The Official Second Amendment / Gun Ban Thread

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

I think, as do many, that it is time to tighten up the rules, crack down on violators, and go after illegal weapons as if it were a public health issue.

Efforts to do so will result in people stockpiling weapons. I know people who do this and I don't even life in the "real" part of the country.

Well, that's what you call freedom, is it? Sounds like out and out selfishness. What ever happened to love thy neighbor?

How many of the gun toters are qualified enough to know which end to hold? Shooting someone isn't easy, especially if you can see him up close. This is when a lot of people get themselves killed when they lose their nerve. If you point a gun at some one, the rule is pull the trigger. And since it is a deadly weapon, aim for the center of the chest.

If you live in the virtual part of the country, what part is real?

  Edited June 18, 2011 by A Nonny Moose  

[Meg 368]

Well, that's what you call freedom, is it? Sounds like out and out selfishness. What ever happened to love thy neighbor?

Just because someone has guns it doesn't mean they are going to use them on their neighbors. To some people, it's a security blanket. To others, it's a way to get breakfast in the morning. or dinner for later on.

(just for the record, I don't have a gun and don't want one.)

How many of the gun toters are qualified enough to know which end to hold?

If your point is that gun owners should be require to take classes, I agree with you.

If you live in the virtual part of the country, what part is real?

That depends on who you ask. Some of us know that the whole country is real. Others believe only the low density areas that are away from the coasts are real.

[hym 358]

Your society is unsafe?? What price freedom? If that's what you think you have.

I'm curious to know where people got the absurd idea that free societies are safe societies. People are dangerous and unpredictable. Want to live in a truly free society? You have to accept that their are risks that go along with such a social structure. One of those risks being the chance that the person next to you may become a threat to others around him. If you don't want to live with this risk, you have to accept a greater degree of government control and intrusion upon private life.

Your right to bear arms has been interpreted far too loosely for me, or any sane person. Who would want to live in such a country?

I do, and last I checked, I would pass as legally sane.

And as Meg said, based on the numbers of people who try to get into the US both legally and illegally, I would venture quite a few other people want to move here too. I imagine most of them are probably sane also.

I think, as do many, that it is time to tighten up the rules, crack down on violators, and go after illegal weapons as if it were a public health issue.

The Bill of Rights says hello...

[pepsi71ocean 2]

Efforts to do so will result in people stockpiling weapons. I know people who do this and I don't even life in the "real" part of the country.

I agree, i am not in the true sticks, i live in a rural town but i know of people who have some serious black market collections. And they seem to have started to grow after Ohbama came to office, and ever since the tuscon shooting there is a jump in gun sales.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Its hard to believe of the United States, but I am starting to detect a nation wide paranoia.

If every one is afraid of every one else, or what they might do, that is clearly not sane.

Now, I realize you have at least ten times our population, and they have bought into the general idea of a revolutionary United States of America, but it is time to grow out of the "everybody is against us" syndrome. Good grief! It has been 230+ years since the kerfuffle with the rather weak and poorly supplied British Army. You won, so it is time to put all that hostility aside amongst yourselves and start trusting each other. The guy next door is not a British sympathizer, although he may be a crypto-terrorist.

In crowded situations like major cities, some people go whacko, but that's not a reason to need firearms in every closet. The U.S. is more of an armed camp that Switzerland, where every man over 18 has his weapon at home.

[hym 358]

Its hard to believe of the United States, but I am starting to detect a nation wide paranoia.

It's not nationwide paranoia. It's not even anywhere close to that. Once again, let's look at some facts:

• There are approximately 300 million Americans, of whom approximately 84 million own at least 1 legally acquired firearm.
  
• There are 200 million legally owned firearms in the US, which means, on average, each firearm owner owns 2 or 3 firearms. In reality, most only own 1 firearm.
  
• There are countless gun enthusiasts who personally own dozens of firearms or more. Serious gun collectors can own hundreds. These are the individuals who drive up the US firearm ownership statistics.
  
• Most Americans who own a single firearm own it for personal protection or it is for hunting. Most who own more than one gun use them for hunting or firearms are a personal hobby for them. (Some people collect stamps and some people collect guns.)
  
• A lot of gun owners buy their firearms full well intending to never fire them. They buy them simply because they would like to own that particular gun.
  

If every one is afraid of every one else, or what they might do, that is clearly not sane.

Who says everyone is afraid of everyone else? Some people are afraid of what some people might do, but that is nowhere near everybody being afraid of everybody. All the rest of us go on with our daily lives like normal people.

Something I have noticed over the years is that the issue isn't simply guns. Guns are only a subset of a larger cultural difference between Americans and most of the rest of the world. The difference is the comfort level people have with lethal weaponry being around them. Several months ago, I mentioned in chat that I have a personal knife and that I frequently carry it around with me. It looks like this. Literally over half the European members in the chat at the time wanted to know why I was carrying around a deadly weapon on my person and whether it made be more likely to use it on someone. Yeah, I guess if it's my life or the other guy's and I have a knife, I could possibly use it. But honestly, the thought hat absolutely never crossed my mind. I just wanted to have a knife handy in case it was ever needed.

...it is time to grow out of the "everybody is against us" syndrome.

Most gun owners are normal people. They don't believe that everyone is out to get them, nor do they believe that all the non-gun owners hate them for owning guns. Their normal people, generally indistinguishable from any other American you find walking on the street.

One of the real ironies in this debate is that the people who talk most about how guns are evil and gun owners are a danger to society are frequently the biggest drivers of firearm sales.

You won, so it is time to put all that hostility aside amongst yourselves and start trusting each other.

Where is the widespread hostility? (For the record, I know several guns owners across various parts of Texas and they are all fairly good-natured individuals.)

As for trust, it is an issue completely separate from guns. I have no interest in owning a gun, but I also have no interest in trusting people I don't know.

[pepsi71ocean 2]

Its hard to believe of the United States, but I am starting to detect a nation wide paranoia.

If every one is afraid of every one else, or what they might do, that is clearly not sane.

Now, I realize you have at least ten times our population, and they have bought into the general idea of a revolutionary United States of America, but it is time to grow out of the "everybody is against us" syndrome. Good grief! It has been 230+ years since the kerfuffle with the rather weak and poorly supplied British Army. You won, so it is time to put all that hostility aside amongst yourselves and start trusting each other. The guy next door is not a British sympathizer, although he may be a crypto-terrorist.

In crowded situations like major cities, some people go whacko, but that's not a reason to need firearms in every closet. The U.S. is more of an armed camp that Switzerland, where every man over 18 has his weapon at home.

having grown up near Trenton, then moving out to the suburbs (little egg), and then finally into the true "country" i will say that gun ownership goes up the farther away you get from the city.

Yea people have guns in the city, but no one knew how to handle them correctly, (as a city boy) i grew up on the notion of "fear firearms", but it was not until i got out to the suburbs when i was about 10 that i was first exposed to firearms, it is normal out here to teach people how to use firearms and and how to use them at a young age, most of the people i went to school with got their first shotguns at 12 or 14.

Growing up out here, no one fears our neighbors, but we also know that help is a long ways off, there is no law and order out here. we don't fear that our neighbor might be stock piling guns for Armageddon, but we do know what is going on.

Out here there is a different respect for guns, we have them because we all believe(withing a few degrees) that we have a right to have them, and that there is no stopping a country or a government if your people are unarmed. Yea we all own guns, we all shoot them for sporting/hunting, and just for fun, but we also understand that we are not "free", without the a gun, because what is to stop the Government from doing what they want, and who knows, if they ban gun's then they can turn into nazi Germany, except this country it would be worse.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Hym, that knife would be very useful on a fishing trip or on a sail boat. I have a seaman's knife which is a plain blade about six inches long with no point, and sharp on one edge only. it also has a handle that will float the knife if dropped over the side. I also have a marling spike that is very sharp at the point that is used for working ropes of all kinds, including wire.

Other than that, I carry a pocket knife for general use. Besides the knife blade it has a nail file. This is not allowed on any airline, by the way, so if I am flying, I try to remember to leave it at home.

I have nothing against up-close and personal weapons. I am against concealed carry of distance effect weapons. I think the reasons are obvious.

pepsi71ocean:

In this area, there are a lot of farms. Most farmers have at least one long gun for vermin control (including 2 legged ones). In this area a few years ago a farm couple was murdered by someone they took in for dinner. And so, you see sometime events drive possessions.

In this country hand guns are strictly controlled and automatics, except for authorities, are strictly forbidden. This is a public safety issue that, if it came to a national vote, would be affirmed. Our national psyche is simply different from that of the U.S.

[Meg 368]

In this country hand guns are strictly controlled and automatics, except for authorities, are strictly forbidden.

Here, the underground network is so extensive, it is practically impossible to forbid anything. Well, you can forbid it but that won't stop people from getting it.

This is a public safety issue that, if it came to a national vote, would be affirmed. Our national psyche is simply different from that of the U.S.

Yes, it is. Perhaps you could accept that fact instead of repeatedly telling us how we should change. I respect your opinion and, to a large extent, I agree with it. But, at the end of the day, that and $4.75 will get you a Java Chip Frappuccino at Starbucks.

[pepsi71ocean 2]

Hym, that knife would be very useful on a fishing trip or on a sail boat. I have a seaman's knife which is a plain blade about six inches long with no point, and sharp on one edge only. it also has a handle that will float the knife if dropped over the side. I also have a marling spike that is very sharp at the point that is used for working ropes of all kinds, including wire.

Other than that, I carry a pocket knife for general use. Besides the knife blade it has a nail file. This is not allowed on any airline, by the way, so if I am flying, I try to remember to leave it at home.

I have nothing against up-close and personal weapons. I am against concealed carry of distance effect weapons. I think the reasons are obvious.

pepsi71ocean:

In this area, there are a lot of farms. Most farmers have at least one long gun for vermin control (including 2 legged ones). In this area a few years ago a farm couple was murdered by someone they took in for dinner. And so, you see sometime events drive possessions.

In this country hand guns are strictly controlled and automatics, except for authorities, are strictly forbidden. This is a public safety issue that, if it came to a national vote, would be affirmed. Our national psyche is simply different from that of the U.S.

in NJ a pocket knife will land you in jail because that is illegal, especially if it (i can't remember if it is larger or smaller) then the palm of your hand.

In NJ,(like CA, IL, NY MA and CT) handguns are restricted heavily, automatic weapons are impossible to get(unless you have the $$$$$$$$ to afford the permits and lawyer fees to get one)

It took me almost a year to get the paperwork through so i could buy shotguns and rifles, and i didn't get a handgun until i got a job working for a security company, and even then the carry laws in NJ suck.

[astronelson 339]

It is illegal to carry a knife in a public place or school in the ACT (Australian Capital Territory) unless you have a reasonable excuse to do so. Self-defence is specifically mentioned as not being a reasonable excuse. Illegal possession carries a maximum fine of $1,100 and/or 6 months imprisonment. Presumably the laws for carrying a firearm are similar with respect to self-defence.

We are well aware of the damage guns do on college campuses, how are campus police supposed to detect a threat to students when people are ALLOWED to carry guns to class?!?

Based on the behavior of the person involved.

Hah. The average university has a student population of at least a few thousand. No campus security force has the time nor the resources to analyse the behaviour of students to detect who may be a potential threat, and then keep them under surveillance to ensure they are not one.

Besides, if you have armed students, a madman on a rampage won't get very far before someone fires back - thus saving lives.

That is certainly debatable. I am sure I have mentioned the Monash University shooting before. The only person carrying a gun there was the shooter. If other students had been carrying weapons the death toll would very likely have been at least one higher.

Related fact: the murder rate on college campuses in the US is 44 times lower than the US national murder rate.

And with child-care centers, GUNS HAVE NO PLACE NEAR CHILDREN!!!

Says who? Guns have no place in the hands of children, but in the hands of a responsible adult near children it's not a problem.

Basic logic, that's who. With the amount of distractions present to carers in a child-care centre, the likelihood of no child ever getting their hands on one are pretty close to zero. It's a tragedy waiting to happen.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

It's funny. I support gun rights - no problem with people owning a gun. And yet, the more I see from the pro-gun group (especially in the entirety of this thread), the more I get creeped out, the more unsure I become. "Oh, harrumph, I should be able to take my gun into a bar, or a pre-school". What next, a leaky oil refinery?

I completely agree with whoever said paranoia is a prevalent aspect of this argument.

Barbarossa

I think it was me. I am generalizing from the particular by assuming the people on here are a representative sample. This premise is probably false. However, in my position as gadfly and devil's advocate, it gives me some chutzpah to stick pins in pompous arguments, often by reductio ad absurdum.

[hym 358]

I completely agree with whoever said paranoia is a prevalent aspect of this argument.

So I'll ask the question again: Paranoia of what or whom? From where I'm sitting, it looks like the people who are paranoid are the ones who are afraid of the gun proponents.

[astronelson 339]

Paranoia of what or whom?

Paranoia by some of those who have guns of other people with guns, mostly. Those who don't have guns are generally sure the police force can do its job.

[Duke87 1,070]

Related fact: the murder rate on college campuses in the US is 44 times lower than the US national murder rate.

Yes, well, college campuses tend not to have gangs, mobs, muggers, etc. The sort of people most likely to commit homicide don't go to college.

[sneakeypete 16]

Related fact: the murder rate on college campuses in the US is 44 times lower than the US national murder rate.

Yes, well, college campuses tend not to have gangs, mobs, muggers, etc. The sort of people most likely to commit homicide don't go to college.

which is probably astro's point. Why do you need to take guns onto them if that is the case?

[Duke87 1,070]

Related fact: the murder rate on college campuses in the US is 44 times lower than the US national murder rate.

Yes, well, college campuses tend not to have gangs, mobs, muggers, etc. The sort of people most likely to commit homicide don't go to college.

which is probably astro's point. Why do you need to take guns onto them if that is the case?

Sounded to me like the argument being made was that college campuses are safer by virtue of guns not being allowed. Which is bullcrap.

As for what you'd need a gun for, well... safer doesn't mean completely safe. School shootings and other incidents to happen and if someone has the power to put a stop to them...

While I'm here, let me respond to another point:

The average university has a student population of at least a few thousand. No campus security force has the time nor the resources to analyse the behaviour of students to detect who may be a potential threat, and then keep them under surveillance to ensure they are not one.

No, they cannot, but that isn't their job. Psychopaths need to be identified by their peers, and they need to get help before they get to the point of bringing a gun to class with the intent to use it profusely and mercilessly. Once you've reached that stage, the problem has already escalated too far - especially when you consider that most campus security forces do not themselves carry guns (a fact which I find very unsettling, how can they protect the students if they're unarmed?) and thus would be powerless to stop a gunman. All they could do would be to call the real police, and they won't arrive in time to save anyone.

[astronelson 339]

I would argue that campuses are safer without guns. I would argue almost everywhere is safer without guns, and the remainder are places you probably shouldn't be in. Were you to prepare two places, identical except for the presence or absence of guns, I would choose the latter. At the very least, there would be a lower rate of accidental discharges.

Nothing is really completely safe, but there is a certain point where sanity says it's safe enough. A university campus is one of those places that is, on the whole, sufficiently safe to warrant not carrying a weapon. And as I linked to before, you do not necessarily need a weapon to stop someone shooting.

Not carrying a gun is not entirely the same as unarmed. And asking someone to protect people while not carrying a gun is a reasonable request, especially if no-one else has one or if they are rare (which a ban on guns on campuses ensures). I believe security personnel are generally trained to do so.

[pepsi71ocean 2]

I would argue that campuses are safer without guns. I would argue almost everywhere is safer without guns, and the remainder are places you probably shouldn't be in. Were you to prepare two places, identical except for the presence or absence of guns, I would choose the latter. At the very least, there would be a lower rate of accidental discharges.

Nothing is really completely safe, but there is a certain point where sanity says it's safe enough. A university campus is one of those places that is, on the whole, sufficiently safe to warrant not carrying a weapon. And as I linked to before, you do not necessarily need a weapon to stop someone shooting.

Not carrying a gun is not entirely the same as unarmed. And asking someone to protect people while not carrying a gun is a reasonable request, especially if no-one else has one or if they are rare (which a ban on guns on campuses ensures). I believe security personnel are generally trained to do so.

In theory yes, however i don't know of anyone who CCW's who doesn't have training on thew firearm, many states require you take classes and courses before even being granted a CCW license.

AND FYI, there is a percentage of Stockton and Rutgers students who CCW handguns to their campus every day since Virginia Tec. I know of at least a dozen classmates who do. now they do NOT allow CCW in new jersey and as such they are doing it illegally, but (if i did go to college there to say), would i feel less safe knowing there are students who have handguns with/on them, absolutely not, why? because when the shooting starts at least i know that the bad guy is going down in a fight.

That is not to say i didn't carry knives in high school for similar reasons, we had a kid who wrote a letter to the school claiming he was going to bring an end to those who sent him away, and i started carrying, because even though i didn't know the kid(he was a class ahead of me), he had alot of enemies, and i figured if he is going to come in shooting i would rather die in an attempt to stop him then let him gun me down without the possibility of doing anything to stop him.

Such begs the questions about what if, what if those teachers who had CCW(one being a ex cop) could have had their guns on campus, would the shooting have ended earlier, how many less students would have died if one of the kids in the dorm had a handgun, and shot the crazy asian who was shooting the place up?

You all think that guns are the reason the world is dangerous, i must disagree but the facts still show you are more likely to be raped in Australian, and England then in the USA, i wonder why?

[astronelson 339]

I would argue that campuses are safer without guns. I would argue almost everywhere is safer without guns, and the remainder are places you probably shouldn't be in. Were you to prepare two places, identical except for the presence or absence of guns, I would choose the latter. At the very least, there would be a lower rate of accidental discharges.

Nothing is really completely safe, but there is a certain point where sanity says it's safe enough. A university campus is one of those places that is, on the whole, sufficiently safe to warrant not carrying a weapon. And as I linked to before, you do not necessarily need a weapon to stop someone shooting.

Not carrying a gun is not entirely the same as unarmed. And asking someone to protect people while not carrying a gun is a reasonable request, especially if no-one else has one or if they are rare (which a ban on guns on campuses ensures). I believe security personnel are generally trained to do so.

In theory yes, however i don't know of anyone who CCW's who doesn't have training on thew firearm, many states require you take classes and courses before even being granted a CCW license.

That is nice, although a tad irrelevant. A campus with zero guns can't have any accidental discharges at all. And unless the rate of accidental discharge is precisely zero, then a campus with guns has a chance of having at least one.

AND FYI, there is a percentage of Stockton and Rutgers students who CCW handguns to their campus every day since Virginia Tec. I know of at least a dozen classmates who do. now they do NOT allow CCW in new jersey and as such they are doing it illegally, but (if i did go to college there to say), would i feel less safe knowing there are students who have handguns with/on them, absolutely not, why? because when the shooting starts at least i know that the bad guy is going down in a fight.

So... you feel safer knowing there are students with handguns, just in case someone brings a gun to school. Um... OK then. I'd personally hope the students breaking New Jersey state law by bringing a concealed weapon onto school property are at some point charged before they hurt someone.

Shooting accurately is one thing. Shooting accurately at someone who is shooting at you and wishes you and everyone else dead is quite another.

That is not to say i didn't carry knives in high school for similar reasons, we had a kid who wrote a letter to the school claiming he was going to bring an end to those who sent him away, and i started carrying, because even though i didn't know the kid(he was a class ahead of me), he had alot of enemies, and i figured if he is going to come in shooting i would rather die in an attempt to stop him then let him gun me down without the possibility of doing anything to stop him.

I'd figure if he had sent a letter to the school, and everyone knew who it was, then odds are the school had been in contact with the police about that student.

Such begs the questions about what if, what if those teachers who had CCW(one being a ex cop) could have had their guns on campus, would the shooting have ended earlier, how many less students would have died if one of the kids in the dorm had a handgun, and shot the crazy asian who was shooting the place up?

Chances are decent there would have been no fewer deaths. As I said before, if someone else had a gun in the room at Monash University, there would have been at least one death more.

You all think that guns are the reason the world is dangerous, i must disagree but the facts still show you are more likely to be raped in Australian, and England then in the USA, i wonder why?

Guns aren't the sole reason the world is dangerous, but they don't make the place safer.

The facts also show that rape is one of the more under-reported crimes. It could just be that a greater fraction are reported in Australia than the US.

If someone is carrying, for self-defence, a weapon capable of and designed for the explicit purpose of killing someone else, either they are dangerously paranoid or something has gone quite wrong somewhere. The only two groups that should need to carry a gun are the military and the police. Private security forces are debatable.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Getting back to the "guns don't kill people" argument, if removing guns from the general populace by banning CCW prevents people from killing people with guns, where is the argument for CCW?

You do have to deal with the probability of an illegal carry, but surely this would be rare in such a society? Certainly less likely than being killed in a traffic accident.

[pepsi71ocean 2]

Getting back to the "guns don't kill people" argument, if removing guns from the general populace by banning CCW prevents people from killing people with guns, where is the argument for CCW?

You do have to deal with the probability of an illegal carry, but surely this would be rare in such a society? Certainly less likely than being killed in a traffic accident.

not as rare as you would think. I know alot of ppl that go into AC all the time who CCW, i know of people down there who come from out of state and CCW. (i spent alot of time down there, and have friend who go play poker down there.

the argument for CCW is it keeps homnoest and borderline people honoest.

Lets face it i bet if you polled a prison and ask if the robber knew that his victims was CCW before he robbed them im sure they would have said that they were not going to rob them.

Why is crime lower in Alaska, Vermont, Arizona and texas where CCW is widly used. Conversely Florida has handed out many CCW permits, and i do believe that only 17 out of 225,000 were later revoked for various reasons.

When i drove a truck for i did CCW in my cab, and i can't tell you how many times i had to pull it out because i was in a bad situation. I found that the farther south i was the less likely i was to be attacked by criminals, especially out west, Utah, AZ, CO out there crime seems to be non-existent, vs being out here in the north east.

I had a guy who was trying to open up the back of the trailer, when one of the other truckers saw it he radioed me and said yo guy someone getting in, so i went out and confronted him, he pulled a gun and i pulled mine, and then he backed off, just enough for another trucker to grab him, it took the police 20 mins to get there to fill out the report. (and FYI if you are a CDL driver you cannot carry guns on you, but once again the cops understand and the cop asked me if i carried it and i said no it is for personal protection and that is legal.

now i have stot people before, when i was bringing a boat up from down south(central America), we were attacked by pirates, and yea that was the first time i shot someone, but i felt like i was shooting a paper target, the only dead ones were the ones who boarded the ship.

SO fast forward two years later(this is why i wasn't on simtrop for the longest time), and do i feel hesitant to shoot someone when threatened no. and i wouldn't hesitate because as it was drilled into me at the Military Academy, if you hesitate at the moment of truth you will become a statistic, not the survivor.

[FreewayofFlight 41]

The average university has a student population of at least a few thousand. No campus security force has the time nor the resources to analyse the behaviour of students to detect who may be a potential threat, and then keep them under surveillance to ensure they are not one.

No, they cannot, but that isn't their job. Psychopaths need to be identified by their peers, and they need to get help before they get to the point of bringing a gun to class with the intent to use it profusely and mercilessly. Once you've reached that stage, the problem has already escalated too far - especially when you consider that most campus security forces do not themselves carry guns (a fact which I find very unsettling, how can they protect the students if they're unarmed?) and thus would be powerless to stop a gunman. All they could do would be to call the real police, and they won't arrive in time to save anyone.

In the case of the Virginia Tech Massacre, many students and faculty had intense concern that Seung-Hui Cho was a danger to himself and others. One English department chairperson tried to get the school to require Cho to recieve psychological help. The administrators did not act on the concerns of the English chairperson because they did not consider it an emergency.

The problem in the case of many mass shootings is the person wielding the gun is mentally deranged. Gun dealers should be able, or even required, to contact a customer's place of employment or education.

Relaxing concealed carry laws throws open the door to vigliantes. While their intentions are to protect themselves, their property, or their collegues, they could aggrivate the situation. If you are in a bank, and someone pulls out a gun and demands money, there is no guarentee that you will stop the bad guy. You could easily be shot, or a hostage, and killed. The same goes in nearly all situations, there are too many variables to justify allowing looser concealed carry. If you get involved in a shootout, you increase the risk of missing and hitting a bystander, then you could be on the hook for manslaughter or murder. No one should take on a criminal unless you have some sort of law enforcement/self defense training.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

In the case of a berserker in a class room, if the students are armed, how many more people will be killed in the hail of bullets? People who are carrying weapons legally should be certified and taught to shoot.

Self-defense action must be shoot to kill. In a high excitement situation it would be ludicrous to shoot to wound or disarm. Hand guns just are not that accurate, no matter how many target shooting awards you have. An attack situation is different from a shooting range.

So there is only one target: the center of the upper body. If the person is armored, the blow should knock him down.

[Duke87 1,070]

Why is crime lower in Alaska, Vermont, Arizona and texas where CCW is widly used.

Texas you can make that argument about, but Vermont and Alaska have no large urban areas and thus inherently don't have the crime problems that come along with them regardless of what their laws say about guns or anything else.

[pepsi71ocean 2]

In the case of a berserker in a class room, if the students are armed, how many more people will be killed in the hail of bullets? People who are carrying weapons legally should be certified and taught to shoot.

Self-defense action must be shoot to kill. In a high excitement situation it would be ludicrous to shoot to wound or disarm. Hand guns just are not that accurate, no matter how many target shooting awards you have. An attack situation is different from a shooting range.

So there is only one target: the center of the upper body. If the person is armored, the blow should knock him down.

actually my Springfield GI45 is more accurate then i am at 25 yards, and feel that almost all classrooms are less then 100 feet long from point to point. And even then on a sled or sandbags my GI45 can shoot 3 inch circles at 25 yards, But on hand with good shooting i can hit a human head sized target, however if i was presented in a situation where i was in a classroom with a handgun, i would take for the body, knowing that the 230gr 45 round will go through about anything just shy of Kevlar soft body armor, and most psychotic people do not go in with body armor to begin with.

Actually i don't think anyone who gone on a shooting rampage has used body armor.

Why is crime lower in Alaska, Vermont, Arizona and texas where CCW is widly used.

Texas you can make that argument about, but Vermont and Alaska have no large urban areas and thus inherently don't have the crime problems that come along with them regardless of what their laws say about guns or anything else.

Well in that case we should add Georgia, Florida and Virginia to the list. Georgia has a very high rate of CCW, my uncle lives there, my sister CCW's she lives in FLA, and my other aunt and uncle live in AZ, they open carry.

I know my uncle lives outside of Atlanta GA, and when we went to the football game he carried his short barreled 45 with him. And i should note that the guy who we parked our van with was very nice, and i can still remember him say to this day saying "don't worry mister aint no one touching your van here, as he sat with a shotgun in hand.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Well, my friend, if you've never been in a fire fight, I hope you can keep your head and shoot well. I'd feel safer with your around, but this kind of thing just isn't in our culture.

[pepsi71ocean 2]

Well, my friend, if you've never been in a fire fight, I hope you can keep your head and shoot well. I'd feel safer with your around, but this kind of thing just isn't in our culture.

i have been in firefights, a few actually. i did post it up i think but maybe it didn't post?

Anyways for a while back in 2007 2008 i was bringing sport fishing boats back and forth between central America and the US, i have been in a few firefights, 1 boarding, but 90% of them it is who can fly the most lead in 30 seconds wins.

Almost gentlemen like when you fight the pirates from haiti, cuba area, and then go through it again when you get down by Panama(when you go through the Canal.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Well, my friend, if you've never been in a fire fight, I hope you can keep your head and shoot well. I'd feel safer with your around, but this kind of thing just isn't in our culture.

i have been in firefights, a few actually. i did post it up i think but maybe it didn't post?

Anyways for a while back in 2007 2008 i was bringing sport fishing boats back and forth between central America and the US, i have been in a few firefights, 1 boarding, but 90% of them it is who can fly the most lead in 30 seconds wins.

Almost gentlemen like when you fight the pirates from haiti, cuba area, and then go through it again when you get down by Panama(when you go through the Canal.

It's a good thing you won. These guys want boats for drug running, and simply deep-six the crew if they win. It is getting to the point where you can't take a private yacht though there outside a flotilla guarded by a gun boat. Something like the eastern Med. International yachtin in some areas is getting to be very risky.