Gun control in America

[GeorgeStorm]

"If there had been more guns in that cinema, the massacre would never have happened!"

Apparently from a US senator, but I've seen several comments like it on facebook (not from people I know)

I think that just highlights what's wrong, just because criminals have guns doesn't mean normal people should to.
In my mind more guns overall = bad.

Yes you'll always have people who don't care about the law and will get and use guns, however I still think the mentality is completely wrong.

[TeePee]

"If there had been more guns in that cinema, the massacre would never have happened!"

Apparently from a US senator, but I've seen several comments like it on facebook (not from people I know)

I think that just highlights what's wrong, just because criminals have guns doesn't mean normal people should to.
In my mind more guns overall = bad.

Yes you'll always have people who don't care about the law and will get and use guns, however I still think the mentality is completely wrong.

Because criminals have guns is exactly the reason normal people should too.

I don't know about stopping this massacre. Running away may be the best choice, but a gun gives you another option.

[GeorgeStorm]

To me that just sounds like it's going to end up with more people dead, whether they be civilians or otherwise.

I mean, if a mugger came at me with a gun, asked me to empty my pockets etc, I would, I'd lose my money, ok.
If I had a gun, and tried to pull it, I could end up dead, or the other guy ends up dead, doesn't sound like a massive improvement to me? :/

I mean, I'm sure lots of criminals have knives/guns in the UK, doesn't mean I feel the need to carry either.

[mmh]

I think that just highlights what's wrong, just because criminals have guns doesn't mean normal people should to.
In my mind more guns overall = bad.

And that thinking is entirely whats wrong... you'd have JUST the criminals with guns? and leave everyone else defenseless...

People who own and carry guns in america, thend to be some of the most accurate, highly trained shooters there are... why? because shooting is tremendous amounts of fun, and in a country where its as common as that, and you're carrying all the time, you spend a LOT of time at the range.

So yes, civilians who havent got a clue with guns would be bad... a lot of "gun nuts" who spend a lot of time training and using and getting to know thier weapon, hell no.

Guns arent inherantly bad, people that use them are.

Legitimate shooters are some of the most level minded people out there, because they know what guns are capable of, and they treat them with respect.

You seem to be inferring that every extra gun on the streets = another criminal with a gun, and thats just not true.

[mmh]

I mean, if a mugger came at me with a gun, asked me to empty my pockets etc, I would, I'd lose my money, ok.
If I had a gun, and tried to pull it, I could end up dead, or the other guy ends up dead, doesn't sound like a massive improvement to me? :/

That right there is how we've been taught to think in this country... roll over and give into the muggers needs, and HOPE that they don't shoot, HOPE that they don't use lethal force.

Well I'm sorry, but it doesnt cut it... if someone holds a gun to me, I'd rather know that I have the OPTION to pull out my own gun and let the assailant take his chances, than to hope by me giving him all my stuff he goes away peacefully!

[GeorgeStorm]

As I said in my next post.
Unless mandatory training was introduced, lots of people carrying guns wouldn't know how to use them properly, which, as you said, would be very bad.
I'm not saying all people carrying guns are criminals?? Not sure how you got that, merely that adding another gun into an equation increases the chance of death, for either party in my opinion.

That right there is how we've been taught to think in this country... roll over and give into the muggers needs, and HOPE that they don't shoot, HOPE that they don't use lethal force.

Well I'm sorry, but it doesnt cut it... if someone holds a gun to me, I'd rather know that I have the OPTION to pull out my own gun and let the assailant take his chances, than to hope by me giving him all my stuff he goes away peacefully!

Haha, I'm sorry I'm not of the same mentality, neither in being ok in shooting someone, or risking my life for some meagre possessions.
And I don't think it's how we are taught in this country, it's MY opinion. I've got friends who no doubt would rather take your side of the argument.

[TeePee]

To me that just sounds like it's going to end up with more people dead, whether they be civilians or otherwise.

I mean, if a mugger came at me with a gun, asked me to empty my pockets etc, I would, I'd lose my money, ok.
If I had a gun, and tried to pull it, I could end up dead, or the other guy ends up dead, doesn't sound like a massive improvement to me? :/

I mean, I'm sure lots of criminals have knives/guns in the UK, doesn't mean I feel the need to carry either.

No. If a mugger comes up to you with a gun, and you are unarmed, you might lose just your money. He might shoot you anyway because you saw his face, or accidentally. What if you were a woman? Maybe he'll decide to rape you. Maybe he'll take your car keys and go home and rape your children. Most likely, you'll just lose your money, but the point is, you are at his mercy.

If you were armed, you have options. You can still give him your money in the hope he will walk away. But now you have the option to defend yourself. When or if you choose to make that decision is up to you.

[GeorgeStorm]

No. If a mugger comes up to you with a gun, and you are unarmed, you might lose just your money. He might shoot you anyway because you saw his face, or accidentally. What if you were a woman? Maybe he'll decide to rape you. Maybe he'll take your car keys and go home and rape your children. Most likely, you'll just lose your money, but the point is, you are at his mercy.

If you were armed, you have options. You can still give him your money in the hope he will walk away. But now you have the option to defend yourself. When or if you choose to make that decision is up to you.

That's fair enough, I'm not going to say you shouldn't carry a gun, I just personally don't agree.

[TeePee]

Then, of course, there is another reason.

If the mugger knows that 10% of people have firearms and are likely to shoot back, he'll go and rob a house.

When an easy mugging of unarmed victims becomes a potential risk of a gunfight, the risks start to outweigh the rewards. Suddenly the number of muggings (and rapes and assaults) starts to drop and property crime increases. This is exactly and dramatically what has happened in the USA in each state that has passed laws permitting concealed carry.

The reason to carry then becomes a social responsibility. You are carrying not so you can defend yourself, but as an obligation to society to increase the number of armed targets and reducing crime.

[Andy3536]

And that thinking is entirely whats wrong... you'd have JUST the criminals with guns? and leave everyone else defenseless...

People who own and carry guns in america, thend to be some of the most accurate, highly trained shooters there are... why? because shooting is tremendous amounts of fun, and in a country where its as common as that, and you're carrying all the time, you spend a LOT of time at the range.

So yes, civilians who havent got a clue with guns would be bad... a lot of "gun nuts" who spend a lot of time training and using and getting to know thier weapon, hell no.

Guns arent inherantly bad, people that use them are.

Legitimate shooters are some of the most level minded people out there, because they know what guns are capable of, and they treat them with respect.

You seem to be inferring that every extra gun on the streets = another criminal with a gun, and thats just not true.

Guns arn't inherently bad, and the majority of Americans having trained from an early age the proper use of guns is generally a good thing. They know to use a gun safely and it teaches discipline. But having people carry guns? It can only end bad.
Had someone in the Cinema carried a gun you would have ended up with a running gun battle with rest of the people caught in the cross fire of 2.
And just what if someone had gotten up a shot the guy? Where does the bullet go once it's passed through him?

Take a look at the video of the old man from the article in the OP(i'll add at the bottom), the guy ended up a hero but I see no fire discipline. He's just had a rush of blood to the head, it's only a miracle that no one else got shot, either from standing behind the intended victim or from a ricochet. The last shot he fires is down on to the street, that bullet is coming back up. Military forces round the world with the best training have trouble with fire discipline and 'blue on blue' Random people with the right to carry? I don't know.
Luckily in the UK the guns in the hands of criminals is minimal.


There's a good view of the guys first shot at 56 seconds, when he fires the gun there is someone right behind the intended victim behind the counter. The only reason someone wasn't shot buy this 'hero' with the right to carry was pure luck.



As much as i would like to support firearms, the right to carry? If you need to carry a gun to feel safe there is something drasticly wrong. And that probably needs addressing before allowing civillians to carry guns to go to a cafe.

[Galant]

I once heard it put like this:

When a man was asked why he carries a side-arm he responded, "Because a policeman is too heavy."

I once mentioned that to a friend who began decrying vigilantes, but the point isn't about being vigilantes and taking the law into one's own hands or going out and looking for trouble. The point is that we are all responsible for the societies in which we live, and we establish laws that enable all of us to defend ourselves and others. All of us should be encouraged to take that view of responsibility in every area, but that's how it applies to this one.

EDIT: With regards the video, I'm sorry but I think you're imagining this "blood rush to the head". I'm no gun expect, but I don't see any crazed or wild shooting. The guy calmly but directly aims and shoots and drives them off. The last shot certainly doesn't seem aimed at the floor. Unless ballistics or something similar is your area of expertise I don't see how you've reached those conclusions.

As for bullet penetration, part of learning to shoot - which I'm going to assume a 71 year old has taken the time to do - he certainly doesn't look infirm to me - is learning to evaluate the surroundings. Additionally, depending upon the weapon and ammunition, that is more or less of an issue, and a person carrying a weapon would be expected to know their weapon. Most recommendations for personal carry use (all recommendations that I've ever heard or read), are to avoid ammo that will likely go through the target, preferring instead to use ammunition that will expand and stay in the target.

No offense, but this sounds a lot like the usual way of thinking of those who are from countries with little exposure or familiarity with firearms for personal use. It's important to move past those natural, cultural reactions, and understand the culture and protocols in place.

Notice too the reaction of the two young men. They go in hard and determined, armed and ready, as soon as armed resistance shows up, they run. It's unexpected. It's impossible to say the same would have happened in the cinema, especially with the guy apparently wearing body armour - but all the armour and weaponry in the world doesn't guarantee the 'flight' response wont kick in once your life is threatened. At least those in that cinema would have had a chance. And if they own a firearm for that purpose, it's very likely they will have taken some training to prepare themselves mentally and physically for that situation. That's part of what comes with wearing a firearm all day every day.

[GeorgeStorm]

The other reason I think it's a bad idea for more people to have guns is, if civilians all have guns, surely criminals will step it up? Find bigger/more dangerous guns or whatever?

[mmh]

On what basis George?

What could they possibly use thats Bigger or More dangerous?

Seems to me theres not a lot after handguns by way of personal defense... unless robebrs go in with AK's and M4's - but then its a little more difficult to hide, dontcha think? and they could already do that now.

[GeorgeStorm]

It was in response to the idea that by people carrying firearms, it puts criminals off mugging them since they're on even terms kinda thing.
And I know nothing about guns, I presume you can get larger calibre weapons etc which are more dangerous?

It's the whole idea that they've got knives? Well, we'll get knives, so they get guns, we get guns etc and it just escalates.
And yes they could do that now, but they've no need since a handgun will trump what most civilians might have (nothing in the UK), however once all civilians have handguns, surely criminals will look to get the upper hand again?

[TeePee]

Take a look at the video of the old man from the article in the OP(i'll add at the bottom), the guy ended up a hero but I see no fire discipline. He's just had a rush of blood to the head, it's only a miracle that no one else got shot, either from standing behind the intended victim or from a ricochet. The last shot he fires is down on to the street, that bullet is coming back up. Military forces round the world with the best training have trouble with fire discipline and 'blue on blue' Random people with the right to carry? I don't know.
Luckily in the UK the guns in the hands of criminals is minimal.


There's a good view of the guys first shot at 56 seconds, when he fires the gun there is someone right behind the intended victim behind the counter. The only reason someone wasn't shot buy this 'hero' with the right to carry was pure luck.



As much as i would like to support firearms, the right to carry? If you need to carry a gun to feel safe there is something drasticly wrong. And that probably needs addressing before allowing civillians to carry guns to go to a cafe.

He is a hero because the armed robbers may have intended to kill everyone in the place. Take another look at the video and you'll see the woman behind the counter is out of the line of fire (and out of sight of the hero around the corner of the wall). The camera really doesn't have the greatest viewpoint.

The guy needs something with more penetration. I think this was .380ACP.

You people have a surprising amount of faith in the skill and good intentions of criminals.

[TeePee]

It was in response to the idea that by people carrying firearms, it puts criminals off mugging them since they're on even terms kinda thing.
And I know nothing about guns, I presume you can get larger calibre weapons etc which are more dangerous?

It's the whole idea that they've got knives? Well, we'll get knives, so they get guns, we get guns etc and it just escalates.
And yes they could do that now, but they've no need since a handgun will trump what most civilians might have (nothing in the UK), however once all civilians have handguns, surely criminals will look to get the upper hand again?

Larger calibre weapons which are more dangerous? Well sure, but then they get more expensive. Most criminals use small calibre handguns, $100-$200 worth. They don't train with them, and they tend to malfunction often. Most people who carry spend two to three times as much on a handgun, and while the calibres are similar, the function, reliability and accuracy are better. I'd consider any pistol calibre over 9mm to be sufficient. Above that, shot placement is the really critical issue.

Rifle calibres aren't common for anyone to carry as they are not as concealable.