Yet another school shooting.

[PilotMan]

God that's a sad story.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Officer shoots, kills armed security guard outside south suburban bar | WGN-TV

Going to guess we won't get much response from the NRA about this legal gun owner being mowed down despite doing nothing wrong. Can't figure out why.

Obviously the more good guys with guns thing comes with an asterisk.

[cuervo72]

Good guy with gun.

(edit: yeah, missed RainMaker already got to it)

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Obviously the more good guys with guns thing comes with an asterisk.

* good guys = white. We were sure you all knew that already, huh.

[illinifan999]

So when/if gun control that you desire is created, what is going to be the penalty for violating said gun control?

Because it's easy to ask for things to be illegal, it's hard to send people to jail for breaking the law. And it's even harder when gun control ends up like marijuana prohibition.

[bronconick]

Baltimore Co. high school placed on lockdown after officer shoots himself | WTOP

At least he shot himself instead of two dozen students, I guess.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Officer shoots, kills armed security guard outside south suburban bar | WGN-TV

Going to guess we won't get much response from the NRA about this legal gun owner being mowed down despite doing nothing wrong. Can't figure out why.

Seems weird to me that you guys are sitting around a circle and having this discussion re: good guys with guns.

Pretty obvious to me that the good guy with gun did the right/good thing and this case is more on BLM or police brutality/mistake/insensitivity. Plenty to criticize on good guys with guns argument but this doesn't seem to be it.



.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

God that's a sad story.

It's not a sad story, it's fucking scandalous

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

So when/if gun control that you desire is created, what is going to be the penalty for violating said gun control?

Because it's easy to ask for things to be illegal, it's hard to send people to jail for breaking the law. And it's even harder when gun control ends up like marijuana prohibition.

All that question is doing is looking for people to throw out arbitrary responses.

People need to stop looking at gun control as creating X laws with Y penalties and the problem will be fixed overnight.

We need to create laws that will slowly change the way we culturally look at guns so a slow change can happen over the next 20-30 years.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Seems weird to me that you guys are sitting around a circle and having this discussion re: good guys with guns.

Pretty obvious to me that the good guy with gun did the right/good thing and this case is more on BLM or police brutality/mistake/insensitivity. Plenty to criticize on good guys with guns argument but this doesn't seem to be it.



.

Seems like you are making a lot of assumptions about what happened without enough information.

The reality is if this guy didn't have a gun the situation wouldn't have been confusing when police showed up and he would still be alive.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Lathum

All that question is doing is looking for people to throw out arbitrary responses.

People need to stop looking at gun control as creating X laws with Y penalties and the problem will be fixed overnight.

We need to create laws that will slowly change the way we culturally look at guns so a slow change can happen over the next 20-30 years.

This. There is no realistic gun control that will fix things tomorrow, but over time we can reduce access to classes of weapons and/or accessories.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Seems like you are making a lot of assumptions about what happened without enough information.

The reality is if this guy didn't have a gun the situation wouldn't have been confusing when police showed up and he would still be alive.

How so? Just reading the same thing that the circle was reacting to. If I was making a lot of assumptions without enough info, doesn't that logic apply to the circle?

After security asked a group of drunken men to leave Manny’s Blue Room Bar around 4 a.m. Sunday, witnesses said someone came back with a gun and opened fire. Security returned fire, and according to witnesses, 26-year-old armed security guard Jemel Roberson apprehended one of the men involved outside.

"He had somebody on the ground with his knee in back, with his gun in his back like, 'Don’t move,'" witness Adam Harris said.

Soon after, witnesses said, an officer responding to the scene fired at Roberson — killing him.

"Everybody was screaming out, 'Security!' He was a security guard," Harris said. "And they still did their job, and saw a black man with a gun, and basically killed him."

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

People need to stop looking at gun control as creating X laws with Y penalties and the problem will be fixed overnight.

We need to create laws that will slowly change the way we culturally look at guns so a slow change can happen over the next 20-30 years.

Definitely agree with this. Culture plays a big role for sure. I think look towards the next generation and do what we can now.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

How so? Just reading the same thing that the circle was reacting to. If I was making a lot of assumptions without enough info, doesn't that logic apply to the circle?

Not really.

All we know is an innocent man with a gun was shot. It is a terrible tragedy.

But it completely debunks the NRA theory about a god guy with a gun. If everyone is packing and the police show up this is the result you get. These are life threatening situations where the police don't have the time to sort out who the "good guy" is.

Does the fact it was a black man muddle the situation further given recent history, absolutely, but no one can claim he was shot BECAUSE he was black, but of course people will. Would be hard not to given recent history.

[Ksyrup]

That's what I've been saying. Stop taking the bait on the "your gun laws wouldn't have stopped this mass murder" argument, because that's not what effective gun control is attempting to do in the short-term. That's the long-term goal.

I kinda look at it like cigarettes. The goal is to make guns less of a cultural status symbol and something that is not as "top of mind" to every angry, maladjusted, lunatic, sad, and/or depressed mind out there. It's not an overnight solution.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

So when/if gun control that you desire is created, what is going to be the penalty for violating said gun control?

Because it's easy to ask for things to be illegal, it's hard to send people to jail for breaking the law. And it's even harder when gun control ends up like marijuana prohibition.

First I know you're in law enforcement, so very much appreciate all you do. In Minnesota, we work closely with both the Chiefs' association and the Sherrifs association to have them on board with policy and legislation.

In many cases, the regulations we are talking about are not criminal, but access barriers to make it more difficult for people who shouldn't have guns from having them. Background checks on all gun sales, permit to carry, etc. In most cases the liability for violating these statutes fall on the sellers--they are transactional in nature. So, it makes sense that someone trying to avoid responsibility as a licensed gun dealer would need to pay fines or spend dollars that effectively put them out of business. More than that it is an additional step in the access process, that has been shown to reduce gun deaths across the board. People who want a rifle for their hunting trip this season rarely go to the store with the NEED FOR A RIFLE TODAY.

The one place where we can do better in terms of additional penalties is negligent storage. Shootings are rarely accidents. The shooting itself may be unintentional, but it isn't an accident that someone left a loaded gun in a place where a child could grab it. That's negligence. We don't do enough to prosecute or punish these offenses. I recognize this may be a controversial position, but just as drunk driving became stigmatic throughout the 80s, so should improper gun storage. Which brings me to..

Originally Posted by Lathum

All that question is doing is looking for people to throw out arbitrary responses.

People need to stop looking at gun control as creating X laws with Y penalties and the problem will be fixed overnight.

We need to create laws that will slowly change the way we culturally look at guns so a slow change can happen over the next 20-30 years.

This is a really important point. There's no magic wand, but there are proposals that have been shown to systematically reduce gun violence. Again, if you look at where we were with regard to driving deaths in the late 70s and early 80s versus today and look at it with what was done legislatively and culturally, it's really a remarkable success story. The same can be true for gun violence. (And with drunk driving, I don't fear going to prison, I fear the ding on my record, the $15 grand I have to spend in legal fees, the stigma attached to having a DUI.) It's a slow slog, but worth it--we simply can do better.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Not really.

All we know is an innocent man with a gun was shot. It is a terrible tragedy.

But it completely debunks the NRA theory about a god guy with a gun. If everyone is packing and the police show up this is the result you get. These are life threatening situations where the police don't have the time to sort out who the "good guy" is.

Does the fact it was a black man muddle the situation further given recent history, absolutely, but no one can claim he was shot BECAUSE he was black, but of course people will. Would be hard not to given recent history.

You are right, all we know for sure if a innocent "black" man got shot.

Reading the article implies the bad guy(s) came back with a gun and opened fire and security returned fire (not necessarily Jemel himself, yet to be determined).

The circle focused on Jemel getting shot. How about the security guards returning fire that "may" have save more lives/injuries. We'll see as more come out.

But let's not forget the other important point - possible BLM and/or possible police brutality/incompetence. Let's give equal time.

After security asked a group of drunken men to leave Manny’s Blue Room Bar around 4 a.m. Sunday, witnesses said someone came back with a gun and opened fire. Security returned fire, and according to witnesses, 26-year-old armed security guard Jemel Roberson apprehended one of the men involved outside.

"He had somebody on the ground with his knee in back, with his gun in his back like, 'Don’t move,'" witness Adam Harris said.

Soon after, witnesses said, an officer responding to the scene fired at Roberson — killing him.

"Everybody was screaming out, 'Security!' He was a security guard," Harris said. "And they still did their job, and saw a black man with a gun, and basically killed him."

[miked]

Man, they should really start taking these settlements out of police pension funds. That would decrease these sorts of things greatly.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Not really.

All we know is an innocent man with a gun was shot. It is a terrible tragedy.

But it completely debunks the NRA theory about a god guy with a gun. If everyone is packing and the police show up this is the result you get. These are life threatening situations where the police don't have the time to sort out who the "good guy" is.

Does the fact it was a black man muddle the situation further given recent history, absolutely, but no one can claim he was shot BECAUSE he was black, but of course people will. Would be hard not to given recent history.

Wait ...I was actually with you until you pivoted and pointed at the NRA.
The NRA good guy with a gun theory is this, you dont pull a gun unless you are going to fire it and intend to kill. Period. That is what is taught in gun safety classes. Kneeling on a guys back with a gun pointed at him is NOT good guy with gun. If the kneeler isnt an LEO he should not have pulled his weapon.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

The NRA good guy with a gun theory is this, you dont pull a gun unless you are going to fire it and intend to kill. Period. That is what is taught in gun safety classes. Kneeling on a guys back with a gun pointed at him is NOT good guy with gun. If the kneeler isnt an LEO he should not have pulled his weapon.

Don't agree with this. It's okay to pull a weapon and point it at a dangerous perp on the ground to control the situation.

Other than for Jemel pointing/waving his weapon at the cops when they arrived, he shouldn't have been shot.

We need to hear why the LEO's shot him. Hopefully there is a somewhat good explanation for this sorry situation.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Wait ...I was actually with you until you pivoted and pointed at the NRA.
The NRA good guy with a gun theory is this, you dont pull a gun unless you are going to fire it and intend to kill. Period. That is what is taught in gun safety classes. Kneeling on a guys back with a gun pointed at him is NOT good guy with gun. If the kneeler isnt an LEO he should not have pulled his weapon.

We can criticize the individuals actions here or debate whether he followed proper protocols or should have done something differently, but let's be clear, the good guy with a gun theory is this: sell more guns.


What we also know is this, studies and statements by law enforcement continually show that the presence of additional guns makes control of active situations more difficult.

We also know trained law enforcement officers hit targets fairly infrequently (depending on the study, it can be as low as 30%). Though we don't have studies, it's reasonable to assume the average citizen with less training is going to hit targets even less frequently.

The theory here is deterrence, and the study that the NRA typically trots out is from the mid 90s and has largely been debunked based on bad data. (As an aside, it was put together by a kook of an author who then tried to peer review his own work by posing as alter identitied researchers.)

This leads to another issue in that in general, we do need more research. It's meager.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by digamma

We also know trained law enforcement officers hit targets fairly infrequently (depending on the study, it can be as low as 30%). Though we don't have studies, it's reasonable to assume the average citizen with less training is going to hit targets even less frequently.

“ It appears that a soldier’s ability to hit a given target is typically reduced by a factor of ten or so when he is moved from a static rifle range to a field firing area where he has to select cover, move, shoot and so on. It is reduced by a further factor of ten or so if there is an enemy firing back at him. It is reduced by another factor of ten if the enemy has machine guns, or if he has tanks; and by a hundred if he has both.”

From a study by Dr. Jim Storr. Obviously, the presence of tanks and machine guns is not applicable to law enforcement, but people who train and practice far less than active military members undoubtedly are even more unreliable.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Don't agree with this. It's okay to pull a weapon and point it at a dangerous perp on the ground to control the situation.

Other than for Jemel pointing/waving his weapon at the cops when they arrived, he shouldn't have been shot.

We need to hear why the LEO's shot him. Hopefully there is a somewhat good explanation for this sorry situation.

I'm not suggesting how you should feel or what your values are. I am telling you as a certified CWP instructor that the teaching is, 'Do not draw unless you are 100% ready to shoot and do not shoot to injure'


This is the NRA's stance.

If you are not a licensed LEO your job is not to control a subject for arrest.



Your job is to evacuate until/unless there is a threat to you or your interests and if there is a threat your job is to eliminate the threat.


When the cops show up the gun should be out of site and your hands should be in plain site. Period.

Originally Posted by digamma

We can criticize the individuals actions here or debate whether he followed proper protocols or should have done something differently, but let's be clear, the good guy with a gun theory is this: sell more guns.


What we also know is this, studies and statements by law enforcement continually show that the presence of additional guns makes control of active situations more difficult.

We also know trained law enforcement officers hit targets fairly infrequently (depending on the study, it can be as low as 30%). Though we don't have studies, it's reasonable to assume the average citizen with less training is going to hit targets even less frequently.

The theory here is deterrence, and the study that the NRA typically trots out is from the mid 90s and has largely been debunked based on bad data. (As an aside, it was put together by a kook of an author who then tried to peer review his own work by posing as alter identitied researchers.)

This leads to another issue in that in general, we do need more research. It's meager.

I dont disagree with anything you said here except the bold. It is not a safe assumption that good guy with gun is less trained or less frequently practiced than LEO. Locally LEO are required to range practice 1 hour per month. I dont know of any gun enthusiasts who dont average 10x that.



A sad reality born out by your post is that all too often LEO are rushed through academy and handed a weapon and a badge and turned out. Often times without sufficient skill or training to do the job they are horribly underpaid to do.


I am always critical of shoot first cops. I think my post history will show a pretty clear alleigance with the "victims"in most police shooting topics.


My reason is I expect more from a trained professional than I do from Johnny Citizen...however i also recognize a large part of the issue is toe trained professionals often aren't properly trained pros.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Wait ...I was actually with you until you pivoted and pointed at the NRA.
The NRA good guy with a gun theory is this, you dont pull a gun unless you are going to fire it and intend to kill. Period. That is what is taught in gun safety classes. Kneeling on a guys back with a gun pointed at him is NOT good guy with gun. If the kneeler isnt an LEO he should not have pulled his weapon.

So what you are saying is the NRA takes the stance that only a good guy with a gun can stop bad guys with guns, but the good guys with guns have to follow our defined protocols for that to work?

Nothing chilling about that...

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Lathum

So what you are saying is the NRA takes the stance that only a good guy with a gun can stop bad guys with guns, but the good guys with guns have to follow our defined protocols for that to work?

Nothing chilling about that...

No that isnt what I said at all.


States require a mandatory training class for liscensure to carry a concealable weapon.


The NRA (among others) offer training guidelines for these classes. Some states adopt their protocol others do not. The statement was made that "Its ok to point a weapon to subdue someone"...
That isnt the teachings or proper gun handling technique.


The moment that you break law/teachnings you transition from "good guy with a gun" to just another "bad guy with a gun"...
Just like the moment a police officers murders someone they transition from LEO to criminal.

[Lathum]

I guess I am just confused by the whole " dont pull your gun unless you are going to kill someone" concept.

I mean, the NRA basically says they should think everyone should be armed, and that would reduce crime. Is their stance that people should just shoot to kill every time someone feels in danger?

Seems like a horrible way to go about things.

If the NRA teaching is that it isn't ok to point a weapon at someone, then what is the point of having the weapon for protection? Other than to kill of course.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I guess I am just confused by the whole " dont pull your gun unless you are going to kill someone" concept.

I mean, the NRA basically says they should think everyone should be armed, and that would reduce crime. Is their stance that people should just shoot to kill every time someone feels in danger?

Seems like a horrible way to go about things.

If the NRA teaching is that it isn't ok to point a weapon at someone, then what is the point of having the weapon for protection? Other than to kill of course.

If a criminal points a gun at you, your life is in danger. Run or shoot to kill.
The hought process is, if a criminal knew that everyone had a gun he'd never point a gun at you in the first place. And if everyone who had a gun pointed at them shot to kill, pretty soon crime would be greatly reduced by attrition. (That last thought is purely mine)


A gun is a tool used to kill. It is a shitty hammer, a horrible level and a very poor fist. If you use a hammer you intend to drive a nail. Dont try to turn a screw with a hammer. If you use a gun you should intend to kill.
Period.
Thats my stance

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

If a criminal points a gun at you, your life is in danger. Run or shoot to kill.
The hought process is, if a criminal knew that everyone had a gun he'd never point a gun at you in the first place. And if everyone who had a gun pointed at them shot to kill, pretty soon crime would be greatly reduced by attrition. (That last thought is purely mine)

And what about the wanna be cowboys who would make things worse? And what happens when LEO show up and everyone has guns drawn ( the scenario Digamma was referring to earlier), and what about the massive amount of people who THOUGHT they were in danger but really weren't and blew someone away? How anyone could think gun deaths wouldn't go up ten fold is beyond me.

I realize we come from different worlds, I just can not fathom how anyone thinks more guns would improve anything. I have been on this planet 43 years, I have been to every state, several countries, lived in shitty areas and very nice areas. Never once have I felt like I needed a gun in any situation. Maybe I am just lucky.

Please don't interpret it as claiming your stance is wrong, I don't want to come across as disrespectful, it is just a concept I will never understand.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Wait ...I was actually with you until you pivoted and pointed at the NRA.
The NRA good guy with a gun theory is this, you dont pull a gun unless you are going to fire it and intend to kill. Period. That is what is taught in gun safety classes. Kneeling on a guys back with a gun pointed at him is NOT good guy with gun. If the kneeler isnt an LEO he should not have pulled his weapon.

He did pull out his gun and fired it at the mass shooter (who had already shot people). Once the guy was knocked down, what was he supposed to do?

Execute him with a shot to the back of the head? That would be against the law. Run away and hope the guy doesn't start firing again on the fleeing innocent people? Seems like a huge risk.

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

This is the NRA's stance.

If you are not a licensed LEO your job is not to control a subject for arrest.

This is bullshit. The NRA routinely promotes stories about homeowners holding intruders at gunpoint. There are hundreds on their site and Twitter account.

NRA-ILA | Homeowner holds intruder at gunpoint
NRA-ILA | Homeowner holds intruder at gunpoint until officers arrive
NRA-ILA | Homeowner holds burglar at gunpoint until police arrive

Here's our own Cam calling a gun owner holding a criminal at gunpoint the "Hero of the Day".

Natchez Homeowner Holds Burglar at Gunpoint | NRATV

Can't figure out why this guy isn't considered a "Hero of the Day". Perhaps there's a melanin threshold we don't know about.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

States require a mandatory training class for liscensure to carry a concealable weapon.

No mandatory training class in GA that I know of.

(Don't conceal or open carry but I'm pretty sure I can if I wanted to w/o official training. BTW - I have trained in group classes before)

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Edward64

No mandatory training class in GA that I know of.

(Don't conceal or open carry but I'm pretty sure I can if I wanted to w/o official training. BTW - I have trained in group classes before)

As of April 2017 26 states actually allow you to concealed carry without any training.

I knew Washington didn't require it, so I was curious how many others.

The Trace

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Edward64

No mandatory training class in GA that I know of.

(Don't conceal or open carry but I'm pretty sure I can if I wanted to w/o official training. BTW - I have trained in group classes before)

Originally Posted by Atocep

As of April 2017 26 states actually allow you to concealed carry without any training.

I knew Washington didn't require it, so I was curious how many others.

The Trace

I stand corrected. My apologies.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Atocep

As of April 2017 26 states actually allow you to concealed carry without any training.

I knew Washington didn't require it, so I was curious how many others.

The Trace

I absolutely agree there should be mandatory training to get your license & carry, and refresher training every year or so. I would go as far as requiring practicing at a gun range every quarter.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Lathum

And what happens when LEO show up and everyone has guns drawn

True Romance?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I mean, the NRA basically says they should think everyone should be armed, and that would reduce crime.

Clarification. They think white people should be armed. When black people started to arm themselves, they supported gun control.

The NRA is a white supremacist gun lobbying organization.

[whomario]

Originally Posted by Lathum

And what about the wanna be cowboys who would make things worse? And what happens when LEO show up and everyone has guns drawn ( the scenario Digamma was referring to earlier), and what about the massive amount of people who THOUGHT they were in danger but really weren't and blew someone away? How anyone could think gun deaths wouldn't go up ten fold is beyond me.

I realize we come from different worlds, I just can not fathom how anyone thinks more guns would improve anything. I have been on this planet 43 years, I have been to every state, several countries, lived in shitty areas and very nice areas. Never once have I felt like I needed a gun in any situation. Maybe I am just lucky.

Please don't interpret it as claiming your stance is wrong, I don't want to come across as disrespectful, it is just a concept I will never understand.

And again i add: This is the way it works everywhere in the developed world. Less guns equal less gun deaths, period. It even works the same way within the US: Less Guns and stricter controll measure lead to less gun violence.* Adding more armed people is not a damned solution to armed people causing themselves and others harm

* https://www.vox.com/2018/11/13/17658...-laws-licenses

And here is why it is insane not to consider this nationally: This does not in fact prevent people from owning guns. 97% of applications get approved. It DOES prevent people from impulse-buying a gun. And as with everything: As soon as you can't "just do it", the human species tends to take the lazy/timid route.

Would people react the same when someone advocated for everybody to carry a machete around ? That's about as outlandish to the average European as regular joe-shmoes carrying around guns outside a firing range, hunting or similar activities.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The NRA is a white supremacist gun lobbying organization.

Interesting theory.

[RainMaker]

Not really a theory. The Mulford Act showed their cards. The NRA had fought for gun rights throughout the country. When the Black Panthers decided to patrol the streets in Oakland with weapons, their stance suddenly changed. They frantically backed a bill to ban it in the state and pushed Reagan to sign it (which he did). They didn't push for this same bill in other states.

The NRA who never misses an opportunity to post violent rhetoric about fighting back if the government takes away our guns was silent when Philando Castile was murdered despite being a legal gun owner.

Jemel Roberson won't be the "Hero of the Day" for stopping a mass shooting with a legally owned firearm as others have been on the NRA's media outlets.

There seems to be a common theme with these situations of legal gun owners having their rights trampled on and the NRA either being silent, or actively participating in the trampling.

[NobodyHere]

I'm not sure a 50 year old act is sufficient grounds for labeling today's NRA a white supremacist group. Do you label today's Democratic party the "Party of Slavery" for actions taken 150 years ago?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I'm not sure a 50 year old act is sufficient grounds for labeling today's NRA a white supremacist group. Do you label today's Democratic party the "Party of Slavery" for actions taken 150 years ago?

I agree. NRA want more members, more guns, and political capital. We just have different criteria on what rises to "white supremacist".

[RainMaker]

I'm labeling their silence and hypocrisy on recent shootings of legal gun owners as well. Castile, Alexander, Crawford, Scott, Rice, and Roberson are all recent high profile cases.

The NRA is incredibly outspoken on open carry and Stand Your Ground laws. Except in the case of black people. Is this a mere coincidence?

[Radii]

Every break from FOFC I've taken in the last two years has come after gun violence situations and me leaving this thread angry and having lost even more of what little faith i have left in humanity - so i'm gonna be brief and to the point in two different directions here and then finish up what's been a rather lovely vacation:


1) We spend a lot of time talking over each other in this thread and latching on to the most extreme points. But I would like to beg and plead everyone here to just scroll back up and read anything that digamma has to say about these issues. He has put serious time and dedication into doing what he can into helping raise awareness and to push folks towards gaining a better understanding of what reasonable gun control measures are available, but since he's not one of the ones with an extreme or inflammatory viewpoint, his posts get glossed over. go read them. Even if you read them while scrolling through this thread, go read them again. The discussion is pretty good this time around, but it always pains me to see the calm and reasonable voices getting ignored to respond to the more extreme views instead.


2) I've seen the comments made by CU Tiger about using a gun said many times in many different discussions. The idea that you should not pull out your gun unless you are willing to destroy the threat in front of you. In all cases where I've seen this point come up, its not a pro-violence stance or an extreme statement. Its a statement of respect for the destructive power of guns. I've seen discussions from a very many number of reasonable gun owners with this mindset. Its there as a reminder that the gun is the last resort, that diffusing a situation without it is ALWAYS better, that unless a life is in immediate danger the gun should never come into play. That hoping to use the threat of a gun with zero intent to actually fire the thing is a scenario set up for complete disaster. In the context I've seen this come up in discussions, even though I'm very much pro gun control myself - this is a concept that I have respect for in gun owners. From my reading of this CU Tiger means the same thing and I have no pushback on this personally.


That's all, enjoy your debate on this situation until the next mass shooting, which is probably expected within about 2-3 days currently?

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

If a criminal points a gun at you, your life is in danger. Run or shoot to kill.
The hought process is, if a criminal knew that everyone had a gun he'd never point a gun at you in the first place. And if everyone who had a gun pointed at them shot to kill, pretty soon crime would be greatly reduced by attrition. (That last thought is purely mine)


A gun is a tool used to kill. It is a shitty hammer, a horrible level and a very poor fist. If you use a hammer you intend to drive a nail. Dont try to turn a screw with a hammer. If you use a gun you should intend to kill.
Period.
Thats my stance

All of that is fine in principle, but in reality people do not follow sensible behaviour patterns. People are emotional, especially in stressful situations, and react instinctively rather than with logic. Fight or flight.

If everyone has guns, flight doesn’t guarantee safety, because guns are range weapons. Fight means the likelihood someone will get hurt/killed are increased dramatically.

With emotional human beings, more guns does not equal a cold-war-like impasse as people weigh up the likely consequences.

More guns = more shootings, simple as.

[Brian Swartz]

I have yet to see a single proposal or group of proposals that I've seen any credible evidence or logic to think would make significant dent in this issue and, at the same time, doesn't flagrantly violate the 2nd Amendment(such as, for example, a blanket handgun ban). That's true whether you are talking short or decades long-term as some have referenced. If there is such a proposal out there, I'd be totally in favor of it.

I also think that the debate around this blows things out of proportion and is the lastest headline distraction du jour. This will probably be taken as being horribly insensitive by a good many people but I still think it needs to be said - there are so many things that people die of needlessly in astronomically greater numbers than mass shootings, but which don't get a fraction of the attention. I do hope and pray that we make progress on this front - but relatively speaking, it's not deserving of a fraction of the rhetoric that gets spent on it.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I absolutely agree there should be mandatory training to get your license & carry, and refresher training every year or so. I would go as far as requiring practicing at a gun range every quarter.

The training has to have teeth, and the gun range portion needs be applicable.

I've shared the story before of my experience when I took my CHL class in Texas 6 years ago. I had signed up for it before the Newtown school shooting happened, but this was the first class held after it occurred, and the classroom was packed. During the classroom portion of the class, someone raised their hand and asked the instructor "what is this 2nd Amendment you keep referring to?". When he asked what kind of firearm experience people had, six of the people in the room had never fired a gun before.

When we got to the practical portion of the class, you shoot 20 times from 3 yards away, 20 times from 7 yards away, and 10 times from 15 yards away. People were missing the target from 3 yards away.

No one failed the class. So while there was "training" it was more of the checkbox variety. It really made me worried that this was the level of training accepted, and how many people out there had a CHL that had little more than a cursory knowledge of how to handle a gun.

edit: since I took the class, the state has lowered the requirements even further

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Clarification. They think white people should be armed. When black people started to arm themselves, they supported gun control.

The NRA is a white supremacist gun lobbying organization.

I know you dont care what I think. But you are the one poster on here that I have ever come close to blocking. Every discussion to you is proof of racism. Every offense or grievance is somehow racially related. Im not even sure of your race, nor does it matter.But it is a consistent theme of a dog whistle for you. Everything you oppose is racist.

Originally Posted by whomario

And again i add: This is the way it works everywhere in the developed world. Less guns equal less gun deaths, period. It even works the same way within the US: Less Guns and stricter controll measure lead to less gun violence.* Adding more armed people is not a damned solution to armed people causing themselves and others harm

* Massachusetts has an answer to America’s gun problem - Vox

Very selective data. Illinois and Chicago specifically have stricter gun laws than Mass and many more deaths.


Its also a rather selective and elitist law. I find it sort of funny the folks that say requiring a state issued ID to vote is repressive and a barrier to entry because of the cost, yet they dont blink at the notion of a $100 permit required to possess a firearm. What poor people shouldnt be able to protect themselves? Or the poors cant be trusted with guns?

[JPhillips]

I'm so old I remember when Rainmaker was a right-leaning libertarian.

[ISiddiqui]

He's also right on this (and race in general, tbh - to many people like to say folks put "race in everything" when race is in a LOT of the policies we discuss. I kind of see it as people are getting mad that folks are showcasing how prevalent race actually is in the policies and procedures we take as normative).

[molson]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

He's also right on this (and race in general, tbh - to many people like to say folks put "race in everything" when race is in a LOT of the policies we discuss. I kind of see it as people are getting mad that folks are showcasing how prevalent race actually is in the policies and procedures we take as normative).

But there's only certain kinds of racism that seem to "count". I think that's where it gets frustrating and exhausting for people. White people putting themselves on a pedestal and recognizing "other" white people as the real problem. They're really good at pointing out and accusing certain groups of being racists - gun owners, police, prosecutors, religious people, people who live in rural areas, conservatives. But we know that racial discrimination permeates many other parts of society in America. The numbers bear that out across almost all parts of American life. And yet liberal white people with good jobs, nice houses, kids in private schools, etc, somehow don't see themselves as part of the problem but are instead in a position to be racial patriots and judge white people whom they deem to be inferior.

I think accusing people of being racists - especially when the accusations based on membership in some unfavorable group that is the "real" problem, can be a way of protecting their own white privilege. I see this in my super-liberal wealthy white friends all the time. They love to downplay their wealth and portray themselves as like angsty youthful progressives who oppose injustice in society, who love to identify what's wrong with America and whose fault it is - and then I see their houses....And a lot of them have lives where no racial prejudices would ever emerge even if they existed - they work with white people, have white neighbors, and they never have to make a decision or take an action that would reveal prejudice if it were there - like a police officer, teacher, or social worker constantly have to do. It's a nice safe white bubble.

You can be wealthy and progressive, but I'm just saying the view is different when you've been a part of one of the white sub-groups that is portrayed as broadly racist by "the good white people" who are a part of the more protected class of white people who have the luxury of being judged individually. Those who can benefit from white privilege but never actually be called out on it.

Edit: So the white liberals who never have to defend their white privilege can - 1. attacks others as the "real problem", or 2. have the correct political opinions and donate money to campaigns. #2 can at least be productive. But #1 can cross a line, IMO. Both in terms of being unfair, and being annoyingly tone-def about their own contributions to, and benefits from, racial injustice in the U.S.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Its also a rather selective and elitist law. I find it sort of funny the folks that say requiring a state issued ID to vote is repressive and a barrier to entry because of the cost, yet they dont blink at the notion of a $100 permit required to possess a firearm. What poor people shouldnt be able to protect themselves? Or the poors cant be trusted with guns?

I would think the barrier to poor people owning guns would more be the cost of the gun itself.