Do you pack heat?

[Symbolic]

It's no coincedence that govenrments or regions that either ban or severely restrict the ability to carry have higher crime rates. When most everyone carries, no one gets robbed. When you're made to give up your guns, you have rape, muggings, car jackings, and a husband bound and gagged in the living room of their house while the perps violate the wife and daughter.

I don't mean to come off as a hippy or anything, but truthfully, how often do we really hear of instances when carrying/owning a weapon was actually beneficial in a time of dire circumstances? I think we see more instances were gun owners children get a hold of their weapons and kill themselves, or gun owners shoot themselves while "playing" with their guns, then times when they were actually beneficial against crime.

Also, where do you think the majority of weapons used In crime come from? They are stolen or sold from gun owners. If the gun owner population goes down, the instances were guns are acquired to use In crime goes down.

Obviously some weapons are smuggled from other parts of the world, but we really don't have to dig too deep into the obvious in regards to crime statistics in other areas of the world. We have more murders in a day than some countries have in a year. It all goes back to Americans infatuation with Guns and their "constitutional right to bear arms."

Some interesting statistics. US ranked number 4 in regards to gun fatalities. The countries above them, are not nearly as advanced as we are. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms

 

[TransportJockey]

I don't mean to come off as a hippy or anything, but truthfully, how often do we really hear of instances when carrying/owning a weapon was actually beneficial in a time of dire circumstances? I think we see more instances were gun owners children get a hold of their weapons and kill themselves, or gun owners shoot themselves while "playing" with their guns, then times when they were actually beneficial against crime.

Also, where do you think the majority of weapons used In crime come from? They are stolen or sold from gun owners. If the gun owner population goes down, the instances were guns are acquired to use In crime goes down.

Obviously some weapons are smuggled from other parts of the world, but we really don't have to dig too deep into the obvious in regards to crime statistics in other areas of the world. We have more murders in a day than some countries have in a year. It all goes back to Americans infatuation with Guns and their "constitutional right to bear arms."

Look at statistics in Australia from before their gun restrictions to now. Same with GB. If guns are banned, criminals will still manage to get them for a time, one way or another. I can think of one pretty high profile story in ABQ, NM a few years back of a legal CCWer that used his carry weapon to defend a woman who worked at the Wal-Mart he was at from her crazy ex (or maybe current, not sure) boyfriend/husband. I know of a few places in the same city where if there was a CCWer, certain shootings most likely wouldn't have been as bad as they were.
Although ABQ also has tons of OCers (I was one for the longest time) too, so a criminal seeing an openly carried gun tends to rethink things.
EDIT: In response to your edit. Compare the relative populations of the countries listed below and above us. We're actually not doing too bad on a statistical point of view. And I'd love to see where Mexico ranks with the absolute newest numbers. (The numbers on that site are from 2002)

 

[Symbolic]

Look at statistics in Australia from before their gun restrictions to now. Same with GB. If guns are banned, criminals will still manage to get them for a time, one way or another. I can think of one pretty high profile story in ABQ, NM a few years back of a legal CCWer that used his carry weapon to defend a woman who worked at the Wal-Mart he was at from her crazy ex (or maybe current, not sure) boyfriend/husband. I know of a few places in the same city where if there was a CCWer, certain shootings most likely wouldn't have been as bad as they were.
Although ABQ also has tons of OCers (I was one for the longest time) too, so a criminal seeing an openly carried gun tends to rethink things.
EDIT: In response to your edit. Compare the relative populations of the countries listed below and above us. We're actually not doing too bad on a statistical point of view. And I'd love to see where Mexico ranks with the absolute newest numbers. (The numbers on that site are from 2002)

Regardless of how old the stats are, they will remain fairly consistent and have remained consistent. The U.S will always rank high. I think your overlooking the obvious and I wouldn't expect anything less of a response from a gun advocate. I fail to see the correlation and never will.

If everyone was carrying a weapon, crime would not decrease.. It would be more of an excuse for a gun toting redneck to shoot you cause you looked at him wrong. Would you think twice before stealing someones car.. Yes of course, but you can't just blast someone for stealing your car. In most states its even illegal to shoot someone if they just stole your belongings and raped your wife and was retreating off your property..

So even if everyone carried guns, the laws would still apply, resulting in more instances of deaths that occurred from gun owners "thinking they had the right to self defense"

 

[JPINFV]

I don't mean to come off as a hippy or anything, but truthfully, how often do we really hear of instances when carrying/owning a weapon was actually beneficial in a time of dire circumstances?

There's a few ways to look at that.
How many incidents where a gun is drawn to end, say, a robbery goes unreported?

Herd immunity. Areas with higher gun ownership have less crimes because the bad guys don't know who is armed. If you're going to mug someone, are you going to do it in an area where there's a higher probability that your victim is armed?

I think we see more instances were gun owners children get a hold of their weapons and kill themselves, or gun owners shoot themselves while "playing" with their guns, then times when they were actually beneficial against crime.

First off, Darwin at work. If someone is storing a fire arm, especially a loaded one, in a manner that is easily accessible, then they are violating the basic rules of safe gun handling. Similarly, if someone is cleaning a fire arm without first clearing it, then they are violating the rules of safe gun handling. Should we ban cars because of cruddy drivers?

Also, where do you think the majority of weapons used In crime come from? They are stolen or sold from gun owners. If the gun owner population goes down, the instances were guns are acquired to use In crime goes down.

Obviously some weapons are smuggled from other parts of the world, but we really don't have to dig too deep into the obvious in regards to crime statistics in other areas of the world. We have more murders in a day than some countries have in a year. It all goes back to Americans infatuation with Guns and their "constitutional right to bear arms."

...because crimes can only be committed with fire arms? Additionally, any data that isn't per-capita is useless to look at.

Some interesting statistics. US ranked number 4 in regards to gun fatalities. The countries above them, are not nearly as advanced as we are. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms

Anything that is, at the very least, not per-capita is useless. It's not really amazing or hard to understand why a large country is going to have more crime than a small country when looking at just the raw numbers.

 

[JPINFV]

If everyone was carrying a weapon, crime would not decrease.. It would be more of an excuse for a gun toting redneck to shoot you cause you looked at him wrong.

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you wanted a serious conversation.

 

[Symbolic]

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you wanted a serious conversation.

It is a serious conversation. I think most fail to realize what constitutes self defense. An individual who steals your belongings is not a candidate for a bullet. You will be punished and charged for murder in most states. As stated earlier, even if an intruder broke into your home and violated your wife, but was on the retreat outside of your property, again, you can and will be charged with murder.

Another hypothetical. You are walking solo down an ally and a guy pulls out a weapon that appeared to be a gun and you shoot him. You are charged with murder because A.) there were no witnesses and B.) There was no gun. Even if there was a gun, how could you reasonably prove that they guy was trying to mug you and not the other way around.

 

[TransportJockey]

Regardless of how old the stats are, they will remain fairly consistent and have remained consistent. The U.S will always rank high. I think your overlooking the obvious and I wouldn't expect anything less of a response from a gun advocate. I fail to see the correlation and never will.

Like I said, I would still like to see current stats, as well as a per capita set of numbers. Per capita I think we will actually rank below a lot of countries.

If everyone was carrying a weapon, crime would not decrease.. It would be more of an excuse for a gun toting redneck to shoot you cause you looked at him wrong. Would you think twice before stealing someones car.. Yes of course, but you can't just blast someone for stealing your car. In most states its even illegal to shoot someone if they just stole your belongings and raped your wife and was retreating off your property..

If someone has a weapon you are allowed to defend yourself in almost any state that allows carry of weapons. A lot of people who are carjacked usually aren't paying attention anyways.
As for the rape part... Castle Doctrine. Love it If they come into my home and I fear that my life is in danger, or they threaten you, you are allowed to defend your home and the life of those in it. Women have shot attempted rapists and it's been ruled as a justified shooting.
EDIT: Didn't read well enough to see the retreating part. That's why you don't let them step out your front door. And make sure to shoot them in the front.

So even if everyone carried guns, the laws would still apply, resulting in more instances of deaths that occurred from gun owners "thinking they had the right to self defense"

You mean we don't have a right to self defense? Really? That's a new one.

 

[Symbolic]

If someone has a weapon you are allowed to defend yourself in almost any state that allows carry of weapons. A lot of people who are carjacked usually aren't paying attention anyways.
As for the rape part... Castle Doctrine. Love it If they come into my home and I fear that my life is in danger, or they threaten you, you are allowed to defend your home and the life of those in it. Women have shot attempted rapists and it's been ruled as a justified shooting.
EDIT: Didn't read well enough to see the retreating part. That's why you don't let them step out your front door. And make sure to shoot them in the front.

You mean we don't have a right to self defense? Really? That's a new one.

Right, but you can see how circumstantial the use of a gun can be for self defense. You would need to carry a brochure with all the situations that a gun can and cannot be used and whether or not you should or should not kill this individual in order to save your own skin.

 

[JPINFV]

It is a serious conversation.

However characterizing everyone who carries as being a red neck is about as useful as characterizing everyone who supports the Brady Bunch as San Francisco or New England liberals who are only interested in bring communism to the US.

I think most fail to realize what constitutes self defense. An individual who steals your belongings is not a candidate for a bullet. You will be punished and charged for murder in most states. As stated earlier, even if an intruder broke into your home and violated your wife, but was on the retreat outside of your property, again, you can and will be charged with murder.

Even in the People's Republic of Kalifornia, a robbery where an individual has a reasonable suspicion that their life is in immediate danger and they are unable to escape is a clean shoot. That part about escape is null and void in places of residents. If you break into my house, as long as I'm not shooting you in the back while you're trying to leave my house and I take your life, it is a legal kill. In regards of the rape, if he's still engaged in rape or trying to force himself on a women, then that as well is a clean kill.

Another hypothetical. You are walking solo down an ally and a guy pulls out a weapon that appeared to be a gun and you shoot him. You are charged with murder because A.) there were no witnesses and B.) There was no gun. Even if there was a gun, how could you reasonably prove that they guy was trying to mug you and not the other way around.

Because that's the only scenario where carried fire arms are used? No one is going to claim that every shoot is a valid shoot. However a fire arm is a tool, weapon, and a toy. Just like other tools, weapons, and toys*, it can be misused or abused, but that doesn't warrant outlawing them. Should we outlaw baseball bats because inattentive kids can hit another kid on the baseball diamond or bad guys can use them to rob, injure, and kill?


*I'm going to qualify my use of the word "toy." I own a Winchester model 1300 shotgun. I do not hunt. As it currently stands, I do not own any ammo (I need to stop by Walmart). My main use is shooting clay discs for personal pleasure at the local trap field. It is a toy. Like baseball bats or cars, it has many uses and can injure or even kill someone when misused. Just because a baseball bat, a gun, or a car can cause serious damage when misused (intentionally or not) does not change the status of it's other uses. It simply dictates that more care needs to be used when using and storing it. I live in a house with 4 other people (3 other medical students and an engineer). Including myself, 3 people own firearms. All of the fire arms are locked and the pistols are stored in pieces. None of the fire arms are stored loaded. Given the situation, these represent proper and safe storage.

 

[JPINFV]

Right, but you can see how circumstantial the use of a gun can be for self defense. You would need to carry a brochure with all the situations that a gun can and cannot be used and whether or not you should or should not kill this individual in order to save your own skin.

The rules for self defense is a lot shorter than a driver's handbook. Do you consult a driver's handbook every time you start your car?

 

[Symbolic]

However characterizing everyone who carries as being a red neck is about as useful as characterizing everyone who supports the Brady Bunch as San Francisco or New England liberals who are only interested in bring communism to the US.

Wasn't my intention. We all know what a 'gun toting redneck is.' All gun owners obviously don't qualify for such a prestigious title.

 

[SanDiegoEmt7]

The gun isn't for work, none of the companies in my area allow people to carry on the job. Simply wanted to see what you guys thought. I would love to get a CCW so I could at least carry a pistol in my car (not locked in the trunk).

Obviously, I didn't intend for this discussion to be whether I could go around shooting people, on or off work. The reality is that I live in an city where gun/violence related crime is present.

Mostly just wanted to see if you EMS workers are pro-2nd amendment or pro-gun control, since we are the ones who often see the aftermath of shootings.

 

[Symbolic]

The rules for self defense is a lot shorter than a driver's handbook. Do you consult a driver's handbook every time you start your car?

No, but I should. You should be able to see what would go wrong if everyone carried a weapon and we used the self defense definition you provided (An individual has a reasonable suspicion that their life is in immediate danger). If everyone carried a weapon, there would be more instances were road rage/petty arguments escalated into shoot outs. Or instances where 18 year old video game nerds, decided to pull a gun because he felt his life was threatened when he was verbally harassed.

I guess I fail to see the logic behind most peoples motives to carry a weapon. Its not like the majority of you guys live in a bad neighborhood, or live out in the wilderness, where a gun might be beneficial. The fact is, most of you carry because you think its cool, or your delusional enough to believe that you will actually need to use you a gun to take a drive from your house in the suburbs to the grocery store. Pathetic actually.

 

[JPINFV]

I guess I fail to see the logic behind most peoples motives to carry a weapon. Its not like the majority of you guys live in a bad neighborhood, or live out in the wilderness, where a gun might be beneficial. The fact is, most of you carry because you think its cool, or your delusional enough to believe that you will actually need to use you a gun to take a drive from your house in the suburbs to the grocery store. Pathetic actually.

Nice personal attack at the end... stay classy.

However so crime never occurs outside of the highly urbanized areas?

Why train people in CPR if most people don't arrest at the grocery store?

 

[Symbolic]

Nice personal attack at the end... stay classy.

However so crime never occurs outside of the highly urbanized areas?

We could honestly go on all day on the subject, I've quite frankly heard it all and contrary to your beliefs, I do have some respect for those who wish to carry. I just cant help but chuckle when I see a guy in line at target with a 9mm strapped to his hip. Not only does it make people around him nervous for their own safety, It also makes people wonder why they are so insecure to carry a gun, when millions of other human beings feel no need to carry. To me, I see insecurity. Gun owners are fearful for their safety above and beyond the common folk. Its just not logical to go about life thinking your going to be presented with a hypothetical situation where a gun was your only saving grace. Sure it happens, but not nearly as often as gun owners want to believe.

 

[C.T.E.M.R.]

I have to agree that for home/personal defense off duty is a good idea in a legal way, and in some areas some ems should have some protection, not necessarily a gun, but if somehow its just you and your partner and your PT pulls a knife what are you going to do next. obviously not all places are like that but there are some cities that it should be a possibility. But only if the individual is properly trained.

 

[Akulahawk]

Symbolic, the research is just not on your side. It is all too common that when you need help, dialing 911 gets you about a 2-5 minute wait from your call to dispatch. Then figure another 2-5 minutes (urban area) for PD to arrive. I live in an urban area and work in a rural one. The PD response time out where I work is in the neighborhood of 20 minutes running Code 3. Yes, that is correct...

I would primarily carry for the same reason PD carries: Protection of self. They get more latitude as to what's a permissible use of force (yes, pointing a firearm at someone is a use of force), but ultimately, that's why they carry. At times, they'll use their firearms for protection of society, but most officer involved shootings I've heard of occurred because someone was endangering the life of the officer.

In my case, it has nothing to do with feeling psychologically insecure or having inadequate feelings of masculinity. It has everything to do with my physical security. If you saw me carrying while wearing one uniform I wear, you'd have a completely different emotional reaction than with me carrying while wearing my "street clothes."

If I'm doing my part correctly, you'd never know I'm carrying.

 

[LucidResq]

I don't mean to come off as a hippy or anything, but truthfully, how often do we really hear of instances when carrying/owning a weapon was actually beneficial in a time of dire circumstances?

I know this is late in the thread, but I just wanted to point out that I can think of at least 3 in my area in the past few months. One man shot and killed a 17-year old breaking into his home at night, another man shot and killed an intruder who broke into his house one night, who turned out to be his ex-wife when the lights came on (he'd had a restraining order against her... so I doubt she was just out for material goods), and recently in my city two men robbing a liquor store at gunpoint were shot and wounded.

 

[Akulahawk]

JPINFV, keep a close eye on the Peruta case in San Diego. That case has the serious potential to change certain parts of California's CCW law, as applied. In the last 6 months, my county went from extremely restrictive to nearly shall-issue. Certain parts of LA County have much easier rates of CCW issuance. Not all Cities defer to the Sheriff on this. Also, the LAPD is under court order to issue to people with specified good cause...

I know of what I speak.

 

[46Young]

That post looks almost exactly like a lot of posts I've come to see on glocktalk the last few years.

I got my material from this article and the comments below:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/soaring_gold_and_a_sinking_dol_1.html