So every time I go into a MacDonald’s or a Post Office or a school I am cavalierly mis-assessing the threat? I do all these things regularly as an adult and it never occurred to me to carry a weapon. I did carry a small pen-knife to school back in the 70s.
The threat isn’t MacDonald’s or Happy Meals. It is severely mentally ill people under-treated and allowed access to firearms, semi-automatic included. If mentally ill people were (1) treated correctly for their mental illness; and (2) not allowed access to firearms, we might see a large reduction in these kinds of incidents. However, conservative Ronald Reagan destroyed public mental health services and there are few adequate barriers to the mentally ill owning firearms. As sad as it was to see John Hinckley shoot Ronald Reagan, that outcome repeats thousands of times a year.
If I see someone openly carrying a gun (especially a long gun) my first reaction is WHY -
followed closely by “what sort of person carries such a gun”…
And given recent history, the first answer into my head is, “the sort of person that might be on their way to shoot up a sorority house”.
If I happen to have access to a gun at that point - what happens next?
This sums it up for me -
I like guns, I like shooting, I used to work on a clay pigeon shooting range - and even once won a trophy.
I see someone with a gun, even army officers patrolling public transport (as we do see here) and it makes me nervous.
Seeing a group of young men with long guns would be “somewhat scary” in the same vein as seeing a small gang carrying parangs and iron bars. To me, there is simply no need for open carry in a “city area” beyond a wish to intimidate - and anybody that has the mindset of wanting to intimidate, and is carrying a lethal weapon I see as a threat.
I don’t get it. I just don’t get it. Yeah, I know I live in a country where carrying guns in an urban area is not happening unless you’re actually going to shoot everyone, but I still DON’T GET IT.
Why the hell do you need to be gunned up to go into a restaurant? Going bush to shoot some 'roos or bunnies? Fine. A farmer who needs to put stock down, absolutely fine. Going out to enjoy some nosh with friends? Yeah, no.
For all the talk about US citizens carrying arms to ‘prevent’ crimes, can somebody direct me to some stats that can show how many otherwise law-abiding citizens have prevented any crime by showing a gun?
Sure. Bricker and running coach have posted examples upthread. I gather hat the NRA, in one of their periodicals, collects such anecdotes and publishes them for the benefit of members/sympathizers who get into debates like this one.
Because every given day/week/month there’s a car accident on any given stretch of the interstate and state highway system.
If restaurant gun fights were nearly as common as car accidents were, people would be quite justified in packing heat.
And here’s another thing: air bags and seat belts don’t carry any risk to others. You can’t accidentally drop a seat belt and kill someone. We don’t have to worry about an idiot whipping out his air bag to impress a girl, shooting someone on accident.
Every single day, we hear stories like these involving guns.
It’s not so much the gun fights in a restaurant, it’s the going out in public in general. However, I feel anyone who goes out armed with the specific intent of stopping a mass murder is not operating on all cylinders and should be evaluated on being allowed access to guns at all.
You go out armed with the idea that you may, someday, if everything goes wrong, confront an armed assailant who is targeting you for a peice of larceny.
Just like the vast majority of police officers, you may never need to pull that gun in defense but it’s there if needed.
I am a big supporter of gun rights, have a CCW and sometimes carry. Usually, I just have a handgun in the car. At the same time, this is no better a stunt than what PETA does. Going absurdly overboard in making a point makes no point at all other than to announce that you are an ass clown. These fools have the right to carry open rifles until the management throws them out, but at the same time, where do they show respect to the other patrons before management throws them out? Pure idiocy.
I’m also betting there aren’t a lot of toddlers who killed themselves when stumbling across a loaded air bag; or people who have killed their spouses with seat belts when confusing them for a burglar; and I doubt there has been very many spur of the moment murder-suicides pulled off with crumple zones either.
Well, I’m off to the Anti-Lock Braking range for a little practice; talk to you all later.
I can’t view videos at work; is that the one where the old guy starts shooting at the robbers as they leave the store, then chases them outside, shooting at them from behind?
I think these gun owners were more at risk from the food than from brigands; last I checked, a long arm wasn’t a good defense vs. tainted meat.
How can we tell, which one is which? Furthermore, how can we tell if it’s option, c) a mass murderer stopping in to get some frozen yogurt before killing everybody in the place?
I realize that dead is dead and once you’re dead, who cares how you got that way is an argument that many make. But is there room in that line of thought for differentiating between a gun and a car and their respective intended utility?
Additionally, if on average, as many people who used guns as frequently as they use cars, would there be more gun related deaths or less?
Thanks, Bricker and running coach for the data points.
The first link is exactly what I was seeking. The 2nd link, when you look at each incident - there seems to be a lot of examples where a civilian intervened - many of those are where the assailant was tackled or somehow gave up - not where a civilian stopped the assailant with another gun. Look at the careful wording:
*The average number of people killed in mass shootings when stopped by police is 14.29
The average number of people killed in a mass shooting when stopped by a civilian is 2.33 *
I wish the analysis was more specific to The average number of people killed in a mass shooting when stopped by a civilian where the civilian used his/her gun, as opposed to just “stopped”.
Now, I will concede that someone getting started on a shooting spree who does get stopped by anyone, by any means, is likely not to make the national headlines, seeing as how the media loves a good body count. So, there may be any number of incidents resolved this way that we never hear about.
Also, to counter this argument, at Ft Hood, presumably there were tons of armed people around, but that did not prevent a mass shooting there (twice). How is that explained? Were any of the people that got shot in those incidents armed?
Unless Fort Hood is different from every military base I have been at, the number of armed people is less, rather than more in the general population. It is very untypical of soldiers to be carrying loaded weapons on post outside of the designated ranges.
More typically, the MPs are the only ones armed at all.
Your presumption is incorrect. There were not tons of armed people around. The Army includes the word “arm,” yes, but in fact does not routinely arm soldiers in non-combat roles. The only people armed walking around Ft. Hood would be military police, civilian security, and any visiting civilian law enforcement. even a soldier who has a concealed carry permit and routinely carries a personally-owned weapon off duty is not permitted to carry that weapon on-duty.
If I understand the purpose of the group (Open Carry Texas) it is to change the law in Texas to allow open carry of handguns. They are using long guns in their protests because it is legal to open carry a long gun in Texas but not a handgun. Of course that has more to do with hunting than self protection. Its a stupid argument anyway since it is insanely easy to get a CCW in Texas.
It is not different. It is against federal law to concealed carry your legally owned weapon on base. Federal law on base trumps any state law. You only get ammo for military weapons when you are at the range. Military bases are one of the most tightly controlled gun free zones in the country. MPs (and on some bases DoD Police) are the only ones armed. Fort Hood is vast so the chances of an armed MP being right where they are needed is remote.
I do follow several military related blogs and pages. Typically this pages are very pro 2nd amendment and pretty right wing. The large majority of posters on these sites seem to think that OCT is filled with asshats that are damaging the cause. So it seems they are fringe even in the 2A movement.
We are actually being told by Damuri, who claims to represent an entire movement, that the regular occurrence of gun murders in our society is something to be accepted as *normal *- that even to suggest that it’s a problem that needs to be addressed is a disorder requiring “therapy”.