Ot would we all be safer if everyone were armed?

[Anonymous]

[quote=faterikcartman]Beware creeping incrementalism.[/quote]
[quote]What happens when you refuse to pay your taxes? […] you will be shot.[/quote]

Some creeping going on in there?

You also win the award for most platitudes in a single post.

[UCGal]

Going back to the OP question.

I would say that two high school students in Gardena, CA were not safer today.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41138365/from/RSS/

For those that didn’t hear about this. Apparently a student had a gun in their backpack – accidentally dropped the backpack and the gun fired. One student critically injured, one seriously injured.

I’m not going to argue 2nd amendment rights. I’m just stating a fact that two students would not be injured today if the third student hadn’t brought a weapon to school and mishandled it.

[UCGal]

Going back to the OP question.

I would say that two high school students in Gardena, CA were not safer today.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41138365/from/RSS/

For those that didn’t hear about this. Apparently a student had a gun in their backpack – accidentally dropped the backpack and the gun fired. One student critically injured, one seriously injured.

I’m not going to argue 2nd amendment rights. I’m just stating a fact that two students would not be injured today if the third student hadn’t brought a weapon to school and mishandled it.

[UCGal]

Going back to the OP question.

I would say that two high school students in Gardena, CA were not safer today.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41138365/from/RSS/

For those that didn’t hear about this. Apparently a student had a gun in their backpack – accidentally dropped the backpack and the gun fired. One student critically injured, one seriously injured.

I’m not going to argue 2nd amendment rights. I’m just stating a fact that two students would not be injured today if the third student hadn’t brought a weapon to school and mishandled it.

[UCGal]

Going back to the OP question.

I would say that two high school students in Gardena, CA were not safer today.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41138365/from/RSS/

For those that didn’t hear about this. Apparently a student had a gun in their backpack – accidentally dropped the backpack and the gun fired. One student critically injured, one seriously injured.

I’m not going to argue 2nd amendment rights. I’m just stating a fact that two students would not be injured today if the third student hadn’t brought a weapon to school and mishandled it.

[UCGal]

Going back to the OP question.

I would say that two high school students in Gardena, CA were not safer today.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41138365/from/RSS/

For those that didn’t hear about this. Apparently a student had a gun in their backpack – accidentally dropped the backpack and the gun fired. One student critically injured, one seriously injured.

I’m not going to argue 2nd amendment rights. I’m just stating a fact that two students would not be injured today if the third student hadn’t brought a weapon to school and mishandled it.

[bubba99]

[quote=Djshakes][quote=bubba99]All of my coworkers, and many of my friends carry guns most of the time. My observations are that it really does not make them or society any safer. In fact it only makes a gun available to the first criminal who is strong enough to take it away.

Law enforcement officers (LEOs)are way too slow to shoot making them vulnerable to having their guns and lives taken. Non-LEOs are generally too slow and unskilled to be effective. And rarely do they take into account “whats behind the target”. Making their using a gun dangerous to bystanders.

Many bad guys have spent years in prison studying how to disarm citizens, lifting weights and to attack with such speed that even the best trained armed people are at risk.

21 feet is the magic distance. A skilled criminal within 21 feet, can probably kill an armed person before he/she can draw and fire.[/quote]

Armed robber is taking hostages and making threats. I would rather take my chances that a bystander shoots them instead of waiting for my time in the execution line.

You underestimate gun owners that respect and fire their weapons regularly. I guarantee half of them shoot better than some fat donut eating cop…or worse yet, some mall cop.[/quote]

Granted that not all police are proficient with their weapons – some dangerously inadequate. But the point I was trying to make is that a gun is not a panacea.

Shooting well at a target range is not the same as trying to fire while you are being shot at. All the fine motor skills go right out the window. If your stance and posture are good, you are not firing fast enough. And you can’t miss fast enough to stop a bad guy.

In the limited scenario you mentioned, maybe having a gun would be preferable, but more likely for most normal citizens (and mall cops) is they would only end up giving the bad guys another weapon.

And the worst case scenario is a good guy uses his gun to stop the bad guys, and when SWAT arrives he or she gets shot because we can’t tell the difference between a good and bad active shooter. Or worse you intervene in an undercover operation with police taking down bad guys, and kill a cop.

Only you cans answer if a gun is the right solution for you. Are you willing to kill a robber instead of giving up your wallet or fight him/her. Because with a gun you do not have the option of losing and giving up the weapon.

[bubba99]

[quote=Djshakes][quote=bubba99]All of my coworkers, and many of my friends carry guns most of the time. My observations are that it really does not make them or society any safer. In fact it only makes a gun available to the first criminal who is strong enough to take it away.

Law enforcement officers (LEOs)are way too slow to shoot making them vulnerable to having their guns and lives taken. Non-LEOs are generally too slow and unskilled to be effective. And rarely do they take into account “whats behind the target”. Making their using a gun dangerous to bystanders.

Many bad guys have spent years in prison studying how to disarm citizens, lifting weights and to attack with such speed that even the best trained armed people are at risk.

21 feet is the magic distance. A skilled criminal within 21 feet, can probably kill an armed person before he/she can draw and fire.[/quote]

Armed robber is taking hostages and making threats. I would rather take my chances that a bystander shoots them instead of waiting for my time in the execution line.

You underestimate gun owners that respect and fire their weapons regularly. I guarantee half of them shoot better than some fat donut eating cop…or worse yet, some mall cop.[/quote]

Granted that not all police are proficient with their weapons – some dangerously inadequate. But the point I was trying to make is that a gun is not a panacea.

Shooting well at a target range is not the same as trying to fire while you are being shot at. All the fine motor skills go right out the window. If your stance and posture are good, you are not firing fast enough. And you can’t miss fast enough to stop a bad guy.

In the limited scenario you mentioned, maybe having a gun would be preferable, but more likely for most normal citizens (and mall cops) is they would only end up giving the bad guys another weapon.

And the worst case scenario is a good guy uses his gun to stop the bad guys, and when SWAT arrives he or she gets shot because we can’t tell the difference between a good and bad active shooter. Or worse you intervene in an undercover operation with police taking down bad guys, and kill a cop.

Only you cans answer if a gun is the right solution for you. Are you willing to kill a robber instead of giving up your wallet or fight him/her. Because with a gun you do not have the option of losing and giving up the weapon.

[bubba99]

[quote=Djshakes][quote=bubba99]All of my coworkers, and many of my friends carry guns most of the time. My observations are that it really does not make them or society any safer. In fact it only makes a gun available to the first criminal who is strong enough to take it away.

Law enforcement officers (LEOs)are way too slow to shoot making them vulnerable to having their guns and lives taken. Non-LEOs are generally too slow and unskilled to be effective. And rarely do they take into account “whats behind the target”. Making their using a gun dangerous to bystanders.

Many bad guys have spent years in prison studying how to disarm citizens, lifting weights and to attack with such speed that even the best trained armed people are at risk.

21 feet is the magic distance. A skilled criminal within 21 feet, can probably kill an armed person before he/she can draw and fire.[/quote]

Armed robber is taking hostages and making threats. I would rather take my chances that a bystander shoots them instead of waiting for my time in the execution line.

You underestimate gun owners that respect and fire their weapons regularly. I guarantee half of them shoot better than some fat donut eating cop…or worse yet, some mall cop.[/quote]

Granted that not all police are proficient with their weapons – some dangerously inadequate. But the point I was trying to make is that a gun is not a panacea.

Shooting well at a target range is not the same as trying to fire while you are being shot at. All the fine motor skills go right out the window. If your stance and posture are good, you are not firing fast enough. And you can’t miss fast enough to stop a bad guy.

In the limited scenario you mentioned, maybe having a gun would be preferable, but more likely for most normal citizens (and mall cops) is they would only end up giving the bad guys another weapon.

And the worst case scenario is a good guy uses his gun to stop the bad guys, and when SWAT arrives he or she gets shot because we can’t tell the difference between a good and bad active shooter. Or worse you intervene in an undercover operation with police taking down bad guys, and kill a cop.

Only you cans answer if a gun is the right solution for you. Are you willing to kill a robber instead of giving up your wallet or fight him/her. Because with a gun you do not have the option of losing and giving up the weapon.

[bubba99]

[quote=Djshakes][quote=bubba99]All of my coworkers, and many of my friends carry guns most of the time. My observations are that it really does not make them or society any safer. In fact it only makes a gun available to the first criminal who is strong enough to take it away.

Law enforcement officers (LEOs)are way too slow to shoot making them vulnerable to having their guns and lives taken. Non-LEOs are generally too slow and unskilled to be effective. And rarely do they take into account “whats behind the target”. Making their using a gun dangerous to bystanders.

Many bad guys have spent years in prison studying how to disarm citizens, lifting weights and to attack with such speed that even the best trained armed people are at risk.

21 feet is the magic distance. A skilled criminal within 21 feet, can probably kill an armed person before he/she can draw and fire.[/quote]

Armed robber is taking hostages and making threats. I would rather take my chances that a bystander shoots them instead of waiting for my time in the execution line.

You underestimate gun owners that respect and fire their weapons regularly. I guarantee half of them shoot better than some fat donut eating cop…or worse yet, some mall cop.[/quote]

Granted that not all police are proficient with their weapons – some dangerously inadequate. But the point I was trying to make is that a gun is not a panacea.

Shooting well at a target range is not the same as trying to fire while you are being shot at. All the fine motor skills go right out the window. If your stance and posture are good, you are not firing fast enough. And you can’t miss fast enough to stop a bad guy.

In the limited scenario you mentioned, maybe having a gun would be preferable, but more likely for most normal citizens (and mall cops) is they would only end up giving the bad guys another weapon.

And the worst case scenario is a good guy uses his gun to stop the bad guys, and when SWAT arrives he or she gets shot because we can’t tell the difference between a good and bad active shooter. Or worse you intervene in an undercover operation with police taking down bad guys, and kill a cop.

Only you cans answer if a gun is the right solution for you. Are you willing to kill a robber instead of giving up your wallet or fight him/her. Because with a gun you do not have the option of losing and giving up the weapon.

[bubba99]

[quote=Djshakes][quote=bubba99]All of my coworkers, and many of my friends carry guns most of the time. My observations are that it really does not make them or society any safer. In fact it only makes a gun available to the first criminal who is strong enough to take it away.

Law enforcement officers (LEOs)are way too slow to shoot making them vulnerable to having their guns and lives taken. Non-LEOs are generally too slow and unskilled to be effective. And rarely do they take into account “whats behind the target”. Making their using a gun dangerous to bystanders.

Many bad guys have spent years in prison studying how to disarm citizens, lifting weights and to attack with such speed that even the best trained armed people are at risk.

21 feet is the magic distance. A skilled criminal within 21 feet, can probably kill an armed person before he/she can draw and fire.[/quote]

Armed robber is taking hostages and making threats. I would rather take my chances that a bystander shoots them instead of waiting for my time in the execution line.

You underestimate gun owners that respect and fire their weapons regularly. I guarantee half of them shoot better than some fat donut eating cop…or worse yet, some mall cop.[/quote]

Granted that not all police are proficient with their weapons – some dangerously inadequate. But the point I was trying to make is that a gun is not a panacea.

Shooting well at a target range is not the same as trying to fire while you are being shot at. All the fine motor skills go right out the window. If your stance and posture are good, you are not firing fast enough. And you can’t miss fast enough to stop a bad guy.

In the limited scenario you mentioned, maybe having a gun would be preferable, but more likely for most normal citizens (and mall cops) is they would only end up giving the bad guys another weapon.

And the worst case scenario is a good guy uses his gun to stop the bad guys, and when SWAT arrives he or she gets shot because we can’t tell the difference between a good and bad active shooter. Or worse you intervene in an undercover operation with police taking down bad guys, and kill a cop.

Only you cans answer if a gun is the right solution for you. Are you willing to kill a robber instead of giving up your wallet or fight him/her. Because with a gun you do not have the option of losing and giving up the weapon.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=bubba99][quote=Djshakes][quote=bubba99]All of my coworkers, and many of my friends carry guns most of the time. My observations are that it really does not make them or society any safer. In fact it only makes a gun available to the first criminal who is strong enough to take it away.

Law enforcement officers (LEOs)are way too slow to shoot making them vulnerable to having their guns and lives taken. Non-LEOs are generally too slow and unskilled to be effective. And rarely do they take into account “whats behind the target”. Making their using a gun dangerous to bystanders.

Many bad guys have spent years in prison studying how to disarm citizens, lifting weights and to attack with such speed that even the best trained armed people are at risk.

21 feet is the magic distance. A skilled criminal within 21 feet, can probably kill an armed person before he/she can draw and fire.[/quote]

Armed robber is taking hostages and making threats. I would rather take my chances that a bystander shoots them instead of waiting for my time in the execution line.

You underestimate gun owners that respect and fire their weapons regularly. I guarantee half of them shoot better than some fat donut eating cop…or worse yet, some mall cop.[/quote]

Granted that not all police are proficient with their weapons – some dangerously inadequate. But the point I was trying to make is that a gun is not a panacea.

Shooting well at a target range is not the same as trying to fire while you are being shot at. All the fine motor skills go right out the window. If your stance and posture are good, you are not firing fast enough. And you can’t miss fast enough to stop a bad guy.

In the limited scenario you mentioned, maybe having a gun would be preferable, but more likely for most normal citizens (and mall cops) is they would only end up giving the bad guys another weapon.

And the worst case scenario is a good guy uses his gun to stop the bad guys, and when SWAT arrives he or she gets shot because we can’t tell the difference between a good and bad active shooter. Or worse you intervene in an undercover operation with police taking down bad guys, and kill a cop.

Only you cans answer if a gun is the right solution for you. Are you willing to kill a robber instead of giving up your wallet or fight him/her. Because with a gun you do not have the option of losing and giving up the weapon.[/quote]

Bubba: Good post. Buying a gun and declaring yourself ready for a gunfight is like buying a jet and declaring yourself a fighter pilot.

Too many people watch too many TV shows and movies and think its as simple as point and shoot. It isn’t. And the amount of time and money you’d need to get yourself to just a decent level of proficiency is insane, hence the reason that many cops aren’t as proficient as they should be with their service weapon.

Going to the local range and punching paper is actually counterproductive in many ways, in that you are shooting in a completely controlled environment, unlike a gunfight or firefight. There you won’t be wearing ear and eye protection, you don’t know the light conditions, number of bad guys and what they’re armed with. I can tell you from personal experience that the first time I heard an AK going off in my direction, I nearly shit myself. Even in movies, its still a sound that freezes my blood to this day.

A gun represents the single, final answer to a problem and only when you’ve exhausted all other options, or are left with no other options. In that case, get your back against the wall and put your faith in a 12ga shotgun. Simple, reliable and who gives a shit about accuracy with that thing.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=bubba99][quote=Djshakes][quote=bubba99]All of my coworkers, and many of my friends carry guns most of the time. My observations are that it really does not make them or society any safer. In fact it only makes a gun available to the first criminal who is strong enough to take it away.

Law enforcement officers (LEOs)are way too slow to shoot making them vulnerable to having their guns and lives taken. Non-LEOs are generally too slow and unskilled to be effective. And rarely do they take into account “whats behind the target”. Making their using a gun dangerous to bystanders.

Many bad guys have spent years in prison studying how to disarm citizens, lifting weights and to attack with such speed that even the best trained armed people are at risk.

21 feet is the magic distance. A skilled criminal within 21 feet, can probably kill an armed person before he/she can draw and fire.[/quote]

Armed robber is taking hostages and making threats. I would rather take my chances that a bystander shoots them instead of waiting for my time in the execution line.

You underestimate gun owners that respect and fire their weapons regularly. I guarantee half of them shoot better than some fat donut eating cop…or worse yet, some mall cop.[/quote]

Granted that not all police are proficient with their weapons – some dangerously inadequate. But the point I was trying to make is that a gun is not a panacea.

Shooting well at a target range is not the same as trying to fire while you are being shot at. All the fine motor skills go right out the window. If your stance and posture are good, you are not firing fast enough. And you can’t miss fast enough to stop a bad guy.

In the limited scenario you mentioned, maybe having a gun would be preferable, but more likely for most normal citizens (and mall cops) is they would only end up giving the bad guys another weapon.

And the worst case scenario is a good guy uses his gun to stop the bad guys, and when SWAT arrives he or she gets shot because we can’t tell the difference between a good and bad active shooter. Or worse you intervene in an undercover operation with police taking down bad guys, and kill a cop.

Only you cans answer if a gun is the right solution for you. Are you willing to kill a robber instead of giving up your wallet or fight him/her. Because with a gun you do not have the option of losing and giving up the weapon.[/quote]

Bubba: Good post. Buying a gun and declaring yourself ready for a gunfight is like buying a jet and declaring yourself a fighter pilot.

Too many people watch too many TV shows and movies and think its as simple as point and shoot. It isn’t. And the amount of time and money you’d need to get yourself to just a decent level of proficiency is insane, hence the reason that many cops aren’t as proficient as they should be with their service weapon.

Going to the local range and punching paper is actually counterproductive in many ways, in that you are shooting in a completely controlled environment, unlike a gunfight or firefight. There you won’t be wearing ear and eye protection, you don’t know the light conditions, number of bad guys and what they’re armed with. I can tell you from personal experience that the first time I heard an AK going off in my direction, I nearly shit myself. Even in movies, its still a sound that freezes my blood to this day.

A gun represents the single, final answer to a problem and only when you’ve exhausted all other options, or are left with no other options. In that case, get your back against the wall and put your faith in a 12ga shotgun. Simple, reliable and who gives a shit about accuracy with that thing.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=bubba99][quote=Djshakes][quote=bubba99]All of my coworkers, and many of my friends carry guns most of the time. My observations are that it really does not make them or society any safer. In fact it only makes a gun available to the first criminal who is strong enough to take it away.

Law enforcement officers (LEOs)are way too slow to shoot making them vulnerable to having their guns and lives taken. Non-LEOs are generally too slow and unskilled to be effective. And rarely do they take into account “whats behind the target”. Making their using a gun dangerous to bystanders.

Many bad guys have spent years in prison studying how to disarm citizens, lifting weights and to attack with such speed that even the best trained armed people are at risk.

21 feet is the magic distance. A skilled criminal within 21 feet, can probably kill an armed person before he/she can draw and fire.[/quote]

Armed robber is taking hostages and making threats. I would rather take my chances that a bystander shoots them instead of waiting for my time in the execution line.

You underestimate gun owners that respect and fire their weapons regularly. I guarantee half of them shoot better than some fat donut eating cop…or worse yet, some mall cop.[/quote]

Granted that not all police are proficient with their weapons – some dangerously inadequate. But the point I was trying to make is that a gun is not a panacea.

Shooting well at a target range is not the same as trying to fire while you are being shot at. All the fine motor skills go right out the window. If your stance and posture are good, you are not firing fast enough. And you can’t miss fast enough to stop a bad guy.

In the limited scenario you mentioned, maybe having a gun would be preferable, but more likely for most normal citizens (and mall cops) is they would only end up giving the bad guys another weapon.

And the worst case scenario is a good guy uses his gun to stop the bad guys, and when SWAT arrives he or she gets shot because we can’t tell the difference between a good and bad active shooter. Or worse you intervene in an undercover operation with police taking down bad guys, and kill a cop.

Only you cans answer if a gun is the right solution for you. Are you willing to kill a robber instead of giving up your wallet or fight him/her. Because with a gun you do not have the option of losing and giving up the weapon.[/quote]

Bubba: Good post. Buying a gun and declaring yourself ready for a gunfight is like buying a jet and declaring yourself a fighter pilot.

Too many people watch too many TV shows and movies and think its as simple as point and shoot. It isn’t. And the amount of time and money you’d need to get yourself to just a decent level of proficiency is insane, hence the reason that many cops aren’t as proficient as they should be with their service weapon.

Going to the local range and punching paper is actually counterproductive in many ways, in that you are shooting in a completely controlled environment, unlike a gunfight or firefight. There you won’t be wearing ear and eye protection, you don’t know the light conditions, number of bad guys and what they’re armed with. I can tell you from personal experience that the first time I heard an AK going off in my direction, I nearly shit myself. Even in movies, its still a sound that freezes my blood to this day.

A gun represents the single, final answer to a problem and only when you’ve exhausted all other options, or are left with no other options. In that case, get your back against the wall and put your faith in a 12ga shotgun. Simple, reliable and who gives a shit about accuracy with that thing.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=bubba99][quote=Djshakes][quote=bubba99]All of my coworkers, and many of my friends carry guns most of the time. My observations are that it really does not make them or society any safer. In fact it only makes a gun available to the first criminal who is strong enough to take it away.

Law enforcement officers (LEOs)are way too slow to shoot making them vulnerable to having their guns and lives taken. Non-LEOs are generally too slow and unskilled to be effective. And rarely do they take into account “whats behind the target”. Making their using a gun dangerous to bystanders.

Many bad guys have spent years in prison studying how to disarm citizens, lifting weights and to attack with such speed that even the best trained armed people are at risk.

21 feet is the magic distance. A skilled criminal within 21 feet, can probably kill an armed person before he/she can draw and fire.[/quote]

Armed robber is taking hostages and making threats. I would rather take my chances that a bystander shoots them instead of waiting for my time in the execution line.

You underestimate gun owners that respect and fire their weapons regularly. I guarantee half of them shoot better than some fat donut eating cop…or worse yet, some mall cop.[/quote]

Granted that not all police are proficient with their weapons – some dangerously inadequate. But the point I was trying to make is that a gun is not a panacea.

Shooting well at a target range is not the same as trying to fire while you are being shot at. All the fine motor skills go right out the window. If your stance and posture are good, you are not firing fast enough. And you can’t miss fast enough to stop a bad guy.

In the limited scenario you mentioned, maybe having a gun would be preferable, but more likely for most normal citizens (and mall cops) is they would only end up giving the bad guys another weapon.

And the worst case scenario is a good guy uses his gun to stop the bad guys, and when SWAT arrives he or she gets shot because we can’t tell the difference between a good and bad active shooter. Or worse you intervene in an undercover operation with police taking down bad guys, and kill a cop.

Only you cans answer if a gun is the right solution for you. Are you willing to kill a robber instead of giving up your wallet or fight him/her. Because with a gun you do not have the option of losing and giving up the weapon.[/quote]

Bubba: Good post. Buying a gun and declaring yourself ready for a gunfight is like buying a jet and declaring yourself a fighter pilot.

Too many people watch too many TV shows and movies and think its as simple as point and shoot. It isn’t. And the amount of time and money you’d need to get yourself to just a decent level of proficiency is insane, hence the reason that many cops aren’t as proficient as they should be with their service weapon.

Going to the local range and punching paper is actually counterproductive in many ways, in that you are shooting in a completely controlled environment, unlike a gunfight or firefight. There you won’t be wearing ear and eye protection, you don’t know the light conditions, number of bad guys and what they’re armed with. I can tell you from personal experience that the first time I heard an AK going off in my direction, I nearly shit myself. Even in movies, its still a sound that freezes my blood to this day.

A gun represents the single, final answer to a problem and only when you’ve exhausted all other options, or are left with no other options. In that case, get your back against the wall and put your faith in a 12ga shotgun. Simple, reliable and who gives a shit about accuracy with that thing.

[Author]

Posts