New gun control push because of Tucson shooting

[Gravekeeper]

If I use my martial arts training to defend myself or someone else, I'm going to jail. Believe me. I've spent 3 separate weekends there as a result of it. They call it "Excessive Force," even if my life or health was potentially in danger. The onus is on me to defend myself in court or pray the DA decides not to press charges.

Damn, your local police and/or DA must be a complete dick? ( On a side note, the way you elect *everyone* down there gives me a headache sometimes ). Excessive force is, as the name implies, excessive. As in you need to have caused permanent injury or death. Or kept beating the guy after he'd given up or been knocked out. Excessive force is something you gotta work at to achieve. >.>

[Cata]

Damn, your local police and/or DA must be a complete dick? ( On a side note, the way you elect *everyone* down there gives me a headache sometimes ). Excessive force is, as the name implies, excessive. As in you need to have caused permanent injury or death. Or kept beating the guy after he'd given up or been knocked out. Excessive force is something you gotta work at to achieve. >.>

As I understand it, where I live, people who have significant martial arts training are held to a higher standard. If I fight back (melee) against an assailant and accidentally kill him, I'm generally off the hook; the death was an accident (barring any obvious and deliberate attempts to murder him). However, someone with a significant degree of martial arts training WILL be charged with murder if they kill someone in a fist fight, because they are expected to be capable of incapacitating their assailant without killing them.

I have no idea how it falls out for lesser issues WRT martial arts, but the local police generally arrest everyone involved in a brawl, and then press charges against only some of the participants, generally the antagonists and/or people who went overboard in their use of violence during the fight.

[Gravekeeper]

Ah, finally found the guy I was thinking of: Joseph Zamudio. The guy that was at Arizona shooting and *did* have a gun on him. He saw it happen when he was coming out of drug store across the street and had his 9mm with him. Ran over ready to shoot, almost shot the wrong guy but luckily people saw him and yelled at him that he was aiming at the wrong guy.

That's the kind of thing that makes me wary about the whole idea. ID'n the wrong guy, or even worse, if there were two or three people carrying in the crowd. What if they misidentified each other? Gah, there's just too many ways something farktastic could happen for me to be comfortable with the idea. And yeah, maybe a cop would misidentified the guy too ( which btw, if they arrive and *you're* the only one still standing with a gun, guess whose getting shot. >.> ). But police won't accidently shoot each other at least.


Found a recent study but fair warning it only covers Philly. So does not speak for other areas or States. It just really sucks to be in Philly. >.>

Also...you can apparently still buy a gun if you're on the terrorist watch list? Nrrrr.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Ah, finally found the guy I was thinking of: Joseph Zamudio. The guy that was at Arizona shooting and *did* have a gun on him. He saw it happen when he was coming out of drug store across the street and had his 9mm with him. Ran over ready to shoot, almost shot the wrong guy but luckily people saw him and yelled at him that he was aiming at the wrong guy.

Incorrect. The information at hand from witness accounts and Zamudio himself indicates that he arrived after the shooter was down, spotted someone holding a gun but observed that the person holding it wasn't using it and that it was empty and decided to approach the man and investigate. When he did the people holding the shooter down told him that the person they had was the shooter.

He didn't *almost* shoot anyone.

That's the kind of thing that makes me wary about the whole idea. ID'n the wrong guy, or even worse, if there were two or three people carrying in the crowd. What if they misidentified each other? Gah, there's just too many ways something farktastic could happen for me to be comfortable with the idea. And yeah, maybe a cop would misidentified the guy too ( which btw, if they arrive and *you're* the only one still standing with a gun, guess whose getting shot. >.> ). But police won't accidently shoot each other at least.

Well that's life. When the going gets tough, guarantees are thin but you're just going to have to deal. From what I can find there haven't been any cases of miss-identification on the part of responding armed citizens, nor have police officers mistaken an armed citizen for the shooter because not only do they have brains and can observe things like Zamudio did and draw the correct conclusions, but during LE training officers are instructed to expect armed good guys and bad guys. Between plainclothes and undercover officers there's plenty of room for cops to shoot each other too, but that almost never happens again because they know to expect that sort of thing.

Found a recent study but fair warning it only covers Philly. So does not speak for other areas or States. It just really sucks to be in Philly. >.>

Heh, speaking of minute sample sizes...
And the researchers are daft enough to think that the exact same approach they use for diseases and the like applies to things like guns? Did they even consider crimes that went un-reported which make up a substantial portion of DGUs?

Also...you can apparently still buy a gun if you're on the terrorist watch list? Nrrrr.

Why shouldn't you? The terrorist watchlist is a list of names that routinely include hundreds if not thousands of people other than the intended individual.

[Andara Bledin]

Why shouldn't you? The terrorist watchlist is a list of names that routinely include hundreds if not thousands of people other than the intended individual.

Because, don't you know, even if 1600 people in the US share the same name, because one of them might be a terrorist, none of the rest should ever be allowed to own a weapon. Nevermind that the TWL is just names, and doesn't include any really useful information.

Jan 2010 article from Wired about 8-year-old that gets frisked every time he flies due to having that common name. You'd think that after a decade of the same complaint, they'd have managed better.

^-.-^

[Gravekeeper]

He didn't *almost* shoot anyone.

To quote the guy himself:

"He saw people wrestling, including one man with the gun. “I kind of assumed he was the shooter,” said Zamudio in an interview with MSNBC. Then, “everyone said, ‘no, no — it’s this guy,’” said Zamudio.

To his credit, he ultimately helped subdue Loughner. But suppose, in those few seconds of confusion, he had fired at the wrong man and killed a hero? “I was very lucky,” Zamudio said."

He himself admits he got lucky. He didn't draw the correct conclusion.

From what I can find there haven't been any cases of miss-identification on the part of responding armed citizens, nor have police officers mistaken an armed citizen for the shooter

This is kind of the problem, I honestly can't find much at all that goes either way. So we're largely just stuck in the realm of theorycraft. That said, I *have* heard of officers mistaken citizens before. Which....actually isn't a good thing in any way shape or form. But thats kind of a problem that goes above and beyond this singular scenaro.

during LE training officers are instructed to expect armed good guys and bad guys.

I guess I can see that being part of the training in the States, but you were pretty hard on LE training earlier.

Did they even consider crimes that went un-reported which make up a substantial portion of DGUs?

Well, obviously, we can't really say much for unreported incidents one way or another.

Why shouldn't you? The terrorist watchlist is a list of names that routinely include hundreds if not thousands of people other than the intended individual.

The effectiveness of the list is not the issue. The issue is they came up with the idea and it didn't occur to anyone to ban them from buying weapons. Can't hop a flight anywhere, but hey, no problem buy weapons? >.>

Isn't there a loophole of some sort where anyone can buy a gun at a gun show without even a background check too?

[Wingates_Hellsing]

To quote the guy himself:

"He saw people wrestling, including one man with the gun. “I kind of assumed he was the shooter,” said Zamudio in an interview with MSNBC. Then, “everyone said, ‘no, no — it’s this guy,’” said Zamudio.

To his credit, he ultimately helped subdue Loughner. But suppose, in those few seconds of confusion, he had fired at the wrong man and killed a hero? “I was very lucky,” Zamudio said."

He himself admits he got lucky. He didn't draw the correct conclusion.

Those two quotes are incredibly out of context. If you watch the full video interview he details how he assumed at first that the man holding the gun was the shooter but re-evaluated when he noticed that the gun was empty and the man was clearly not using it. Not wanting to take anything for granted, he opted instead to approach the man and demand that he drop the weapon until the situation was established.

Moreover, while Zamudio sees himself as lucky this is actually the typical sequence of events. Time and again people in extraordinary situations rise to the occasion quite to the contrary of what our society has lead us to believe.

This is kind of the problem, I honestly can't find much at all that goes either way. So we're largely just stuck in the realm of theorycraft. That said, I *have* heard of officers mistaken citizens before. Which....actually isn't a good thing in any way shape or form. But thats kind of a problem that goes above and beyond this singular scenaro.

It's true that instances of officers happening upon armed civilians is pretty low because by virtue of their differences from LE: they typically don't stick around. Where an LEO is duty bound to arrest suspects and standby for backup; an armed citizen exercising self defense is either going to use it to create an opening to flee and follow suit or the situation will go entirely south and one or both parties end up dead. Either way by the time the cops get there the likelihood that anyone will be lounging around, weapon in hand is practically nil.

However, in those few instances where we have multiple active first responders citizen or otherwise, the outcomes have been pretty good such as in the case of the Appalachian School of Law shooting.

While your concerns of things possibly going badly are valid in that they're possible and when applied to a massive body of instances such as law enforcement actions et al they start to happen a number of times, none of this changes the fact that they're far from probable.

The reality of life is that when you're dealing with things like mass shootings, burning buildings and other disastrous emergencies there are simply no guarantees. Everything you do, including nothing, can get you killed and that's just how it is. That's why it's so important that we equip ourselves if we so choose to because what ultimately pays is options. There is no one option that you'll always have, so you should have as many options are possible.

I guess I can see that being part of the training in the States, but you were pretty hard on LE training earlier.

From what I've heard from my LEO acquaintances this basically amounts to a few sentences of lecture time and in some rare cases an armed training target that is not aiming it's weapon at anyone (the rule of thumb, you don't get shot for holding a gun, you get shot for aiming or shooting a gun) and TBH that's really all it takes. All it really takes is awareness and the rest falls into place.

Important distinction: I'm not saying now nor have I ever said that LE training is crap, it isn't. It is solid foundational training and there's no reason not to have it if you can get it. My problem is with the idea that basic LE training somehow transforms what would be an incapable man or woman into a consummate professional, it's not, that isn't it's purpose. It's purpose is to fill in any gaps and correct any misconceptions at the bases level and build on it a bit from there. The fact of the matter is that most people just before their academy training could do much of what's needed of them just fine without it, problem being that they need to do it all, this is not true for CCP holders.

CCP holders only need to know basic gun safety, basic self-defense usage, their local self defense legislative 'bullet points' and what to do after it's all over. All in all this is easily doable in a few days of class time.

Actively training in Active-Shooter scenarios is really just a waste of time by virtue of their rarity because you're essentially spending time, money and effort on a few specialized skills you probably won't get the chance to use and even if you do you probably won't need them. Ultimately they mostly just amount to applied basics so as long as you have those you're about as set as it's practical to be.

Specialized skills that SWAT teams learn are largely irrelevant. Group movement, emergency vs tactical mag changes vs swapping to secondary, room clearing strategy, all that's irrelevant to the armed citizen unless they just so happen to go everywhere with three or four PMCs with carbines. Probably the only one worth addressing at all is the 5% shot and you can do that all on your lonesome.

Anyway, tangent over, moving on:

Well, obviously, we can't really say much for unreported incidents one way or another.

The surveys sourced by Gary Kleck did a decent job, both in demonstrating that they happen, about how much they happen and how DGUs effect them.

The effectiveness of the list is not the issue. The issue is they came up with the idea and it didn't occur to anyone to ban them from buying weapons. Can't hop a flight anywhere, but hey, no problem buy weapons? >.>

That's because quite frankly the list was and always will be a feel good that does nothing. All it gets anyone is a frisking and a few hours delay, more to 'show that we're vigilant' than anything else. The only legitimate use it has is to catch fleeing criminals and that's where the hour delay comes in, even then it's about directing scrutiny, not listing known quantities.

Isn't there a loophole of some sort where anyone can buy a gun at a gun show without even a background check too?

This is another of the ones I get all the time, and it has to do with a certain amount of not-so-subtle misinformation.

The actuality of the matter is that private sales I.E. transfers from one citizen to another are not regulated below the level of Title 2. The seller is still responsible if they knowingly furnish a felon or other restricted person with a firearm, however, so due prudence is usually administered. This happens at gun shows because what with all the gun owners there it's no duh that it's an expedient place to go if you've got something you're looking to sell.

What we're lead to believe is that all those booths brimming with every sort of weapon imaginable, with major distributor's logos and employees are subject to some kind of magical loophole and the eevil weevil gun industry is exploiting it to hell and back. This is a false notion. The dealers at gun shows are licensed firearms distributors and are subject to all of the duties and misconduct penalties therein detailed regardless of the location or nature of the sale.

[Gravekeeper]

Those two quotes are incredibly out of context.

Have to take your word for it, can't dig it out on shift. -.-

Time and again people in extraordinary situations rise to the occasion quite to the contrary of what our society has lead us to believe.

I've never heard of society leading us to believe otherwise?

Where an LEO is duty bound to arrest suspects and standby for backup; an armed citizen exercising self defense is either going to use it to create an opening to flee and follow suit or the situation will go entirely south and one or both parties end up dead. Either way by the time the cops get there the likelihood that anyone will be lounging around, weapon in hand is practically nil.

Depends on the situation, how it goes down, when its noticed and how close the nearest LE is. Practically nil is a little bit too much conjecture for me.

However, in those few instances where we have multiple active first responders citizen or otherwise, the outcomes have been pretty good such as in the case of the Appalachian School of Law shooting.

Otherwise. Both that responded with guns in that shooting were off duty cops. Neither was carrying ( they both had to run to their cars to get their guns ). Neither reached the shooter before he was physically subdued by yet another off duty officer ( +former marine ) and by that time the guy's clip was already empty ( as he'd already shot 6 people, 3 fatally ). So armed citizens were not a factor at all in stopping that one.

The reality of life is that when you're dealing with things like mass shootings, burning buildings and other disastrous emergencies there are simply no guarantees.

Yes, which is why I perfer to error on the side of caution and not introduce even more potentially dangerous factors.

Everything you do, including nothing, can get you killed and that's just how it is. That's why it's so important that we equip ourselves if we so choose to because what ultimately pays is options. There is no one option that you'll always have, so you should have as many options are possible.

My problem is not with options, but rather when those options become additional possible factors. Because again, the US does not seem to have proper controls in place to ensure we're only talking options. Due again, to what I assume is States rights.

Important distinction: I'm not saying now nor have I ever said that LE training is crap, it isn't.

I didn't say you said it was crap. I just said earlier in the discussion you were seemingly pretty hard on it.

CCP holders only need to know basic gun safety, basic self-defense usage, their local self defense legislative 'bullet points' and what to do after it's all over. All in all this is easily doable in a few days of class time.

Exactly. ><

Actively training in Active-Shooter scenarios is really just a waste of time by virtue of their rarity-

Maybe, but as the original debate was gun holder vs active shooter scenario, if you're going to be carrying a gun around because of the possibility of such a scenario than it's not really a waste of time.

Specialized skills that SWAT teams learn are largely irrelevant. Group movement, emergency vs tactical mag changes vs swapping to secondary, room clearing strategy, all that's irrelevant to the armed citizen unless they just so happen to go everywhere with three or four PMCs with carbines. Probably the only one worth addressing at all is the 5% shot and you can do that all on your lonesome.

Well no, you don't need to know that level of knowledge. It's rather unlikely as an armed civilian you'll need to storm and clear a house.

The surveys sourced by Gary Kleck did a decent job, both in demonstrating that they happen, about how much they happen and how DGUs effect them.

One point I found interesting in his study is the 1.4% figure. I haven't decided if that's rare, or uncomfortable common.

That's because quite frankly the list was and always will be a feel good that does nothing.

No argument there. 90% of what's going on down there lately is Feel Good(tm) only.

This is another of the ones I get all the time, and it has to do with a certain amount of not-so-subtle misinformation.

The frequency of its occurence does not negate the fact its a loophole and thus should be closed though. However, from what I can tell attempts to close it are usually met with a freak out by the NRA.

What we're lead to believe is that all those booths brimming with every sort of weapon imaginable, with major distributor's logos and employees are subject to some kind of magical loophole and the eevil weevil gun industry is exploiting it to hell and back. This is a false notion.

But I didn't say any of that. I'm just saying loophole = there = not good.

[Vash113]

I've never heard of society leading us to believe otherwise?

Except it is the basis of your entire argument. You just don't seem to trust people acting logically and safely in dangerous situations and therefore believe that armed citizens are somehow a threat. However that belief, while fairly common, is just not the case at all as shown by numerous studies, surveys and crime statistics.

Depends on the situation, how it goes down, when its noticed and how close the nearest LE is. Practically nil is a little bit too much conjecture for me.

Perhaps for you but it is what the vast majority of situations that have occurred have shown. Either the situation is handled by the time the Cops get there and with no active threat the Cops hold their fire, or the situation is ongoing at which point the Cops generally follow your basic teamwork principles and shoot at the guy indiscriminately gunning down bystanders and not the people shooting at the criminal.

Perfect example is again the University of Texas shooting. Civilians responded to the threat well before the Cops showed up and when they did none of the responding officers mistook the Civilians for the Criminal, instead acting to back them up and work with them. The Civilians that responded to the threat remained in play acting in conjunction with the Austin Police Department until the threat was ended.

Otherwise. Both that responded with guns in that shooting were off duty cops. Neither was carrying ( they both had to run to their cars to get their guns ). Neither reached the shooter before he was physically subdued by yet another off duty officer ( +former marine ) and by that time the guy's clip was already empty ( as he'd already shot 6 people, 3 fatally ). So armed citizens were not a factor at all in stopping that one.

Nevertheless armed civilians were in play and no-one was hurt by them. Your arguments boil down to the fear that just having more guns in play increases the threat, but that's not really the case, yet again shown by this incident. Though the two men responded to the threat it ended before they arrived and neither made the situation worse. Fortunately they weren't needed but that they were there is no bad thing. Also they do count as armed civilians in this case as they were not just off duty they were far, far out of their jurisdiction and held no more privileges than any other civilians.

Yes, which is why I perfer to error on the side of caution and not introduce even more potentially dangerous factors.

Yet you have not shown armed civilians to be a dangerous factor, even saying they are a potentially dangerous factor is just not supported by the facts.

My problem is not with options, but rather when those options become additional possible factors. Because again, the US does not seem to have proper controls in place to ensure we're only talking options. Due again, to what I assume is States rights.

You say the US does not have the proper controls but I see no justification for such a claim, or any reason to fear armed civilians as an option to respond to a threat or a factor in eliminating a threat.

I didn't say you said it was crap. I just said earlier in the discussion you were seemingly pretty hard on it.

Wingates' point was that there is no magic secret taught to Law Enforcement or Military Personel in their training that makes them necessarily any more qualified than Civilians at utilising lethal force in a dangerous situation. It is a common argument that civilians lack the training to respond properly but again that's just not really the case.

Exactly. ><

Yet here you assume proper training must take a long time, but really we aren't talking rocket science here. Backstop, overpenetration, basic firearm safety, these things do not take a great deal of time to teach. In fact the only firearms training I've ever had was a single hours instruction at Scout Camp over a decade ago yet I am constantly complimented on my utilization of basic urban tactics and gun safety by acting and former military and law enforcement personel at the gun range and while engaging in MILSIM events. All told these aren't really complex or difficult concepts to grasp. A few hours of classroom instruction is all that is really needed, it works for the Police, it works for the Army, and it works for Civilians too.

Maybe, but as the original debate was gun holder vs active shooter scenario, if you're going to be carrying a gun around because of the possibility of such a scenario than it's not really a waste of time.

On the contrary Wingates is correct, nobody except SWAT actively train in "active-shooter" scenarios, not even normal law enforcement officers. They are so rare that training regularly is ultimately fairly pointless, however the basic response protocol is covered and is fairly simple. As for Civilians the point of carrying a concealed weapon for protection isn't always to respond to active-shooter scenarios, rather to cover the gampit of possibilities where armed protection is neccessary and again the response to these threats is really quite simple and covered in the concealed carry permit training that is required in most jurisdictions that allow CCP.

One point I found interesting in his study is the 1.4% figure. I haven't decided if that's rare, or uncomfortable common.

It's common enough to show the necessity but rare enough that many people can choose not to arm themselves if they don't want to. The benefit of gun rights and gun owners is that they protect everyone, even those who choose not to arm themselvse. That the need for such protection is moderately common is just the nature of crime in general.

The frequency of its occurence does not negate the fact its a loophole and thus should be closed though. However, from what I can tell attempts to close it are usually met with a freak out by the NRA.

Actually no it should not be "closed," it won't be closed ever, because to do so would be an utter violation of constitutional rights. The Government just cannot regulate private sales, not now, not ever. Not to mention it isn't really a loophole, private sellers can still be held criminally accountable or civilly accountable if they sell a weapon to someone intending to commit a crime if there's any reasonable way they might have believed that to be a possibility. Hence background checks and paperwork are still extremely common despite a lack of distinct regulation.

Though anti-gun groups love to rant and rave about Gun Shows, the fact of the matter is they have never been shown to be even minor sources of illegal or ciminally used guns. Alternately I think the NRA is justifiably disturbed when someone tries to deny us our 2nd Ammendment Rights and our rights to privacy and against illegal search and seizure all in one go.

But I didn't say any of that. I'm just saying loophole = there = not good.

Where as we are saying trampling constitutional rights = worse than non-existent loophole.

Ultimately it comes down to not just saying something isn't good but saying why and then offering a solution, without either of those answers there's no justification for taking action against something at the detriment of rights or freedoms just so everyone can feel good about passing the law.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

I've never heard of society leading us to believe otherwise?

All it takes is to look. At every opportunity we're told that we shouldn't do anything for ourselves, there's too much risk and there's no point trying. Just wait for the authorities and they'll handle it all for us when they get here. Every time someone rises to the occasion it's met with a sort of wide-eyed shock as if it's something that doesn't happen all the fucking time.

Depends on the situation, how it goes down, when its noticed and how close the nearest LE is. Practically nil is a little bit too much conjecture for me.

What do you want? a magical psychic set of X-ray specs that magically informs the wearer as to the intent of the people around them?
Far from conjecture this is exactly what the people whose area of expertise this is have found to be true. We're dealing with a specific situation that's substantially rare and at that it only could lead to something bad once it happens. Throwing out CCWs over this drawback is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater because there was a bit of lint in it.

Life doesn't have any guarantees and this holds true in life or death situations more than anywhere else. Sooner or later you're going to have to accept that anything someone does in these situations could get them killed, including nothing, and depriving them of a perfectly valid option because it like anything else might fuck up makes no sense because by that litmus test you'd also have to restrain them from negotiating, complying, running, anything.

Otherwise. Both that responded with guns in that shooting were off duty cops. Neither was carrying ( they both had to run to their cars to get their guns ). Neither reached the shooter before he was physically subdued by yet another off duty officer ( +former marine ) and by that time the guy's clip was already empty ( as he'd already shot 6 people, 3 fatally ). So armed citizens were not a factor at all in stopping that one.

Off duty cop in an entirely different state than their jurisdiction = civilian. And if it weren't for the the fact that they did have to run to their cars they would have been able to intervene far earlier than otherwise. If anything, an example both that two armed citizens are perfectly able to identify the shooter and the bystanders based solely on behavior alone, it's also a textbook example of why banning CC only got in the way of the good guys.

Yes, which is why I perfer to error on the side of caution and not introduce even more potentially dangerous factors.

Which would in fact be a correct application of erring on the side of caution if the potentially dangerous factors you were worried about weren't themselves dwarfed by the potential good they come right along with. Erring on the side of caution would be going with the net result, which is demonstrably positive.

My problem is not with options, but rather when those options become additional possible factors. Because again, the US does not seem to have proper controls in place to ensure we're only talking options. Due again, to what I assume is States rights.

If an armed citizen doesn't try to engage an active shooter their not doing it right. Drawing a weapon, any kind of weapon, and closing to engage is the best and therefore first option when the defecation hits the oscillation. Are you suggesting that we put laws in place forcing people to refrain from using weapons until they've actually tried some course of action that they know is doomed to fail?

I don't know about you, but I think what describes the best course of action when someone's life is on the line is up to that person and not any regulating body. Legislating people out of using their best judgment to save their lives or those of others because you don't agree with the way some people would do it is the height of arrogance. Excessive force is probably as good as you're going to get before you start screwing people. If they used more force than they had to than they're going to jail, anything more complicated is infringing too much to do little if any good.

I didn't say you said it was crap. I just said earlier in the discussion you were seemingly pretty hard on it.

And if you look again you'll see that I wasn't so much hard on it as I was hard on the inflated stock some people put in it. As I just finished explaining before.

Exactly. ><

Exactly what?
Have you or have you not frequented your discomfort with the idea of 'untrained' persons?
Is that or is that not at odds with admitting that said training is a factor of hours in-class and easily equatable through even cursory personal research?

Maybe, but as the original debate was gun holder vs active shooter scenario, if you're going to be carrying a gun around because of the possibility of such a scenario than it's not really a waste of time.

Which is why standard DGUs are applicable, that's what you're 99% carrying for, and AS scenarios are just the cherry on top. A cherry that really isn't that different from the rest of it and to be ready for only takes a modicum, if not borderline immaterial, amount of effort.

That said, this is a free country and what I spend my effort and discomfort tolerance on is entirely up to me.

Well no, you don't need to know that level of knowledge. It's rather unlikely as an armed civilian you'll need to storm and clear a house.

And yet many do, if only because it's totally freakin' bad-ass. I'm already saving up for the Magpul training videos.

One point I found interesting in his study is the 1.4% figure. I haven't decided if that's rare, or uncomfortable common.

I'd place it as likely enough to be a factor, infrequent by virtue of emergencies being rare in general. Good news being that it becomes a win-win. Those who choose to be prepared stand to make the world a better place and aid others and those who don't aren't signing death warrants in the same way as disregarding the failing brakes on your car would be.

No argument there. 90% of what's going on down there lately is Feel Good(tm) only.

Replace 'down there' with 'freakin everywhere' and yeah, I agree. I can't throw a stick in Best Buy without hitting a game that Australia's review board didn't shit unnecessary bricks over, and the UK is just getting ridiculous.

The frequency of its occurence does not negate the fact its a loophole and thus should be closed though. However, from what I can tell attempts to close it are usually met with a freak out by the NRA.

See below as to there being no loophole.
And you're god damned right the NRA freaks, the gun culture NRA included has experienced supposed 'sensible measures' slippery sloping their way into blatant rights infringements enough not to believe for one second that anti-gunners are interested in anything other than eliminating 2nd amendment rights, which in this case would be infringed upon right along with privacy and illegal search and seizure.

But I didn't say any of that. I'm just saying loophole = there = not good.

You asked me what it was and that is it: A misconception at best.
Imaginary loophole =/= justification for removing civil liberties.

[Andara Bledin]

I find this debate somewhat amusing.

Not so much for the debate itself, but for how much effort uninformed people put into fearing guns and people who carry guns.

There are a lot more scary things out there that we encounter every single day (crosswalks, for example) that we barely give consideration to, but we spend so much time and effort over things that most people encounter only a few times in their entire lives.

^-.-^

[Gravekeeper]

Except it is the basis of your entire argument.

No it's not. My argument was that introducing additional possible lethal factors when those factors don't have sufficient controls is a bad idea. You also can't hand wave that with "numerous studies". As we can't seem to find much one way or another.

You just don't seem to trust people acting logically and safely in dangerous situations and therefore believe that armed citizens are somehow a threat.

Now you're making assumptions and using them to pole vault to a conclusion. There's a difference between a dangerous situation such as an accident or disaster, and an extreme situation such as an active shooter scenario where people are confronted with the possibility of someone actually trying to hunt them down or murder them. There is no one way people will react to that. You don't really know how you'll respond to the immediate possibility of your life ending until you reach that moment.

I can trust people to act reasonably in scenario A, but scenario B is a different and unpredictable ball game.

Perfect example is again the University of Texas shooting.

Er...wait, ok the mere fact the question "which?" came to mind is kind of bad. Regardless, you mean last year? The guy that had an assault rifle for starters, wandered around shooting it into the air than killed himself with it? What civilians responded to that armed or otherwise?

Or you mean the Appalacian Law one that Wingate is talking about?

Nevertheless armed civilians were in play and no-one was hurt by them. Your arguments boil down to the fear that just having more guns in play increases the threat, but that's not really the case, yet again shown by this incident.

No, my original argument was that more guns in a crowd usch as the Arizona shooting would increase the chances of something going tragically wrong. In the scenario of a shooter wandering around, say, a campus where civilians have already fled the area, leaving just him and a handful of people that are hiding out of sight, things are obviously different.

Though the two men responded to the threat it ended before they arrived and neither made the situation worse. Fortunately they weren't needed but that they were there is no bad thing.

They were both *cops*.

Also they do count as armed civilians in this case as they were not just off duty they were far, far out of their jurisdiction and held no more privileges than any other civilians.

No, but they have training. Which yet again goes back to the original problem me and Wingate were already discussing.

Yet you have not shown armed civilians to be a dangerous factor, even saying they are a potentially dangerous factor is just not supported by the facts.

I'm not sure you understand what my argument is at this point, honestly. You also keep citing facts, numerous studies, crime rates etc. But have only presented two. One of which is questionable. I've left crime rates out of it because they're pretty blatantly "more guns = more people being shot" but I didn't want to use causation/corralation.

You say the US does not have the proper controls but I see no justification for such a claim, or any reason to fear armed civilians as an option to respond to a threat or a factor in eliminating a threat.

How can you not see any justification with it? The mere fact monkey boy in Arizona bought a gun 3 days earlier without a problem is a pretty flagrant justification. If he's the type of civilian that can be armed, then yes, something's wrong somewhere. Either in individual State laws or lack of enforcement in existing laws.

Wingates' point was that there is no magic secret taught to Law Enforcement or Military Personel in their training that makes them necessarily any more qualified than Civilians at utilising lethal force in a dangerous situation. It is a common argument that civilians lack the training to respond properly but again that's just not really the case.

No, there's no magic secret, but they are trained in dangerous scenarios and situational judgement. Whereas the average civilian is not, because our job does not require it. Yes, some people have good judgement naturally, but some people naturally don't too. You can no more say that everyone is able to respond properly and effectively to any given danger than I can that everyone isn't. We can't have one extreme or the other, its just not realistic. That's not how people work. Some are smart, some are stupid. Some are brave, some will freak the hell out at the slightest danger.

Which is why you try and put controls in place to ensure that the ones who can handle the situation well are the ones best equipped to do so. But there are failures somewhere in this system in some places in the US. You cannot deny that. Its right there in the Arizona shooting. He didn't buy a gun on the black market.

Yet here you assume proper training must take a long time, but really we aren't talking rocket science here.

I'm not assuming anything of the sort. I'm saying that such training is not a global requirement to own a firearm in the US.

A few hours of classroom instruction is all that is really needed, it works for the Police, it works for the Army, and it works for Civilians too.

Again. That's not the issue. The issue is that training is not globally mandatory. I'm not sure how much clearing I can state this before we stop going in a circle back to earlier in the thread.

I'll say it again: I don't want to take all your damn guns away. In fact it doesn't really matter much at all what you do down there seeing as I don't live there. I'm just saying there's obviously flaws in your system, which could perhaps be ironed out if there wasn't such a rabid response to any sort of suggestion that remotely comes near gun related legislation or enforcement.

The benefit of gun rights and gun owners is that they protect everyone, even those who choose not to arm themselvse.

This, again, is the sort of attitude that bothers me. Gun owners are not charged with protecting everyone and have no responsibility to do so. That is an individual impulse.

Actually no it should not be "closed," it won't be closed ever, because to do so would be an utter violation of constitutional rights.

And there, likely, is your problem at its most base level.

Though anti-gun groups love to rant and rave about Gun Shows, the fact of the matter is they have never been shown to be even minor sources of illegal or ciminally used guns. Alternately I think the NRA is justifiably disturbed when someone tries to deny us our 2nd Ammendment Rights and our rights to privacy and against illegal search and seizure all in one go.

Sorry, but the NRA gets just as rabid as the other side of the spectrum. And one people start talking about 2nd Ammendment Rights I have to admit it gives me a headache. See previous comment about right vs priviledge.

there's no justification for taking action against something at the detriment of rights or freedoms just so everyone can feel good about passing the law.

Which. Again. The literal very first thing I said in this thread was this shouldn't be used to exact any knee jerk laws or legislation. As that would just be a band-aid feel good that likely does dick and all in the grand scheme of things.

All it takes is to look. At every opportunity we're told that we shouldn't do anything for ourselves, there's too much risk and there's no point trying. Just wait for the authorities and they'll handle it all for us when they get here. Every time someone rises to the occasion it's met with a sort of wide-eyed shock as if it's something that doesn't happen all the fucking time.

Up here the attitude isn't "do nothing for yourself" so much as "Don't escalate". As long as your life isn't in danger, there's no sense getting hurt or killed over $50 in the till sort of thing.

What do you want? a magical psychic set of X-ray specs that magically informs the wearer as to the intent of the people around them?

Heh, what, you don't want those? =p

Life doesn't have any guarantees and this holds true in life or death situations more than anywhere else. Sooner or later you're going to have to accept that anything someone does in these situations could get them killed, including nothing, and depriving them of a perfectly valid option because it like anything else might fuck up makes no sense because by that litmus test you'd also have to restrain them from negotiating, complying, running, anything.

Except the option in question is lethal to them and to others around them. That, still, in my opinion, is too important a distinction to just throw out like that. A fuck up could end lives unintentionally.

We may need to agree to disagree here.

Off duty cop in an entirely different state than their jurisdiction = civilian.

= Complete technicality. Also, I have no idea on the CC laws for that juristiction. But I'm certainly not opposed to an off-duty officer being able to CC.

Which would in fact be a correct application of erring on the side of caution if the potentially dangerous factors you were worried about weren't themselves dwarfed by the potential good they come right along with.

Again, we may have to agree to disagree. The size of said potential good is your opinion, mine differs.

I don't know about you, but I think what describes the best course of action when someone's life is on the line is up to that person and not any regulating body.

But that's not what I mean. I mean fuckwit in Arizona should have had no chance whatsoever of just walking into a store and buying a gun based on his clear history of being absolutely fucking insane. >.>

Exactly what?

You view that as sufficient, I view that as insufficient. I doubt either of us is going to move position here either.

And yet many do, if only because it's totally freakin' bad-ass. I'm already saving up for the Magpul training videos.

Ok, I'll admit that kinda made me laugh. >.>

I'd place it as likely enough to be a factor, infrequent by virtue of emergencies being rare in general. Good news being that it becomes a win-win. Those who choose to be prepared stand to make the world a better place and aid others and those who don't aren't signing death warrants in the same way as disregarding the failing brakes on your car would be.

I'm going with too common me thinks.

Replace 'down there' with 'freakin everywhere' and yeah, I agree. I can't throw a stick in Best Buy without hitting a game that Australia's review board didn't shit unnecessary bricks over, and the UK is just getting ridiculous.

Well, at least up here I don't have to have my balls cupped by a minimum wage employee to get on a plane. So far anyway. ><

You asked me what it was and that is it: A misconception at best.
Imaginary loophole =/= justification for removing civil liberties.

Ehh, I still don't like it to be honest. The threat of punishment for the seller doesn't seem airtight. Are there any studies done on how often sellers have ended up being charged in relation to a weapon they sold at a gun show which was used to commit a crime?

[protege]

I find this debate somewhat amusing.

I find it somewhat amusing that it's still going after 15 pages

Not so much for the debate itself, but for how much effort uninformed people put into fearing guns and people who carry guns.

I noticed that too. I guess I never really fell into the fearful-of-guns-group, simply because when I was growing up...there were guns in the house. I don't remember any handguns, but we did have a few rifles and shotguns. All for hunting, of course. Throw in being in scouts, and learning firearm safety...I wasn't fearful of them. I'm no expert by *any* means, yet I respect their power.

What I *don't* respect, are the douchebags who shoot at anything that moves. We've run into several of that type on the farm. In fact...one of them actually shot at my dad...who was covered head-to-toe in orange Dad promptly returned fire, sending whoever it was...scurrying into the woods.

[Mikkel]

how much effort uninformed people put into fearing guns and people who carry guns.

I don't fear guns. I'll even admit that target shooting is great fun and that if I lived in USA I'd probably own a gun too. My son-in-law have assault weapons in his home as a sergeant and weapons instructor in the Danish home guard "hjemmeværnet" and I don't feel unsafe visiting my daughter and grandchildren.

Madmen with guns, though, make me a bit nervous. A greater availability of guns must make it easier for unfit people to get them too.

[Andara Bledin]

No it's not. My argument was that introducing additional possible lethal factors when those factors don't have sufficient controls is a bad idea. You also can't hand wave that with "numerous studies". As we can't seem to find much one way or another.

Deaths are sensational. Gun deaths are more-so.

If there was much in the way of armed citizenry adding to the death counts (or even injury counts), every anti-gun site on the 'net would have archives of those stories. Except they just don't seem to exist.

While lack of evidence does not equal evidence of a lack, in this instance it's the most reasonable conclusion absent further information.

This, again, is the sort of attitude that bothers me. Gun owners are not charged with protecting everyone and have no responsibility to do so. That is an individual impulse.

Unfortunately neither are police. They can choose to not protect someone without fearing automatic reprisal. The only real difference between an armed officer and an armed civilian is that the officer can be ordered to attend to a situation. Of course, they could also be ordered away from a situation, too, if something bigger crops up.

Except the option in question is lethal to them and to others around them. That, still, in my opinion, is too important a distinction to just throw out like that. A fuck up could end lives unintentionally.

Guns aren't the only things out there that are lethal in the case of a fuck up. Hell, for the things we accidentally kill ourselves and each other with on a daily basis, guns are too far down the list (less than 0.7% of all accidental deaths, annually) to warrant anywhere near the attention we give them. As an example, in the US alone, there are as many accidental-only deaths from poisoning as there are total deaths by firearms, of which fewer than 3% are accidental, including any hypothetical cross-fire casualties.

Well, at least up here I don't have to have my balls cupped by a minimum wage employee to get on a plane. So far anyway. ><

Hey, don't forget that that minimum wage employee is unscreened, too. For all we know, half the people working for the TSA right now are terrorists; we certainly can't say that we know they aren't. >_<

^-.-^