Man accidentally shoots self (in the butt) in NV theatre

[General Zod]

You're going to need to produce some evidence that carrying a loaded weapon actually makes you safer and not just another target with a gun in his pocket.

Are you saying there's no circumstances whatsoever where it's fine for a civilian to carry concealed? What if a woman escaped her abusive husband and feels a need to defend herself because she thinks he might try something extreme if she runs into him on the street?

[Jub]

You're going to need to produce some evidence that carrying a loaded weapon actually makes you safer and not just another target with a gun in his pocket.

Are you saying there's no circumstances whatsoever where it's fine for a civilian to carry concealed? What if a woman escaped her abusive husband and feels a need to defend herself because she thinks he might try something extreme if she runs into him on the street?

Why is this something needed in America but that isn't needed in other places?

[General Zod]

Why is this something needed in America but that isn't needed in other places?

Are you saying there's no circumstances whatsoever where it's fine for a civilian to carry concealed? Yes or no?

[Jub]

Why is this something needed in America but that isn't needed in other places?

Are you saying there's no circumstances whatsoever where it's fine for a civilian to carry concealed? Yes or no?

You've got it. In fact, I'd say outside of a designated shooting range or hunting, civilians don't need guns at all. The fact is, that when you remove guns from the equation deaths from violent crime drop.

[Agent Fisher]

Jub, that'd be great! If I didn't work security, I'd probably never ever need to carry concealed and wouldn't have ever really bothered getting it. And if the bad guys didn't have guns or knives, or bats or other improvised deadly weapons, I wouldn't even need my gun at work and I'd be fine with just a taser.

The sad fact is, Jub, the guns are out there. No amount of legislation will be able to get rid of them from the people who really shouldn't have them.

So, I'm sorry if it doesn't match your hopeful world view or opinions, but when I go out to run some errands tomorrow, I'm gonna have my weapon seated in it's holster and a round in the chamber, and when I go to work tomorrow night, I as a civilian, will have a loaded weapon on my hip, ready for action.

[PeZook]

I think gun guys are missing the point: bad guys in America have guns, yes. Bad guys in Europe ALSO have guns. Bad guys in America and elsewhere also have knives, bats, broken bottles and even friends and fists/boots.

The question is, can you reasonably expect to defend yourself from a an armed attacker with your own gun? Will you have time to draw? Will you be able to kill a human being?

I'm sure the ATF or FBI compiles statistics about guns and their role in crime prevention, so it should be downright trivial to post them and see if they show than an ordinary, (if trained) US citizen can expect to have XYZ less chance of getting injured during a robbery, assault, home invasion or whatever if he carries. As a bonus, it will make it so much easier to cut through all these tiresome discussions where both sides just argue in circles

[General Zod]

I think gun guys are missing the point: bad guys in America have guns, yes. Bad guys in America and elsewhere also have knives, bats, broken bottles and even friends and fists/boots.

The question is, can you reasonably expect to defend yourself from a an armed attacker with your own gun? Will you have time to draw? Will you be able to kill a human being?

I'm sure the ATF or FBI compiles statistics about guns and their role in crime prevention, so it should be downright trivial to post them and see if they show than an ordinary, (if trained) US citizen can expect to have XYZ less chance of getting injured during a robbery, assault, home invasion or whatever if he carries.

I'm not saying we should be handing out ccws like candy, but if someone wants a ccw they should at least have to demonstrate a need to carry.

Case in point, should a domestic abuse victim be allowed to carry a weapon to defend herself against a violent ex husband? The guy in the article is obviously an idiot that probably shouldn't have been given a permit to begin with.

[PeZook]

Case in point, should a domestic abuse victim be allowed to carry a weapon to defend herself against a violent ex husband?

I think most European countries actually have this as a standard, although some are very restrictive about carrying the gun concealed and in public.

In Poland you need:

1) To demonstrate a need to own a gun (that you feel threatened and why etc.)

2) Pass a psychological examination (that you have to pay for), take classes in gun handling, safety etc.

3) Pass a doctor's examination showing you're physically fit to use a firearm

4) Not be a convicted felon

5) Be a Polish resident

But that's just one way of doing things and I honestly have no idea if it helps or makes things worse ; Certainly there's enough guns in circulation that some 130 people are shot every year ; On the other hand, our average violent crime rate is very low compared to the US.

[Jub]

Jub, that'd be great! If I didn't work security, I'd probably never ever need to carry concealed and wouldn't have ever really bothered getting it. And if the bad guys didn't have guns or knives, or bats or other improvised deadly weapons, I wouldn't even need my gun at work and I'd be fine with just a taser.

The sad fact is, Jub, the guns are out there. No amount of legislation will be able to get rid of them from the people who really shouldn't have them.

So, I'm sorry if it doesn't match your hopeful world view or opinions, but when I go out to run some errands tomorrow, I'm gonna have my weapon seated in it's holster and a round in the chamber, and when I go to work tomorrow night, I as a civilian, will have a loaded weapon on my hip, ready for action.

I'm sure glad guns and knives haven't been invented yet in Canada, otherwise we'd have to be as armed to the teeth and paranoid as you are.

Now answer me this, if you feel safer and better able to do your job with a concealed handgun carried on you, wouldn't you feel even safer with an assault rifle slung around your neck loaded and ready to go? For that matter what about something like an automatic shotgun?

Case in point, should a domestic abuse victim be allowed to carry a weapon to defend herself against a violent ex husband?

If she has a violent ex shouldn't she be pressing charges and putting him behind bars so she won't need to carry a weapon? Or are the standards of proof you'd require to acquire a CCW permit that much lower than what would be needed to charge the violent person with a crime?

[General Zod]

On the other hand, our average violent crime rate is very low compared to the US.

Does that take into account the vastly different population size? Because New York state alone has a population that's close to the whole of Poland.

[General Zod]

If she has a violent ex shouldn't she be pressing charges and putting him behind bars so she won't need to carry a weapon? Or are the standards of proof you'd require to acquire a CCW permit that much lower than what would be needed to charge the violent person with a crime?

What do you think?

[Jub]

On the other hand, our average violent crime rate is very low compared to the US.

Does that take into account the vastly different population size? Because New York state alone has a population that's close to the whole of Poland.

Why not compare the UK to the US, they're very similar after all. Except that one has a handgun ban, and while violent crime hasn't gone down by as much as might have been hoped for, deaths are simply less common when you, in most cases, need to use a knife or a bat instead of a handgun. Who would have though that when you make guns less common gun crime drops off.

If she has a violent ex shouldn't she be pressing charges and putting him behind bars so she won't need to carry a weapon? Or are the standards of proof you'd require to acquire a CCW permit that much lower than what would be needed to charge the violent person with a crime?

What do you think?

That's a great anecdote. Now how about digging up some stats and actually answering the question or at least proving that the women needed to have a gun to stop the person from attacking her.

[General Zod]

Why not compare the UK to the US, they're very similar after all. Except that one has a handgun ban, and while violent crime hasn't gone down by as much as might have been hoped for, deaths are simply less common when you, in most cases, need to use a knife or a bat instead of a handgun. Who would have though that when you make guns less common gun crime drops off.

Because you can't just ignore socio-economic conditions that lead to high crime rates?

That's a great anecdote. Now how about digging up some stats and actually answering the question or at least proving that the women needed to have a gun to stop the person from attacking her.

Why bother? You've already said that you don't believe civilians should carry weapons at all. Frankly it's a bit like arguing with a pro-lifer who thinks that abortions should be illegal period with no exceptions.

[PeZook]

On the other hand, our average violent crime rate is very low compared to the US.

Does that take into account the vastly different population size? Because New York state alone has a population that's close to the whole of Poland.

Violent crime RATES measure crimes per 100 000 inhabitants, so yes, it does take into account the different population size

Population density might be an issue, but they don't really corellate that much: the worst cesspools in the US when it comes to violent crime are actually the moderately sized cities like Newark, Buffalo or Cleveland with murder rates above 10 per 100 000. New York is firmly in the middle, but sitll staggering: 6.4 murders per 100 000 inhabitants, The most dangerous Polish city has 2.8 murders per 100 000 inhabitants. It's also the second-largest city at 310 000 inhabitants and the first when it comes to population density (and poverty).

[Agent Fisher]

I'm sure glad guns and knives haven't been invented yet in Canada, otherwise we'd have to be as armed to the teeth and paranoid as you are.

Now answer me this, if you feel safer and better able to do your job with a concealed handgun carried on you, wouldn't you feel even safer with an assault rifle slung around your neck loaded and ready to go? For that matter what about something like an automatic shotgun?

I would. Cause it'd be nice to be as well armed as what some of the bad guys have in their apartments. I'd also like to have at least three others of my coworkers with me on every single fight or domestic call that I go to.

I can be as paranoid as I want, keeps you alive. Doesn't mean I'm gonna shoot every person who looks at me wrong, just means I'm gonna be extra cautious when I approach that car in the parking lot of the property that's got someone loitering inside it.

EDIT:
Anyway, I'm done with this arguement. I'm not gonna convince you of my need to carry a firearm. And you're not gonna convince me that no civilian should ever have or need a firearm outside of hunting or target shooting. So all I'm accomplishing is raising my post count.

[General Zod]

On the other hand, our average violent crime rate is very low compared to the US.

Does that take into account the vastly different population size? Because New York state alone has a population that's close to the whole of Poland.

Violent crime RATES measure crimes per 100 000 inhabitants, so yes, it does take into account the different population size

Population density might be an issue, but they don't really corellate that much: the worst cesspools in the US when it comes to violent crime are actually the moderately sized cities like Newark, Buffalo or Cleveland with murder rates above 10 per 100 000. New York is firmly in the middle, but sitll staggering: 6.4 murders per 100 000 inhabitants, The most dangerous Polish city has 2.8 murders per 100 000 inhabitants. It's also the second-largest city at 310 000 inhabitants and the first when it comes to population density (and poverty).

Detroit is still one of the most violent cities in the US, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out the economic decline probably plays a major role in that.

Basically I think that even if you do away with guns you're still going to have a lot of crime, it's just slapping bandages on a sucking chest wound and not addressing the underlying cause.

[PeZook]

Basically I think that even if you do away with guns you're still going to have a lot of crime, it's just slapping bandages on a sucking chest wound and not addressing the underlying cause.

That's quite probably true. Note, however, that there's a slight corellation between gun control laws and average crime rates for individual US states, but the differences aren't very high.

But that's the big picture. The specific question remains: how much safer, if at all, can a US civilian really expect to be when carrying? Because throwing anecdotes around is fun and all, but statistics can answer that question quite definitively.

[Simon_Jester]

I'm not saying we should be handing out ccws like candy, but if someone wants a ccw they should at least have to demonstrate a need to carry.

Case in point, should a domestic abuse victim be allowed to carry a weapon to defend herself against a violent ex husband?

That's interesting- because thinking about it, fifty years ago she might not have gotten a CCW permit based on that. The issuing authority might have decided she didn't deserve one. Hopefully, today discrimination would not be a problem, but it's something to think about. I know at least two people whose motives for having a CCW seem very logical to me, and are entirely legal and honorable- they'd get their permits from a sympathetic authority, given their motives. But they'd have a hard time explaining to an unsympathetic authority.

So there's an argument for shall-issue policy hidden in that question, although one stronger in the past than it is now.

[Broomstick]

Case in point, should a domestic abuse victim be allowed to carry a weapon to defend herself against a violent ex husband?

If she has a violent ex shouldn't she be pressing charges and putting him behind bars so she won't need to carry a weapon?

Sure.... but actually doing that can take years.

Or are the standards of proof you'd require to acquire a CCW permit that much lower than what would be needed to charge the violent person with a crime?

It's not enough to charge someone with a crime to take them off the street, you have to have them convicted and sentenced. Or at least jailed rather than released on bail.

In some places it can, in fact, be easier to get a CCW permit than to get an abusive stalker/ex locked up.

[Skgoa]

Why is this something needed in America but that isn't needed in other places?

Are you saying there's no circumstances whatsoever where it's fine for a civilian to carry concealed? Yes or no?

I'm not going to get into this argument but I want to point out that this question is very disingenuous. It has nothing to do with any of this.

[madd0ct0r]

Why not compare the UK to the US, they're very similar after all. Except that one has a handgun ban, and while violent crime hasn't gone down by as much as might have been hoped for, deaths are simply less common when you, in most cases, need to use a knife or a bat instead of a handgun. Who would have though that when you make guns less common gun crime drops off.

Because you can't just ignore socio-economic conditions that lead to high crime rates?

um, how the socio-economic conditions different between the UK and the US? and I think you've missed his point there - banning guns in the UK made GUN CRIME drop off.
It had the happy effect of making killing someone (with knife or bat) a tad riskier and thus less likely to happen.

[Darth Wong]

Anyway, I'm done with this arguement. I'm not gonna convince you of my need to carry a firearm. And you're not gonna convince me that no civilian should ever have or need a firearm outside of hunting or target shooting. So all I'm accomplishing is raising my post count.

You're being dishonest. Yoiu were asked to justify the practice of carrying a loaded firearm, not just the act of carrying a firearm. How long does it take to slap a magazine into a gun?

You said earlier that "seconds count". Yes they do, in the action-movie scenario you probably have in your head. But you have failed to produce even the hint of an argument that this is actually a realistic concern.

[Beowulf]

Not having a holster for my pistol, I can't test how long it takes to go from fully holstered to pulling the trigger. From having my pistol in my hand, and a magazine on me (but not in my weak hand), it's about 5 seconds to load and have the gun ready to go bang. However, that's assuming that the guy I'm intending to shoot is going to give me that time, and that I have the spare hand free, as opposed to trying to keep my kid behind me, or whatever. It's generally accepted that for someone with a loaded, holstered pistol, someone within 21 feet can attack you with a knife, and you would not be able to stop them before they put another hole in you. Random youtube research indicates going from a holstered gun can be cleared of clothing and fired in about 1.5 seconds. Quadrupling the distance someone can reasonably attack you from (with the potential of also interfering with your ability to load your weapon), isn't the best of ideas, especially as best practice is not to reveal your firearm unless you intend to shoot someone with it.

It's a nice trick to focus on gun crime, incidentally. Ban guns, and you reduce (but don't eliminate) gun crime. But what's special about gun crime over violent crime in general? Most victims of violent crime aren't going to be from mass shootings. They're from home invasions, muggings, rape, kidnapping, etc. If the rate of violent crime doesn't decrease significantly following a ban (especially in comparison with other countries that don't severely restrict the right to self defense), then you cannot reasonably argue that gun restrictions are effective at keeping society safer, in my mind. And I've yet to see anything that indicates such, as opposed to gun crime being shuffled into knife crime, club crime, etc.

[General Zod]

um, how the socio-economic conditions different between the UK and the US? and I think you've missed his point there - banning guns in the UK made GUN CRIME drop off.
It had the happy effect of making killing someone (with knife or bat) a tad riskier and thus less likely to happen.

So how come the UK still has such a high rate of violent crime?

[PeZook]

Again, how many crimes are prevented/foiled by civilians carrying concealed firearms on them?

Why on Earth do people (often on both sides) leap into retard mode and start throwing anecdotes around on this particular issue?

"Well I want to carry a loaded gun around JUST IN CASE a knife-wielding psycho assaults me!" sounds like a proper reason to be armed and ready to shoot at all times...unless the odds of actually encountering a homicidal knife-armed psycho are miniscule.