BF2S Forums Shooting in St. Louis.

You don't have to carry to feel safe.  The VAST majority of Americans don't.  Most people play the averages and win.  Parker, apparently, doesn't rely on averages. 

Carrying a firearm is like carrying life insurance--you never want to have to use it, but you (and/or your family) will be glad you had it, if you do need it.

i have argued this point into the ground, so what it breaks down too is this:

the situation in the USA regarding firearms is unacceptable. however, i have yet to hear a plan that would reduce the numbers, that would succeed....period.
until then, my 1911 keeps my hip warm.
and as ive stated numerous times, if there was someone there like me, things might have turned out much differently. hell, look what that women did in that church when she had to put that guy down.


so, in no way do i think that what is happening is ok, but here we are, either way. it is sad that i need to carry a handgun to feel safe in my city.....thats life. but you know what? i thought of what i would have done if i had been there and DIDNT have a gun.......i feel sorry for the people that had to endure such brutality, and if i have ANY say in it, that shit will not happen on my watch. im still happy i have that right.

CameronPoe wrote:

Holy shit. The mayor?

I second that one

I feel ro the cops and innocents though

Let's hope he wasn't an assassin, he has three names.

Stingray24 wrote:

Var egg wrote:

RAMOS wrote:

You don't have to carry to feel safe.  The VAST majority of Americans don't.  Most people play the averages and win.  Parker, apparently, doesn't rely on averages. 

Carrying a firearm is like carrying life insurance--you never want to have to use it, but you (and/or your family) will be glad you had it, if you do need it.

Let me rephrase then ... you should not need to carry to feel safe ...

In most cities in the US, you don't have to carry to feel safe, Var egg.  However, there are areas that I would want to have the option to protect myself.  I won't wait for the police to protect me.  They rarely get there in time and are just the mop up crew 99% of the time.  I'm fortunate to live in a medium size community with very little violent crime and I have never felt unsafe.  However, if I did not feel safe in the future, as a law abiding citizen, I should have the right to protect myself.  The life insurance example is actually a good analogy.  I would never want to have to use my weapon to defend myself, but when it comes down to me or the other guy, I'm taking him out.

I can fully appreciate that Stingray, what bothers me is that you guys take is so lightly just gunning down another man if you feel he is a threat ...

Stingray24 wrote:

I'm sure we all agree that someone pointing and/or shooting a weapon at unarmed citizens would constitute a threat to be eliminated by an armed citizen.

You sure place a lot of faith in the judgment of ordinary citizens in an extraordinary situation.

apollo_fi wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

I'm sure we all agree that someone pointing and/or shooting a weapon at unarmed citizens would constitute a threat to be eliminated by an armed citizen.

You sure place a lot of faith in the judgment of ordinary citizens in an extraordinary situation.

Making the choice to carry a weapon requires a considerable process to get the permit (some of us in California can't even get one if we tried!).  It also follows some strict guidelines and obvious pre-qualifications in some states..like proving you're not an ordinary citizen who'll brandish their gun whenever they get cut off in traffic.  To the contrary, most concealed carriers I've heard of (and i frequent forums full of them) are more conservitive with their firearms in the face of danger to the point of backing away from a threat rather than standing up to one...because they understand the choice it is to take a life.

My 70 year old mother who lives in Montana carries her Glock 22 usually in a concealed holster or in her purse.  The training she went through was mind boggling and I was actually scared of the idea that my mom was packin' heat.  But after some discussion, I learned that her mentality (and later the mentality of others who likewise carry) is quite responsible as far as the when's, who's, and why's of engaging someone with your gun away from home.

This is in HIGH contrast with the shitbag loser who packs whatever gun 50 cent says is the bestest who has nothing to lose...who has no respect for the firearm, who has no value towards life....all things endowed upon a lawful gun carrier for the most part.

And as evidence, I'd be happy to see if ANYONE can find a situation where an "ordinary" concealed weapon carrier made a bad choice with the firearm and killed unnecessarily.  From what I've seen (and yes, I am always on the lookout), it simply doesn't exist.  And further, there's plenty of situations where a lawful gun carrying citizen has intervened properly to a threat.

Gun carriers are usually quite well trained and shoot frequently...so when the 'extraordinary' situation arises, it's not that extraordinary...  I know someone who has shot a home invader, killed them, and was calm as can be with his first taking of life.  He cites basic firearms training and simple planning steps.

Last edited by IRONCHEF (2008-02-08 13:49:53)

People who don't know how to use a gun well and safely are the ones who do it rapper gangsta style, aka the ones who hold it sideways despite the fact the sights were put on the top.

Many people think that nations with more firearms will have more murder and that banning firearms will reduce murder and other violence. This canard does not comport, however, with criminological research in the U.S. or elsewhere.

An extensive study that one of us (Kates) recently published with Canadian criminologist Gary Mauser confirms the negative results of two large-scale international studies over the past 15 years. ("Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide: A Review of International Evidence," Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, vol. 30, pages 651-694.)

These studies compared data from a large number of nations around the world. There were no instances of nations with high gun ownership having higher murder rates than nations with low gun ownership. If anything it was the reverse, for reasons discussed below.

For example, though Norway has far and away the highest firearm ownership per capita in Western Europe, it nevertheless has the lowest murder rate. Other nations with high firearms ownership and comparably low murder rates include Denmark, Greece, Switzerland, Germany and Austria. Holland has a 50 percent higher murder rate despite having the lowest rate of firearm ownership in Europe. And Luxembourg, despite its total handgun ban, has a murder rate that is nine times higher than countries such as Norway and Austria.

It turns out that in nations where guns are less available, criminals manage to get them anyway. After decades of ever-stricter gun controls, England banned handguns and confiscated them from all permit holders in 1997. Yet by 2000, England had the industrialized world's highest violent crime rate -- twice that of the U.S. Despite the confiscation of law-abiding Englishmen's handguns, a 2002 report of England's National Crime Intelligence Service lamented that while "Britain has some of the strictest gun laws in the world, [i]t appears that anyone who wishes to obtain a firearm [illegally] will have little difficulty in doing so."

In the rare case in which gun bans work, murderers use other weapons. Eight decades of police-state enforcement of handgun prohibition have kept Russian gun ownership low, resulting in few gun murders. Yet Russia's murder rates have long been four times higher than those in the U.S. and 20 times higher than rates in countries such as Norway. Former Soviet nations like Lithuania also ban handguns and severely restrict other guns, yet have 10-15 times higher murder rates than European nations with much higher gun ownership.

logitech487 wrote:

These studies compared data from a large number of nations around the world. There were no instances of nations with high gun ownership having higher murder rates than nations with low gun ownership. If anything it was the reverse, for reasons discussed below.

Erm.. except for the USA which obviously has a large firearms ownership and very high homicide rate. Plus

logitech487 wrote:

For example, though Norway has far and away the highest firearm ownership per capita in Western Europe, it nevertheless has the lowest murder rate. Other nations with high firearms ownership and comparably low murder rates include Denmark, Greece, Switzerland, Germany and Austria. Holland has a 50 percent higher murder rate despite having the lowest rate of firearm ownership in Europe. And Luxembourg, despite its total handgun ban, has a murder rate that is nine times higher than countries such as Norway and Austria.

It turns out that in nations where guns are less available, criminals manage to get them anyway. After decades of ever-stricter gun controls, England banned handguns and confiscated them from all permit holders in 1997. Yet by 2000, England had the industrialized world's highest violent crime rate -- twice that of the U.S. Despite the confiscation of law-abiding Englishmen's handguns, a 2002 report of England's National Crime Intelligence Service lamented that while "Britain has some of the strictest gun laws in the world, [i]t appears that anyone who wishes to obtain a firearm [illegally] will have little difficulty in doing so."

First little problem is that we have an odd definition of violent crime, the majority of violent crime in the UK involves no injury to the victim AT ALL. we have lots of 'violent' crime despite having not much Violent crime. Secondly our homicide rate is 2.5 times lowers than that of the US. UK gun crime is a tiny fraction of US gun crime.

logitech487 wrote:

In the rare case in which gun bans work, murderers use other weapons. Eight decades of police-state enforcement of handgun prohibition have kept Russian gun ownership low, resulting in few gun murders. Yet Russia's murder rates have long been four times higher than those in the U.S. and 20 times higher than rates in countries such as Norway. Former Soviet nations like Lithuania also ban handguns and severely restrict other guns, yet have 10-15 times higher murder rates than European nations with much higher gun ownership.

Yes, after the collapse of the Soviet Union and a massive rise in the mafia, Russia makes for a sensible comparison. Throw such wonderous countries as Columbia, El Salvador, Iraq, etc. into the bag and spot the 'lots of guns, lots of death' trend.
Washington DC has come top in a poll of the world's murder capitals.

A survey conducted by the UK Home Office of 20 European and nine North American cities put the US capital way out in front with a murder rate of 69.3 per 100,000 population.

That suggests Washington is about 170 times more dangerous than the Belgian capital, Brussels, which came bottom with 0.4 murders per 100,000. Washington was a long way ahead of the second most murderous city, Philadelphia, which had a rate of 27.4. The nine American cities in the survey all came in the top 12 of the poll. San Diego had the lowest rate with 8 homicides per 100,000. Only three European cities came out worse.

Moscow, contending with the rise of the Russian mafia after the collapse of the Soviet Union, was the most dangerous European city in the survey with 18.1 killings per 100,000. Helsinki and Lisbon also ranked highly. London came fifth from bottom with an average of 2.1 cases of murder, infanticide or manslaughter per 100,000. Belfast was the most dangerous UK city in the survey with a death rate of 4.4. Edinburgh's figure was 2.4.

Well, seems to be working then.

messfeeder wrote:

Varegg wrote:

I can fully appreciate that Stingray, what bothers me is that you guys take is so lightly just gunning down another man if you feel he is a threat ...

I must ask you, what would you do if you happened to be carrying a weapon and someone else pointed a gun in your face? Nobody takes it lightly to take another person's life unless they are mentally unstable. However, each person has a right to defend himself. No, it would not be easy to squeeze that trigger, but it may be necessary.

I'm happy to say i live in a country where this isn't a problem, we don't feel or have the need to carry in any situation at all, no fear of being gunned down at the mall or be afraid of our children biting a bullet at school ... and it's not only because we have a more strict gun control, it is the society as a whole.

I read somewhat that the basic fear is when those with little or no training carry and think to highly of their skills with firearms, very few are actually able to shoot well under pressure and the situation when you could need a gun is always highly stressful.

Parker wrote:

heres the difference.
i have training....i can say with confidence that i can shoot better than 98% of you could ever dream of.


no, not every civilian has the same training that i do, but im responsible, and if need be i can defend myself and those around me.


Ironchef put it perfectly.......this is just my smart ass version.

Would be sehr nice doing some rounds with you Parker at the range - from the millitary i have both instructed in small arms and machine guns

PureFodder wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

It is also interesting to note that states with lax gun-laws usually have lower crime rates.

That's because gun laws tend to be reactionary to existing problems, not the cause of them.

Somewhat true.  You can look at DC for a different prospective.  Their murder rates have more than doubled since they instituted a ban on handguns and required all other firearms to be disassembled and locked up.  Florida's violent crime rates have fallen more than the national avg. since they instituted CCW.  Many states that started allowing CCW have seen their violent crime rates drop.  Now, I am not going to say that this is neccessarily the cause, but there is a noticeable correlation between lax gun-laws and lower crime rates, along with a trend that lax-gun laws being passed also correlates with reductions in violent crime.  We could also look at the FBI's and CDC's findings that the 22,000+ gun laws in the US do little-to-nothing to stop violent crime.