A Salt Lake City, UT, man went on a stabbing rampage, attacking innocent people with a knife. Another man, who was carrying a concealed handgun, drew down on the attacker and ordered him to drop the knife. The attacker was eventually subdued and held until police arrived. He seriously wounded two people before he was stopped by the gun owner.
I think this is a good example of how concealed weapons should be used and why it's reasonable to allow citizens to carry. Of course good training is the key to a successful outcome. I wish someone had been carrying a gun when this woman was stabbed to death in front of a store full of co-workers and shoppers...
SillyEddy
Posts: 2,246
Coventry, England, United Kingdom
Robert Sawin wrote: he should have shot the basterd.
One post in, and you've already given the reason why so many people are against having guns.
Although, it should be obvious that most of your citizens lack that mental capacity to safely and suitably use weapons, as a vast vast proportion of your homicides are made with firearms.
The idea is not to shoot, it is to non-violently stop. If they can't be stopped that way, then go for the knees.
Yes, this is a case where concealed carry has worked. But it seems to be the exception.
SillyEddy wrote: Although, it should be obvious that most of your citizens lack that mental capacity to safely and suitably use weapons, as a vast vast proportion of your homicides are made with firearms.
The idea is not to shoot, it is to non-violently stop. If they can't be stopped that way, then go for the knees.
The irony in this sequence is hilarious. Doubly so for how smug you come off.
SillyEddy wrote: The idea is not to shoot, it is to non-violently stop. If they can't be stopped that way, then go for the knees.
Yes, this is a case where concealed carry has worked. But it seems to be the exception.
The Go for the knees is a horribly bad idea. And as for the exception is happens quite often CCW protect themselves and love ones 1,000's of times a year in this country
Art of CIP
Posts: 21,234
Long Beach, California, US
Hoodlum wrote:
So you now a Constitutional Carry supporter?
I've always supported FAIRNESS. Concealed carry permits are anything but fair. It gives certain people certain rights that others do not have. Why should somebody that qualifies for a concealed carry permit have more rights than someone that is not?
I've always supported FAIRNESS. Concealed carry permits are anything but fair. It gives certain people certain rights that others do not have. Why should somebody that qualifies for a concealed carry permit have more rights than someone that is not?
CCWs have the same restriction as firearm ownership in most states: anyone without a felony or a violent misdemeanor can get one. How is that unfair? And what "rights" does it confer on the carrier?
Art of CIP
Posts: 21,234
Long Beach, California, US
J Andrescavage Photo wrote:
CCWs have the same restriction as firearm ownership in most states: anyone without a felony or a violent misdemeanor can get one. How is that unfair? And what "rights" does it confer on the carrier?
Gun laws are usually left to the states. I've been to over 40 of the 50 states. Many states have gun laws that are very different from the other states. Gun laws in America are not consistent, are not fair, and are not constitutional. Concealed carry permits are not fair. get rid of them or give them to everybody... Pretty simple right?
SillyEddy
Posts: 2,246
Coventry, England, United Kingdom
J Andrescavage Photo wrote: The irony in this sequence is hilarious. Doubly so for how smug you come off.
It's more the Hollywood humour of it, but it'd surely be better to aim at the knees than to kill someone. If you've managed to stop someone (such as this knife wielder) and then shoot them, you should be arrested for GBH or murder. Unless they're a direct threat, you shouldn't shoot... And I do not trust Americans to recognise the difference.
As Bill Maher said, to reflect the absurdity of it, 'you should have to shoot at least one person each year or have your gun removed'.
I just don't see why your country is unable to work as effectively as others. Very few people legally own a weapon here, and the homicide rates by firearms are way down... So clearly too many people are shooting each other. So yeah, concealed carry has a very limited spectrum of 'working', and firearms still have a massive proportion of deaths. And more firearms hasn't solved it... So I think the users are responsible, and I don't trust those gun nuts to recognise the difference between controlling a situation and gunning someone else down.
Gun laws are usually left to the states. I've been to over 40 of the 50 states. Many states have gun laws that are very different from the other states. Gun laws in America are not consistent, are not fair, and are not constitutional. Concealed carry permits are not fair. get rid of them or give them to everybody... Pretty simple right?
I think I can agree with this. Everyone should be eligible for one.
I don't have a problem with prohibiting violent felons and misdemeanor offenders from carrying, though.
SillyEddy wrote: It's more the Hollywood humour of it, but it'd surely be better to aim at the knees than to kill someone.
NO. I understand you're from a place where your background means you're unlikely to have ever shot a gun or dealt with the implications of using one for defense, but a firearm is a deadly weapon. It means that if your life or your physical well-being are not under imminent threat, you do not pull the trigger. And if you do pull the trigger, you aim at the center of mass, because anything else is more difficult to hit under the stress of a life and death situation. Shooting to wound is for the movies. You shoot to stop by firing at center mass until there's no longer someone coming at you, or you DON'T SHOOT AT ALL. PERIOD.
Imagine this: Someone attacks you with a knife on the street. You somehow, against all reasonable odds, manage to keep your wits about you and shoot him in the knee. He still dies anyway because you perforated a majoy artery and he bleeds out in front of you. A gun is a deadly weapon, after all, and no amount of Hollywood shootery can change that. In your grief, you tell the cop on the scene, "I didn't mean to kill him, I just shot him in the leg to get him away from me!"
Well, you're going to jail for the next 20 years for 2nd degree murder.
SillyEddy wrote: If you've managed to stop someone (such as this knife wielder) and then shoot them, you should be arrested for GBH or murder. Unless they're a direct threat, you shouldn't shoot...
exactly
SillyEddy wrote: And I do not trust Americans to recognise the difference.
In fairness to Americans, you don't seem to recognize the difference either.
SillyEddy
Posts: 2,246
Coventry, England, United Kingdom
J Andrescavage Photo wrote: NO. I understand you're from a place where your background means you're unlikely to have ever shot a gun or dealt with the implications of using one for defense, but a firearm is a deadly weapon. It means that if your life or your physical well-being are not under imminent threat, you do not pull the trigger. And if you do pull the trigger, you aim at the center of mass, because anything else is more difficult to hit under the stress of a life and death situation. Shooting to wound is for the movies. You shoot to stop by firing at center mass until there's no longer someone coming at you, or you DON'T SHOOT AT ALL. PERIOD.
Imagine this: Someone attacks you with a knife on the street. You somehow, against all reasonable odds, manage to keep your wits about you and shoot him in the knee. He still dies anyway because you perforated a majoy artery and he bleeds out in front of you. A gun is a deadly weapon, after all, and no amount of Hollywood shootery can change that. In your grief, you tell the cop on the scene, "I didn't mean to kill him, I just shot him in the leg to get him away from me!"
Well, you're going to jail for the next 20 years for 2nd degree murder.
I've fired rifles before, of calibre varying from 5.56mm to 7.62mm. I've probably had more weapons training than some Americans out there. But when I am off the range I permit myself to say and do silly things. It's in my nature. Naturally, I don't dick around with firearms, and I don't possess one... But I'm legally able to if I wanted.
But to take it back to the original thing I quoted - They should've just shot the guy? No. They stopped the guy and their jurisdiction ends there.
Not to mention, they were in a shop/shopping centre, and no doubt there would've been a whole lot of innocent body matter to stop the bullets after they fly through the victim. A marble floor would still suck for ricochets, but hey, Hollywood's knee buster would've probably been a more effective method. Fewer surrounding casualties. It's not just about the target, but everything around and behind them.
...And that's still a negativo in my books for owning a firearm and walking around with one - You kill anything which is in a straight line from the muzzle outwards, even if it wasn't intentional. Put it down to reaction speed, or experience, but ultimately someone innocent could be killed every time a vigilante opens fire on someone who they perceive to be a threat. It's just entirely fortunate that he was stopped without harm.
Art of CIP wrote: Concealed weapons permits are unconstitutional.
Agreed. No one should have to apply to the government for permission to arm themselves. An exception should be made for criminals, but otherwise everyone should be able to protect themselves without special permission.
I do not understand the value of the weapon being concealed.
I would think a property owner has a right to know if someone carrying a weapon tries to enter their property. That way the property owner can proceed as they see fit.
Surely property owners have the right to ban guns on their property.
Let those packing guns wear, say, an orange vest, so people can know that they have an armed person in their presence, and react accordingly. It would likely cut down on crime as well.
Art of CIP
Posts: 21,234
Long Beach, California, US
Lightcraft Studio wrote:
Agreed. No one should have to apply to the government for permission to arm themselves. An exception should be made for criminals, but otherwise everyone should be able to protect themselves without special permission.
Actually - everybody in American can arm themselves and carry without a permit. The only difference is that some have legal protection to do so.
Agreed. No one should have to apply to the government for permission to arm themselves. An exception should be made for criminals, but otherwise everyone should be able to protect themselves without special permission.
Vermont and Alaska allow you to carry conceal with just a driver's license, because a CCW is illegal in their eyes
Art of CIP
Posts: 21,234
Long Beach, California, US
Stephen Dawson wrote: I do not understand the value of the weapon being concealed.
I would think a property owner has a right to know if someone carrying a weapon tries to enter their property. That way the property owner can proceed as they see fit.
Surely property owners have the right to ban guns on their property.
Let those packing guns wear, say, an orange vest, so people can know that they have an armed person in their presence, and react accordingly. It would likely cut down on crime as well.
On private property, the 2nd amendment does not apply unless the property owner allows guns on their property.
Stephen Dawson wrote: Let those packing guns wear, say, an orange vest, so people can know that they have an armed person in their presence, and react accordingly. It would likely cut down on crime as well.
Why? Are you under the impression that legal CCW'ers are some sort of statistically violent demographic?
Art of CIP
Posts: 21,234
Long Beach, California, US
J Andrescavage Photo wrote:
Why? Are you under the impression that legal CCW'ers are some sort of statistically violent demographic?
America has a problem with violent crime. Just look at the numbers. And of course there is the issue of mistaken identity and accidental discharges. Perhaps you should step out of the manufactured idealistic world that you put in place and look at the numbers out here in the real world. Americans shoot shit up.
America has a problem with violent crime. Just look at the numbers. And of course there is the issue of mistaken identity and accidental discharges. Perhaps you should step out of the manufactured idealistic world that you put in place and look at the numbers out here in the real world. Americans shoot shit up.
Well maybe you should educate me by producing some peer-reviewed statistics showing legal CCWers' contributions to all that violence...
Art of CIP
Posts: 21,234
Long Beach, California, US
J Andrescavage Photo wrote:
Well maybe you should educate me by producing some peer-reviewed statistics showing legal CCWers' contributions to all that violence...
Doesn't really matter - CCW permits are unconstitutional and still bullshit. Either you make it available for ALL gun owners - or you remove it. The goal here is fairness - not one class of gun owners that have rights that other gun owners do not...
Doesn't really matter - CCW permits are unconstitutional and still bullshit. Either you make it available for ALL gun owners - or you remove it. The goal here is fairness - not one class of gun owners that have rights that other gun owners do not...
Art of CIP
Posts: 21,234
Long Beach, California, US
J Andrescavage Photo wrote: I'm shocked... shocked! that you would deflect.
No deflection here. I'm simply sticking on target. The second amendment clearly grants Americans the right to bear arms. If some gun owners qualify for CCW permits and some gun owners do not - then there is a discrepancy in the application of the 2nd amendment.
After all - some American gun owners have rights and access that other American gun owners do not...
Agreed. No one should have to apply to the government for permission to arm themselves. An exception should be made for criminals, but otherwise everyone should be able to protect themselves without special permission.
I would agree except that would allow people who have never handled a gun to handle a gun. There needs to be a national standard whereby people who get a CCW have to attend mandatory classes that teach weapon safety and laws for use of deadly force. What letting the States handle it means that there are 50 different laws and regulations for something that should be simple and regulated by a single entity such as the ATF.
No deflection here. I'm simply sticking on target. The second amendment clearly grants Americans the right to bear arms. If some gun owners qualify for CCW permits and some gun owners do not - then their is a discrepancy in the application of the 2nd amendment.
After all - some American gun owners have rights and access that other American gun owners do not...
Surely you must agree that is in fact unfair?
It is unfair and the organizations I support monetarily are actively trying to have constitutional carry reinstated.
Art of CIP
Posts: 21,234
Long Beach, California, US
Too Hot For Snakes wrote:
It is unfair and the organizations I support monetarily are actively trying to have constitutional carry reinstated.
It is rather amazing how much money the gun lobby has in America... And it all ends up in super pacs. Maybe I should start a gun lobby and say I'm fighting for gun rights too. Good money there.
The lawsuit wont go anywhere... Not that it matters though because there are far more concealed weapons on the streets than there are CCW permits.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. It will hit the 9th Circuit, who were the second Federal Circuit to incorporate Heller to the States before McDonald got to the SCOTUS and incorporated it for everyone. The 9th is historically perfectly happy to knock down CA gun prohibitions.
Either way, it'll take a few years in the absence of some law to shore up a stricter shall-issue policy than the court is likely to allow.
Eros Fine Art Photo wrote: A Salt Lake City, UT, man went on a stabbing rampage, attacking innocent people with a knife. Another man, who was carrying a concealed handgun, drew down on the attacker and ordered him to drop the knife. The attacker was eventually subdued and held until police arrived. He seriously wounded two people before he was stopped by the gun owner.
I think this is a good example of how concealed weapons should be used and why it's reasonable to allow citizens to carry. Of course good training is the key to a successful outcome. I wish someone had been carrying a gun when this woman was stabbed to death in front of a store full of co-workers and shoppers...
The lack of a gun stopped the attacker from making his attacks lethal, and limited his victims to TWO ... hardly a "rampage". A deftly used chair could have accomplished the same thing as that gun owner did.
I never heard anyone in the aftermath of Columbine calling for arming high school students to prevent future school shootings. Having done so would be insane, and anyone suggesting it could very well be deemed insane for that alone.
And then there's the issue of post #2 ... an obvious lunatic, and one of many apparently on this site.
That so many people in this country have such deeply impaired judgement and harbor paranoid fantasies or hero or "tough-guy" fantasies should be enough reason to ban guns, but the lunatics also vote, and therein lies the problem.
Art of CIP
Posts: 21,234
Long Beach, California, US
255 West wrote:
The lack of a gun stopped the attacker from making his attacks lethal, and limited his victims to TWO ... hardly a "rampage". A deftly used chair could have accomplished the same thing as that gun owner did.
I never heard anyone in the aftermath of Columbine calling for arming high school students to prevent future school shootings. Having done so would be insane, and anyone suggesting it could very well be deemed insane for that alone.
And then there is the issue of post #2 ... an obvious lunatic, and one of many apparently on this site.
That so many people in this country have such deeply impaired judgement and harbor paranoid fantasies or hero or "tough-guy" fantasies should be enough reason to ban guns, but the lunatics also vote, and therein lies the problem.
The biggest problem with gun activists is a lack of reality. many of them apply a one size fits all reality to America - and that just is not reality. If I'm in Terry, Arkansas - I can walk down the street with a pistol holstered and a shotgun shouldered. Nobody bats and eye. if I do the same thing in Los Angeles - any area of Los Angeles - then I look completely stupid doing so and will be perceived completely differently.
I've lived all over this country in many different kinds of communities - and every pro gun argument I've ever heard here in Soapbox is completely out of touch with reality and the diverse conditions of various communities in America.
One post in, and you've already given the reason why so many people are against having guns.
Although, it should be obvious that most of your citizens lack that mental capacity to safely and suitably use weapons, as a vast vast proportion of your homicides are made with firearms.
| 
| 
| edu