My gun could have saved my husband

[GREENBACK]

There might be a gun/cell phone combo coming soon, then someone answers the phone, shoots themselves in the head, and that idea gets squashed.

LOL

My issue with guns is that while a vast majority of gun owners are probably law abiding citizens, there are a significant number of people which have them and fill up the news reel in every city every night.

My position is guns do not need to be eliminated (eliminating them is an option I would favor, but not the only option), a better step would be to restrict and regulate their sales and distribution (much more than they are restricted now). For example no need for gun shows (these make the news way too often) and I am sure there are other restrictions (ammunition, waiting periods) which can also be improved and enforced better.

The ideas you are presenting seem to be logical on the surface but the problem is the criminal element doesn't give a damn about laws. If you eliminate gun shows you only push things underground . Those that want an illegal item won't go away because it's no longer openly available.

There is a mountain of laws in place to enforce gun laws. Gun laws mostly work against law abiding people. If you make it illegal to manufacture firearms they will be illegaly imported the way drugs are. They are already "restricted" to law abiding citizens( the federal form you fill out) who don't generally commit gun crimes. Most guns used in the majority of criminal acts are obtained illegally and that will continue to be the case. Remeber alcohol prohibition? that gave us the mob as we know it. Drugs? they are completely illegal but there's no shortage of that around. Make guns illegal...only the criminals will have them. Might give AL-Quida something else illegal to funnel onto american streets.

[jIM_Ohio]

The ideas you are presenting seem to be logical on the surface but the problem is the criminal element doesn't give a damn about laws. If you eliminate gun shows you only push things underground . Those that want an illegal item won't go away because it's no longer openly available.

There is a mountain of laws in place to enforce gun laws. Gun laws mostly work against law abiding people. If you make it illegal to manufacture firearms they will be illegaly imported the way drugs are. They are already "restricted" to law abiding citizens( the federal form you fill out) who don't generally commit gun crimes. Most guns used in the majority of criminal acts are obtained illegally and that will continue to be the case. Remeber alcohol prohibition? that gave us the mob as we know it. Drugs? they are completely illegal but there's no shortage of that around. Make guns illegal...only the criminals will have them. Might give AL-Quida something else illegal to funnel onto american streets.

Ahh, but right now if you have a gun you are not breaking the law... so its tough to tell good guys from bad guys, because both can carry guns.

If carrying a gun was illegal or owning one/possessing one was illegal, it is easier to identify the criminal element.

Pushing something "deeper underground" or giving al quada another way to "attack" us is not a reason to do or not to do something.

If something eliminates deaths, it needs to be considered, whether it was given as a right or not.

For example, if it was made legal to own and use a gun on your private property only, that is OK, but using a gun on public property or another person's property was illegal- that is a good step (to me) because you can "bear arms", but cannot do it anywhere around me.

[GREENBACK]

Jim,

I choose to carry a gun because I choose to provide for my own personal safety. Criminals will carry and use their guns regardless of any laws in place. If they can be certain you are unarmed you're that much easier to prey upon. Thank god for the second ammendment that allows me to protect myself.

You only need look no further in your area than "Over The Rhine". I'm pretty sure the people shot there daily and the ones doing the shooting aren't too concerned about gun laws. If I was a buisness owner in this area or someone frequenting this area for legitimate purposes after dark, I would certainly wish to be armed.

If you think people around you aren't armed(illegally) even with some little stupid sign outside you're very mistaken. Again, the laws you propose have no effect on those they intend to target. Would you disarm the cops? They carry guns because they know that, dispite a book full of gun laws, the majority of hardened and violent criminals don't care what's legal or illegal.

I'm not trying to change your mind on gun laws and doubt that I could. I do know a good deal about laws and the criminal element though, and can tell you that more laws and restrictions will do nothing to stop violence.

I think it is important that we don't turn guns into the next big illegal item. We have little control over things that criminals really want. We have lost the war on drugs whether anyone wants to admit it or not. We will create a whole new criminal enterprise with a prohibition on firearms. More than just my opinion.

[swanson719]

While I definitely support CCW's and such, I also think it appropriate to carry OC pepper spray if you're going to carry concealed. There are situations where the threat of force such as showing a weapon can be a deterrent, but that can also quickly devolve into something worse. Spraying someone with a good concentration of OC often will do the trick without having any lasting affect in most cases, and what affect there is is not comparable to a gun shot wound. It also shields you from the criminal filing attempted murder charges in todays society of sue everyone.

I have no problem shooting someone in self defense - but I think in fairness we ought to have the responsibility as gun owners to use the minimum force necessary to defend ourselves. Don't bring a knife to a gun fight, but on the other hand, a gun in a knife fight is a little over kill.

[GREENBACK]

a gun in a knife fight is a little over kill.

A gun in a knife fight isn't "overkill". Whether it's a knife, a brick, a bottle or something else, it qualifies as a deadly weapon depending on the perpetrators intent and how you can articulate that intent. Most law agencies have established that the reactionary distance for an edged weapon, such as a knife, is 21 feet! That basically means that you should be prepared to react with deadly force at that distance. Many have been killed or seriously injured that did not.

The disadvantage that you are at as a defender is that you're reacting to an aggressor. This gives that person a decided edge since they aren't concerned with the consequences of their actions and don't hesitate to make their move. A split second of indecision by you can cost you or others dearly.

In law enforcement there is something known as the "force continuum". This basically is a guide for police to meet force with force on an escalating scale. This is why you see cops with a belt full of accesories( OC, stun gun baton ,cuffs , flashlight and two fully loaded extra mags. The important part is to determine what stage you're at in using the required force. Many CCW carriers should study this carefully as they don't recieve nearly the training the police do in this. Remember, if you're carrying a gun it is always a gunfight. If someone disables you they very well may take your gun and it will certainly seem reasonable to have used your gun in that "knife fight".

[zakity]

So, you want to tell the good guys from the bad guys, make open carry legal everywhere. You will know who they are and you know that they are armed. Bad guys don't carry openly. They want to hide it. They don't want you to know that they are armed until they pull it out.

[swanson719]

Zakity,

Open carry being legal everywhere would be the equivalent of the old west. From the history books with that, it sure seems like both the good and the bad guys carried openly. Bad guys aren't going to walk around with a sawed off shotgun or an uzi in public because that's just asking to get arrested. If it was legal and commonplace, do you really think they wouldn't do it?

Greenback,

The military operates with the same principle, only calling it rules of engagement and use of force as opposed to "force continuum". The point I was trying to make is that people need to understand this concept and do what they can to abide by it. I may have chosen a poor example in the case of someone using a throwing knife at 21 feet. People need to be responsible to use lethal force as a last resort, and if they can resolve a situation with less than lethal means, it's for the best.

[Broken Arrow]

Hehe, and here I was hoping it wouldn't get too involved....

Well, all citizens who are legally allowed to carry will have a state-issued permit. So, if you must insist on having someone prove that they are one the "good guys", then you can ask to see their CCH/CCW ID.

I am personally against tighter restrictions of sales, but would like to see regulation in training if that makes any sense. In other words, I would not mind a federal mandate requiring all firearm owners to pass a NRA approved firearm safety course before they are allowed to purchase and own firearms and ammo.

However, once you are approved, I don't see the sense of tacking on, say, an extra 30 days, or any other restriction on sales to legal and qualified individuals. Please also remember that, despite what the news say, most bad guys don't walk into gun stores and buy these things. Rather, they go to some guy who knows some guy who sells this stuff from the back of his car. That or they use improvised weaponry. Therefore, restriction of sales beyond a meaningful point would only hinder people who are legal.

Separately, I agree with having a variety of tools for self defense. Of course, this is a vast subject. Vast! Suffice to say, I agree about not always resorting to a firearm if one can help it. It's lethal force, and less-than-lethal options, if at all possible, is always preferred.

But all that requires training, and that to me is the biggest thing. Even though I am pro-gun, pragmatically, firearms are not always the best option.... More importantly, you want to be able to assess a situation accurately, and apply the best solution possible. Maybe it will involve firearms, maybe not. Otherwise, what's the saying about hammers and nails?

There's a lot to talk about. A lot. And some stuff... after a certain point isn't easy to describe in text, and perhaps it's not entirely appropriate to do so anyway.

Either way, I hope that people will understand that legal firearm owners are not the problem, and therefore, restricting us isn't the answer.

[swanson719]

Broken Arrow,

Is it a state to state difference in the wait time for a weapon? In Missouri, you can buy a rifle on the spot so long as you don't have anything in NCIC saying otherwise. Hand gun sales you have to wait a couple of days.

What do you think about things like the Clinton Assualt Weapon Ban? To a strict interpretation of the 2nd Amd. it would seem this infringes on it. More to the point - criminals don't care if the ban is in place, so why allow them to have more powerful weapons than what we can buy? I went to my local gun shop a couple weeks ago with the intention of buying a DPMS AR-15, only to learn that they are back logged over a year, though I can buy all the parts and assemble my own if I choose. It would seem that these weapons, while not practical for hunting, would be the ideal in a self defense situation when properly used, yet they are exceedingly difficult to get a hold of by legal means.

[GREENBACK]

Zakity,

Greenback,

I may have chosen a poor example in the case of someone using a throwing knife at 21 feet. People need to be responsible to use lethal force as a last resort, and if they can resolve a situation with less than lethal means, it's for the best.

I did not mean a "throwing knife". A person at 21 feet with any edged weapon can charge you and be on top of you before you ever get your gun unholstered. This has been demonstrated in training scenarios time and time again against trained officers with a holster on their hip designed for a quick reaction. Imagine an untrained civilian with a less efficient means of carry. Not to dwell on this point to much but deadly force is just that....deadly force! Don't ever point a gun at someone you aren't fully prepared to kill. Less than lethal means are great and should be used when appropriate. A probolem occurs when you have someone attempting to stop an attacker using a baseball bat with pepper spray. This is where training would really help.

You mentioned military and police training as relying on the same principles(rules of engagement). Yes, thats exactly true particularly in terms of urban warfare. I too think that the average ccw holder should have as much of this type of training as possible. It is one thing to discuss this subject here and quite another thing to actually face a life and death situation without ever having prepared for it. The mental aspect is as important as the physical part. Many people are not aware of the things that happen to you mentally and physically when faced with the threat of death or serious bodily harm.

[Broken Arrow]

Is it a state to state difference in the wait time for a weapon? In Missouri, you can buy a rifle on the spot so long as you don't have anything in NCIC saying otherwise. Hand gun sales you have to wait a couple of days.

Yes, these types of matters are state-level, and they do vary from state to state.

What do you think about things like the Clinton Assualt Weapon Ban? To a strict interpretation of the 2nd Amd. it would seem this infringes on it.

To tell you the truth, I try not to get involved into the political aspect if I can help it.... That's partly because I'm only interested in the pragmatics of firearm carry and application. The other part is because, to be honest, I don't see eye to eye with a lot of my fellow pro-gun brethrens....

For example, my belief in mandating safety training? As you can imagine, not many pro-gun people are happy with my position on that. A lot of gun people have a libertarian view of having no regulations whatsoever. However, I believe that having NO regulation is actually not a good thing either. Imagine anybody being allowed to drive a car without the need for even basic driver's training. Why then, are people allowed to do exactly that with firearms? To me, limiting firearms on the basis of safety training isn't the same as limiting the firearm itself. You know, you still have the right to bear arms, but all that I am asking is that you know how to bear it without shooting your own foot by accident, or more importantly, mine.

To answer your question though, I've always thought that the limitations that the Clinton administration have tried to place on firearms are about as constructive as a dog chasing its own tail. I mean, why should it matter that legal citizens be limited to only 10 rounds? Is the 11th round so evil and dangerous that it must be banned on the federal level? Another favorite of mine is the bayonet. How much of a danger does a bayonet actually pose next to the rifle that it's being mounted on that, once again, requires intervention from the federal government?

On the other hand, I personally didn't mind that they wanted to make 10 rounds a cut off, or that they wanted to limit bayonets. That's because, pragmatically, 10 rounds per magazine is still plenty for me to work with, and since it's extremely unlikely that I'll find a situation where I will actually need a bayonet on a gun, I didn't miss that sort of thing either.

Still, the whole thing was just nonsensical to me, if not a farcical waste of time, energy, and tax dollars. I'm glad that those bans are no longer in place and, knock on wood, it will stay that way.

As for the AR situation, are you sure it's not a supply back log? I heard that fears of similar firearm bans under Obama has pushed gun people into a buying frenzy. Supply is scarce and prices have shot through the roof. Recession? What recession? Seriously, I know this guy at work who bought 6 additional AR uppers, with the intention of selling 5 of them for a profit. And he just might pull it off!

[swanson719]

It is a supply back log. I've convinced my DW to let me buy one, but she said not until our EF is done unless they ban them again. To which I responded that it will be too late when they ban them. Oh well. There is always a sunset clause.

I'm with you on the safety training. A gun is more dangerous than a car, and like you said, you dont have unlicensed drivers. It doesn't need to be a rigorous program either. Simply a pragmatic 25 question Q and A, and then a 15 minute practical exam on an indoor range. We teach kids not to run with scissors, so we also need to teach people not to flag people with guns. Common sense stuff, but common sense isn't so common.

[GrimJack]

I looked at the story that started this thread and wonder what would have happened if she had her gun with her, this implies that everyone in the bar could have a CW. The implication in the article is that she could have shot the attacker. But if every one else in the bar had a gun, how would any of them know who was the good guy? What is to stop the woman who just came out of the can from seeing her shoot someone and pull her gun out and shoot her? In this hypothetical bar full of armed patrons, how would anyone know who to shoot? If both people shoot, what are the odds of a stray bullet hitting a bystander? What is to stop the situation from cascading into a shootout?

[Broken Arrow]

Grimjack, I think I understand what you are asking, and I thank you for bringing this up, because it shows why it's vital for armed people to be well-trained.

There are specific rules of engagement. First and foremost, having a gun does NOT mean it's your duty to stick around for a gun fight. Your basic goal of "running, hiding, and escaping" remains the same. The gun is only a means to further that goal.

Also, in the heat of the moment, it's far too chaotic to figure out who is who. Plus, it's not your goal (see above). That's for the law enforcement to sort out. So, the only thing you really need to focus on is who is shooting at you or is about to shoot you. That's the "bad guy".

Those who are trained should also know and use the "low ready" position. That's a stance where you have your hand on the gun, but the gun is either pointed down or is still in the holster. It's vital that you do not point your gun at anyone by mistake, or risk getting mistaken for a bad guy yourself. (It's also one of the basic rules of handgun safety. It's also another reason why I hate the "3rd eye" but that's a different topic for a different time.)

There are also techniques for shooting in a crowded place, but I agree that if it's too crowded, a gun in a may be less than ideal. And that goes back to an earlier point I've made about the hammer and nail syndrome. It's important for self-defense folks not to corner themselves into thinking the gun is the only available tool. Conversely, it's also why I hate to see our options become legally limited.

Now, to turn the tables around a bit, if a bad guy walks into a bar and knows that everyone in there is armed, would he be as brazen about pulling a gun out in the first place? Would he even walk in? Even if someone like that starts a gun fight, is he likely to get as far as a place that he knows everyone else is unarmed? I'm can't say for sure, but I doubt it. Now, the big money question here whether the "good guys" are competent enough to handle themselves in a crowded place, right?

That's why training is so important.

[GREENBACK]

Even if ccw was legal evrywhere, the majority of citizens wouldn't be armed. Some simply choose not to be. In a bar, the real bad guys are armed...now! A few good guys with guns in a deadly scenario could make a difference. The idea of a "wild west" shootout has come up in every state that has enacted the right to concealed carry. Guess how many of these hypothetical shootouts have occured by ccw holders....0!