For those members who are in U.S. and are following the school shooting

[Yournamehere]

Originally Posted by Excalibur

Is that your way of saying "be quiet, the adults are talking?"

Not at all sir. I'm only justifying the objective parts of Matts statement, and saying that if you are going to stand for something, stand straight and tall, don't slouch. If you want to engage in rhetorical discussion, it's key that you say what you mean and mean what you say in the best, most articulate way possible, that's all. No need to be mad, guy.

Originally Posted by commando552

Bear in mind the instances of anyone drawing a carry gun during a mass shooting will be minuscule compared to someone drawing a gun during a one on one threat to themself or someone near by. I can't even begin to know what the statistic would be but I'm guessing we are talking a less than one in a thousand. For the majority of personal protection needs a sub-compact will be sufficient. Also bear in mind that a gun is only good if you are carrying it. With a light sub-compact you will be more likely to carry it all the time with whatever you are wearing, as opposed to a higher capacity weapon which you may not be able to wear with all clothing, and large and heavy enough that you may forego due to being an encumbrance.

Oh you're absolutely right, more robberies and other individual crimes happen than mass shootings by a wide margin, and a gun is a gun when it's one on one and you have the only gun. But weighing (excuse the pun) the detriments of the size and weight of heftier, higher capacity "fighting guns" against the detriments of a micro gun in any given fighting situation is what I look to. With a micro gun, you lose fighting edge for ease and consistency of carry, but with a fighting gun, you lose those traits for a better gun. And those more often than not are disciplinary issues that go along with carrying a gun in the first place. Don't get me wrong, I understand some people are physically limited to the gun they can carry through their strength or dress or whatever, but in a world where mass shootings are on the rise (in media coverage anyway) and a world where you have the ability to shoulder the very hefty yet possibly lifesaving weight of carrying a gun for self protection and the protection of others, those who are physically capable of carrying a bigger gun ought to.

I've seen a lot of big burly men carrying, all puffy chested because they support the 2nd Amendment and gaining the feeling that they are the thin line between order and chaos when crime acts before police do, and they carry single stack micro .380s, and it just blows my mind. It will get you out of a carjacking at knife point, but it may not get you out of a gunfight, or a mass shooting if it comes down to it, and the only cost to carry a better gun is discipline in consistent carry of a hefty gun and proper dress and gear to carry the gun comfortably. And with that you now have a much better fighting gun in the rare event something truly catastrophic goes down. I mean, what are the odds you'll be in any crime at all, period? and yet we still weigh that against not carrying a gun, and we carry the gun. It's just the next dimension of that philosophy.

Women and skinny college kids who don't eat enough and don't have the strength or comfort to lug around a P229 or XDM or something like that, yes, I'm for them carrying SOMETHING like a PM9 or a 642 since it's better than nothing, but the former guns are better for all tasks including the ones that are "less likely" if that statistic really matters. Couple that with other semantic benefits like draw speed and a more terrifying presence, as well as the very minute weight differences between polymer compacts/subcompacts among other things, I find carrying a fighting gun to be worth the cost if one can pay it (I'm talking to full grown men for the most part).


Basically, "guns should be comforting, not comfortable" and "carry the biggest gun you can" apply in my mind, and they are better than micro guns given higher versatility at the cost of carriers discipline and full usage of their capability, not minimalistic thinking and action, or, bluntly speaking, if you carry a gun to be a man, then man up and carry a big one.

[MT2008]

I'm very happy to see that we're having a much more constructive dialogue here than what I have seen previously. This is the type of conversation I think that gun owners need to have a little more often.

Originally Posted by commando552

The UK licensing system works here, but there are a couple of parts that would never be accepted in America. First and foremost is the fact that in the UK, self defence is not an acceptable reason to own a firearm which would make a lot of Americans very unhappy. Secondly, in the UK you need to obtain permission for each new firearm you want to acquire (with the exception of regular shotguns or antique weapons), and give justification for why you want it. There are a few other parts which I think the USA could benefit from adopting, such as the requirement that firearms are locked up with only the license holder having access to them, along with limits on the amount of ammunition that can be stored, or purchased in one transaction.

Agreed, self-defense should be regarded as a perfectly acceptable reason for owning a firearm. But in my opinion, someone who does carry a firearm for self-defense also requires a greater level of scrutiny than those who wish to own firearms for recreation or hunting. I would not, for example, be comfortable approving a conceal-carry permit for a senile old dude who thinks that every black guy walking down the street is casing his house for a robbery. And while I sympathize with a woman who gets raped and applies for a conceal-carry permit in order to defeat future would-be rapists, I would still wonder whether she was of sound mind to carry (because she might be a little too paranoid to be trusted with a weapon).

(Both of these examples are based on real people who I've actually known, though neither of them ever tried to get carry permits.)

Originally Posted by commando552

Any changes in legislation that come in the following months need to be well thought out and reasoned, and not the knee jerk over-reactions that followed Hungerford and Dunblane massacres.

I agree that the sort of kneejerk reactions that followed massacres in the U.K. are certainly NOT the type of reaction I want to see. I have said many times that bans should, as a rule of thumb, be considered one extreme that is to be avoided. But I think that it is possible to acknowledge that an AR-15 is a far more dangerous weapon than a bolt-action hunting rifle, while simultaneously arguing that a ban on AR-15s would be unnecessary.

Originally Posted by Yournamehere

I'm still not clear on the details of the shooting myself, but from what I heard A: he wasn't wearing body armor, and B: he didn't use his Bushmaster, just his pistols. If that's the case, then (even though in hysteria it doesn't matter) calling for an AWB in the wake of this shooting is really unfounded.

You are correct; it was indeed errant reporting. However, James Holmes was in fact wearing armor.

Originally Posted by Yournamehere

No matter what weapon he used, I don't necessarily agree that someone is useless in this situation with a concealed handgun. Outgunned, definitely, but it's reasonable to say that you can make up with a lack of firepower with proper tactics. I'm not saying it's easy, just that it's conceivably doable, especially if the CCW has a reasonable amount of training/skill, and the shooter doesn't. Yes this is semantic, but it seems to be the case in most respects.

Maybe "useless" is too strong a word, but I have trouble imagining that anyone who doesn't use guns for a living (i.e. a well-trained police officer, federal agent, or soldier) would be able to defeat a well-armed perp with only a handgun. That sounds more like something from a movie than real life. In real life, there are plenty of examples of BGs with assault weapons outgunning scores of police officers who had only handguns (i.e. North Hollywood, though obviously, those were illegally converted full-auto AKs and ARs).

That being said, if I were in a building where a mass killer was loose, I would definitely prefer to have some type of gun than none at all.

Originally Posted by Yournamehere

The other thing is the idea that mass shooters tend to quit at the first sign of resistance, because, again, they usually lack skill as well as coherence in the situation to understand that they can outgun a single person wielding a pistol with their rifle or whatever they are using, and just like in any other gunfight, they have to take in all this information at 200 miles an hour, where the shots are coming from, how many shots and with what, and given they're in a mass shooting solely to go out with a bang, they can come to the conclusion that they are beat (thats why they were there in the first place), and so they off themselves even if rationally they may have been able to win said gunfight against said concealed weapon holder.

Mass shooters may retreat when faced with resistance, but off themselves? The whole point of a mass killing is to get the highest possible body count, so I would expect a mass killer to retreat only so that he could survive long enough to kill more people. But simply give up completely and kill himself? I realize that the NRA has cited examples of shootings that were stopped by armed citizens, but is that really the norm?

You're also not taking into account the ways that mass killers might anticipate and try to mitigate this threat, like wearing body armor with trauma plates.

Also, recall that in Columbine, the two shooters exchanged gunfire with the school's security guard, and they didn't off themselves.

Originally Posted by Yournamehere

No, I don't think an AWB will do anything to prevent mass shootings, it will only serve to restrict law abiding gun owners.

If a new AWB were passed (politically impossible, even after Newtown), and ATF could somehow confiscate all of the assault weapons in private hands (physically impossible), it would certainly deprive mass killers of their weapons-of-choice, and it might make these incidents less deadly. It will always be easier to buy an AR-15 and some 100-round drums than to learn how to build a bomb. The question is whether these incidents will become less common.

Also, the fact is that there are too many AWs now in private hands for a ban to ever work. It might make them more expensive or harder to get, but it will never eliminate the threat completely. So from a practical point of view, there is no reason to deprive law-abiding gun owners of their rights. I do, however, believe that we should consider laws to reduce proliferation of AWs in the wrong hands.

Originally Posted by Yournamehere

Mag capacity is also not correlative to any of these crimes either, especially since VTech, the most violent shooting happened with nothing but 10 round mags. Granted it reduces reloads, practically speaking, giving people the chance to rush the shooter but rarely do shooters get rushed and taken down anyway (the Arizona shooting is an exception). And again, a ban isn't going to delete weapons or mags or bullets from existence (even if it could, we shouldn't want to be stripped of our great equalizers anyway) and just as well, a CW with as many rounds on tap as possible is a pawn for a pawn in that situation.

Yes, the VT shooter used 15-rounders in his Glock 19 (not 10-rounders; the AWB had expired by the time that incident took place). Obviously, it's possible to kill more people with lower magazine capacity. But that still doesn't mean that higher magazine capacity doesn't make it easier to shoot multiple victims in a short period of time. If there was no practical difference between ten 10-round magazines and one 100-round magazine, 100-round magazines wouldn't have been invented.

Originally Posted by Yournamehere

I agree with Matt frankly, you do consistently fail to use proper grammar or produce coherent thoughts or sentences, and it makes you seem uneducated and an easy target for those with whom you'd argue. I don't think he means to pick on you, he's just repressed the fair criticism to the point where it's just boiled over, and given the political climate at the time, we need both intelligent thinking and proper display of such to discuss these issues, that's all. It'd be worth it to either put the extra effort to make sure the voice you want heard is polished and coherent, or that you step aside from being a voice and do other things to benefit the collective cause.

Thank you for the support, though I still feel a need to respond to him anyway...

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by Excalibur

Did you just seriously corrected my grammar first?

Really? Yeah, I corrected your grammar. Did you seriously just write "did you just seriously corrected my grammar"? And how long have you lived in the States? Unless you're dyslexic, this response is just amusingly feeble...

Originally Posted by Excalibur

That means I shouldn't be taking and expressing myself? That I shouldn't represent gun owners because I wrote a couple of things wrong?

Yes and yes.

Originally Posted by Excalibur

I don't claim to know everything nor do I have "superior powers of logic and analysis".

You act superior when you attribute your positions to education and claim that those of gun controllers cannot possibly be informed. Even though your education is clearly not so great (you may have a Bachelor's, but man, you did not do enough to earn it, IMO).

Originally Posted by Excalibur

The fuck did I do to you? I don't know you know just as much as you don't know me. Yeah people make mistakes. What is your fucking grind with me?

It's not what you did to me personally; it's the embarrassment that you represent to all of us. As YNH said, if you are going to declare intellectual superiority over your opponents, you damn well better be able to back it up with clear, concise, well-written arguments. Time and time again, you've demonstrated an inability to make such arguments.

Originally Posted by Excalibur

Is that your way of saying "be quiet, the adults are talking?"

If you're going to act like a whiny little kid (which, frankly, is what you're doing), then yes, you should shut up and let the adults do the talking.

Also, I'm not sure anyone told you, but you aren't entitled to respect. You have to earn it. Most people do not respect somebody who is arrogant and inarticulate (it's a sign of poor social skills, not just poor education).

[MT2008]

In other news...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...ntcmp=obinsite

Not a Ron Paul fan, and I don't entirely agree with him on the solution. But I do think he's correct that the NRA's plan is pretty damned absurd in that it essentially holds the liberty to own a firearm above almost any other liberty guaranteed by the Constitution.

I was really embarrassed by LaPierre's speech and I do not regard him as someone who speaks for me.

[predator20]

Originally Posted by MT2008

I'm not sure. But let's leave aside the question of whether gun registration would lead to gun bans: Is it really such a bad thing to require guns to be registered from a purely moral standpoint? We have laws requiring registration of many, many things that are potentially deadly in the wrong hands (such as cars). Assuming we could guarantee that registration did not lead to a ban, it would be a good way to ensure that fewer weapons are reaching the hands of those who should not own them, no?

That sir, is the million dollar question isn't? What guarantee would there be? Some states have registration, but doesn't stop guns from being stolen does it? If one of your guns is stolen, you would report it to the police, registered or not. Registration would only stop you from doing a private sale to someone that could potentially not be legal to own it.

Originally Posted by MT2008

(And again, nobody is arguing that a guy with an AK-47 is guaranteed to kill lots of people, just as it would be fallacious to argue that it's impossible to kill lots of people with a Remington Model 750. I am merely arguing that this scenario is more likely with an AK.)

Yes it's more likely in this day and age. (Though the AR seems to be favored more lately, better availability?)

Originally Posted by MT2008

I was really embarrassed by LaPierre's speech and I do not regard him as someone who speaks for me.

(Movies and video games.) I don't believe in playing the blame game either. (Though the media doesn't mind doing it.) LaPierre was in a tough position and had to try to focus the blame elsewhere.

[predator20]

I think this guy hit the nail on the head.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KU24i3Th27U

[Sergei Titov]

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/stewart-t...ate-testimony/

Whatever side you represent, this is a good thing to check out. While I don't agree with banning magazines larger than 10 and banning assault weapons, I do agree with universal background checks if I have to pick one of the three. But in any case Jon Stewart is hilarious.

[Yournamehere]

Originally Posted by MT2008

You are correct; it was indeed errant reporting. However, James Holmes was in fact wearing armor.

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by MT2008

Maybe "useless" is too strong a word, but I have trouble imagining that anyone who doesn't use guns for a living (i.e. a well-trained police officer, federal agent, or soldier) would be able to defeat a well-armed perp with only a handgun. That sounds more like something from a movie than real life. In real life, there are plenty of examples of BGs with assault weapons outgunning scores of police officers who had only handguns (i.e. North Hollywood, though obviously, those were illegally converted full-auto AKs and ARs).

That being said, if I were in a building where a mass killer was loose, I would definitely prefer to have some type of gun than none at all.

Semantically speaking, none of those careers guarantee any of those peoples proficiency with their weapons. I wouldn't even go so far as to say it's more likely that one in any of those professions would be more proficient as there typically seems to be minor qualifications for officers, feds, and from what I know, little to none for military personnel. They can and are usually glad to take outside training, but there are plenty of opportunities for civs to do so too (at a relatively substantial cost, to be fair). And to follow up, yes, I concede there's definitely no combat experience for a civ carrying a gun unless they do have some in their job in one of those careers, but again, the career does not guarantee combat experience or proficiency. I don't think it comes down to previous or current employment, it comes down to the individual, their experience, learning and mindset, wherever it may come from. Plenty of guys outshoot cops, feds and military all the time via tactics, luck, or superior firepower, or any combination of that.

Using North Hollywood as an example, the numerous responding police officers were outgunned with their 9mm pistols, .38 revolvers and shotguns by two men with automatic weapons and body armor, yet with tactics (based on superior numbers, and a whole lot of luck, to be fair) they eventually took them down without sustaining any deaths. Phillips took his own life, but took a bullet to the neck which would have been a death sentence anyway. Yes, he'd lost his primary weapon by that time, but how many of these shootings occur with the gunman having to fix a jam? How many where they have to transition to pistol without a second man covering them or reload? Just as well, Mătăsăreanu was also (luckily, to be fair) shot in his unarmored legs which brought him down. A clean headshot could have killed them as well, and while hard, it's not impossible if you get the drop on your target.

Many of these incidents are also with a lone, crazed gunner with a pistol and not an "assault weapon" to begin with. Just as well, North Hollywood was a gun battle, the shooters knew where the cops were and fired directly at them. A mass shooter is in a target rich environment and unloads at everyone, making getting the drop and fighting back properly a bit easier. If a CCer is skilled and/or lucky, (there's probably more than one) proper tactics can position that hopefully properly trained individual in a spot where they can take them out.

I hate using North Hollywood as an example because it defies all logic when considering mass shootings or gun battles but I think I used it effectively. The main point is that mass shootings are usually one guy, who may or may not have an assault weapon, who usually has minimal or no training with diminished capacity from mental defect or extreme emotional distress and is in a target rich environment, and those elements (especially joined) lend to spraying and praying and lack of focus on objective or surroundings, which give a CCer some kind of edge if utilized properly. It's not the same as two men with machine guns who utilize suppression tactics, and are not there to kill, but to escape. Given all elements, beyond weapons and which is superior, and considering the common mass shooter and (to be fair) a semi-idealized version of a CCer, taking out a mass shooter is more plausible than you'd think.

I understand if you think that I am overestimating the ability of John Q. Carry, but I think you underestimate it as well (and in a way I don't blame you given some of the permit holders I've known). The point is however that there are so many factors in play that considering one like the guns over the whole picture is unreasonable. And "banning" them with laws in the grand scheme of things does not fix the problem, but does dismiss the possibility of a well trained, law abiding gun owner ending or minimizing chaos when it arises.

Originally Posted by MT2008

Mass shooters may retreat when faced with resistance, but off themselves? The whole point of a mass killing is to get the highest possible body count, so I would expect a mass killer to retreat only so that he could survive long enough to kill more people. But simply give up completely and kill himself? I realize that the NRA has cited examples of shootings that were stopped by armed citizens, but is that really the norm?

You're also not taking into account the ways that mass killers might anticipate and try to mitigate this threat, like wearing body armor with trauma plates.

Also, recall that in Columbine, the two shooters exchanged gunfire with the school's security guard, and they didn't off themselves.

Perhaps shooters don't often kill themselves at the first sign of resistance, but that retreat or focus on the CCer is time spent not shooting others, and time for police to arrive. It does change the scenario for the better. And for the record, civs are sometimes permitted to wear body armor too, for what that’s worth. Given the phenomenon that is the mass shooting, this heroic and perhaps futile effort that can be undertaken by a CCer is just part of the real weight that’s carried with the permit and that gun.

Originally Posted by MT2008

If a new AWB were passed (politically impossible, even after Newtown), and ATF could somehow confiscate all of the assault weapons in private hands (physically impossible), it would certainly deprive mass killers of their weapons-of-choice, and it might make these incidents less deadly. It will always be easier to buy an AR-15 and some 100-round drums than to learn how to build a bomb. The question is whether these incidents will become less common.

Also, the fact is that there are too many AWs now in private hands for a ban to ever work. It might make them more expensive or harder to get, but it will never eliminate the threat completely. So from a practical point of view, there is no reason to deprive law-abiding gun owners of their rights. I do, however, believe that we should consider laws to reduce proliferation of AWs in the wrong hands.

Yeah I think we can agree that a ban won’t work as it stands, but we know it’s a way for GCAs to get their foot in the door to ban and confiscate all guns they can, even if its just the ones they can find, and taking even one gun in one state or county or city is not cool. The slippery slope is definitely overplayed, but I’d rather not take any casualties on that front if at all possible. I don’t think it’s politically impossible for them to make some headway either given the emotional distress caused by Sandy Hook and the hefty number of ignorant voters and citizens out there who still buy into the spooky assault weapon and evil high capacity assault clips.

I’m glad to see the trend of the approval of concealed carry and belief in the right to self protection become more prominent, but it doesn’t end with handguns alone. Full capacity magazines and semi auto rifles are still excellent tools for home defense especially considering there are novice shooters who want to make up with quality for quantity, or may need to defend against multiple attackers or home invaders with multiple shots of pistol or rifle rounds which may not actually do anything. Bullets don’t magically stop people. Baby Face Nelson was shot 17 times by way of a Tommy gun and drove away from the fight, and that’s an 80 year old example before the days of PCP and crack.

Yes, if I snap my fingers and make every gun ever disappear, even the ones used for evil, so go all the ones used for good as well. The GCAs say they will do what they can if it saves just one life, but a lack of adequate protection, equipment or training costs lives daily. And there will still be knife attacks, axe murders, bombings and vehicular manslaughter or any other kind of murderous acts if people are still crazy and distressed enough to want to kill others so they can finally get the courage to kill themselves, or to get notoriety or whatever motive the particular mass murderer may have. Guns make killing easy, but they won’t make killing significantly harder if they’re gone away either. You allude to whether or not them being gone will make any difference in the commonality of mass murder, and it will in regard to gun crimes (maybe, depending on how it’s enacted) but it comes at the cost of armed self reliance, the right to self defense, and the lives these along with guns save all the time in the hands of civilians.

I do ultimately believe there should be reform of some sort with the way concealed carry permits and perhaps even guns are obtained by individuals, as long as they don’t come at a significantly higher monetary cost. That’s what our lawmakers should consider, not these bans that make no sense and don’t work.

[Yournamehere]

Originally Posted by MT2008

Yes, the VT shooter used 15-rounders in his Glock 19 (not 10-rounders; the AWB had expired by the time that incident took place). Obviously, it's possible to kill more people with lower magazine capacity. But that still doesn't mean that higher magazine capacity doesn't make it easier to shoot multiple victims in a short period of time. If there was no practical difference between ten 10-round magazines and one 100-round magazine, 100-round magazines wouldn't have been invented.

I know you hold the opinion that a thirty rounder is not the same and superior to three ten rounders, you’ve made that point clear a number of times on here, and I agree with you. The question is whether or not that thirty rounder costs any lives on its own anyway weighed against the benefit of it in the hands of a responsible citizen defending their life or loved ones when on their property under siege during a home invasion, or in a disastrous WROL situation like Katrina, or even in the sporting hobbies which have nothing to do with mass murder but are a healthy and safe competitive activity. I say no, the death toll that could be attributed to them (not general gun violence but murders and casualties undertaken after 10 rounds have been fired from a gun) is miniscule compared to the inherent protective and hobbying benefit they provide.

The even more overarching question is whether or not we as a society want to buy into protectionist culture and government control of the best means possible to individual safety in our ever entropic and crime ridden society. Do we want to let them handle our protection when they are not legally liable for it, or do we want to handle it ourselves when we legally are? Do we want to put the weight on someone else or carry that weight on our own? It’s a philosophical question, but if you detach it from guns, there’s sure to be a lot of people who prefer their independence and self reliance. You ask how many people would rather drive to work than take the bus and I doubt you’d be surprised by the answer (granted there is some unfair stigmatism coupled with public transportation especially in lower class parts of the country). Point is, even in a society, we all want to believe we are individuals and that we are still responsible for our own actions and deserve the sweat of our brow.

And that’s the other reason why gun politics is so convoluted, why any political realm is, it’s a question of individual rights, and the right to self defense inherently affects other people since we are talking about deploying deadly weapons and ending life. It’s all the more reason a line should be drawn in the sand (which in most instances it already is, we just don’t consider it) as to what acceptable self defense is, and then we need to look and how we can best conform to the capabilities needed to do that, utilizing the best tools, tactics and psyching up we can. I don’t blame GCAs for wanting to forfeit that, it’s arduous, complicated and it requires extreme emotional and mental fortitude, but a lot of things in this country do, and we still do them, but stupidly, and they assuredly cost lives too. It’s not a matter of simplifying things or getting rid of them, it’s a matter of tackilng the problem as best we can, and that ties into deploying a gun semantically, I just used the same phrasing as a matter of fact. For lack of better terminology, we as a society have forgotten how to tackle an issue as best we can and “man up” to it, and we ought to remember how to do that, cause it’ll only get worse unless we do something about it, something real. No bans, no passing out guns to teachers, something complex yet feasible, practical and effective. Our lawmakers need to listen to us and figure out what that is, that’s their damn job, right?

Originally Posted by MT2008

Thank you for the support, though I still feel a need to respond to him anyway...

You are welcome. Though I feel less than respected here most of the time I’m not one to fail to stand up for what I understand or believe is right, especially if it revolves around the betterment of another member of our society (ignoring your invective, though I understand your patience wearing thin with a persistent pet peeve).

[SPEMack618]

MT2008,

I respect your opinions, and the work you put forth on this board/site, and in addition to that, I value your virtual friendship.

That being said, I have but one comment to make in regards to your views on gun control.

While it may be insepid to face down a guy with a long arm with only a pistol, it can be done, and has been done. All it takes is the proper will to win and some training.

Heck, we all know the 9x19mm NATO is a crappy round, but I used it succesfully to drop a fellow with laundry on his head who was carrying an AKM with underfolding stock. And I had an M-4A1 sitting in my lap.