An armed society is a polite society

batgeek · Aug 17, 2011

check the Brady site. they compiled statisics from 1996 to 2001 across 43 states. six years of history with 4,500,000 CCW holders. no innocent bystanders were shot by CCW holders, no LEO experienced loss of life by CCW holders.

amazing isn't it...from the BRADY site even!

LEOs shoot innocents more than CCW holders. and they ARE trained.

try a little google-fu on CHL shoots innocent or CCW shoots innocent. see what you get.

Crude · Aug 17, 2011

lordofthereef said:
FWIW, plenty of invention in war were not invented to take lives. Many inventions exist to actually save and spare lives. I am not saying that because this item was used and advanced for war, it is bad. All I am saying is that it was invented for taking life. Lose sight of that and, IMO, we have huge problems. Many of the other items that are used in war are, in fact, illegal, no? One cannot walk around with a cannister of napalm, or a bomb, or some sort of chemical nerve gas, right?

I did not know that about silencers. I would argue, then, that if silencers are ok, so should be crossbows, although I am saying that being completely ignorant about the crossbows "pro's" outside of perhaps how silently they operate.

I like the comment about de-escalating a situation. Perhaps we should all be taught this in some form or another, even if we have no plans to carry.

To be a little more clear, I am personally advocating that there should always be places where one should not be allowed to carry a weapon. Someone mentioned schools, and that is just scarey to me. I just don't see any situation where a member of the general public should ever need to bring a weapon onto campus. As I said, it would be a shame if we went backwards here and people felt inclined to carry a weapon just to go to the grocery store (regarding a mentality where everyone in town has a ccp so I feel like I need one to stay safe). Also, I think if the majority of the public started carrying, we might actually see criminals using different forms of weaponry to commit violent crimes. Can't scare people with guns anymore? That's cool. I will walk into a bank with bombs, or perhaps gas masks and chemical nerve agents and still get what I want. Properly planned, not a damn thing even a couple dozen people could do with concealed weapons permits. Unless, of course, they are willing to die while taking their attacker out.

Aren't all war time inventions designed to save lives? I mean by killing more enemies faster you are saving the lives of your troops. The nuclear bomb is the prime example. Nuclear fission was researched to make a bomb. This bomb effectively ended the war between us and the Japanese. The Japanese believed it was dishonorable to surrender, so in all likely hood it saved A LOT of American lives and A LOT of Japanese lives. The science then moves forward to provide more then half of the electricity consumed in the US.

Back on topic...I think schools are a prime example of where we need ccw's. That or a cop at every entrance? I mean look at school shootings so far. Lots of casualties, no resistance. And again, look! The criminals didn't obey the rules. Give me a chance to defend myself. Give me training. Don't make me a sitting duck in a shooting gallery.

OutofDate1980 · Aug 18, 2011

Crude said:
... Back on topic...I think schools are a prime example of where we need ccw's. ...

Yes, I can just imagine a kindergarten Rambo cuddling a Glock during naptime. Makes any parent feel safe about their children. Sorry, couldn't resist.

lordofthereef · Aug 18, 2011

Crude said:
Aren't all war time inventions designed to save lives?

Semantics, as always... I think you kow what I meant. If not, well, let's talk it over in another thread if you wish.

batgeek · Aug 25, 2011

exactly why all hope for Britain is lost. i guess they can't watch fencing also. wouldn't want sword fights breaking out all over Great Britain.

Children banned from shooting events in 2012 ticket giveaway | News

Children banned from shooting events in 2012 ticket giveaway

Matthew Beard and Laura Roberts
23 Aug 2011

Children will be banned from watching shooting events under Boris Johnson's Olympic ticket giveaway.
London schoolchildren are eligible for 125,000 Olympic tickets but these will not include any featuring guns, as Games organisers and City Hall fear a backlash from the anti-gun lobby.
Giving children tickets to the events, at the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, could have appeared at odds with Mayor Boris Johnson's bid to quell teenage gun and knife crime.
A source said: "We decided it would not be appropriate. It's the only sport children will not be able to go to as part of the Ticketshare scheme."
The youth ban will anger some elements of the British Olympic shooting establishment which already feels marginalised by Games organiser Locog.
Georgina Geikie, 26, a Commonwealth Games bronze medallist and Olympic pistol hopeful, said she was "horrified", adding: "This is a chance for children to look at guns in a different way. They are taking away the opportunity for the sport to blossom. How do we educate people that it is a sport if they cannot watch it?"
David Penn, secretary of the British Shooting Sports Council, said: "There is no link between Olympic-level shooting and crime. It's like saying that a thief would use a Formula One car as a getaway car."
Christopher Graffius, of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, said: "The Olympics represent the international peak of safe and responsible shooting. Children can see far worse on their TV screens and interact with far worse on their computers."
Many in the sport wanted the 2012 event staged at the national centre in Bisley, Surrey, so it would leave a legacy in the form of new rifle ranges. Britain's pistol shooters complain they are at a disadvantage because gun laws since the Dunblane massacre mean they have to train abroad.
Olympic shooters say theirs is a highly skilled disciplined and regulated sport, and reject any notion that it encourages gun crime.
But Danny Bryan, founder of Communities Against Gun and Knife Crime said: "I agree with Boris. It is good kids should enjoy the Games but there's no way we should glorify guns."
One in eight London schoolchildren will get a free ticket to the Games under Ticketshare. The seats are funded from a

lordofthereef · Aug 27, 2011

batgeek said:
exactly why all hope for Britain is lost. i guess they can't watch fencing also. wouldn't want sword fights breaking out all over Great Britain.

Children banned from shooting events in 2012 ticket giveaway | News

You know, I don't know how I feel about this. What I am about to say is sort of off-topic in terms of the overall discussion, but on topic based on this specific post.

It has been shown that young children, still in their single digits in terms of years of age, have a hard time distinguishing when violence is ok and when it is not. They see violence on TV, often starting out as an argument, and perhaps escalating to a "cool" knife battle, gun battle, house exploding battle, (insert neat battle scene here) and they don't have a concept over why mommy and daddy don't erupt into a battle sequence right after an argument (which may be as as simple as voices being raised in frustration). In other words, shooting, killing, and other acts of violence may be perceived as an acceptable means of conflict resolution in any and all situations.

I grew up watching all this stuff, and shooting heads off of zombis, and nazis, and sometimes even zombie nazis, and have never had a desire to take out an frustration on anyone else, but that doesn't mean these these false connections aren't made.

In short, it's clear that guns are more of a problem in the hands of youths today than they were before. Is it media? I am not sure, but that seems to be the scapegoat we are using right now. So what do we do? Censor the media? Ban kids from gun related events? It seems people are trying a mix of both and seeing what sticks.

330D · Aug 27, 2011

lordofthereef said:
In short, it's clear that guns are more of a problem in the hands of youths today than they were before. Is it media? I am not sure, but that seems to be the scapegoat we are using right now. So what do we do? Censor the media? Ban kids from gun related events? It seems people are trying a mix of both and seeing what sticks.

We don't sensationalize them like the media does. They are tools. Treat them as such. It used to be that most everyone had or had access to guns. Back then it was not such a big deal. Children were taught young to respect and appreciate them for what they were. IMO the media plays such a huge role in making the issue what it is and has become.

I think the opposite is true with regard to not letting kids be around them. Teach children about guns and how to use them, and submerse them in the correct way to handle them. Take them off the pedestal they are on and make kids familiar with them and their place in our society.

And most of all, interact with kids. There is not enough of it. Parents are letting television raise their children. Not good.

JRich8389 · Aug 27, 2011

^^^ I completely agree with 330D. So many problems can be solved by simply teaching kids the proper uses/situations. Not too get off topic but teen pregnancy is one major one I have a real issue with.

As for the UK, I have a bunch of friends that live in the UK and they all wish that their fire arms laws were changed. I don't know how accurate this is but one of my friends told me that your average everyday cop doesn't even have a side arm, is this true? He said you have to be something of the equivalent of a state trooper to have one?

I hope this is false, you cannot stop a riot with a baton. Even just riot control weapons...rubber bullets, sandbags...something to make them think twice about their choices.

On the other side though, these sort of things don't happen quite as often in the UK either, the only reason its gotten so bad is because of that same fact.

noah way · Aug 27, 2011

330D said:
We don't sensationalize them like the media does.

Straight out of Michael Moore. Canada has more guns per person but only a fraction of gun violence. The difference? Canadian society is NOT driven by fear.

330D said:
They are tools. Treat them as such.

Tools for killing. Period.

But leaving that aside, the underlying assumption is that *everyone* is mentally competent. That's a highly optimistic statement in a fear-driven society with rapidly declining education levels.

JRich8389 · Aug 27, 2011

noah way said:
Straight out of Michael Moore. Canada has more guns per person but only a fraction of gun violence. The difference? Canadian society is NOT driven by fear.

Tools for killing. Period.

But leaving that aside, the underlying assumption is that *everyone* is mentally competent. That's a highly optimistic statement in a fear-driven society with rapidly declining education levels.

IQ test during your 5 day waiting period?

Its simply too easy to get a hold of a gun in the US. I am no way against our gun laws but my neighbor could probably take out half the our town with his arsenal, I think he honestly believes a Zombie Apocalypse is coming....but the insane part is they aren't little .38 specials or something like that. He's got automatic weapons, what the hell would you use that for in suburbia?

I'll stick to my philosophy that we need to go back to sword and shield days

Melt down all the guns and ammunition and make some battle axes.

keale18 · Aug 28, 2011

JRich8389 said:
IQ test during your 5 day waiting period?

Its simply too easy to get a hold of a gun in the US. I am no way against our gun laws but my neighbor could probably take out half the our town with his arsenal, I think he honestly believes a Zombie Apocalypse is coming....but the insane part is they aren't little .38 specials or something like that. He's got automatic weapons, what the hell would you use that for in suburbia?

I'll stick to my philosophy that we need to go back to sword and shield days Melt down all the guns and ammunition and make some battle axes.

That would be kinda cool....like road warrior cool

lordofthereef · Aug 28, 2011

330D said:
We don't sensationalize them like the media does. They are tools. Treat them as such. It used to be that most everyone had or had access to guns. Back then it was not such a big deal. Children were taught young to respect and appreciate them for what they were. IMO the media plays such a huge role in making the issue what it is and has become.

I think the opposite is true with regard to not letting kids be around them. Teach children about guns and how to use them, and submerse them in the correct way to handle them. Take them off the pedestal they are on and make kids familiar with them and their place in our society.

And most of all, interact with kids. There is not enough of it. Parents are letting television raise their children. Not good.

The problem is that all of this isn't happening. People are raising their kids differently than they were 30+ years ago. Regardless of how you sensationalize anything, the media is still there. We can hope and wish that parents be responsible with what movies/shows they allow their kids to watch, but all it would be is hoping and wishing. My kid can be very responsible, but if he gets shot in the face at school by Timmy who didn't get "the talk" about firearms that he should have had, I could care less that most people are responsible with their firearms.

Frankly I don't see banning kids from a gun show as any different or worse than banning kids from a restaurant (which was discussed at decent length in another thread here). If one is ok to have happen, so should be the other.

Slug · Aug 28, 2011

JRich8389 said:
As for the UK, I have a bunch of friends that live in the UK and they all wish that their fire arms laws were changed. I don't know how accurate this

All I can say is that no UK citizens that I know want the law on firearms relaxed.

one of my friends told me that your average everyday cop doesn't even have a side arm, is this true?

UK police are unarmed, yes.

He said you have to be something of the equivalent of a state trooper to have one?

Firearms are only carried by specialist Armed Response Units or other trained officers such as those currently on duty at all UK airports handling international flights.

I hope this is false, you cannot stop a riot with a baton.

That depends on the baton. If it's 3ft long and coming at you on the back of a horse it can be pretty effective.

On the other side though, these sort of things don't happen quite as often in the UK either

Precisely. The situation is totally different here. Guns are hard to come by, socially unacceptable and very few criminals use them. If the police felt a need to be armed I'm sure they'd be screaming for it, but the fact of the matter is that they don't.

JRich8389 · Aug 29, 2011

Slug,

I'm with you all of your points but I'm currently on Camp Leatherneck, a US base attached to Camp Bastion, a British base. All the Brits that work in my compound don't even carry firearms. The Armed Forces don't carry arms....not computing with me. That is a generalization of course, plenty of Brits have firearms but not all of them. EVERY Marine is REQUIRED to have his firearm on him/herself at ALL times, it just makes sense...

Yes, this is one of the largest bases in Afghanistan but its Afghanistan none the less. I wouldn't walk outside to piss w/o my M16 given the choice.

OutofDate1980 · Aug 29, 2011

JRich8389 said:
... Yes, this is one of the largest bases in Afghanistan but its Afghanistan none the less. I wouldn't walk outside to piss w/o my M16 given the choice.

It is my understanding that Afghanistan is an Armed Society, if so, is it your opinion it is a Polite Society ?

330D · Aug 29, 2011

noah way said:
Straight out of Michael Moore. Canada has more guns per person but only a fraction of gun violence. The difference? Canadian society is NOT driven by fear.

Tools for killing. Period.

But leaving that aside, the underlying assumption is that *everyone* is mentally competent. That's a highly optimistic statement in a fear-driven society with rapidly declining education levels.

I can't stand that sensationalist moron. He thrives on building fear. I would have to disagree that what I said in any way relates to him in the context I posted it, but if that is what you get from it, so be it. I am not a "gun nut." I am however, in favor of the right to keep and bear arms. There is no easy solution to the problems we face by allowing them in our society. My only point in this whole argument is this; Why do we punish responsible gun owners, when the majority of crimes with firearms are committed by stolen or otherwise illegal guns?

batgeek · Aug 29, 2011

Why do we punish responsible gun owners, when the majority of crimes with firearms are committed by criminals?

fixed.

mike114 · Aug 30, 2011

In Texas, CCW holders are allowed to carry their concealed weapons in their cars in school parking lots and and can carry while on sidewalks and walkways around schools.

Feel free to cite the numerous examples that must exist of licensed gun owners firing their weapons on school grounds.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/InternetForms/Forms/CHL-16.pdf
PC 46.03 & PC 46.035

And now to make things even worse, beginning on thursday, we will be able to carry our weapons in our vehicles onto our employers parking lots regardless of their rules. Oh the carnage that will ensue.

Frisco · Aug 30, 2011

mike114 said:
In Texas, CCW holders are allowed to carry their concealed weapons in their cars in school parking lots and and can carry while on sidewalks and walkways around schools.

Feel free to cite the numerous examples that must exist of licensed gun owners firing their weapons on school grounds.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/InternetForms/Forms/CHL-16.pdf
PC 46.03 & PC 46.035

Licensed, permit holding gun carriers aren't the ones involved in the mayhem out there to any degree that would be an argument against those permits being issued.

There was one lady in our permit class that right away came out and said that she was only there to "research the permit process" and was against concealed carry.

A lot of the guys in that class became uneasy, but that wore off as the lectures and demonstrations by the instructors ensued. By the time we finished class and were headed in our little caravan out to the range for competency evaluation, she'd literally changed her mind about it, although she did say that she'd never get finger printed, etc and apply for a permit for herself because "I just don't like guns."

I wish more who were against the permits and concealed carry in general would at least read the criteria for the state they live in to get such a permit. The class and training does cost a couple hundred dollars, but I wish they'd take those classes, too.

They are an eye opener as to what mindset a person has to maintain as they carry a deadly weapon around. Getting that permit, taking that training, actually makes a person much less confrontational in a given situation than if they were not carrying. That is at the center of the classroom lectures; that mindset. And that is what impressed that lady.

mike114 · Aug 30, 2011

Frisco, I posted that because at least one of the posters claims that there is absolutely no reason for ever carrying on school grounds due to the probability of violence.

"To be a little more clear, I am personally advocating that there should always be places where one should not be allowed to carry a weapon. Someone mentioned schools, and that is just scarey to me. I just don't see any situation where a member of the general public should ever need to bring a weapon onto campus."

Many Texans carry their weapons to schools everyday and I have never heard any stories of CCW holders opening fire.

Frisco · Aug 30, 2011

Yeah I was agreeing with you, Mike.

I should have started off saying that.. I think that my just putting your quote in there made it appear different, but I was basically backing up what your quote says, going by my experience (I only just got my permit this past May).

Slug · Sep 3, 2011

JRich8389 said:
All the Brits that work in my compound don't even carry firearms. The Armed Forces don't carry arms....not computing with me. That is a generalization of course, plenty of Brits have firearms but not all of them.

Weapons aren't carried afaik when off-duty. I'm not sure that non-combatants e.g. medics, admin personel etc even carry sidearms when on-base. I'll ask an RAF buddy who's done a couple of tours in the 'Stan; he's a SAC working in re-supply.

EVERY Marine is REQUIRED to have his firearm on him/herself at ALL times, it just makes sense...

Different forces have different regulations, I guess.

dontpanicbobby · Dec 1, 2019

USAF Pilots have multi-milliion dollar weapons plus a Pistol. Their guards have Rifles, Pistols, Shotguns and LAW missles.
Hard to carry but useful.
Add a Canine service member to mimic my experience.
I always wondered what to fire first?

An armed society is a polite society

Android Expert

Android Expert

Android Expert

Android Expert

From My Cold Dead Hands

Member

Android Enthusiast

Member

Member

Android Expert

Check six!

Member

Android Expert

From My Cold Dead Hands

Well-Known Member

=Luceat Lux Vestra=

Well-Known Member

=Luceat Lux Vestra=

Check six!

100% That Guy

BEST TECH IN 2023

Smartphones

Best Android Phones

Upcoming

Best iPhones

Upcoming

Tablets

Best Tablets

Upcoming

Laptops

Best Laptops

Upcoming

Televisions

Best TVs

Upcoming

Game Consoles

Best Game Consoles

Upcoming

Wearables

Best Wearables

Upcoming

Smart Home

Smart Home Tech

Upcoming

Similar threads