one started, and he and the shooter exchanged ineffectual fire around the time it started. That was probably the best chance of nipping this in the bud, and it didn't happen. That doesn't mean failure to stop it will always be the case. Sometimes it will, sometimes it won't. I for one am not comfortable telling people that when faced with a situation like this, I'm more comfortable with them dying than I am with them trying to defend themselves.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't defend themselves if the situation warrants it. I'm saying that if you're trying to return fire, and dozens of innocent people are crossing your line of fire, and knocking into you as they run past, it's not always a good idea.

Even a highly trained Navy Seal or SAS member, would struggle to get a clear shot at a bad guy in that type of situation.

The only reason the shooter didn't hurt more people or escape was because Orlando PD arrived at the nightclub and shot him dead, in the nightclub, with poor lighting. The amount of range time I get recreational and the classes I take probably exceeds the annual requirment for most police departments. Plus, if the guys working the door to the club were carrying, concealed or open, that could have been enough of a deterrent stop the shooting from happening or at least have made it start outside the club which might have prevented the shooter from getting inside or at least given more people in the club time to flee.

 Frazzled wrote:
One doesn't CC for a mass shooting-your best bet is typically GTFO. One CCs in case of a mugging, stalker, or wannabe rapist.

When that's possible, absolutely. It wasn't possible for a lot of the people who died in Orlando.

Having a sub-optimal Plan B seems like a better idea to me than not having a Plan B at all.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I'm not saying that people shouldn't defend themselves if the situation warrants it. I'm saying that if you're trying to return fire, and dozens of innocent people are crossing your line of fire, and knocking into you as they run past, it's not always a good idea.

Even a highly trained Navy Seal or SAS member, would struggle to get a clear shot at a bad guy in that type of situation.

The fact that the terrorist was stopped by good guys with guns completely obliterates the argument that he could not be stopped by good guys with guns.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I'm not saying that people shouldn't defend themselves if the situation warrants it. I'm saying that if you're trying to return fire, and dozens of innocent people are crossing your line of fire, and knocking into you as they run past, it's not always a good idea.

Even a highly trained Navy Seal or SAS member, would struggle to get a clear shot at a bad guy in that type of situation.

The fact that the terrorist was stopped by good guys with guns completely obliterates the argument that he could not be stopped by good guys with guns.

Edit: wrong thread. Going to keep discussion of that to the other thread.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I'm not saying that people shouldn't defend themselves if the situation warrants it. I'm saying that if you're trying to return fire, and dozens of innocent people are crossing your line of fire, and knocking into you as they run past, it's not always a good idea.

Even a highly trained Navy Seal or SAS member, would struggle to get a clear shot at a bad guy in that type of situation.

The fact that the terrorist was stopped by good guys with guns completely obliterates the argument that he could not be stopped by good guys with guns.

No, it does not. Because by the time the good guys with guns showed up, people had already made their way out of the night club and fled. The ones left were hiding or already shot and on the ground.

If somebody had been concealed carry at the start of it, they would have been returning fire while people were running and confused. Possibly making things worse by hitting people they did not intend to hit in a dark night club.

However when the police arrived, the night club had already been evacuated and no additional people had been shot by a person with a CC permit trying to be a hero. Sorry for blowing holes in your flimsy argument.

And if you have two or more 'good guys with a gun' by opening fire in the situation, you've made yourself a target for the other 'good guys with a gun' as they don't know if you're trying to help the terrorist or stop him.

 skyth wrote:
And if you have two or more 'good guys with a gun' by opening fire in the situation, you've made yourself a target for the other 'good guys with a gun' as they don't know if you're trying to help the terrorist or stop him.

Obviously individuals are going to behave differently but the responsible gun owners that I know wouldn't just open fire indiscriminately in a dark crowded place. Rule number 1 with guns is to always know what you're pointing at/shooting at. If I'm armed and see something bad about to happen I'd do my best to stop it, the same way I'd try to help avoid any other kind of tragedy if I thought I could. If' I'm armed and something crazy happens like a mass shooting and I have no idea what's going on, where the bad guys are, etc. then I'm just going to do the sensible thing and try to get to safety and help others get out too. Just being armed doesn't automatically mean you'd be in a position to do anything to help, it just means you'd have the ability to help stop a shooter if the opportunity presented itself. The ability to fight back is a very worthwhile option to have even if you don't have the opportunity to exercise it.

So only the criminals should only be the ones armed?

?

Keep in mind that CDC did a study post Sandy Hook... which was deep-sixed because it didn't fit the Obama Administration's preferred narrative:
http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1?page=

Case in point:

Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.

Additionally, and the point I want to drive home:

Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 skyth wrote:
And if you have two or more 'good guys with a gun' by opening fire in the situation, you've made yourself a target for the other 'good guys with a gun' as they don't know if you're trying to help the terrorist or stop him.

Obviously individuals are going to behave differently but the responsible gun owners that I know wouldn't just open fire indiscriminately in a dark crowded place. Rule number 1 with guns is to always know what you're pointing at/shooting at. If I'm armed and see something bad about to happen I'd do my best to stop it, the same way I'd try to help avoid any other kind of tragedy if I thought I could. If' I'm armed and something crazy happens like a mass shooting and I have no idea what's going on, where the bad guys are, etc. then I'm just going to do the sensible thing and try to get to safety and help others get out too. Just being armed doesn't automatically mean you'd be in a position to do anything to help, it just means you'd have the ability to help stop a shooter if the opportunity presented itself. The ability to fight back is a very worthwhile option to have even if you don't have the opportunity to exercise it.

Wait, i thought the number 1 rule was to make sure the safety is on unless you mean to fire it. No wait, that is wrong, I thought the number 1 rule of guns is to make sure it is loaded. Waaaait, the number 1 rule of guns should be to act responsibly with the gun. Crap, I cannot get this right. There are so many number 1 rules of guns. Just cannot seem to remember them all!

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 skyth wrote:
And if you have two or more 'good guys with a gun' by opening fire in the situation, you've made yourself a target for the other 'good guys with a gun' as they don't know if you're trying to help the terrorist or stop him.

Obviously individuals are going to behave differently but the responsible gun owners that I know wouldn't just open fire indiscriminately in a dark crowded place. Rule number 1 with guns is to always know what you're pointing at/shooting at. If I'm armed and see something bad about to happen I'd do my best to stop it, the same way I'd try to help avoid any other kind of tragedy if I thought I could. If' I'm armed and something crazy happens like a mass shooting and I have no idea what's going on, where the bad guys are, etc. then I'm just going to do the sensible thing and try to get to safety and help others get out too. Just being armed doesn't automatically mean you'd be in a position to do anything to help, it just means you'd have the ability to help stop a shooter if the opportunity presented itself. The ability to fight back is a very worthwhile option to have even if you don't have the opportunity to exercise it.

Wait, i thought the number 1 rule was to make sure the safety is on unless you mean to fire it. No wait, that is wrong, I thought the number 1 rule of guns is to make sure it is loaded. Waaaait, the number 1 rule of guns should be to act responsibly with the gun. Crap, I cannot get this right. There are so many number 1 rules of guns. Just cannot seem to remember them all!

The NRA endorses 3 basic rules for firearm safety:

1.ALWAYS keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.
2.ALWAYS keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.
3.ALWAYS keep the gun unloaded until ready to use.


Jeff Cooper's 4 rules of gun safety are also widely endorsed and very similar:

1.All guns are always loaded.
2.Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
3.Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.
4.Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.

Project Appleseed also uses 4 rules for gun safety in their marksmenship classes

1.Always keep the muzzle in a safe direction.
2.Do not load until given the load command.
3.Keep your finger off the trigger until the sights are on the target.
4.Make sure those around you follow the safety rules.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 skyth wrote:
And if you have two or more 'good guys with a gun' by opening fire in the situation, you've made yourself a target for the other 'good guys with a gun' as they don't know if you're trying to help the terrorist or stop him.

Obviously individuals are going to behave differently but the responsible gun owners that I know wouldn't just open fire indiscriminately in a dark crowded place. Rule number 1 with guns is to always know what you're pointing at/shooting at. If I'm armed and see something bad about to happen I'd do my best to stop it, the same way I'd try to help avoid any other kind of tragedy if I thought I could. If' I'm armed and something crazy happens like a mass shooting and I have no idea what's going on, where the bad guys are, etc. then I'm just going to do the sensible thing and try to get to safety and help others get out too. Just being armed doesn't automatically mean you'd be in a position to do anything to help, it just means you'd have the ability to help stop a shooter if the opportunity presented itself. The ability to fight back is a very worthwhile option to have even if you don't have the opportunity to exercise it.

Wait, i thought the number 1 rule was to make sure the safety is on unless you mean to fire it. No wait, that is wrong, I thought the number 1 rule of guns is to make sure it is loaded. Waaaait, the number 1 rule of guns should be to act responsibly with the gun. Crap, I cannot get this right. There are so many number 1 rules of guns. Just cannot seem to remember them all!

wow, just wow.

 redleger wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 skyth wrote:
And if you have two or more 'good guys with a gun' by opening fire in the situation, you've made yourself a target for the other 'good guys with a gun' as they don't know if you're trying to help the terrorist or stop him.

Obviously individuals are going to behave differently but the responsible gun owners that I know wouldn't just open fire indiscriminately in a dark crowded place. Rule number 1 with guns is to always know what you're pointing at/shooting at. If I'm armed and see something bad about to happen I'd do my best to stop it, the same way I'd try to help avoid any other kind of tragedy if I thought I could. If' I'm armed and something crazy happens like a mass shooting and I have no idea what's going on, where the bad guys are, etc. then I'm just going to do the sensible thing and try to get to safety and help others get out too. Just being armed doesn't automatically mean you'd be in a position to do anything to help, it just means you'd have the ability to help stop a shooter if the opportunity presented itself. The ability to fight back is a very worthwhile option to have even if you don't have the opportunity to exercise it.

Wait, i thought the number 1 rule was to make sure the safety is on unless you mean to fire it. No wait, that is wrong, I thought the number 1 rule of guns is to make sure it is loaded. Waaaait, the number 1 rule of guns should be to act responsibly with the gun. Crap, I cannot get this right. There are so many number 1 rules of guns. Just cannot seem to remember them all!

wow, just wow.

I know, right! It gets confusing when there are so many different Number 1 Rules!

Only when you intentionally avoid trying to learn them.

yellowfever wrote:
Only when you intentionally avoid trying to learn them.

Poster gets confused on number one. Do you need us to provide visual aids for you? Here, I have a New Yorker here who can help provide that needed visual aid. Now carefully watch his hand...

 Frazzled wrote:

yellowfever wrote:
Only when you intentionally avoid trying to learn them.

Poster gets confused on number one. Do you need us to provide visual aids for you? Here, I have a New Yorker here who can help provide that needed visual aid. Now carefully watch his hand...

Ah, the old one finger salute.

I prefer to think of it as a handy visual aid. SWMBO also does and uses it often to help clarify a discussion point we are having. Sometimes its followed by the "feth you" dance. I especially like the twirl finger kick twirl finger kick ending she does.

Redheads are crazy.

I'm not trying to be rude to anyone but 3 to 4 basic rules are not difficult to learn. I was taught (in no specific order)

1 treat every weapon as if it is loaded
2 never point a weapon at anything you don't want to shoot
3 Keep your finger off the trigger until your ready to fire.
4 be sure of your target and what's in line with it

Now of course people with no training won't know these. But these rules are not difficult to learn.

yellowfever wrote:
I'm not trying to be rude to anyone but 3 to 4 basic rules are not difficult to learn. I was taught (in no specific order)

1 treat every weapon as if it is loaded
2 never point a weapon at anything you don't want to shoot
3 Keep your finger off the trigger until your ready to fire.
4 be sure of your target and what's in line with it

Now of course people with no training won't know these. But these rules are not difficult to learn.

So wait wait wait, are you telling me the Number 1 Rule you were taught is completely different from the other Number 1 Rules provided!

It is almost as if there is no cohesive list of important gun safety things and instead people teach what they believe to be the Number 1 Rule according to the list they agree with the most.

(Man I hope you guys are catching on to how I am pointing out how absurd and disorganized our gun safety classes are with their varying sets of rules)

 Dreadwinter wrote:
(Man I hope you guys are catching on to how I am pointing out how absurd and disorganized our gun safety classes are with their varying sets of rules)

Most are run by NRA-certified instructors, and they're pretty consistent. (If the instructor isn't NRA-certified, you probably shouldn't be paying them.)

So, no.

Seaward wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
(Man I hope you guys are catching on to how I am pointing out how absurd and disorganized our gun safety classes are with their varying sets of rules)

Most are run by NRA-certified instructors, and they're pretty consistent. (If the instructor isn't NRA-certified, you probably shouldn't be paying them.)

Why? Why is the NRA Special here? Are there not others that can do the same thing they do?

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Seaward wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
(Man I hope you guys are catching on to how I am pointing out how absurd and disorganized our gun safety classes are with their varying sets of rules)

Most are run by NRA-certified instructors, and they're pretty consistent. (If the instructor isn't NRA-certified, you probably shouldn't be paying them.)

Why? Why is the NRA Special here? Are there not others that can do the same thing they do?

Because they provide consistent training and have a damned good certification program which ensures you don't have some nimrod teaching you bad habits.

There are other good instructors/classes, but you need to do your research.

The 4 basic gun safety rules are equally important and are often presented in a different order, but the content of the 4 is always the same.

Actually they are. Have you noticed that the rules posted are basically the same. I was taught that their is no "number one rule". All three to four rules are important.

When I was in the military the fourth rule was actually to keep your weapon on safe till your ready to fire. But all military weapons have a manual safety (well they used too). That's not the case with civilian weapons. So the government agencies I worked with had the fourth rule like I stated previously. Once again none of the rules are more important than the others. They are all necessary.