Conceal-carry permit frenzy

[Guest]

In most cases, you carry a gun not waiting for the opportunity to kill someone but to prevent someone from getting killed. In most cases, pulling a gun is enough of a deterrent that you won't have to fire it.

For example, cops carry guns. They put themselves in harms way all the time. But, the gun is not for citizen protection. They have no constitutional obligation to protect citizens. The gun is for their own self-defense. The number of times a cop shoots a gun is relatively rare so that every single time they do so they have to file a mountain of paperwork to explain why they fired their firearm.

BUT, I agree - if your objective is to defend yourself to the death and not just to hope to deter somebody, then you better be ready to pull that trigger to incapacitate the intended party - either through death or clear disability.

[Traveler]

Although I understand your point, are they naive or just stronger in character?

Naive? Or he recognized, in this situation, his life truly wasn't in danger?

He personally chose to spare a teenager's life, at the expense of his own pain. I definitely don't see sparing a person's life as naive, especially if it is within an individuals right to put him down.

EDIT: I didn't see your PS until now. You and I have a different understanding then regarding defense. Since I love the sport basketball, and it is the sport I play, your reference to last mode of defense would be similar to someone saying in basketball, "The last mode of defense is when the opponent makes a basket." This isn't correct. If an opponent scores a basket, it means the defense failed. If a person gets killed then they failed in their attempt to defend, if they used any at all.

The sad truth is that if someone is determined to use deadly force - in your analogy - you are likely to get killed during a time out - when your guard is down and your opponent is determined to "win". But there are many more problems. Did you know that a statistically during combat that while engaging in a fire fight one is most likely to be killed by "friendly" fire? And that the likelihood of death by friendly fire is directly proportional to training - frequency of training and the time lapsed since last involved in training.

I also learned in my training - that the main formula for surviving (winning) a firefight is to get there first with the most fire power. It was General Patten in WWII that said, "wars are never won by troupes willing to die for their country - they are one by troupes willing to let the other guys die for their country.

My personal strategy concerning a life treating substitution is like when I am riding my bicycle. My first goal is that those around me are well aware that I am present. And second - that there is no question in anyone's mind what I am doing and what I intend to do. Unless I take the offensive - they I want everything to be a surprise.

The Traveler

[Still_Small_Voice]

I am a firm believer that people use firearms in America far more to defend themselves than to commit evil acts of violence. I read it is around 800,000 times per year Americans defend themselves or property with firearms. Read this article on Second Amendment liberties. It is long, but I think it is one of the best articles I have ever read on the subject:

Larry Correia refutes the gun controllers once and for all — 1389 Blog - Counterjihad!

[Anddenex]

The sad truth is that if someone is determined to use deadly force - in your analogy - you are likely to get killed during a time out - when your guard is down and your opponent is determined to "win".

I am not seeing the correlation between my analogy and a timeout. In a timeout, nobody is progressing, no offense or defense is required at that moment. Timeouts are generally used to "freeze" the offense, or used to muster the defense and change tactics or strategies to trip up the offense.

I agree though, if your guard is down and your opponent is determined to win, then the chances of your success has been dropped.

But there are many more problems. Did you know that a statistically during combat that while engaging in a fire fight one is most likely to be killed by "friendly" fire? And that the likelihood of death by friendly fire is directly proportional to training - frequency of training and the time lapsed since last involved in training.

Yes, I am familiar with the expression, however I have never read any statistics myself to verify this claim. I have read articles regarding friendly fire but nothing statistical.

[Bini]

Maybe someone can confirm this. I heard this from a relative.

Slight shift in gears.. In another thread, specifically regarding Teachers And Firearms, it was debated whether this was a good idea. Again, I'm still partial on it all but having said that, I heard something interesting from a relative that if true, could be an even better alternative (to arming teachers OR banning guns from school grounds entirely). It was mentioned that there is a community of retired (vast majority being 50+ military personnel) that are willing to protect schools for FREE. They will act as "security" in place of funding hired cops or arming teachers.. I thought this was a marvelous idea. Wonder why this isn't having a bigger platform or spotlight???

[Bini]

To clarify..

"50+" being the age group..

[NeuroTypical]

I heard something interesting from a relative that if true, could be an even better alternative (to arming teachers OR banning guns from school grounds entirely).

Small point - just about every single school shooting ever, has happened in a school where guns were already totally banned from school grounds entirely. The concept of a "gun free zone" or area where guns are banned, is a lie that creates only a false sense of security. With only a very few exceptions, every single mass-shooting in the U.S. since 1950 has taken place in a gun free zone. (Mass shooting defined as 4 or more people getting shot, and 'gun free zone' defined as any building or area with a posted sign or a written policy or a law banning guns.)

It was mentioned that there is a community of retired (vast majority being 50+ military personnel) that are willing to protect schools for FREE. They will act as "security" in place of funding hired cops or arming teachers.. I thought this was a marvelous idea. Wonder why this isn't having a bigger platform or spotlight???

I'm not sure how workable it is, but yes indeed, that would be a great thing. They could bring their own guns, their own training, volunteer their time - it's just that there would have to be enough of them.

Something to keep in mind - Conceal carry has been legal in Utah schools for quite a number of years now:

Utah Department of Public Safety BCI - Concealed Firearm Permit Frequently Asked Questions

As a permit holder, exactly, where can I carry or not carry a handgun?

The concealed firearm permit allows an individual to carry a firearm fully loaded and concealed. The permit also allows an individual to carry a firearm into public schools

I don't know how many school educators or staff have been carrying all these years. Probably not very many - I'd guess the ones who do, don't tell anyone out of fear that it would cost them their jobs.

Edited January 10, 2013 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[Jenamarie]

Maybe someone can confirm this. I heard this from a relative.

Slight shift in gears.. In another thread, specifically regarding Teachers And Firearms, it was debated whether this was a good idea. Again, I'm still partial on it all but having said that, I heard something interesting from a relative that if true, could be an even better alternative (to arming teachers OR banning guns from school grounds entirely). It was mentioned that there is a community of retired (vast majority being 50+ military personnel) that are willing to protect schools for FREE. They will act as "security" in place of funding hired cops or arming teachers.. I thought this was a marvelous idea. Wonder why this isn't having a bigger platform or spotlight???

I wouldn't mind this so long as rigorous background checks were involved, and some sort of protocol or set of procedures were in place so that it was all spelled out exactly what they *would* and *would not* be allowed to do as part of guarding the school. You're still bringing live firearms around other people's children, and I'd hope there'd still be some sort of set protocol as to *when* that firearm can be used so that there is the least chance possible of an innocent child being shot by the very gun that was supposed to protect it.

[Bini]

Small point - just about every single school shooting ever, has happened in a school where guns were already totally banned from school grounds entirely. The concept of a "gun free zone" or area where guns are banned, is a lie that creates only a false sense of security. With only a very few exceptions, every single mass-shooting in the U.S. since 1950 has taken place in a gun free zone. (Mass shooting defined as 4 or more people getting shot, and 'gun free zone' defined as any building or area with a posted sign or a written policy or a law banning guns.)

I understand this.

I was trying to make an unbiased standpoint that this potentially could be an alternative to arming teachers (the pro gun side) and banning guns (which is already done, by anti gun side).

I wouldn't mind this so long as rigorous background checks were involved, and some sort of protocol or set of procedures were in place so that it was all spelled out exactly what they *would* and *would not* be allowed to do as part of guarding the school. You're still bringing live firearms around other people's children, and I'd hope there'd still be some sort of set protocol as to *when* that firearm can be used so that there is the least chance possible of an innocent child being shot by the very gun that was supposed to protect it.

Absolutely. As I suspect there would be.

[Guest gopecon]

I agree that we should check the teachers (or other school employees) who want to carry, but please lets let some people in there who can stop another massacre. One of the stupider ideas I have heard recently was making in harder to carry guns around schools. Is this really going to deter anyone who has bad intentions?

[Guest]

My child's middle school has police patrol now. His school is in the middle of downtown. My other child's elementary school don't have it.

[Just_A_Guy]

I had to sign my first-grader into school late this AM and took the opportunity to ask the front desk if anyone on campus carries concealed (since it's legal in Utah). The answer was "yes, several of our staff do". Was more comforting to hear that then I expected.

[Traveler]

I had to sign my first-grader into school late this AM and took the opportunity to ask the front desk if anyone on campus carries concealed (since it's legal in Utah). The answer was "yes, several of our staff do". Was more comforting to hear that then I expected.

This sparked a thought - more and more public schools are taking upon social issues, such as sex education. Perhaps gun use and safety (education) should be included in public education curriculum?

The Traveler

[Just_A_Guy]

Food for thought:

We need to regulate cars the way we regulate guns.

[Still_Small_Voice]

I have been reading the reports on these new proposed gun control regulations. They are very bothersome to me. We have about 20,000 regulations on firearms presently in this country. Obama and the Vice President are now saying this is not enough. How many laws are violated when an evil individual takes a firearm and uses it to murder people at a school? I believe the leadership pushing these regulations know another law is not going to do anything. It is about usurping more power and control over the general population and chipping away at liberty.

[dahlia]

This sparked a thought - more and more public schools are taking upon social issues, such as sex education. Perhaps gun use and safety (education) should be included in public education curriculum?

The Traveler

When I was younger, the public schools used to have Jr ROTC and Pershing Rifles. Young guys would learn how to shoot and take care of their weapons. Nowadays, the authorities would probably think it was a training ground for terrorists or school shooters.

[HoosierGuy]

I had to sign my first-grader into school late this AM and took the opportunity to ask the front desk if anyone on campus carries concealed (since it's legal in Utah). The answer was "yes, several of our staff do". Was more comforting to hear that then I expected.

You want your first-grader to go to a school where the workers have guns?

[NeuroTypical]

I won't answer for JAG, but I can answer for myself. Absolutely. The jury has rendered it's verdict - "gun-free zones" are terrible ideas that don't work. They create false senses of security. They allow mass-shooters to rack up large body counts before help arrives.

Look at it this way - as you walk your first-grader through life in the U.S., they're already surrounded by law-abiding people with guns. You know that, right? The mall, the gas station, children's sports events, the grocery store - your child has been around armed private citizens for over of 20 years now. Depending on your state, maybe upwards of one in twenty random people are legally permitted to carry. They can't in schools, due to federal and state law. (Notable exceptions would include places where the rich and the elite class send their kids to school.)

I guess the relevent question here is to you, HoosierGuy. Count the dead: After SandyHook (27), Oikos University (7), Chardon High school (3), Virginia Tech (33), Nickel Mines (6), Red Lake senior high (8), Columbine (15), Westside Middle school (5), Heath High school (3), Frontier Middle School (3), Lindhurst High School (4), Cleaveland school (6), and almost a hundred other school shootings where people died. The question, HoosierGuy, is why on earth would anyone want to stick their kid in a situation where if a bad guy shows up with a gun, none of the responsible adults are allowed the ability to adequately defend the children in their care?

[Guest]

You want your first-grader to go to a school where the workers have guns?

Why not? He lives in a house where his dad has guns. What's the difference?

The 2 daughters of President Obama go everywhere and sleep within a few feet of workers who have guns. What makes them more important than your first-grader?

[Just_A_Guy]

Why not? He lives in a house where his dad has guns. What's the difference?

Actually, I don't keep guns. Not in my budget, I don't trust myself to store them safely with four kids under 6 running around my house, and I couldn't take one to work since the state troopers don't look kindly on lawyers who bring guns to court. But I love the fact that John Q. Badguy won't know that when he comes driving down my street looking for his next victim.

As for HoosierGuy's question: Loudmouth and Anatess both pretty much nailed it. We were all amazed and touched at the way Victoria Soto reputedly tried to save her students by throwing herself over them. Why would you deny others in her situation the right to defend themselves and their students with something a little more substantial than human flesh?

Besides - I like the idea of the bad guys being hung up on the idea of massacring people with guns. Keeps them from contemplating the nastier, sometimes easier, and potentially far more effective means of mass killing - like slipping poison into the school lunches, homemade bombs, or mixing a few buckets of common household cleaners right next to a school's air conditioning intake vents.

Edited January 12, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[Still_Small_Voice]

Oh please do not make statements like this over the Internet. It could give evil conspiring individuals ideas.

Besides - I like the idea of the bad guys being hung up on the idea of massacring people with guns. Keeps them from contemplating the nastier, sometimes easier, and potentially far more effective means of mass killing - like slipping poison into the school lunches, homemade bombs, or mixing a few buckets of common household cleaners right next to a school's air conditioning intake vents.

[Guest]

Actually, I don't keep guns. Not in my budget, I don't trust myself to store them safely with four kids under 6 running around my house, and I couldn't take one to work since the state troopers don't look kindly on lawyers who bring guns to court. But I love the fact that John Q. Badguy won't know that when he comes driving down my street looking for his next victim.

As for HoosierGuy's question: Loudmouth and Anatess both pretty much nailed it. We were all amazed and touched at the way Victoria Soto reputedly tried to save her students by throwing herself over them. Why would you deny others in her situation the right to defend themselves and their students with something a little more substantial than human flesh?

Besides - I like the idea of the bad guys being hung up on the idea of massacring people with guns. Keeps them from contemplating the nastier, sometimes easier, and potentially far more effective means of mass killing - like slipping poison into the school lunches, homemade bombs, or mixing a few buckets of common household cleaners right next to a school's air conditioning intake vents.

It's always funny to me how people keep on saying... If you take away guns, there won't be many gun deaths. Uhm, duh. If guns are not accessible, fertilizer bombs will do.

[HoosierGuy]

I won't answer for JAG, but I can answer for myself. Absolutely. The jury has rendered it's verdict - "gun-free zones" are terrible ideas that don't work. They create false senses of security. They allow mass-shooters to rack up large body counts before help arrives.

Do you realize that most Western (Old West/Cowboy) films and Western TV shows exaggerate and are fake? Sure, there was great violence in the old west but not everyone carried a gun around their hip like they do in John Wayne films. And then there is the Rifleman, a nice TV show but he solves all the problems with his rifle! Fake fake fake!

And now we have many modern radicals who want to go back to that imaginary time when everyone carried a gun and solved their problems like John Wayne.

All this gun talk and arming everyone is going to get more people killed. And I'm not anti-gun either. I have guns but I'm pro-gun control. The last thing I want to to is go to Appleebee's or Texas Roadhouse when half the people there are carrying pistols, pistols designed to kill humans.

[pam]

The last thing I want to to is go to Appleebee's or Texas Roadhouse when half the people there are carrying pistols, pistols designed to kill humans

Really that's what they were designed to do? So you are saying that gun manufacturers design their guns with the entire idea of killing humans?

[Guest]

Do you realize that most Western (Old West/Cowboy) films and Western TV shows exaggerate and are fake? Sure, there was great violence in the old west but not everyone carried a gun around their hip like they do in John Wayne films. And then there is the Rifleman, a nice TV show but he solves all the problems with his rifle! Fake fake fake!

And now we have many modern radicals who want to go back to that imaginary time when everyone carried a gun and solved their problems like John Wayne.

All this gun talk and arming everyone is going to get more people killed. And I'm not anti-gun either. I have guns but I'm pro-gun control. The last thing I want to to is go to Appleebee's or Texas Roadhouse when half the people there are carrying pistols, pistols designed to kill humans.

Welcome to Texas.