CDZ Concealed Carry Ethics, Obligations and Mindset

[westwall]

Again, fewer households HAVE guns, yet more and more are killed.

You cannot prove this to be true.

Any particular reason you willfully deny facts?
America has more guns in fewer hands than ever before

You have to also prove that more people are killed. That, you cannot do.
Nor can you show causation.

You still have not answered my question.
Is this because you cannot, or you know that to do so ruins your position?
How many more guns were there in the US in 2014 than in 1997?

Yes, it's helped that the CDC has been prevented from even INVESTIGATING causation. The NRA made sure of that. Why do you think they did that?

Yet another lie. Face it dude. Without the lies you constantly spew you would have nothing. Which means....you have nothing. How can we say that your comment is a lie? By presenting you with one of SEVERAL CDC studies that have been done over the last couple of years.


"This project was supported by awards between the National Academy of Sciences and both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (#200-2011-38807) and the CDC Foundation with the Foundation’s support originating from The Annie E. Casey Foundation, The California Endowment, The California Wellness Foundation, The Joyce Foundation, Kaiser Permanente, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and one anonymous donor. The views presented in this publication are those of the editors and attributing authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the organizations or agencies that provided support for this project."


http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1

 

[M14 Shooter]

This is a discussion of guns in a societal context, not anecdotes about your own heroism vis a vis your family. And like I said, you've proven that an excessive amount of guns in society does not do society as a whole any favors. Hence, controlling the proliferation of guns in society is a compelling state interest.

Only if you can show that the proliferation of guns has had a negative effect on society -- comparing the increase in the number of guns to the change in the level of gun-related crime.
This, you know you cannot do.

 

[2aguy]

That is a lie.......guns are not the issue.......the actual issue in shootings in the home......prior criminal history of the occupant, drug use of the occupant, alcohol abuse of the occupant, current criminal history of the occupant....

If you are a normal person, who is law abiding....guns are not dangerous to your family. The anti gun research targeted the worst communities to do their studies....and then said that applied to normal, law abiding gun owners....

That is one of the first examples of the anti gun Bait and Switch.........

Another sign of our post-factual democracy is that you actually believe this /\/\/\/\

The “Good Guy With a Gun” Is a Myth

And here are specific examples of how they are wrong.....

Some details to help you make your guess....

Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston church shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 9 dead)

vs.

Deputies Osceola pastor shot church janitor in self-defense ( 0 dead)

6 Shot At New Life Church Gunman 2 Churchgoers Dead - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

Remember This SC Concealed Carrier Stops Mass Shooting During Church Service. No Casualties. ( 0 dead)

**********

No guns: 15 dead

Sikh temple ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston ( 9 dead)


Parishioners with guns: 2 dead

Osceola ( 0 dead )

New life ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

South Carolina shotgun guy ( 0 dead)


Temple massacre has some Sikhs mulling gun ownership

The president of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin had only a butter knife on hand, which he used to fight the gunman. He was killed, but his heroic actions were credited for slowing the shooter. Guns were not allowed in the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin.

“No guns [were] allowed in the temple,” Kulbir Singh, an attendee of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, told FoxNews.com. “Everyone knows that it’s not allowed, anywhere in the temple.”

Here's the problem with anecdotes: All I need is one more anecdote to render your anecdote worthless. For example, the Dallas police shooter, who could not be taken down despite hundreds of people in the area packing heat. They needed a specialized bomb and a robot.

Such is the killing power of guns that you refuse to acknowledge while simultaneously alleging that guns are harmless. You're confused. Immensely.

And if a civilian had fired on the shooter you would have called him a wannabe Rambo.

The cops couldn't get him with a bullet why would you think a civilian could?

Don't look now, but you're making my point about the absurdity of arguing that guns make us safer.

Only you would think that...

 

[2aguy]

Again, fewer households HAVE guns, yet more and more are killed.

You cannot prove this to be true.

Any particular reason you willfully deny facts?
America has more guns in fewer hands than ever before

Because it isn't true........you guys use the General Social Survey....a group run by a guy who has publicly admitted he wants to sell gun control to politicians........and you deny other surveys that counter that one survey....

And you deny reality...you believe that gun owners will tell anonymous people, over the phone or in person how many guns they have in their homes.....

That is delusional thinking.....

That...with the record gun sales every month and that with record numbers of NICS checks every month...actual numbers...hard numbers...show you are wrong...

 

[2aguy]

Guns contained the shooter.....do you even think before you post....

And no one says guns are harmless....you guys say that guns create activity...that normal people will turn into murderers simply because they have a gun.....

And I have given you 40 years of actual research along with just a few stories of people using guns to stop actual mass shooters v. stories where the people did not have guns to stop mass shooters....and you can see the difference in body counts.....

Clearly, they do turn "normal" people into killers. There have been innumerable examples of people with no prior record killing people with guns. These are people who would've been unable to exact anywhere close to the same amount of damage without a gun.

And this....normal people are not turned into killers because of guns...otherwise with 357,000,000 guns in private hands we would have far more murder...and the murder rate would not be going down as more people buy guns....

Public Health Pot Shots

this article goes at kellerman extensively and his crap research.....and here is some work on who actually kills people...




These and other studies funded by the CDC focus on the presence or absence of guns, rather than the characteristics of the people who use them. Indeed, the CDC's Rosenberg claims in the journalEducational Horizons that murderers are "ourselves--ordinary citizens, professionals, even health care workers": people who kill only because a gun happens to be available. Yet if there is one fact that has been incontestably established by homicide studies, it's that murderers are not ordinary gun owners but extreme aberrants whose life histories include drug abuse, serious accidents, felonies, and irrational violence.



Unlike "ourselves," roughly 90 percent of adult murderers have significant criminal records, averaging an adult criminal career of six or more years with four major felonies.

Access to juvenile records would almost certainly show that the criminal careers of murderers stretch back into their adolescence. In Murder in America (1994), the criminologists Ronald W. Holmes and Stephen T. Holmes report that murderers generally "have histories of committing personal violence in childhood, against other children, siblings, and small animals." Murderers who don't have criminal records usually have histories of psychiatric treatment or domestic violence that did not lead to arrest.

Contrary to the impression fostered by Rosenberg and other opponents of gun ownership, the term "acquaintance homicide" does not mean killings that stem from ordinary family or neighborhood arguments. Typical acquaintance homicides include: an abusive man eventually killing a woman he has repeatedly assaulted; a drug user killing a dealer (or vice versa) in a robbery attempt; and gang members, drug dealers, and other criminals killing each other for reasons of economic rivalry or personal pique.



According to a 1993 article in the Journal of Trauma, 80 percent of murders in Washington, D.C., are related to the drug trade, while "84% of [Philadelphia murder] victims in 1990 had antemortem drug use or criminal history."

A 1994 article in The New England Journal of Medicinereported that 71 percent of Los Angeles children and adolescents injured in drive-by shootings "were documented members of violent street gangs." And University of North Carolina-Charlotte criminal justice scholars Richard Lumb and Paul C. Friday report that 71 percent of adult gunshot wound victims in Charlotte have criminal records.



-------As the English gun control analyst Colin Greenwood has noted, in any society there are always enough guns available, legally or illegally, to arm the violent. The true determinant of violence is the number of violent people, not the availability of a particular weapon. Guns contribute to murder in the trivial sense that they help violent people kill. But owning guns does not turn responsible, law-abiding people into killers. If the general availability of guns were as important a factor in violence as the CDC implies, the vast increase in firearm ownership during the past two decades should have led to a vast increase in homicide. The CDC suggested just that in a 1989 report to Congress, where it asserted that "ince the early 1970s the year-to-year fluctuations in firearm availability has [sic] paralleled the numbers of homicides."

Again, fewer households HAVE guns, yet more and more are killed. 2015 was a huge year, despite fewer people owning guns.

No....2015 is going to be a big year because cops are not being active against criminals because of the Ferguson effect, and obama has cut federal gun prosecutions by 30% and he is releasing convicted felons....that is why 2015 will be a higher gun murder year........since every year up to 2015 has shown a decrease in gun murder.....

And since we know he used Fast and Furious to try to restart gun control...we know he is using black lies murder and a reduction in gun crime prosecutions to increase the gun murder rate in major cities....so they can kick off a new wave of gun control.

LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

First off, the "Ferguson effect" is a total myth, propagated by republicans to try and suppress speech and dissent from those against police abuses.

There Is No Ferguson Effect—but That Doesn’t Mean We Can Ignore Urban Murder Spikes

Second, Obama released non-violent drug offenders.

Third, Fast and Furious had nothing to do with gun control. Is your tinfoil hat a little snug?

Wrong...they have actual numbers on police stops.........paperwork on stops by police and those stops are down close to 90%.... And the lefts favorite FBI director spoke about the Ferguson effect..it is real, and cops are acting on your anti cop attacks....

 

[2aguy]

Again, fewer households HAVE guns, yet more and more are killed.

You cannot prove this to be true.

Any particular reason you willfully deny facts?
America has more guns in fewer hands than ever before

You have to also prove that more people are killed. That, you cannot do.
Nor can you show causation.

You still have not answered my question.
Is this because you cannot, or you know that to do so ruins your position?
How many more guns were there in the US in 2014 than in 1997?

Yes, it's helped that the CDC has been prevented from even INVESTIGATING causation. The NRA made sure of that. Why do you think they did that?

We showed you the 2015 CDC study from Delaware where they actually researched gun crime increases...we linked to it....you ignore it....

 

[2aguy]

Guns contained the shooter.....do you even think before you post....

And no one says guns are harmless....you guys say that guns create activity...that normal people will turn into murderers simply because they have a gun.....

And I have given you 40 years of actual research along with just a few stories of people using guns to stop actual mass shooters v. stories where the people did not have guns to stop mass shooters....and you can see the difference in body counts.....

Clearly, they do turn "normal" people into killers. There have been innumerable examples of people with no prior record killing people with guns. These are people who would've been unable to exact anywhere close to the same amount of damage without a gun.

And this....normal people are not turned into killers because of guns...otherwise with 357,000,000 guns in private hands we would have far more murder...and the murder rate would not be going down as more people buy guns....

Public Health Pot Shots

this article goes at kellerman extensively and his crap research.....and here is some work on who actually kills people...




These and other studies funded by the CDC focus on the presence or absence of guns, rather than the characteristics of the people who use them. Indeed, the CDC's Rosenberg claims in the journalEducational Horizons that murderers are "ourselves--ordinary citizens, professionals, even health care workers": people who kill only because a gun happens to be available. Yet if there is one fact that has been incontestably established by homicide studies, it's that murderers are not ordinary gun owners but extreme aberrants whose life histories include drug abuse, serious accidents, felonies, and irrational violence.



Unlike "ourselves," roughly 90 percent of adult murderers have significant criminal records, averaging an adult criminal career of six or more years with four major felonies.

Access to juvenile records would almost certainly show that the criminal careers of murderers stretch back into their adolescence. In Murder in America (1994), the criminologists Ronald W. Holmes and Stephen T. Holmes report that murderers generally "have histories of committing personal violence in childhood, against other children, siblings, and small animals." Murderers who don't have criminal records usually have histories of psychiatric treatment or domestic violence that did not lead to arrest.

Contrary to the impression fostered by Rosenberg and other opponents of gun ownership, the term "acquaintance homicide" does not mean killings that stem from ordinary family or neighborhood arguments. Typical acquaintance homicides include: an abusive man eventually killing a woman he has repeatedly assaulted; a drug user killing a dealer (or vice versa) in a robbery attempt; and gang members, drug dealers, and other criminals killing each other for reasons of economic rivalry or personal pique.



According to a 1993 article in the Journal of Trauma, 80 percent of murders in Washington, D.C., are related to the drug trade, while "84% of [Philadelphia murder] victims in 1990 had antemortem drug use or criminal history."

A 1994 article in The New England Journal of Medicinereported that 71 percent of Los Angeles children and adolescents injured in drive-by shootings "were documented members of violent street gangs." And University of North Carolina-Charlotte criminal justice scholars Richard Lumb and Paul C. Friday report that 71 percent of adult gunshot wound victims in Charlotte have criminal records.



-------As the English gun control analyst Colin Greenwood has noted, in any society there are always enough guns available, legally or illegally, to arm the violent. The true determinant of violence is the number of violent people, not the availability of a particular weapon. Guns contribute to murder in the trivial sense that they help violent people kill. But owning guns does not turn responsible, law-abiding people into killers. If the general availability of guns were as important a factor in violence as the CDC implies, the vast increase in firearm ownership during the past two decades should have led to a vast increase in homicide. The CDC suggested just that in a 1989 report to Congress, where it asserted that "ince the early 1970s the year-to-year fluctuations in firearm availability has [sic] paralleled the numbers of homicides."

Again, fewer households HAVE guns, yet more and more are killed. 2015 was a huge year, despite fewer people owning guns.

No....2015 is going to be a big year because cops are not being active against criminals because of the Ferguson effect, and obama has cut federal gun prosecutions by 30% and he is releasing convicted felons....that is why 2015 will be a higher gun murder year........since every year up to 2015 has shown a decrease in gun murder.....

And since we know he used Fast and Furious to try to restart gun control...we know he is using black lies murder and a reduction in gun crime prosecutions to increase the gun murder rate in major cities....so they can kick off a new wave of gun control.

LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

First off, the "Ferguson effect" is a total myth, propagated by republicans to try and suppress speech and dissent from those against police abuses.

There Is No Ferguson Effect—but That Doesn’t Mean We Can Ignore Urban Murder Spikes

Second, Obama released non-violent drug offenders.

Third, Fast and Furious had nothing to do with gun control. Is your tinfoil hat a little snug?

Gun charges are the first thing they drop in drug convictions to get plea deals..........so those non violent drug offenders are non violent on paper only........do you guys ever think?

 

[westwall]

That is a lie.......guns are not the issue.......the actual issue in shootings in the home......prior criminal history of the occupant, drug use of the occupant, alcohol abuse of the occupant, current criminal history of the occupant....

If you are a normal person, who is law abiding....guns are not dangerous to your family. The anti gun research targeted the worst communities to do their studies....and then said that applied to normal, law abiding gun owners....

That is one of the first examples of the anti gun Bait and Switch.........

Another sign of our post-factual democracy is that you actually believe this /\/\/\/\

The “Good Guy With a Gun” Is a Myth

And here are specific examples of how they are wrong.....

Some details to help you make your guess....

Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston church shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 9 dead)

vs.

Deputies Osceola pastor shot church janitor in self-defense ( 0 dead)

6 Shot At New Life Church Gunman 2 Churchgoers Dead - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

Remember This SC Concealed Carrier Stops Mass Shooting During Church Service. No Casualties. ( 0 dead)

**********

No guns: 15 dead

Sikh temple ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston ( 9 dead)


Parishioners with guns: 2 dead

Osceola ( 0 dead )

New life ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

South Carolina shotgun guy ( 0 dead)


Temple massacre has some Sikhs mulling gun ownership

The president of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin had only a butter knife on hand, which he used to fight the gunman. He was killed, but his heroic actions were credited for slowing the shooter. Guns were not allowed in the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin.

“No guns [were] allowed in the temple,” Kulbir Singh, an attendee of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, told FoxNews.com. “Everyone knows that it’s not allowed, anywhere in the temple.”

Here's the problem with anecdotes: All I need is one more anecdote to render your anecdote worthless. For example, the Dallas police shooter, who could not be taken down despite hundreds of people in the area packing heat. They needed a specialized bomb and a robot.

Such is the killing power of guns that you refuse to acknowledge while simultaneously alleging that guns are harmless. You're confused. Immensely.

And if a civilian had fired on the shooter you would have called him a wannabe Rambo.

The cops couldn't get him with a bullet why would you think a civilian could?

Don't look now, but you're making my point about the absurdity of arguing that guns make us safer.

It's the other way around though. In all of the shootings that are being cited, the one factor that is in all of the them, is you have one armed lunatic, and the victims are prevented from having weapons in the area where they are killed. Just like in France, which has far stricter gun laws than even you claim to want, the bad guys have killed over 250 people, 150 with machineguns, and not one person was able to defend themselves. Heck, even the police weren't able to defend themselves.

The simple fact is that gun bans simply don't work. They make it impossible for legal people to defend themselves and the only cost to the bad guys is maybe the weapons cost a little bit more. Which they don't care about because they plan on dying anyway.

 

[2aguy]

And the truth about French gun control laws....

French gunman's arsenal spotlights illegal arms trade

As France asks itself whether it could have done more to prevent Islamist gunman Mohamed Merah shooting dead seven people in a killing spree that shook the nation, there is one question that refuses to go away: how did he obtain so many guns.

The size and nature of the arsenal amassed by Merah - who stockpiled at least eight guns including a Kalashnikov assault rifle and an Uzi machine pistol - has focused attention on the easy availability of illegal weapons in France and their growing use in ultra-violent crimes.

As an angry online reader of the daily Le Figaro newspaper put it: "How was he able to buy all these guns, like one buys yoghurts, when he was under the surveillance of the DCRI (the French intelligence agency)?"


====================
Paris attacks highlight France's gun control problems

But in recent years a black market has proliferated. The number of illegal weapons has risen at a rapid rate – double-digit percentages – for several years, according to the National Observatory for Delinquency, a body created in 2003.

“In Marseille and the surrounding area almost all the score settling is carried out using weapons used in wars,” a police spokesman told Reuters after the Toulouse attacks, adding that Kalashnikovs were the weapon of choice: “If you don’t have a ‘Kalash’ you’re a bit of a loser.”

============================
Paris attacks highlight France's gun control problems

The arsenal of weapons deployed by the eight attackers who terrorised Paris on Friday night underlined France’s gun control problems and raised the spectre of further attacks.

The country has extremely strict weapons laws, but Europe’s open borders and growing trade in illegal weapons means assault rifles are relatively easy to come by on the black market.



-------------=================
France’s real gun problem

Despite these strict laws, France seems to be awash with guns. The guns used in high-profile terror attacks are really just the tip of the iceberg. In 2012, French authorities estimated that there were around 30,000 guns illegally in the country, many likely used by gangs for criminal activities.

Of those guns, around 4,000 were likely to be "war weapons," Le Figaro reported, referring to items such as the Kalashnikov AK-variant rifles and Uzis. Statistics from the National Observatory for Delinquency, a government body created in 2003, suggest that the number of guns in France has grown by double digits every year.
----------------------
How Europe's Terrorists Get Their Guns

France became particularly worried about the trafficking of illegal guns in 2012, increasing fines and jail terms for those involved in the trafficking and possession of them. Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said in Septemberthat police have seized nearly 6,000 weapons from criminal groups each year since 2013, 1,200 of which were military assault weapons. And in the three weeks following the Nov. 13 attacks, Cazeneuve said French police seized 334 weapons, 34 of them military-grade.

Several officials and experts tell TIME they’ve seen a noticeable climb in both the numbers and the types of illicit weapons crossing borders over the past few years. Rather than pistols and small guns, there has been a spike in demand for military-grade assault weapons.

This reflects a very different kind of criminality: petty criminals and drug dealers tend to want small pistols that they can conceal; terrorists want AK-47s that can do maximum damage.

“For something like the Paris attacks, you don’t need hundreds of thousands of weapons. You just need enough to create havoc,” says Zverzhanovski. “The gun market operates on a very basic supply and demand system.

Since about 2011, there has definitely been a significant increase of illicit weapons going from southeast Europe towards different parts of the E.U.” Crucially, it’s not truckloads or planeloads of weapons coming in. It’s much more a case of “micro-trafficking”—a few pieces being brought in by individuals—making it much more difficult to track.

 

[Skull Pilot]

And here are specific examples of how they are wrong.....

Some details to help you make your guess....

Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston church shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 9 dead)

vs.

Deputies Osceola pastor shot church janitor in self-defense ( 0 dead)

6 Shot At New Life Church Gunman 2 Churchgoers Dead - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

Remember This SC Concealed Carrier Stops Mass Shooting During Church Service. No Casualties. ( 0 dead)

**********

No guns: 15 dead

Sikh temple ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston ( 9 dead)


Parishioners with guns: 2 dead

Osceola ( 0 dead )

New life ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

South Carolina shotgun guy ( 0 dead)


Temple massacre has some Sikhs mulling gun ownership

The president of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin had only a butter knife on hand, which he used to fight the gunman. He was killed, but his heroic actions were credited for slowing the shooter. Guns were not allowed in the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin.

“No guns [were] allowed in the temple,” Kulbir Singh, an attendee of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, told FoxNews.com. “Everyone knows that it’s not allowed, anywhere in the temple.”

Here's the problem with anecdotes: All I need is one more anecdote to render your anecdote worthless. For example, the Dallas police shooter, who could not be taken down despite hundreds of people in the area packing heat. They needed a specialized bomb and a robot.

Such is the killing power of guns that you refuse to acknowledge while simultaneously alleging that guns are harmless. You're confused. Immensely.

And if a civilian had fired on the shooter you would have called him a wannabe Rambo.

The cops couldn't get him with a bullet why would you think a civilian could?

Don't look now, but you're making my point about the absurdity of arguing that guns make us safer.

A gun for self defense is not supposed to make "us" safer.

A self defense weapon is a last resort tool.

Anyone who carries and I'll stick to CCW not open carry as CCW is the topic of the thread has no obligation legally morally or otherwise to defend the public from a criminal.

If I was in a mall with my wife and carrying and there was an active shooter situation I would do one of 2 things. Leave with my wife or shelter somewhere out of the way with my wife behind me and I would give her my holdout gun I keep for her as she is not licensed to carry and we would wait.

My first obligation is to my wife, my family not you, not your kids, not anyone else. I am not a cop I do not want to be a cop so I will not act like a cop.

So my question to you is what would you do in the same situation?

That post is entirely irrelevant /\/\/\

This is a discussion of guns in a societal context, not anecdotes about your own heroism vis a vis your family. And like I said, you've proven that an excessive amount of guns in society does not do society as a whole any favors. Hence, controlling the proliferation of guns in society is a compelling state interest.

No it is not. I am the author of this thread and if you bothered to read the title you might know what the subject is

 

[Skull Pilot]

I would like to redirect all of you back to topic

Concealed Carry Ethics, Obligations and Mindset

So back to it.

Does a CCW permit holder who is carrying have an obligation legally, morally or ethically to protect anyone but himself or his immediate family?

What mindset do you cultivate when you are carrying?
If you don't carry what do you think the mindset is of those who do?

 

[GaryDog]

Here's the problem with anecdotes: All I need is one more anecdote to render your anecdote worthless. For example, the Dallas police shooter, who could not be taken down despite hundreds of people in the area packing heat. They needed a specialized bomb and a robot.

Such is the killing power of guns that you refuse to acknowledge while simultaneously alleging that guns are harmless. You're confused. Immensely.

And if a civilian had fired on the shooter you would have called him a wannabe Rambo.

The cops couldn't get him with a bullet why would you think a civilian could?

Don't look now, but you're making my point about the absurdity of arguing that guns make us safer.

A gun for self defense is not supposed to make "us" safer.

A self defense weapon is a last resort tool.

Anyone who carries and I'll stick to CCW not open carry as CCW is the topic of the thread has no obligation legally morally or otherwise to defend the public from a criminal.

If I was in a mall with my wife and carrying and there was an active shooter situation I would do one of 2 things. Leave with my wife or shelter somewhere out of the way with my wife behind me and I would give her my holdout gun I keep for her as she is not licensed to carry and we would wait.

My first obligation is to my wife, my family not you, not your kids, not anyone else. I am not a cop I do not want to be a cop so I will not act like a cop.

So my question to you is what would you do in the same situation?

That post is entirely irrelevant /\/\/\

This is a discussion of guns in a societal context, not anecdotes about your own heroism vis a vis your family. And like I said, you've proven that an excessive amount of guns in society does not do society as a whole any favors. Hence, controlling the proliferation of guns in society is a compelling state interest.

No it is not. I am the author of this thread and if you bothered to read the title you might know what the subject is

I did read the title. I missed where it asked people about personal experience with concealed carry. Your post was irrelevant. Deal with it.

 

[GaryDog]

Another sign of our post-factual democracy is that you actually believe this /\/\/\/\

The “Good Guy With a Gun” Is a Myth

And here are specific examples of how they are wrong.....

Some details to help you make your guess....

Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston church shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 9 dead)

vs.

Deputies Osceola pastor shot church janitor in self-defense ( 0 dead)

6 Shot At New Life Church Gunman 2 Churchgoers Dead - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

Remember This SC Concealed Carrier Stops Mass Shooting During Church Service. No Casualties. ( 0 dead)

**********

No guns: 15 dead

Sikh temple ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston ( 9 dead)


Parishioners with guns: 2 dead

Osceola ( 0 dead )

New life ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

South Carolina shotgun guy ( 0 dead)


Temple massacre has some Sikhs mulling gun ownership

The president of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin had only a butter knife on hand, which he used to fight the gunman. He was killed, but his heroic actions were credited for slowing the shooter. Guns were not allowed in the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin.

“No guns [were] allowed in the temple,” Kulbir Singh, an attendee of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, told FoxNews.com. “Everyone knows that it’s not allowed, anywhere in the temple.”

Here's the problem with anecdotes: All I need is one more anecdote to render your anecdote worthless. For example, the Dallas police shooter, who could not be taken down despite hundreds of people in the area packing heat. They needed a specialized bomb and a robot.

Such is the killing power of guns that you refuse to acknowledge while simultaneously alleging that guns are harmless. You're confused. Immensely.

And if a civilian had fired on the shooter you would have called him a wannabe Rambo.

The cops couldn't get him with a bullet why would you think a civilian could?

Don't look now, but you're making my point about the absurdity of arguing that guns make us safer.

It's the other way around though. In all of the shootings that are being cited, the one factor that is in all of the them, is you have one armed lunatic, and the victims are prevented from having weapons in the area where they are killed. Just like in France, which has far stricter gun laws than even you claim to want, the bad guys have killed over 250 people, 150 with machineguns, and not one person was able to defend themselves. Heck, even the police weren't able to defend themselves.

The simple fact is that gun bans simply don't work. They make it impossible for legal people to defend themselves and the only cost to the bad guys is maybe the weapons cost a little bit more. Which they don't care about because they plan on dying anyway.

The police in France were armed. EVERYONE in Dallas was armed. EVERYONE in Chicago (where you GOP shills often cite the worst gun violence) is armed. This "it only happens in gun-free zones" canard is exactly that: a canard. Unrestricted gun access doesn't create a safe society, as numerous far safer societies throughout the western world have proven.

Again, don't let the facts sway you, though. You're a redneck who likes guns, so you have to search for something to justify your lifestyle.

 

[Skull Pilot]

And if a civilian had fired on the shooter you would have called him a wannabe Rambo.

The cops couldn't get him with a bullet why would you think a civilian could?

Don't look now, but you're making my point about the absurdity of arguing that guns make us safer.

A gun for self defense is not supposed to make "us" safer.

A self defense weapon is a last resort tool.

Anyone who carries and I'll stick to CCW not open carry as CCW is the topic of the thread has no obligation legally morally or otherwise to defend the public from a criminal.

If I was in a mall with my wife and carrying and there was an active shooter situation I would do one of 2 things. Leave with my wife or shelter somewhere out of the way with my wife behind me and I would give her my holdout gun I keep for her as she is not licensed to carry and we would wait.

My first obligation is to my wife, my family not you, not your kids, not anyone else. I am not a cop I do not want to be a cop so I will not act like a cop.

So my question to you is what would you do in the same situation?

That post is entirely irrelevant /\/\/\

This is a discussion of guns in a societal context, not anecdotes about your own heroism vis a vis your family. And like I said, you've proven that an excessive amount of guns in society does not do society as a whole any favors. Hence, controlling the proliferation of guns in society is a compelling state interest.

No it is not. I am the author of this thread and if you bothered to read the title you might know what the subject is

I did read the title. I missed where it asked people about personal experience with concealed carry. Your post was irrelevant. Deal with it.

If you could read you'd have seen it was a hypothetical not a personal experience

So why don't you slow down. It's OK to move your lips and follow along with your finger no one can see you

 

[Skull Pilot]

And here are specific examples of how they are wrong.....

Some details to help you make your guess....

Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston church shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 9 dead)

vs.

Deputies Osceola pastor shot church janitor in self-defense ( 0 dead)

6 Shot At New Life Church Gunman 2 Churchgoers Dead - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

Remember This SC Concealed Carrier Stops Mass Shooting During Church Service. No Casualties. ( 0 dead)

**********

No guns: 15 dead

Sikh temple ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston ( 9 dead)


Parishioners with guns: 2 dead

Osceola ( 0 dead )

New life ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

South Carolina shotgun guy ( 0 dead)


Temple massacre has some Sikhs mulling gun ownership

The president of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin had only a butter knife on hand, which he used to fight the gunman. He was killed, but his heroic actions were credited for slowing the shooter. Guns were not allowed in the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin.

“No guns [were] allowed in the temple,” Kulbir Singh, an attendee of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, told FoxNews.com. “Everyone knows that it’s not allowed, anywhere in the temple.”

Here's the problem with anecdotes: All I need is one more anecdote to render your anecdote worthless. For example, the Dallas police shooter, who could not be taken down despite hundreds of people in the area packing heat. They needed a specialized bomb and a robot.

Such is the killing power of guns that you refuse to acknowledge while simultaneously alleging that guns are harmless. You're confused. Immensely.

And if a civilian had fired on the shooter you would have called him a wannabe Rambo.

The cops couldn't get him with a bullet why would you think a civilian could?

Don't look now, but you're making my point about the absurdity of arguing that guns make us safer.

It's the other way around though. In all of the shootings that are being cited, the one factor that is in all of the them, is you have one armed lunatic, and the victims are prevented from having weapons in the area where they are killed. Just like in France, which has far stricter gun laws than even you claim to want, the bad guys have killed over 250 people, 150 with machineguns, and not one person was able to defend themselves. Heck, even the police weren't able to defend themselves.

The simple fact is that gun bans simply don't work. They make it impossible for legal people to defend themselves and the only cost to the bad guys is maybe the weapons cost a little bit more. Which they don't care about because they plan on dying anyway.

The police in France were armed. EVERYONE in Dallas was armed. EVERYONE in Chicago (where you GOP shills often cite the worst gun violence) is armed. This "it only happens in gun-free zones" canard is exactly that: a canard. Unrestricted gun access doesn't create a safe society, as numerous far safer societies throughout the western world have proven.

Again, don't let the facts sway you, though. You're a redneck who likes guns, so you have to search for something to justify your lifestyle.

You conveniently as usual fail to realize that a large portion of those armed people in Chicago are illegally carrying weapons

 

[2aguy]

And here are specific examples of how they are wrong.....

Some details to help you make your guess....

Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston church shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 9 dead)

vs.

Deputies Osceola pastor shot church janitor in self-defense ( 0 dead)

6 Shot At New Life Church Gunman 2 Churchgoers Dead - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

Remember This SC Concealed Carrier Stops Mass Shooting During Church Service. No Casualties. ( 0 dead)

**********

No guns: 15 dead

Sikh temple ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston ( 9 dead)


Parishioners with guns: 2 dead

Osceola ( 0 dead )

New life ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

South Carolina shotgun guy ( 0 dead)


Temple massacre has some Sikhs mulling gun ownership

The president of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin had only a butter knife on hand, which he used to fight the gunman. He was killed, but his heroic actions were credited for slowing the shooter. Guns were not allowed in the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin.

“No guns [were] allowed in the temple,” Kulbir Singh, an attendee of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, told FoxNews.com. “Everyone knows that it’s not allowed, anywhere in the temple.”

Here's the problem with anecdotes: All I need is one more anecdote to render your anecdote worthless. For example, the Dallas police shooter, who could not be taken down despite hundreds of people in the area packing heat. They needed a specialized bomb and a robot.

Such is the killing power of guns that you refuse to acknowledge while simultaneously alleging that guns are harmless. You're confused. Immensely.

And if a civilian had fired on the shooter you would have called him a wannabe Rambo.

The cops couldn't get him with a bullet why would you think a civilian could?

Don't look now, but you're making my point about the absurdity of arguing that guns make us safer.

It's the other way around though. In all of the shootings that are being cited, the one factor that is in all of the them, is you have one armed lunatic, and the victims are prevented from having weapons in the area where they are killed. Just like in France, which has far stricter gun laws than even you claim to want, the bad guys have killed over 250 people, 150 with machineguns, and not one person was able to defend themselves. Heck, even the police weren't able to defend themselves.

The simple fact is that gun bans simply don't work. They make it impossible for legal people to defend themselves and the only cost to the bad guys is maybe the weapons cost a little bit more. Which they don't care about because they plan on dying anyway.

The police in France were armed. EVERYONE in Dallas was armed. EVERYONE in Chicago (where you GOP shills often cite the worst gun violence) is armed. This "it only happens in gun-free zones" canard is exactly that: a canard. Unrestricted gun access doesn't create a safe society, as numerous far safer societies throughout the western world have proven.

Again, don't let the facts sway you, though. You're a redneck who likes guns, so you have to search for something to justify your lifestyle.

Wrong...Paris..they attacked gun free targets ...and then the police showed up....

Dallas...he wanted to murder white cops....they carry guns, he is the exception...I have shown you the others....

Gang shootings do not count....they are targeting other criminals...

We are talking mass public shooters......and of course you have to lie and mix the different types of shooting incidents to hide the fact that you are wrong again......

Again.....

1997-2016 gun murder rates went down here....

1990s....200 millon guns in private hands...

2016....357,000,000 guns in private hands...the gun murder rate went down, not up......

You are wrong.....

 

[2aguy]

And here are specific examples of how they are wrong.....

Some details to help you make your guess....

Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston church shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 9 dead)

vs.

Deputies Osceola pastor shot church janitor in self-defense ( 0 dead)

6 Shot At New Life Church Gunman 2 Churchgoers Dead - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

Remember This SC Concealed Carrier Stops Mass Shooting During Church Service. No Casualties. ( 0 dead)

**********

No guns: 15 dead

Sikh temple ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston ( 9 dead)


Parishioners with guns: 2 dead

Osceola ( 0 dead )

New life ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

South Carolina shotgun guy ( 0 dead)


Temple massacre has some Sikhs mulling gun ownership

The president of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin had only a butter knife on hand, which he used to fight the gunman. He was killed, but his heroic actions were credited for slowing the shooter. Guns were not allowed in the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin.

“No guns [were] allowed in the temple,” Kulbir Singh, an attendee of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, told FoxNews.com. “Everyone knows that it’s not allowed, anywhere in the temple.”

Here's the problem with anecdotes: All I need is one more anecdote to render your anecdote worthless. For example, the Dallas police shooter, who could not be taken down despite hundreds of people in the area packing heat. They needed a specialized bomb and a robot.

Such is the killing power of guns that you refuse to acknowledge while simultaneously alleging that guns are harmless. You're confused. Immensely.

And if a civilian had fired on the shooter you would have called him a wannabe Rambo.

The cops couldn't get him with a bullet why would you think a civilian could?

Don't look now, but you're making my point about the absurdity of arguing that guns make us safer.

It's the other way around though. In all of the shootings that are being cited, the one factor that is in all of the them, is you have one armed lunatic, and the victims are prevented from having weapons in the area where they are killed. Just like in France, which has far stricter gun laws than even you claim to want, the bad guys have killed over 250 people, 150 with machineguns, and not one person was able to defend themselves. Heck, even the police weren't able to defend themselves.

The simple fact is that gun bans simply don't work. They make it impossible for legal people to defend themselves and the only cost to the bad guys is maybe the weapons cost a little bit more. Which they don't care about because they plan on dying anyway.

The police in France were armed. EVERYONE in Dallas was armed. EVERYONE in Chicago (where you GOP shills often cite the worst gun violence) is armed. This "it only happens in gun-free zones" canard is exactly that: a canard. Unrestricted gun access doesn't create a safe society, as numerous far safer societies throughout the western world have proven.

Again, don't let the facts sway you, though. You're a redneck who likes guns, so you have to search for something to justify your lifestyle.

Those societies you think you know....have different criminal cultures than we have in our inner cities......their criminals, as I pointed out in the link to the articles on France...get fully automatic weapons easily.......and they are completely illegal in France.......

the 18 year old in Germany, banned from owning a gun by his age, by his psychiatric record, and the gun itself, a semi-auto pistol was illegal.........and he easily got the gun through the dark web........and not one German gun law stopped him....

Britain...confiscated guns....and their gun crime rate did not change.....they have always had a low gun murder rate....but their gun crime rate was not affected by the confiscation or their extreme gun control laws....in fact, their gun crime rate went up 4% last year...

you are wrong on every single aspect of guns.....every single one...there is not one thing you are correct on....we have shown you with actual information, facts, statistics...and news reports....

But keep denying it...we expect no more from you and the other anti gunners.......

Thanks for trying to make the case though...the other anti gunners are too afraid to even try anymore....

 

[westwall]

And here are specific examples of how they are wrong.....

Some details to help you make your guess....

Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston church shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 9 dead)

vs.

Deputies Osceola pastor shot church janitor in self-defense ( 0 dead)

6 Shot At New Life Church Gunman 2 Churchgoers Dead - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

Remember This SC Concealed Carrier Stops Mass Shooting During Church Service. No Casualties. ( 0 dead)

**********

No guns: 15 dead

Sikh temple ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston ( 9 dead)


Parishioners with guns: 2 dead

Osceola ( 0 dead )

New life ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

South Carolina shotgun guy ( 0 dead)


Temple massacre has some Sikhs mulling gun ownership

The president of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin had only a butter knife on hand, which he used to fight the gunman. He was killed, but his heroic actions were credited for slowing the shooter. Guns were not allowed in the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin.

“No guns [were] allowed in the temple,” Kulbir Singh, an attendee of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, told FoxNews.com. “Everyone knows that it’s not allowed, anywhere in the temple.”

Here's the problem with anecdotes: All I need is one more anecdote to render your anecdote worthless. For example, the Dallas police shooter, who could not be taken down despite hundreds of people in the area packing heat. They needed a specialized bomb and a robot.

Such is the killing power of guns that you refuse to acknowledge while simultaneously alleging that guns are harmless. You're confused. Immensely.

And if a civilian had fired on the shooter you would have called him a wannabe Rambo.

The cops couldn't get him with a bullet why would you think a civilian could?

Don't look now, but you're making my point about the absurdity of arguing that guns make us safer.

It's the other way around though. In all of the shootings that are being cited, the one factor that is in all of the them, is you have one armed lunatic, and the victims are prevented from having weapons in the area where they are killed. Just like in France, which has far stricter gun laws than even you claim to want, the bad guys have killed over 250 people, 150 with machineguns, and not one person was able to defend themselves. Heck, even the police weren't able to defend themselves.

The simple fact is that gun bans simply don't work. They make it impossible for legal people to defend themselves and the only cost to the bad guys is maybe the weapons cost a little bit more. Which they don't care about because they plan on dying anyway.

The police in France were armed. EVERYONE in Dallas was armed. EVERYONE in Chicago (where you GOP shills often cite the worst gun violence) is armed. This "it only happens in gun-free zones" canard is exactly that: a canard. Unrestricted gun access doesn't create a safe society, as numerous far safer societies throughout the western world have proven.

Again, don't let the facts sway you, though. You're a redneck who likes guns, so you have to search for something to justify your lifestyle.

Once again you are wrong. There are multiple police agency's in France, one of them The Municipal Police, among the first ones to get on the scene, were unarmed. They were unable to do anything till armed help arrived.

 

[Hiryuu]

I would like to redirect all of you back to topic

Concealed Carry Ethics, Obligations and Mindset

So back to it.

Does a CCW permit holder who is carrying have an obligation legally, morally or ethically to protect anyone but himself or his immediate family?

What mindset do you cultivate when you are carrying?
If you don't carry what do you think the mindset is of those who do?

Obligation:

Most people who conceal and carry do so with the intent to defend themselves and their loved ones. When it comes to obligations, each person has an obligation to their family not to get killed doing something they don't have to. Without an imminent threat to your person or a loved one, you are not required to defend someone else, and your primary concern is to make it home alive.

Now proper training and situation awareness may provide a viable option to engage a target, when there is a relatively low chance of a safe egress. Situational opportunities may present themselves that are worth taking advantage of. These are still circumstances that are purely at the discretion of the permit holder with a concealed firearm, and we are not obligated to intervene.

Mindset:

The mindset I have while carrying has more to do with training than the fact I have a firearm. I feel comfortable in most situations, not because I am armed, but because I am confident I have done the best I can to be aware of my surroundings (training). I take additional care not to make others uncomfortable, I want to avoid conflicts that may escalate. Conceal carry actually helps me pay more attention to the things and people around me, and I am more likely to be more pleasant and less aggressive.

Conceal/Open Carry and Non-Gun Owners

Most people don't know I am a CAC permit holder and conceal carry. I have firearms and clothing that make it easy to conceal in most situations. Most people will never know I am standing in front or behind them in a line somewhere armed. I live in a state where open carry is legal, but on the few occasions I have chosen to open carry, it has a tendency to cause others who are not familiar with firearms to be uncomfortable. Some are visibly uneasy, while others feel like engaging in pro or con discussions about gun rights.

I don't carry a firearm to look big and tough, and don't care to discuss opinions concerning firearms in an environment where they are not a matter of concern. I don't need others to acknowledge my right to carry, nor am I interested in debating anyone at the store when we could all go about our business like normal people. That's why I choose to conceal carry, because nobody needs to know. It is still funny when people bring up anti-firearm opinions in a conversation and have no idea you are standing next to them armed.