Armed Citizens

[Skull Pilot]

I for one have had a CCW permit from PA. for 20 years and have not had a reason to use one of my weapons. The main reason I have to permit is because you have to have one to transport a firearm in your vehicle, but I do carry quite regularly. Saying that, I do not frequent bars, if I want a beer I buy it and consume it at home, it's cheaper. When I go out for dinner and I am armed, I do not drink alcahol.

As I stated earlier, I have never had a reason to use one of my forearms but I want it near if I do need it.

In my state, carrying even with a permit while consuming alcohol is a sure way to get your permit revoked.

 

[Mini 14]

The answer to every confronation is not "You have a gun so I will have a gun too and I will win"

If someone is robbing your store and you reach for your gun the chances are just as good that you will be shot. The best response is to hand him the money and ask if he would like fries with that. Smile and waive as he leaves

Then call the police and show them the video tape of the robber and the video from the parking lot showing the car he was driving. The police will pick him up at their leisure. Video equipment is proving to be a larger factor in fighting crime than armed clerks

I wish I had that luxury, but it is not an option in the gun industry.

If you rob my stores and produce a weapon, you're going to face a hail of bullets when you leave. Any employee who I am not confident will pull the trigger when it is needed quickly gets written off the schedule. If you rob one and don't produce a weapon, you're too big of an idiot to be a real threat. You won't get shot, but you won't leave either, until the squad car gets there.

But my inventory is a little different than cereal, tobacco, or clothing.

That said, in a robbery that does not involve firearms, video is easily your best protection, and protecting it with your life is not a wise decision.

But with guns, we don't really have that choice. We simply cannot let weapons leave without knowing who took them, so if you try to take them without a legal transfer, and we are there, we can and will use deadly force to stop you (Castle Doctrine State), even if we make you think we aren't going to (we practice that too....appearing submissive and pretending to offer up the store to save our own lives, while the other employees move for the clear shots).

If you ever want a "real-life" lesson in strategic placement, walk into a gun shop and just watch the employees. They are constantly moving with a purpose, even when the customers in the store don't show any red flags. If you see them looking at each other as they move around, someone in the store is giving them concern. See if you can figure out who, and why. (It will generally be someone with their hands in their pockets, or someone who is trying to avoid attention while looking around a lot). Hands in pockets is a big concern in gun shops. We may not say anything to you, but we are watching closely until you take them out.

 

[rightwinger]

Will a video tape restore your life if the criminal shoots you (the store clerk) if he (the criminal) thinks there was not enough money in the register and kills you?

Nope....it won't restore your life after a shootout over $100 bucks in the register and a pack of smokes either

 

[George Costanza]

Will a video tape restore your life if the criminal shoots you (the store clerk) if he (the criminal) thinks there was not enough money in the register and kills you?

Nope....it won't restore your life after a shootout over $100 bucks in the register and a pack of smokes

As I am sure you know, there is no point whatsoever in trying to argue this point with the John Wayne types that inhabit this Board. This is one area where we simply have to agree to disagree with them, I'm afraid.

 

[Cecilie1200]

ANY alcohol in your system at all invalidates your CCW in Alabama.

I carry everywhere I go, and usually have two on me. The nature of my business mandates it, though I carry away from work as well. If you see me, and I'm not drinking a beer or in a government building, I'm carrying at least one firearm.

I have never thought to pull one out and shoot an idiot on the road.

Maybe because I'm not in a hurry to get anywhere.

Or maybe because you're more mature than a five-year-old with borderline personality disorder.

 

[Cecilie1200]

When I want your opinion on my qualifications to render an opinion on anything, I will ask you for it. In the meantime, keep your God damn, obnoxious pie hole shut on the subject. Got it?

I question your statistics. As for your interpretation of those statistics, that goes without saying.

Yes, the guy wasting everyone's time with fairy tales to replace the evidence he can't produce should DEFINITELY feel justified in 1) defending his qualifications, 2) telling someone ELSE to keep his obnoxious pie hole shut, and 3) questioning the statistics of ANYONE who actually made the effort to produce something more substantial than his own arrogant, elitist fantasies about how the rest of America is populated with Bufords and Billy Bobs who open fire on each other for no reason.

Do you have any conception of what an utter, blithering jackwagon you've made yourself appear to be in the space of less than five posts? On the other hand, just watching you has made me understand why you're so willing to believe OTHER people are too stupid to come in out of the rain.

In George's defence he did in fact PM me for additional information. He's making an effort.

To do what? Live his entire life in a fantasy land inside his own head? Kudos to for him making an effort to improve the details of his little daydream world, but I'm still not going to respect his fevered imaginings as evidence of anything except his need to get out more.

 

[George Costanza]

It is logical to assume that when all citizens are carrying weapons, there are going to be more citizen v. citizen shootings than when guns are prohibited. Anyone disagree with that? If so, I would like to hear the reasoning behind the disagreement.

 

[Missourian]

It is logical to assume that when all citizens are carrying weapons, there are going to be more citizen v. citizen shootings than when guns are prohibited. Anyone disagree with that? If so, I would like to hear the reasoning behind the disagreement.

Yes. I disagree.

Loaded firearms are not prohibited from vehicles in Missouri and there are 125,000 concealed carry permits issued in Missouri. Yet there are less gun related killings per capita in Missouri than there are in neighboring Illinois where CCW's are not issued and firearms are not allowed in the same vehicle compartment as the ammunition (I.E. gun in the trunk, ammo in the glovebox.)


Gun violence in the United States by state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Too isolated? Look at Maryland vs. Virginia or California vs. Arizona.

EDIT: And take a good look at Vermont, where everyone can conceal a weapon on their person without any permit. Number 49 of 50.

Case closed.

 

[The Gadfly]

billings, montana -

...............................

link?

This never happened. I made it up to illustrate the danger of arming citizens, who might use guns improperly, against other citizens.

Operative phrase "I made it up". You sure did! We've had concealed carry for some years down here, AND we have some of the worst drivers in the nation. Know how many incidents like you describe we've had with people with concealed carry permits? ZERO! That's right, zip zilch, nada, NONE! And yes, I'm in the South, so we actually have people with names like "Billy Bob" and "Buford".

You don't think, you assume, and worse, you stereotype-don't tell me you weren't trying to use the "dumb redneck hick from the South" stereotype to reinforce your little "illustration".
Here's another word for you, Mr. sophisticated, Yankee liberal-"BIGOT". Wear it with pride! BTW, we are familiar with indoor plumbing, a lot of us have college degrees, and some of us can even read! Go grow some stones, and some manners-you do know what those are, right?

 

[Cecilie1200]

It is logical to assume that when all citizens are carrying weapons, there are going to be more citizen v. citizen shootings than when guns are prohibited. Anyone disagree with that? If so, I would like to hear the reasoning behind the disagreement.

Only if you consider it logical to assume that all citizens of the United States are fucking morons without the sense to pour piss out of a boot, and possessing no sense of self-preservation whatsoever.

And I'd say that encapsulates the reasoning behind the disagreement.

However, I think the fact that you have to INVENT little fantasies where everyone else is a purblind fucktard because you can't find any REAL evidence supporting that belief argues in favor of my position.

 

[Cecilie1200]

link?

This never happened. I made it up to illustrate the danger of arming citizens, who might use guns improperly, against other citizens.

Operative phrase "I made it up". You sure did! We've had concealed carry for some years down here, AND we have some of the worst drivers in the nation. Know how many incidents like you describe we've had with people with concealed carry permits? ZERO! That's right, zip zilch, nada, NONE! And yes, I'm in the South, so we actually have people with names like "Billy Bob" and "Buford".

You don't think, you assume, and worse, you stereotype-don't tell me you weren't trying to use the "dumb redneck hick from the South" stereotype to reinforce your little "illustration".
Here's another word for you, Mr. sophisticated, Yankee liberal-"BIGOT". Wear it with pride! BTW, we are familiar with indoor plumbing, a lot of us have college degrees, and some of us can even read! Go grow some stones, and some manners-you do know what those are, right?

He wasn't trying to use the "dumb redneck hick from the South" stereotype. He was trying to use the "dumb redneck hick from the West" stereotype. Let's be clear about who PRECISELY he was condescending to in his general statement that everyone except elites like him is too ignorant and violent to be trusted with the sharp scissors.

 

[The Gadfly]

It is logical to assume that when all citizens are carrying weapons, there are going to be more citizen v. citizen shootings than when guns are prohibited. Anyone disagree with that? If so, I would like to hear the reasoning behind the disagreement.

You outdid yourself with this one! Been watching too many cowboy movies, I see. I suppose it did not occur to you, that only a complete idiot would draw a gun on a man he knows is also carrying one, unless it was absolutely necessary; hell, they didn't even do that in the REAL Old West! Have you ever actually been shot at? Ever shot at someone who was shooting back?Ever been in actual combat? I have, and I think you should shut up before you show your ignorance and lack of common sense any further.

 

[George Costanza]

All right - thank you all for your comments, both the well reasoned and civil ones as well as the rude and childish ones.

I had not considered the argument that if EVERYONE is armed, then Driver A is going to think twice about drawing down on Driver B. That's a good point. I think the studies I have seen do bear out that the instances of citizen v. citizen shootings in armed jurisdicitons, are less than the gun prohibitionists claim.

BTW - I am a liberal, but I am not in favor of gun control. I own three or four shotguns (I think I gave one to one of my sons), have hunted birds all of my life, and would not like to think of a society where I could not have a gun in my house if I so chose. In fact, there is a shotgun propped up in one corner of the bedroom, in easy reach.

I am not sure I would be in favor of allowing all citizens to carry concealed and loaded weapons, however. That is going a tad too far, at least for me.

But again - thanks for your comments. I am learning from what I read on this thread.

 

[signelect]

No one in their right mind want to kill someone but neither do they want to be killed while minding their ow business. I do have a CHL and really don't like the idea but when you break into my house the right you have are the rights I chose to give you. Don't catch me on a bad day. A local police chief once told me that is I have to defend my family with a gun make sure that when the police arrive they only question one person.

 

[Missourian]

All right - thank you all for your comments, both the well reasoned and civil ones as well as the rude and childish ones.

I had not considered the argument that if EVERYONE is armed, then Driver A is going to think twice about drawing down on Driver B. That's a good point. I think the studies I have seen do bear out that the instances of citizen v. citizen shootings in armed jurisdicitons, are less than the gun prohibitionists claim.

BTW - I am a liberal, but I am not in favor of gun control. I own three or four shotguns (I think I gave one to one of my sons), have hunted birds all of my life, and would not like to think of a society where I could not have a gun in my house if I so chose. In fact, there is a shotgun propped up in one corner of the bedroom, in easy reach.

I am not sure I would be in favor of allowing all citizens to carry concealed and loaded weapons, however. That is going a tad too far, at least for me.

But again - thanks for your comments. I am learning from what I read on this thread.

I've been studying this issue for a long time George, and while I cannot tell you what the exact root cause of gun crime is, I can tell you without reservation that it is not a function of legal firearm ownership.

Look at Wyoming, nearly 60% of the population are gun owners, but their firearm homicide rate is .59 per 100,000, the 4th lowest in the U.S.

Now look at Illinois, with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, only 20% of their citizens own a gun yet their firearm homicide rate is the 7th highest in the country at 4.59 per 100,000.

Gun violence in the United States by state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
​

 

[PoliticalChic]

So if we all just armed ourselves to the teeth there'd less property crime?

Yeah, I believe that.

I also believe that crimes would become even more violent, but I don't doubt there might be less of it.

Not what the evidence shows, lady.

 

[Missourian]

Here's a couple of links to my research from other threads.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/blogs/missourian/106-gun-control-doesnt-work-heres-the-proof.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/blogs...orrelates-with-decrease-in-violent-crime.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/blogs/missourian/105-guns-dont-kill-people-cities-kill-people.html

 

[rightwinger]

All right - thank you all for your comments, both the well reasoned and civil ones as well as the rude and childish ones.

I had not considered the argument that if EVERYONE is armed, then Driver A is going to think twice about drawing down on Driver B. That's a good point. I think the studies I have seen do bear out that the instances of citizen v. citizen shootings in armed jurisdicitons, are less than the gun prohibitionists claim.

BTW - I am a liberal, but I am not in favor of gun control. I own three or four shotguns (I think I gave one to one of my sons), have hunted birds all of my life, and would not like to think of a society where I could not have a gun in my house if I so chose. In fact, there is a shotgun propped up in one corner of the bedroom, in easy reach.

I am not sure I would be in favor of allowing all citizens to carry concealed and loaded weapons, however. That is going a tad too far, at least for me.

But again - thanks for your comments. I am learning from what I read on this thread.

I've been studying this issue for a long time George, and while I cannot tell you what the exact root cause of gun crime is, I can tell you without reservation that it is not a function of legal firearm ownership.

Look at Wyoming, nearly 60% of the population are gun owners, but their firearm homicide rate is .59 per 100,000, the 4th lowest in the U.S.

Now look at Illinois, with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, only 20% of their citizens own a gun yet their firearm homicide rate is the 7th highest in the country at 4.59 per 100,000.

Gun violence in the United States by state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
​

Gun laws or population density?

You really think the populations of Wyoming and Illinois are a good match in any comparison?

You really need to look at cause and effect

Do they have more gun violence because they have more gun laws
or
Do they have more gun laws because they have more gun violence?

 

[The Gadfly]

All right - thank you all for your comments, both the well reasoned and civil ones as well as the rude and childish ones.

I had not considered the argument that if EVERYONE is armed, then Driver A is going to think twice about drawing down on Driver B. That's a good point. I think the studies I have seen do bear out that the instances of citizen v. citizen shootings in armed jurisdicitons, are less than the gun prohibitionists claim.

BTW - I am a liberal, but I am not in favor of gun control. I own three or four shotguns (I think I gave one to one of my sons), have hunted birds all of my life, and would not like to think of a society where I could not have a gun in my house if I so chose. In fact, there is a shotgun propped up in one corner of the bedroom, in easy reach.

I am not sure I would be in favor of allowing all citizens to carry concealed and loaded weapons, however. That is going a tad too far, at least for me.

But again - thanks for your comments. I am learning from what I read on this thread.

I've been studying this issue for a long time George, and while I cannot tell you what the exact root cause of gun crime is, I can tell you without reservation that it is not a function of legal firearm ownership.

Look at Wyoming, nearly 60% of the population are gun owners, but their firearm homicide rate is .59 per 100,000, the 4th lowest in the U.S.

Now look at Illinois, with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, only 20% of their citizens own a gun yet their firearm homicide rate is the 7th highest in the country at 4.59 per 100,000.

Gun violence in the United States by state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
​

Gun laws or population density?

You really think the populations of Wyoming and Illinois are a good match in any comparison?

Who has the most control in Wyoming...The Bloods or the Crips?

If I had to guess, RW, it's probably a function of both gun laws and population density; which is one more reason one-size-fits-all laws are not necessarily a good idea. What works well in a heavily urbanized state, doesn't work the same way in a rural state like I live in, and vice versa. Out here where I live, you had better be able to defend your home, because rigor mortis will have set in (on either your dead body, or the bad guy's), by the time the cops can answer your call for help.

 

[Mini 14]

It is logical to assume that when all citizens are carrying weapons, there are going to be more citizen v. citizen shootings than when guns are prohibited. Anyone disagree with that? If so, I would like to hear the reasoning behind the disagreement.

There are more guns privately owned in the US than there are citizens in the US. If you consider only those of age to possess a firearm, we could put almost 2 weapons into the hands of every man and woman legally old enough to purchase a firearm with the guns that are already out there, and sales are at all-time record highs, and getting stronger.

How many have CCW's, I don't know. But I'd say the number is likely approaching 1/3 of the population (those who possess a CCW, and those who do not need one to carry openly or concealed).