New gun control push because of Tucson shooting

[crashhelmet]

I don't have much time left tonight, so I'll leave it with this for now.

So in essence your saying here that you're perfectly happy to arm yourself in return for pay and/or as a favor for a friend but the thought that someone might do this of their own volition is somehow vigilantism. And seemingly that a weapon is somehow instantly insidious once it's concealed despite the fact that to do so is not only more effective but also a hell of a lot more polite.
What about the people around and about who aren't comfortable with concealed weapons? is the fact that you were hired supersede their wishes in a way my right to self defense doesn't?

So your for open carry but against concealed carry because concealing necessitates a vigilante mindset? That doesn't make sense. Moreover your saying the pay check is more important than the intent?


Lastly you admit yourself that people feel safer when there are concealed firearms around should a dangerous event occur, seems like a common enough trend to validate the usefulness of the action.

For as much as you accuse me of putting words in your mouth, you're doing it here.

Nowhere have I said that someone that is employed to do the job is a vigilante. If anything, I've said that it's acceptable because they have the necessary training that's required for it.

Nowhere have I said that having a CCP makes you a vigilante. I've been speaking out against the myth that having a CCP makes you trained and capable to be the "hero" that you two keep claiming it does. Let me go further and say that just because you spend the time and money for it, it doesn't mean you're that much more responsible or capable over someone that didn't. All it does is mean that you spent the time and money to learn a little bit more about gun safety and have therefore been given an extra privilege.

Nowhere have I said that my friends feel more comfortable with me carrying concealed. I said they feel more comfortable with me carrying, period. They work in an industry that has some stalker issues and would wish I was armed to the teeth sometimes. I said I conceal when I have to wear a suit and I open carry when I'm in plain clothes. I do it that way because it's almost impossible to carry open when wearing a suit or a jacket of any kind.

I never said that carrying, whether or open or not, was vigilantism. I said that responding to a situation where you're not employed to do so can be equated as. Especially when it requires you to leave the scene to retrieve your weapon(s) and come back.

If someone decided to go "postal" here at my bread and butter job and I went home to get my handgun and then came back to shoot the guy, I would be breaking the law. Hero or not, I would be breaking the law. Despite the fact that I am trained and certified by the state and local governments here in Nevada to be armed security, I would still be breaking the law.

Let's take the argument away from guns and apply it to other things. If there was a high speed chase down the freeway and I decided to use my car to stop the other car, I'd be arrested. But it should be allowed since I have a driver's license, right? i took a road safety and defensive driving course in school. That obviously means I should know how to stop another car. Right?

And don't cry straw man. It's the same equation, just a different value or x.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

For as much as you accuse me of putting words in your mouth, you're doing it here.

Calling for clarification of seemingly impossible to reconcile inferences is not putting words in your mouth. If you take a look you'll notice that we've been asking you what it is you mean when the things your saying aren't adding up.

Nowhere have I said that someone that is employed to do the job is a vigilante. If anything, I've said that it's acceptable because they have the necessary training that's required for it.

In your lack of specificity we've no choice but to infer from your statements what you might mean. Now that we know what you mean we might be able to get somewhere.
And yet this is an entirely false equation as I stated before. Being hired to do something necessitates nothing about your competency and it's the same for a lack of having been hired to do it.
In either case the competency of the individual is up to that individual alone and from this standpoint there is therefore little dividing the efforts of LE from armed civilians.

Nowhere have I said that having a CCP makes you a vigilante.

Which is not what we've indicated that you've done. What you've done is said that to use the weapon that you carry as a result of having a CCP is vigilantism. Something that we, for a number of reasons, see as patently ridiculous.

I've been speaking out against the myth that having a CCP makes you trained and capable to be the "hero" that you two keep claiming it does.

Nowhere have we claimed that CCP holders are heroes or that they are uniquely suited to the task at hand. Our point if you would deign to notice it is that while some people are uniquely suited for a number of different tasks we as a society often underestimate the degree to which the populace at large is suited to the same task. Our point is not that CCP ownership makes you a tactical guru so much as it is that one does not need to be a tactical guru to succeed.

Let me go further and say that just because you spend the time and money for it, it doesn't mean you're that much more responsible or capable over someone that didn't. All it does is mean that you spent the time and money to learn a little bit more about gun safety and have therefore been given an extra privilege.

I could easily apply this to your theory of employment as well: Just because you've been payed to serve a role does not necessitate that you are especially prepared for it, merely that you have been given a reason to do so pending further employment or personal impulse. This particular blade cuts both ways.

Nowhere have I said that my friends feel more comfortable with me carrying concealed. I said they feel more comfortable with me carrying, period.

Which is exactly what we were responding to. Concealed or not, I really don't give two shits it's entirely up to you. That said, it's more than a little hypocritical to participate in something for the benefit of a few individuals whilst deriding others doing the same thing for themselves.

According to your logic the fact that you are carrying a weapon for the defense of either or self or in this case others categorizes you as a John Wayne wannabe out to bag the baddie, you're just getting payed to do it.

They work in an industry that has some stalker issues and would wish I was armed to the teeth sometimes.

As if there aren't plenty of people who live in areas and/or situations just the same albeit without the luxury of hiring someone to protect them.

I said I conceal when I have to wear a suit and I open carry when I'm in plain clothes. I do it that way because it's almost impossible to carry open when wearing a suit or a jacket of any kind.

Again, not at all what we were getting at but okay, whatever floats your boat. I can definitely see how a drop-leg over suit pants would chafe or at the very least ruin the pants.

I never said that carrying, whether or open or not, was vigilantism. I said that responding to a situation where you're not employed to do so can be equated as. Especially when it requires you to leave the scene to retrieve your weapon(s) and come back.

How is leaving and coming back make something into vigilantism?
Vigilantism is the extralegal punishment of an alleged criminal, which has nothing to do with a civilian responding to a violent crime or situation. The former is about vengeance, the latter is about ending the killing and saving lives. The death of the aggressor is but one of the means by which good Samaritans may accomplish their ends, but even so this has nothing to do with vigilantism.

One might be able to argue that such individuals are taking their actions to an unnecessary level, which would be a far more debatable point as compared to the entirely erroneous vigilantism comparison.

If someone decided to go "postal" here at my bread and butter job and I went home to get my handgun and then came back to shoot the guy, I would be breaking the law. Hero or not, I would be breaking the law. Despite the fact that I am trained and certified by the state and local governments here in Nevada to be armed security, I would still be breaking the law.

Again, what law would you be breaking? If you are in fact doing the right thing but being punished by the law, wouldn't that as Hyena Dandy pointed out most logically indicate that the law is wrong, not you? Why is the leaving/returning a dynamic in this at all?

But most of all: what law are you breaking here? You've said many times that you would be breaking one, but not once have you shown which one if indeed it exists at all.

Let's take the argument away from guns and apply it to other things. If there was a high speed chase down the freeway and I decided to use my car to stop the other car, I'd be arrested. But it should be allowed since I have a driver's license, right? i took a road safety and defensive driving course in school. That obviously means I should know how to stop another car. Right?

Again, for what would you be arrested for?
As far as I can tell, the use of a motor vehicle to protect yourself or others from the violent actions of someone in another vehicle would technically constitute justifiable force.

And don't cry straw man. It's the same equation, just a different value or x.

No one's crying straw man, merely that you're still wrong. Although the fact that it's a high-speed chase would indicate that the cops were already involved and therefore I could if I so elected to do so, call straw-man because the equation at hand is one where the cops are almost never already involved.
The only reason why I don't is because even under the circumstances where civilians are aiding police efforts they actions have been shown to be vindicated.

[Hyena Dandy]

I never said that carrying, whether or open or not, was vigilantism. I said that responding to a situation where you're not employed to do so can be equated as. Especially when it requires you to leave the scene to retrieve your weapon(s) and come back.

If it can (and you have not provided any statistics to back up your claims) then the laws are in the wrong.

[Gravekeeper]

Oi, Trotsky novel indeed. >.>

If someone decided to go "postal" here at my bread and butter job and I went home to get my handgun and then came back to shoot the guy, I would be breaking the law. Hero or not, I would be breaking the law. Despite the fact that I am trained and certified by the state and local governments here in Nevada to be armed security, I would still be breaking the law.

That seems like kind of an extreme example ( going home and coming back ). We're talking about of a first responder situation here aren't we? IE if you're responding before law enforcement can arrive. Running to your car I can see. In which case, what law is being broken? I can't see anyone really being charged for being the first responder to an actively dangerous situation like that. Provided you're employing reasonable force. ( Ie you didn't wing him then walk up and straight up execute him ).

Let's take the argument away from guns and apply it to other things. If there was a high speed chase down the freeway and I decided to use my car to stop the other car, I'd be arrested. But it should be allowed since I have a driver's license, right? i took a road safety and defensive driving course in school. That obviously means I should know how to stop another car. Right?

While that could be a rather stupid thing to do depending on the circumstances ( unless you've had some PIT Maneuver courses -.- ). That said, I have seen this done in high speed chases by other motorists without any arrests being thrown around. Semi drivers especially seem to tend to move to try and block a fleeing vehicle as it at least causes them to have to slow down to get around them. Though I've seen SUVs try it too. I wouldn't think about it in anything smaller though.

Though a fleeing suspect in a vehicle is typically just trying to get the hell away and really only super dangerous in a dense area like downtown or residential. Where there's too high a chance of either him or other motorists not being able to react fast enough.

But unfortunately, I can't elude a gun men by just standing off to the side and waiting for him to pass by.

[FArchivist]

Lethal Force is the last resort, and that in no way means it's not the first thing you turn to in a given situation.

I have a tendency to disagree with that, but that's because I follow a Reductionist philosophy on opponents. If someone is going to fight me, it does me no good to subdue them. That's only a temporary win; they can come back at a later time and fight me again. The only way to truly win the fight is by winning permanently; to make it so the aggressor is absolutely unable to be aggressive against you ever again.

The most practical and efficient way of ensuring this is, all things being equal, by lethal force.

(Yes, I love using Occam's Razor.)

It's really no burden when everything is going peachy, but if the government decides to overstep it's bounds, it can make all the difference in the world.

This is a significant issue that rarely gets addressed.
The idea in this day and age that the average American, who is not a trained soldier, will overcome the American military with a bunch of rifles, shotguns, and automatic pistols is frankly ludicrous. Here's why:

- If there was ever a case wherein a 2nd American Revolution occurred, you would be assured of no more than a 1/3rd of Americans joining the Revolutionaries. Another 1/3rd would remain loyal - call them Federalists - and the remaining 1/3rd would be studiedly neutral and keep their head down. Just like during the 1st American Revolution.
- At maximum, it has been estimated that only a 1/4 of the American military would defect to the Revolutionaries and that it would be in a disordered state, mostly spurred by 3%ers and Oathkeepers. The Revolutionaries would not have access to a modern air force, space weaponry, most satellite communication, AWACS, or a modern navy. They would also not have access to WMDs.
- Lack of strong leadership would lead to very disorganized resistance attempts. You can see this mirrored in the current Tea Party problems, wherein the Tea Party has failed to conquer the conservative side of politics due to divisive leadership.

Y'know, there was a good military assessment of why a 2nd revolution would fail...I'll need to find a copy of it...

ya know I seem to remember a few groups that thought that:
first that comes to mind is England during the revolutionary war-odds there were only 3(untrained civilians) to 1 british troop
Second is the US in a nice little skirmish that we lost in a tiny country called Vietnam.
third was the Russians that had their asses handed to them in Afghanistan.

Militiamen were lightly armed, had little training, and usually did not have uniforms. Their units served for only a few weeks or months at a time, were reluctant to go very far from home, and were thus generally unavailable for extended operations. Militia lacked the training and discipline of soldiers with more experience, but were more numerous and could overwhelm regular troops, as at the battles of Concord, Bennington and Saratoga, and the siege of Boston.

Ah ha! But there are significant differences!

- In the American Revolutionary War, the Revolutionaries were fighting on their home territory against what was essentially a foreign power, who had to supply all troops and ammunition from overseas. Resupply was negligible; a matter of 7-10 weeks at best to get communications back and forth. The Revolutionaries were being supplied by France and did not have to rely on their own resources for the most part.

- In the Vietnam War, you have the same situation: a foreign power attempting to finance a war far from home ground, with resupply issues, and with another foreign power closer supplementing the revolutionary faction. Worse, the home populace was more actively antagonistic to the Americans than they were to the Vietcong and Chinese/Russians. The Vietnam War was more like the issue of Vichy France than anything else. The supply issues were the direct reason why we built the big resupply base on Diego Garcia. Didn't help that the Vietcong had been guerillas since the end of WW2

- With the Russians in Afghan, you had an entrenched religious resistance who had been fighting as guerrillas for the last 400 years, being helped by massive resources from the USA that overshadowed the Russian equipment by far, and the Russians were a corrupt inept government who at times couldn't supply bullets for the guns.

Contrast all this with what we have here; a revolution fought on the occupying forces' home ground, with ample military stocks, an ambivalent civilian population of whom the majority will side with whoever provides the most security, bread, and circuses, and no widespread tradition of guerilla warfare for the past 110 years.

This isn't another Revolutionary War; it's another CIVIL war...and less pretty than the Confederacy was.

In order for a revolution to succeed in the USA, you would need to do an coup de'tat, not a revolution. Depose the heads of the federal government, execute them quickly, and get a Gestapo on the ground. Suspend elections and rule by military force "for the duration of the emergency."

Perhaps first and foremost being that government forces will be actively engaged in destroying the labor and infrastructure that enabled them to operate in the first place. innumerable vital facilities will essentially be in hostile territory that aren't set up for it (mostly intelligence and supply centers.) The industrial apparatus that makes modern armies possible will most likely grind to a halt in the turmoil.

I have to disagree with that. All assessments show that the Revolutionaries would not be able to take control of any significant urban areas as anti-government bias is firmly rural-oriented, which is not where the infrastructure and industrial production is located. You might have a chance if you dominated Detroit and Chicago...

[Hyena Dandy]

The main problem with that analysis is that it is all rooted in the right now.

I think Andy at least was talking about a hypothetical future situation of the government overstepping its bounds.

Basically, while you raise many good points, (as far as I can tell) they only apply to the current situation. In the current situation, a revolution is not justified. But if in the future one was, then the situation would be quite different.

[Andara Bledin]

Another thing that bears consideration is that the military is made up of the People. It's not an unthinking and uncritical machine solely at the disposal of the State. I'd estimate that about half of the pro-gun people I am acquainted with are either former or current members of the nation's military.

In stark contrast, none of the supporters for strict gun controls I know have ever served.

It might be interesting to see how that demographic falls in various different regions.

^-.-^

[Gravekeeper]

In stark contrast, none of the supporters for strict gun controls I know have ever served.

Ehhh, no offence but that's A) Kind of a generalization and B) Not sure what it would be relevant too unless you're just musing outloud?

Though you have me curious as to the demographic as well now. But I don't think anyone's every bothered to poll that kind of thing. So we may go unanswered. -.-

It's difficult to drudge up info about such things in the US I've found. There's two really polarized sides to the gun debate there. Inevitably most stuff I find is on the website of one side or the other. Which makes me doubt its objectiveness.

Hmm..maybe if we compared enlistment by state vs gun ownership by state?

[Andara Bledin]

Ehhh, no offence but that's A) Kind of a generalization and B) Not sure what it would be relevant too unless you're just musing outloud?

Mostly just musing about what I've seen of the people around me.

^-.-^

[FArchivist]

The main problem with that analysis is that it is all rooted in the right now. I think Andy at least was talking about a hypothetical future situation of the government overstepping its bounds. Basically, while you raise many good points, (as far as I can tell) they only apply to the current situation. In the current situation, a revolution is not justified. But if in the future one was, then the situation would be quite different.

This analysis is rooted in the state of the USA as it is now and probably will be for the next 50-75 years. In this century, the 21st, a revolution by the general citizenry of the United States is simply unfeasible unless they can get 3/4ths or more of the military to side with them and engage in a dictatorship for 15-30 years.

[crashhelmet]

And yet this is an entirely false equation as I stated before. Being hired to do something necessitates nothing about your competency and it's the same for a lack of having been hired to do it.
In either case the competency of the individual is up to that individual alone and from this standpoint there is therefore little dividing the efforts of LE from armed civilians.

Go out and get a job as a security guard, officer, patrolman, whatever you want to call the title.

Entry level gets you a flash light and a walkie talkie.

Want a promotion? Take a pepper spray/mace class.
Learn all about how to properly spray someone and not yourself. And then stand there and get sprayed in the face with it. Let me tell you, there's nothing like the sensation of feeling like your eyes are going to explode, even after you've dunked your head into the bucket of water. Congratulations! You now get to perform your job with an aerosol deterrent.

Want another promotion? Take a taser/stun gun course. Once again, learn all about the how to properly use it and then have it used on you. Your body will tingle for a while afterwards, but it doesn't hurt as long as the pepper spray does. Congratulations! You now get to carry a taser/stun gun.

Want another promotion? Take a gun safety course. Learn how to safely and properly use a handgun. Thankfully, you don't have to worry about it being used on you in order to pass the class, but this time around you have to put in a large amount of time in at a firing range and prove your ability to accurately hit whatever it is you're shooting at. Your tests will require threat targeting, as well as the standard paper bullseye.

Want to carry shotguns or rifles? Take classes for those and pass their tests to get those promotions.

So yes, someone that is employed to do this job is going to have the necessary training that an ordinary civilian won't. They don't just hire John Q Public, give him a sidearm, a patrol route, and say "Have at it."

Nowhere have we claimed that CCP holders are heroes or that they are uniquely suited to the task at hand. Our point if you would deign to notice it is that while some people are uniquely suited for a number of different tasks we as a society often underestimate the degree to which the populace at large is suited to the same task. Our point is not that CCP ownership makes you a tactical guru so much as it is that one does not need to be a tactical guru to succeed.

In other threads, you have touted how someone with a CCP is more capable than others, including LEOs, to handle these situations.

Again, a CC practitioner and a police officer are roughly equivalent over all and many if not most CC practitioners far exceed average LE levels of firearms proficiency and accuracy. CC holders are firearm hobbyists who spend many hours on the range and keeping their skills fresh. Almost always far exceeding the requirements of most law enforcement agencies.

Believe it or not, CC practitioners make places safer not less safe. And your right to comfort in no way trumps anyone's right to safety. It is far preferable for a trained and skilled individual to engage an attacker as quickly as possible in order to eliminate the threat sooner rather than later. While the exchange of fire adds quite slightly to the chance of someone catching a stray, it most likely ends a rampage far earlier than it would have otherwise. That's LE doctrine, by the way, engage the shooter as quickly as possible.

From your same response...

Even if you aren't emotionally ready to accept the fact that CCers do as much to make a place safer as cops do, at least give it some rational intellectual thought. The precedent and the numbers to say nothing of the expertise of those who are well versed in such areas all say that without a doubt you're safer around a CCer than not. Let's not let our emotions endanger our lives, or our liberty.

Moving on...

I could easily apply this to your theory of employment as well: Just because you've been payed to serve a role does not necessitate that you are especially prepared for it, merely that you have been given a reason to do so pending further employment or personal impulse. This particular blade cuts both ways.

Read my earlier response about the requirements for a job providing Armed Security.

Which is exactly what we were responding to. Concealed or not, I really don't give two shits it's entirely up to you. That said, it's more than a little hypocritical to participate in something for the benefit of a few individuals whilst deriding others doing the same thing for themselves.

According to your logic the fact that you are carrying a weapon for the defense of either or self or in this case others categorizes you as a John Wayne wannabe out to bag the baddie, you're just getting payed to do it.

No, if I was a "John Wayne wannabe out to bag the baddie" like you seem to think I am, I wouldn't need the CCP and I'd open carry regardless of what I wear. I'd have my holster hanging from my hip, strapped to my thigh, or over my jacket so that my handgun was in plain view, meeting the Open Carry requirements.

As if there aren't plenty of people who live in areas and/or situations just the same albeit without the luxury of hiring someone to protect them.

Sadly, there is too much crime in this country, let alone the world. There are people that have to worry about stray bullets coming through their walls and windows while they're sleeping, eating dinner, or having family game night.

My clients have to worry about some deranged, obsessed fan that got a reply from them on Twitter or met them at a convention that may suddenly think "If I can't have her, no one can!" and try to do something rash. Then there are the abusive exes they're stereotypically known to have. They employ me for 2 reasons. I have the qualifications and they trust me.

Again, not at all what we were getting at but okay, whatever floats your boat. I can definitely see how a drop-leg over suit pants would chafe or at the very least ruin the pants.

But that would go for the "John Wayne wannabe out to bag the baddie" look, which I am not after.

How is leaving and coming back make something into vigilantism?
Vigilantism is the extralegal punishment of an alleged criminal, which has nothing to do with a civilian responding to a violent crime or situation. The former is about vengeance, the latter is about ending the killing and saving lives. The death of the aggressor is but one of the means by which good Samaritans may accomplish their ends, but even so this has nothing to do with vigilantism.

One might be able to argue that such individuals are taking their actions to an unnecessary level, which would be a far more debatable point as compared to the entirely erroneous vigilantism comparison.

Once you leave the scene and come back armed, it becomes an act of vengeance.

Again, what law would you be breaking? If you are in fact doing the right thing but being punished by the law, wouldn't that as Hyena Dandy pointed out most logically indicate that the law is wrong, not you? Why is the leaving/returning a dynamic in this at all?

But most of all: what law are you breaking here? You've said many times that you would be breaking one, but not once have you shown which one if indeed it exists at all.

I give you the case of Adrial White, of Racine, WI. Burglars were breaking into his girlfriend's car. He shot them in self-defense. He was originally convicted of first-degree intentional homicide in the death of one burglar and found guilty of attempted second-degree intentional homicide in the shooting of another.

He appealed and was given the opportunity at a retrial due to inadequate representation. He accepted a plea of first-degree reckless homicide while armed and first-degree reckless injury while armed before it went to trial for the second time. Self-Defense was not a valid defense for his actions.

That seems like kind of an extreme example ( going home and coming back ). We're talking about of a first responder situation here aren't we? IE if you're responding before law enforcement can arrive. Running to your car I can see. In which case, what law is being broken? I can't see anyone really being charged for being the first responder to an actively dangerous situation like that. Provided you're employing reasonable force. ( Ie you didn't wing him then walk up and straight up execute him ).

But that's exactly what the civilians at UTEP did. They went home, grabbed their rifles, and came back to the scene of the shooting.

[Ninja_Sushi]

Well I guess its time for my 2 cents....

Im a handgun carrier. Some days I carry concealed, other days I open carry. I have no fear of guns whatsoever. Ive shot weapon as big as the .50 cal machine gun to as small as a deringer.

I dont believe more strict gun laws would solve anything. Take a weapon out of my hand and I cant help anyone. Im in the military and even being out at night at home makes me uneasy. Very cliche but its true: Out law personal weapons and the only people with weapons are the outlaws.

Criminals will always get their hands on a gun. Do you guys know how easy it is to buy a throw away gun? (throw away - very cheap, multiple killings attached to weapon, use and sell/throwaway) Very easy. Do people really think laws will get criminals to stop? Its too optimistic an idea. We have many laws for many things but that doesnt stop them.

I do, on the other hand, agree that people need to be more informed about weapons. Since Ive been in my criminal justice courses, Ive learned all about self defense laws. There are situations where you can kill and others where a gun is too much force. More to come later. Playing Black Ops lol

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Go out and get a job as a security guard, officer, patrolman, whatever you want to call the title.

Entry level gets you a flash light and a walkie talkie. <snip> Want to carry shotguns or rifles? Take classes for those and pass their tests to get those promotions.

So yes, someone that is employed to do this job is going to have the necessary training that an ordinary civilian won't. They don't just hire John Q Public, give him a sidearm, a patrol route, and say "Have at it."

All of which is great when it's adhered to and when said training is studiously kept with. Problem being that neither is necessarily true.
The onus of continuing with said training and maintaining a good level of proficiency is still on the individual. Together with the inevitable cases of bad apples falling through the cracks and formal training requirements or not is far from the golden bullet that some people hold it to be.

Put that together with the varying hard and fast requirements between jurisdictions and unscrupulous businesses and getting payed is no guarantee at all.

At the end of the day while in general a security guard is better than John Doe and a beat cop is better than a security guard etc. the assumption that John Doe doesn't have training is false because many do to say nothing of the falsity of the assumption that no training is a catastrophe. There are enough instances of entirely untrained people doing exactly the right thing to show that the possibility that some or even most of a given group may lack formal training is not enough to discount or disband that group. In this case, civilian CCP holders.

In other threads, you have touted how someone with a CCP is more capable than others, including LEOs, to handle these situations.

Nowhere in that quote did I state that CCers were superhuman or themselves better than cops overall, merely that many CCers are also hobbyist shooters who benefit from higher resulting proficiency levels than those LEOs who practice only as much as they are required to.

No, if I was a "John Wayne wannabe out to bag the baddie" like you seem to think I am, I wouldn't need the CCP and I'd open carry regardless of what I wear. I'd have my holster hanging from my hip, strapped to my thigh, or over my jacket so that my handgun was in plain view, meeting the Open Carry requirements.

You're the one insinuating that anyone who carries a concealed weapon who then engages an active shooter = cowboy. Are you saying that if some deranged ass-hat opened fire in the mall you were in and you were armed at that time that you wouldn't take action?
If the answer is "no I wouldn't take action" than clarification will be achieved and we can move on.
If the answer is "Yes I would take action" than it is therefore quite hypocritical for you to accuse others of being vigilantees and therefore bad people whilst doing the same thing in preparation for the same course of action in the same circumstance as you.

Sadly, there is too much crime in this country, let alone the world. There are people that have to worry about stray bullets coming through their walls and windows while they're sleeping, eating dinner, or having family game night.

My clients have to worry about some deranged, obsessed fan that got a reply from them on Twitter or met them at a convention that may suddenly think "If I can't have her, no one can!" and try to do something rash. Then there are the abusive exes they're stereotypically known to have. They employ me for 2 reasons. I have the qualifications and they trust me.

Problem being that your clients have the money to hire and vet professionals, the people who have to worry about stray shots from gang-bangers do not. They also deserve some protection and the only way they're going to get it is doing it for themselves. Open carry would be fine if it weren't for the loss of the element of surprise to say nothing of the fact that open carry tends to freak people out. It's far better to conceal for the purpose of day-to-day carry, so why shouldn't they be allowed to do it?

Once you leave the scene and come back armed, it becomes an act of vengeance.

How?
This is the biggest non-sequitur I have ever seen.
Leaving to get the right tool means only that you wanted to get the right tool. The shooter didn't go home while these people were gone, he didn't finish his crime and then get caught by an angry mob after the fact.
As long as that threat is active any and all action to end that threat is exactly that, it's only when force is used after the threat has ended that it becomes vengeance. These people didn't pop this guy on his way to court, they didn't bludgeon him to death in his bed. They recognized an ongoing threat to the life and limb of everyone in the area and prepared themselves to stop it.

I give you the case of Adrial White, of Racine, WI. Burglars were breaking into his girlfriend's car. He shot them in self-defense. He was originally convicted of first-degree intentional homicide in the death of one burglar and found guilty of attempted second-degree intentional homicide in the shooting of another.

He appealed and was given the opportunity at a retrial due to inadequate representation. He accepted a plea of first-degree reckless homicide while armed and first-degree reckless injury while armed before it went to trial for the second time. Self-Defense was not a valid defense for his actions.

Because his actions were not in self-defense. The reason he was convicted was because he used lethal force in an instance where there was no threat to life or limb and certainly no lethal force or threat thereof against him.

This man's case in no way applies to instances where people use lethal force against violent robbery attempts, active shooters, rape attempts or those instances covered by any Castle Doctrine.

But that's exactly what the civilians at UTEP did. They went home, grabbed their rifles, and came back to the scene of the shooting.

Even so, it means nothing as throughout the whole process for those who did indeed leave and then return, the shooter was still an active threat. I can find no law that makes it illegal to assist police, only cases where those who did had to fend for themselves in the face of civil suits, which is far from the end of the world and has nothing to do with legality.

[Gravekeeper]

I dont believe more strict gun laws would solve anything. Take a weapon out of my hand and I cant help anyone.

Again though, even just better enforcement of the ones you actually have would help. Also, again, you're not obligated to help anyone because you own a weapon nor are you expected in any way to do so. I'm not saying you shouldn't, just that you can't use that as an argument when there's no mandate for you to do so to begin with.

Im in the military and even being out at night at home makes me uneasy. Very cliche but its true: Out law personal weapons and the only people with weapons are the outlaws.

I'm still curious as to the state of the US or areas of the US that cause people to feel that uneasy. As for your second point, thats actually demonstrable false by other countries with stricter controls than the US. In Canada for example, when we outlawed handguns, crime with handguns dropped like a rock. Over the last 40 years or so since we began really tightening our gun control laws the usage of firearms in crime has dropped significantly. Murder with firearms for example, has dropped literally by half. Yes, we still have murder. As bad people will do bad things regardless. That however, is a different argument. But they will do it with what's available. If guns aren't available, they aren't used. So no, that cliche by itself isn't true.

Criminals will always get their hands on a gun. Do you guys know how easy it is to buy a throw away gun? (throw away - very cheap, multiple killings attached to weapon, use and sell/throwaway) Very easy. Do people really think laws will get criminals to stop? Its too optimistic an idea. We have many laws for many things but that doesnt stop them.

Again though, its easy because its available, if its not available its not easy. It goes hand in hand.

More to come later. Playing Black Ops lol

Have you no taste, man? >.>

Once you leave the scene and come back armed, it becomes an act of vengeance.

Er, no. Running to your car to get a weapon to stop an active shooter that's on a rampage isn't vengeance. Driving all the way home, getting your gun, coming back and shooting him in the head while the cops are taking him away is vengeance. >.>

I give you the case of Adrial White, of Racine, WI.

What Wingate said. That's defence of property, not defence of life.

[Vash113]

Go out and get a job as a security guard, officer, patrolman, whatever you want to call the title.

Entry level gets you a flash light and a walkie talkie.

Want a promotion? Take a pepper spray/mace class.
Learn all about how to properly spray someone and not yourself. And then stand there and get sprayed in the face with it. Let me tell you, there's nothing like the sensation of feeling like your eyes are going to explode, even after you've dunked your head into the bucket of water. Congratulations! You now get to perform your job with an aerosol deterrent.

Want another promotion? Take a taser/stun gun course. Once again, learn all about the how to properly use it and then have it used on you. Your body will tingle for a while afterwards, but it doesn't hurt as long as the pepper spray does. Congratulations! You now get to carry a taser/stun gun.

Want another promotion? Take a gun safety course. Learn how to safely and properly use a handgun. Thankfully, you don't have to worry about it being used on you in order to pass the class, but this time around you have to put in a large amount of time in at a firing range and prove your ability to accurately hit whatever it is you're shooting at. Your tests will require threat targeting, as well as the standard paper bullseye.

Want to carry shotguns or rifles? Take classes for those and pass their tests to get those promotions.

So yes, someone that is employed to do this job is going to have the necessary training that an ordinary civilian won't. They don't just hire John Q Public, give him a sidearm, a patrol route, and say "Have at it."

That would be true if those requirements you cited were universal... but they aren't. Unfortunately, just like CCP legislation, Security Guard Registration requirements are not universal, for instance I could find no training requirements or registration for use of a taser or stun gun in Virginia. Of the requirements I found for registration as an Armed Security Guard the majority of the curriculum was the legal definitions for deadly force, justified deadly force, criminal and civil liability. Mostly legal jargon, the actual safe use and care of firearms was very limited and there was no explicit requirement for range time or accuracy and certainly nothing that would remotely approximate training for reliable action under stress.

Actually the basic handgun safety course I found offered by the NRA included more range time and safety instruction than the Security Guard registration.

Concealed Carry Permits can be achieved through very limited instruction and that's somewhat worrying but comparing curriculum I do not see significantly more safety instruction in Security Guard or Law Enforcement training requirements. Certainly none of the requirements include any kind of stress training or run and gun training simulations often employed by NRA and other gun rights support organization's courses.

Even Military training curriculum do not extensively (or even marginally in cases) include run and gun simulations that get the adrenaline and blood pumping and thus would approximate the stresses of a life threatening mass shooting as has been argued.

In this respect while your basic CCP permit does not stipulate extensive training, Security Guard and Law Enforcement training requirements are not much more significant and none are as prepared for dangerous urban threats as those who choose to engage in the more active run and gun training employed by the gun rights supporters.

Regardless the very assumption that training is required to properly respond to dangerous situations is erroneous. Time and time again we have seen individuals with little or no training respond to dangerous situations properly and very successfully. Additionally civilians have access to more extensive training than that received by basic law enforcement, security or military personnel, some of whom also choose to undertake such training on their own time. As such the capacity to properly respond to violent threats is, as Wingates has said numerous times, almost completely down to the individual. Minimum requirements are all well and good but they aren't the be all end all that some claim. Completing the training does not ensure competency or effectiveness when put into real life situations, likewise lack of training does not ensure a lack of competency or effectiveness.

Training is nice, training is good, some training is better than none, but a lack of required training is no death knell.

In other threads, you have touted how someone with a CCP is more capable than others, including LEOs, to handle these situations.

Read my earlier response about the requirements for a job providing Armed Security.

Wingates' point was that having a job that includes carrying a firearm does not mean that the individual actively practices or up-keeps the skills. Whereas many gun owners and CCP holders actively practice and get far more range time than many Law Enforcement Officers. The assumption your making is that because someone has completed very basic levels of competency they are then superior in training and competency than anyone else. However that ignores the significant percentage of gun owners that actively practice the proper use of their firearms, something that many Security Guards, Law Enforcement Officers and even Military Personnel are not required to do and do not choose to do either.

No, if I was a "John Wayne wannabe out to bag the baddie" like you seem to think I am, I wouldn't need the CCP and I'd open carry regardless of what I wear. I'd have my holster hanging from my hip, strapped to my thigh, or over my jacket so that my handgun was in plain view, meeting the Open Carry requirements.

Except you've argued that concealed carry holders are vigilantes out to kill bad guys. So what is it? Is it the concealed carry permit or just the gun? If it's the gun why do you have one? If it's the concealed carry permit why does this not apply to you whereas you apply it to everyone else?

You argue against the actions of concealed carry permit holders while having and using one yourself, this does not follow.

Sadly, there is too much crime in this country, let alone the world. There are people that have to worry about stray bullets coming through their walls and windows while they're sleeping, eating dinner, or having family game night.

My clients have to worry about some deranged, obsessed fan that got a reply from them on Twitter or met them at a convention that may suddenly think "If I can't have her, no one can!" and try to do something rash. Then there are the abusive exes they're stereotypically known to have. They employ me for 2 reasons. I have the qualifications and they trust me.

Plenty of other people have security concerns equal to or greater than those you mentioned. Abusive exes are not the sole domain of the privileged for example. Why can't other people choose to protect themselves with the most effective means possible?

But that would go for the "John Wayne wannabe out to bag the baddie" look, which I am not after.

So again your saying that everyone who open carries is just out to kill bad guys? Once more that doesn't follow.

Once you leave the scene and come back armed, it becomes an act of vengeance.

Not in the eyes of the law its not. A vigilante is someone who seeks out and punishes a criminal outside the bounds of the law, no armed civilian responding to a dangerous situation, even if they leave and come back, is taking such an action. Their aim is to stop the situation and protect people, it has nothing to do with punishing anyone or taking vengeance for anything. Once more that's an erroneous argument.

I give you the case of Adrial White, of Racine, WI. Burglars were breaking into his girlfriend's car. He shot them in self-defense. He was originally convicted of first-degree intentional homicide in the death of one burglar and found guilty of attempted second-degree intentional homicide in the shooting of another.

He appealed and was given the opportunity at a retrial due to inadequate representation. He accepted a plea of first-degree reckless homicide while armed and first-degree reckless injury while armed before it went to trial for the second time. Self-Defense was not a valid defense for his actions.

In this case the individual was not acting in self defense because neither himself or anyone else was in active danger and thus he was tried and convicted for excessive use of force. This does not equate to the actions of individuals responding to a violent situation where there is an immediate threat to themselves or others.

But that's exactly what the civilians at UTEP did. They went home, grabbed their rifles, and came back to the scene of the shooting.

[/quote]

That is simply untrue, even if they left and came back it does not even remotely make a difference, they were still responding to a violent threat to themselves or others that was ongoing. There is no law that once you leave the scene you cannot come back and provide assistance. It's no different than individuals outside the scene entering it to provide aid. Such acts are putting the individual at risk for the sake of others and, far from being the act of vigilantes, are the very definition of heroic. They are also actions protected by good Samaritan and self defense laws that are not relegated to merely the defense of oneself but extend to the protection of others in the vicinity.

It is sad to see such repeated attempts to undermine the brave actions of a few individuals that saved a great many lives on such a tragic and terrible day.

It is also sad that the commendation of those individuals actions by the local legislation and law enforcement and the utter lack of any convictions or even charges is repeatedly ignored in favor of outrageous and unsupported accusations of vigilantism. The facts are completely contrary to such wild accusations.