Preventing a shooting in an LDS meeting

[Guest]

 

So same questions to you, UT.starscoper:

 

Is your understanding that there are irrational idiots in the ranks of conceal-carry permit holders?  Data indicate otherwise.

 

Or is it your understanding that non-permit holders who carry illegally where there is no sign, will somehow decide to not carry in places that have a sign?  Common sense would indicate otherwise. 

 

 

No. That isn't my understanding about conceal-carry permit holders. I am confident that most conceal-carry permit holders are rational and law-abiding like you and like me. I do think some number of non-permit holders, being law-abiding citizens, will refrain from bringing a gun to places they recognize as desiring to be gun-free zones. I don't think it's really about a sign. I own guns. I don't feel a compelling desire to bring any of my guns to church, for example. Part of it knowing that my church leaders want me to leave my guns at home.

Edited October 2, 2015 by UT.starscoper

[NeuroTypical]

I do think some number of non-permit holders, being law-abiding citizens, will refrain from bringing a gun to places they recognize as desiring to be gun-free zones.

 

 

Ok - stay with me a minute here UT.starscoper.

 

If someone is not a permit holder, it's not legal for them to carry concealed.   Whether there's a sign or not, a law-abiding person with no carry permit will not be carrying.  No permit to carry, plus law-abiding, equals not carrying.  

 

So far so good?

 

So by definition, they're already not bringing a gun anywhere, because they're law-abiding.  So why the sign?  They are already refraining.

[Guest]

Ok - stay with me a minute here UT.starscoper.

 

If someone is not a permit holder, it's not legal for them to carry concealed.   Whether there's a sign or not, a law-abiding person with no carry permit will not be carrying.  No permit to carry, plus law-abiding, equals not carrying.  

 

So far so good?

 

So by definition, they're already not bringing a gun anywhere, because they're law-abiding.  So why the sign?  They are already refraining.

:) OK, I guess you got me there. But can't I still carry my gun in plain sight if I want to? Shouldn't we change "No permit to carry, plus law-abiding, equals not carrying" to "No permit to carry concealed + law-abiding = not carrying concealed but still might be carrying non-concealed"?

Edited October 2, 2015 by UT.starscoper

[NeuroTypical]

Open carry laws vary from location to location - and you have a valid point there.

[Guest]

Open carry laws vary from location to location - and you have a valid point there.

Hahahaha (sigh) of relief  :)

[Traveler]

There are lots of problem for a world where violence is an option.  Many think guns are a direct reflection of the problem – This is not necessarily true.  Explosive devices – or if you will; bombs – are far more lethal and much less discriminating and far more likely to harm the innocent or untended with collateral damages.   And do not think that those prone to violence do not realize this – think the Boston Marathon.   In short restricting guns among the general population is not really a solution.

 

But on the other side of the coin – for the most part, those initiating mass shootings – so far are not real bright and intelligent but they do realize that in general our society does not know how to behave or what to do in a firefight.  Training can help – but realize that historically in a war and live firefight – if someone is killed from a gunshot, they were more likely to be killed by friendly fire than from enemy fire.  What are the police and others to do when responding to a shooting event and finding numerous individuals running around shooting at each other?

 

In a separate thread I suggested that arms training be a part of standard education and that combat training be required for citizenship and voting.  I really do not see any other option moving forward.   I believe we are approaching a time when those not willing to take up arms to defend this country – will, in essence, assist those desiring to end it.

[Guest]

Is it true that the U.S. has a disproportionate amount of gun violence than the rest of the developed world? 

[Traveler]

Is it true that the U.S. has a disproportionate amount of gun violence than the rest of the developed world? 

 

You mean like Baltimore?

[David13]

UT.starscoper

Uh, no.  First, the term "gun violence" is a fantasy.

A gun does not do violence.  It's an inanimate object and cannot fire itself.

The proper term is person, drug dealer, ex con violence, etc.

Second, take out four cites with specific known inner city problems, Detroit, Chicago, New Orleans and Washington DC and the USA has one of the lowest rates in the world.

So how is the problem the gun?  It isn't.  It's certain people and they way they chose to live.

Look at the real problem, whether it offends people or not.  Whether it fits the agenda or not.  Not a nearby inanimate object.

dc

Edited October 2, 2015 by David13

[Guest]

...I believe we are approaching a time when those not willing to take up arms to defend this country – will, in essence, assist those desiring to end it.

Not sure what you mean here. I hope you'll explain.

[Guest]

UT.starscoper

Uh, no.  First, the term "gun violence" is a fantasy.

A gun does not do violence.  It's an inanimate object and cannot fire itself.

The proper term is person, drug dealer, ex con violence, etc.

Second, take out four cites with specific known inner city problems, Detroit, Chicago, New Orleans and Washington DC and the USA has one of the lowest rates in the world.

So how is the problem the gun?  It isn't.  It's certain people and they way they chose to live.

Look at the real problem, whether it offends people or not.  Whether it fits the agenda or not.  Not a nearby inanimate object.

dc

We should get on the same page so to speak. When I use the phrase "gun violence" I mean a person using a gun violently against another person. That's not fantasy. And I don't see why we should take cities with problems out of the discussion--those cities are part of the U.S. So, let me ask the question a better way. Is it true that the U.S. has a disproportionate amount of people using guns violently against other people compared to other developed nations? Is the answer still, "no"?

Edited October 2, 2015 by UT.starscoper

[Guest]

You mean like Baltimore?

No, I mean like the entire U.S. compared to the entire nation of Australia and other developed nations.

[Vort]

If you remove the top ten or twelve problematic cities, such as Detroit and Washington, DC -- all with strict gun laws, all run by Democrat officials -- I bet you would find that US death rates from gun violence are not significantly different from other countries.

[mirkwood]

 

There are good shooting cops, and bad shooting cops.  There are cops what shoot themselves.  And there are a whole lot of good shooting citizens.  Some of them train beyond what you could imagine.  And also may have police or military experience.

dc

 

 

There are good shooting citizens, and bad shooting citizens.  There are citizens what shoot themselves.  And there are a whole lot of good shooting officers.  Some of them train beyond what you could imagine. 

 

 

I'm good with anyone who is well trained.  I'm much more comfortable with someone with real world experience. 

[Guest]

If you remove the top ten or twelve problematic cities, such as Detroit and Washington, DC -- all with strict gun laws, all run by Democrat officials -- I bet you would find that US death rates from gun violence are not significantly different from other countries.

The challenge, I suppose, is obtaining reliable data as free as possible from bias. 

[Guest]

...

I'm good with anyone who is well trained.  I'm much more comfortable with someone with real world experience. 

I'm a pretty good shot. I respect guns, and I have some training, but nothing compared to those men and women who serve on police forces or in the military. I don't know how I personally would fare in an emergency situation. I don't know if my adrenaline would cause me to behave reliably and correctly, or not. 

[Just_A_Guy]

No, I mean like the entire U.S. compared to the entire nation of Australia and other developed nations.

 

Quite possibly, but the trouble with your question is that it assumes that the stable, benign governments that exist in locations like Australia will always remain so.

 

Think of it this way:  At Sandy Hook Elementary School, twenty-seven innocents were killed.  

 

You would need one Sandy Hook per day, for over two years; to approach the number of innocents massacred by Zimbabwean dictator Joseph Mugabe.  Three years, to match the number of Castro's victims.  Twenty years for Ho Chi Minh, sixty-one years for Saddam Hussein, 173 years for Pol Pot, 612 years to reach the number of victims of Hitler's gas chambers, 4,081 years for the victims of Stalin's purges, and 6,122 years for the victims of Chairman Mao's "great leap forward" (that's one Sandy Hook a day, every day, since Adam walked out of Eden and continuing on for another few decades yet).

 

Fallen man exists in a state of nature that is short, nasty, and brutish.  Democracy, minority rights, and rule of law are wonderful concepts; but they are also staggeringly rare in the history of the world (and even rarer if you're looking for all three to coexist simultaneously).  There will always be another Lenin, another Mussolini, another Botha waiting in the wings; and the only way you keep them in the shadows is to keep them afraid of their next victims.  That's where an armed populace comes in.  (And before one argues "what can a few shotguns do against a government with a navy, an air force, and nuclear bombs?", I'll remind you that--depending on who you ask--over the past fifty years the United States military has had their clocks cleaned by successive insurgencies of Vietnamese, Afghani, Iraqi, and now Syrian guerillas fighting with little more than rifles and roadside bombs.)

 

So, while I concede that the abundance of firearms in the United States creates a cost that is at times horrific; I will continue to advocate for the Second Amendment until you can show me an inhabited continent that has been genocide-free for six thousand years--or even two hundred years.

Edited October 3, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[carlimac]

The challenge, I suppose, is obtaining reliable data as free as possible from bias. 

 

I saw this yesterday :

 

http://www.vox.com/a/mass-shootings-sandy-hook

[NightSG]

Thought it was funny at the county Republican Party poll watching gathering a couple years ago; I recognized four off duty cops, three people from my CHL class, three off duty deputies, the sheriff, a Texas Ranger, the city councilman I'd recruited to overturn the city's carry ban in a couple public buildings, the state representative who helped pass the CHL laws, and my old roommate who carries. I decided my first priority if anyone tried to shoot the place up would be to drop prone and plug my ears, because my little .357 snub wouldn't make a whole lot of difference by joining the barrage that would happen about two seconds later.

[Guest]

Quite possibly, but the trouble with your question is that it assumes that the stable, benign governments that exist in locations like Australia will always remain so.

 

Think of it this way:  At Sandy Hook Elementary School, twenty-seven innocents were killed.  

 

You would need one Sandy Hook per day, for over two years; to approach the number of innocents massacred by Zimbabwean dictator Joseph Mugabe.  Three years, to match the number of Castro's victims.  Twenty years for Ho Chi Minh, sixty-one years for Saddam Hussein, 173 years for Pol Pot, 612 years to reach the number of victims of Hitler's gas chambers, 4,081 years for the victims of Stalin's purges, and 6,122 years for the victims of Chairman Mao's "great leap forward" (that's one Sandy Hook a day, every day, since Adam walked out of Eden and continuing on for another few decades yet).

 

...

 

So, while I concede that the abundance of firearms in the United States creates a cost that is at times horrific; I will continue to advocate for the Second Amendment until you can show me an inhabited continent that has been genocide-free for six thousand years--or even two hundred years.

I disagree when you say my question assumes the stability of governments in the future because I'm comparing the developed nations up to now. If we start speculating about the future of those governments, then that has to change my question which wasn't about the future of the U.S. in the first place. Moreover, my questioned compared the U.S. to developed nations, not to nations like Zimbabwe. Please understand that my question was not about the 2nd Amendment per se, which I am not advocating against.

[David13]

No, I mean like the entire U.S. compared to the entire nation of Australia and other developed nations.

Right there is your problem.  It's not "THE ENTIRE US", it's a certain very small segment of the population, and we SHOULD NOT take those cities out of the discussion.  In fact, those cities and those cities ONLY should be the discussion because that's where the problem is.  Not with the "ENTIRE US."

The agenda, in case you missed it, is to IGNORE that segment of the population as if they are EXPECTED to be violent and uncivilized and deal drugs etc etc etc.

But again, and importantly, it's NOT THE GUN.  It's the guy (or rarely gal) who pulls the trigger.

dc

[Just_A_Guy]

I disagree when you say my question assumes the stability of governments in the future because I'm comparing the developed nations up to now. If we start speculating about the future of those governments, then that has to change my question which wasn't about the future of the U.S. in the first place.

 

Well, I suppose you're right if your underlying assumption is that policy discussions should entail only what we want in the here-and-now, without considering our responsibility to secure the blessings of liberty for our posterity as well as ourselves.  But frankly, I doubt you'd want to have such a short-sighted discussion. 

 

We are not the inevitable pinnacle of social, technological, or political history, any more than Ozymandias was.  The liberty, democracy, safety, and prosperity we enjoy did not spring into existence like Athena, fully formed.  They are the result of specific historical events and continuing social tensions, which can be destroyed just as they were created.  I maintain that widespread ownership of arms by the citizenry, is one of those tensions that maintains the status quo.  Without it, the society is easy pickings for the next demagogue who can (appear to) win an election.

 

 

Moreover, my questioned compared the U.S. to developed nations, not to nations like Zimbabwe.

 

Out of curiosity--why do you say this?  Are first-worlders more inherently virtuous or less prone to totalitarianism?

Edited October 3, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[David13]

There are good shooting citizens, and bad shooting citizens.  There are citizens what shoot themselves.  And there are a whole lot of good shooting officers.  Some of them train beyond what you could imagine. 

 

 

I'm good with anyone who is well trained.  I'm much more comfortable with someone with real world experience. 

 

Do I dectect and iota ( or a half gallon) of bias based on personal experience (or work experience)?

Around Los Angeles the cops have a 100% US AGAINST THEM (any non cop) attitude.  Which is not the way it should be.

If a citizen saves me with a gun, it's heroic.  If a cop does, does he not get a paycheck?  Is he not doing his job?  I cannot define 'hero' as a guy who does his job.

Not that i wouldn't appreciate it.

dc

[Guest]

Yeah, you're right. There's absolutely nothing heroic about risking your life just by showing up at work. Because, you know, paycheck. 

[estradling75]

We should get on the same page so to speak. When I use the phrase "gun violence" I mean a person using a gun violently against another person. That's not fantasy. And I don't see why we should take cities with problems out of the discussion--those cities are part of the U.S. So, let me ask the question a better way. Is it true that the U.S. has a disproportionate amount of people using guns violently against other people compared to other developed nations? Is the answer still, "no"?

 

Why limit it to Guns?...  Violence is violence...  Gun, knives, clubs, fists... are just tools for the expression of violence.  It seems very disingenuous to me to try to point to less gun violence in some other country unless you can also point to less violence in total as well...  Otherwise you have simply shifted the problem not eliminated it .