BF2S Forums Gun Control: Omaha and Colorado

No one is advocating loosening gun restrictions and nothing like the vid above has ever happened in any state where concealed weapons are legal by certification.  It's a creative commercial and that's it.  People who take the necessary training and carry a weapon are held to a high standard when they choose to use deadly force.  They don't fire indiscriminately as you describe.

Last edited by Stingray24 (2007-12-09 14:43:17)

looks to me youd be pretty fucked if you didnt have a gun in a situation like that.

djphetal wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

No one is advocating loosening gun restrictions and nothing like the vid above has ever happened in any state where concealed weapons are legal by certification.  It's a creative commercial and that's it.  People who take the necessary training and carry a weapon are held to a high standard when they choose to use deadly force.  They don't fire indiscriminately as you describe.

I know what you're saying, and I know people don't fire indiscriminately... but what I'm trying to paint is a hypothetical picture of what could be if guns were "given to these victims to protect themselves" as some have said.

So if people don't just fire indiscriminately then whats the problem?  In a situation like in that mall anyone who was armed would zero in on the obvious enemy: the crazed person running around w/ an AK, and might be able to bring the situation to an end.  I would say that the only real danger would be innocents being caught in the cross fire.  It seems to me that many people who choose to carry a concealed weapon are Law enforcement, military or at least have spent quite a bit of time at the firing range and know how to handle their weapon.

djphetal wrote:

now apply that to the mall in omaha. If everyone had guns there, you KNOW that many of the people would whip out their guns in confusion, and as soon as people started shooting, the confusion would grip people and all hell would break loose.
Certainly you all have TK'ed someone in a game before? Imagine a packed firefight with no team indication... no nametags, no uniforms... The stress and chaos would simply lead to far, far more people dying.

I am absolutely astounded that some people can honestly believe that if everyone had guns, there would be less gun crime.

Since I live in a gun-toting state, I can say I honestly don't try to piss anyone off in anyway...because you don't know who's packing and who's crazy.  With that being said, I also agree it's hard to believe crime would indeed drop...but here's some stats:

Per 100,000 pop:
-Aggravated assault fell from 429.3 to 370
-Robberies went down from 179.8 to 146.8
-Rape down from 45.5 to 38.1
-Murders down from 9 to 6.1

Of course, I think its possible they only listed the ones that went down...not up.  But those are the big 4 right?
http://www.ncpa.org/pi/crime/pd101300a.html

Last edited by Pug (2007-12-11 09:19:58)

CameronPoe wrote:

I think we need guns to enforce a limit on the number of fucking gun law threads on this forum.

...pot, kettle, israel, palestine.

djphetal wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

No one is advocating loosening gun restrictions and nothing like the vid above has ever happened in any state where concealed weapons are legal by certification.  It's a creative commercial and that's it.  People who take the necessary training and carry a weapon are held to a high standard when they choose to use deadly force.  They don't fire indiscriminately as you describe.

I know what you're saying, and I know people don't fire indiscriminately... but what I'm trying to paint is a hypothetical picture of what could be if guns were "given to these victims to protect themselves" as some have said.

Your hypothetical situation has and does exist daily in many towns across the country where people pack.  My brother in Arizona has gone grocery shopping with his 1911 on his hip.  It's not that everyone is packing 24/7, but most who do have a conceal carry permit DO pack wherever they go because that's the purpose for it and it's a pride they have.  I've lived in Utah and have seen people who carry there (concealed, but you can sometimes see them "printing" through their clothes rather conspicuously).  And like the occasion this week of the church lady who stepped up, there have been other occasions where concealed or open carriers of handguns have intervened.  While not a big news item from this country's gun scared media, they do happen.

And for what it's worth, your hypothetical as portrayed in that xbox ad (which is hilarious) is not realistic.  If everyone in that area were indeed carrying firearms and there was a deranged gun man who opened fire, those carrying guns would not all start firing away randomly like you may think.  I wouldn't doubt that AFTER they've taken cover and have secured themselves and any loved ones they may be with, they'd be surveying the shooting to make certain what's happening is what's happening (and not some kid with a toy, or a cop shooting a bad guy, etc).  I'd even guess that some would be too scared or too unsure of what to do in a chaotic situation like that.  But some would definitely shoot..and in doing so, hopefully they'd remember their responsibility to know what they're shooting at and know what is behind what they're shooting at being responsible for every bullet they shoot.  Now since we don't have any citations of such an occurrence I have to simply hope this plays out but in being honest with myself, I'm sure there's also some idiots who carry concealed firearms who'd foolishly just shoot indiscriminately at the gunman not paying attention to what's behind the badguy. 

Does that sound reasonable?

Stingray24 wrote:

No one is advocating loosening gun restrictions and nothing like the vid above has ever happened in any state where concealed weapons are legal by certification.  It's a creative commercial and that's it.  People who take the necessary training and carry a weapon are held to a high standard when they choose to use deadly force.  They don't fire indiscriminately as you describe.

Judge, Jury and Executioner. Sorry, but I'm glad I live in Australia.

IRONCHEF wrote:

I'm sure there's also some idiots who carry concealed firearms who'd foolishly just shoot indiscriminately at the gunman not paying attention to what's behind the badguy. 

Does that sound reasonable?

Can anyone who has done some sort of first aid course raise their hand. Now can anyone who has been involved in administering this first aid in a serious situation leave their hands up. Those with their hands up will likely know that you don't remember every little detail of what you have to do in the situation. You are most likely running on adrenalin. You will overlook certain things. You don't do this every day, it's not second nature. To a paramedic, a professional, it is second nature.

Joe Citizen isn't trained for these situations, where the use of a weapon may be required, like the police are trained. Much like their first aid buddies, they will act on adrenalin, they will sometimes forget their responsibilities when using the weapon. That will put other lives at risk.

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

looks to me youd be pretty fucked if you didnt have a gun in a situation like that.

_EDIT:QFE


Gun Control:

• 1. All guns are always loaded. Even if they are not, treat them as if they are.
• 2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy. (For those who insist that this particular gun is unloaded, see Rule 1.)
• 3. Keep your finger straight and off the trigger till your sights are on the target. This is the Golden Rule. Its violation is directly responsible for about 60 percent of inadvertent discharges.
• 4. Identify your target, and what is behind it. Never shoot at anything that you have not positively identified.

Last edited by (T)eflon(S)hadow (2007-12-12 09:20:20)

(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

looks to me youd be pretty fucked if you didnt have a gun in a situation like that.

_EDIT:QFE


Gun Control:

• 1. All guns are always loaded. Even if they are not, treat them as if they are.
• 2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy. (For those who insist that this particular gun is unloaded, see Rule 1.)
• 3. Keep your finger straight and off the trigger till your sights are on the target. This is the Golden Rule. Its violation is directly responsible for about 60 percent of inadvertent discharges.
• 4. Identify your target, and what is behind it. Never shoot at anything that you have not positively identified.

word.

Mrs. Feinstein, ye has ye finger on the trigger... very bad Gun Control!

She does have a concealed weapons permit and defends her right to have one.
She also said this about guns, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out-right ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here." CBS-TV's "60 Minutes", February 5, 1995 Quite a defender of the constitution, eh?

...and this, "Banning guns addresses a fundamental right
of all Americans to feel safe."

How, may I ask, would the federal government's knowledge of who owns firearms and what kind they own address crime?  Registration only lets the government keep tabs on who legally owns guns.  Now, why would they need to know that?

Ken,
Registration of firearms serves one purpose only...confiscation.  It's unconstitutional and should be abolished..like it was in Australia, Germany (I think) and some other country in Europe.

ENforcing gun crimes, not gun ownership laws is the answer.  FOcusing on laws that only limit legal gun owners needs to end.  SUre, make ownership require training in use, handling, and storage to make responsible owners, but the major focus should be on removing illegal gun trade/selling.  Parking lot sales at gun shows, imported guns over state and international borders are two good places to start locking it down.  Allowing conceal permits in California would be nice too.