Debating an Anti-Gunner, Part III


December 11, 2012, 10:16 PM
Back again!

Tonight I spotted this nefarious quote on facebook.

With everyone posting links to the news about the concealed carry ban being struck down, I was curious if the "common sense" wisdom that people who conceal carry are law abiding, and generally do not use their guns for unlawful purposes. Can anyone refute these statistics? Since 2007, fourteen police officers, 485 private citizens, twenty-three mass shootings, and thirty-five murder-suicides were commited by concealed carriers.


My Response (part 1/2)

From 2007 to 2010, 1,333 violent felons were KILLED by private citizens in self defense.

This does NOT count those who WOUNDED violent felons (most estimate 20x the number of killed, conservatively, firearms aren't nearly as lethal as the movies would have you believe).

Nor does it count violent felons which fled the scene when presented with an armed victim, or who choose victims or venues which are less likely to present armed opposition.

Part 2 /2

(I typed up after dinner, following other people in a heated debate)

After dinner I gathered up a couple of other stats which may interest you (from a purely statistical point of view):

Total Law Enforcement justifiable homicides 2007-2010 (violent felons killed): 1,622
(source, FBI:

Percent effectiveness of private citizens vs. law enforcement on violent felons killed: 82.18%

Anecdotal, but worth noting; Tax dollars saved annually by private citizens by killing violent felons dead, dead, dead (estimate): $51,011,244

(Using Illinois cost per inmate as a baseline; here:

68,720. <<< That's how many people were murdered between 2007 and 2011, all weapon types.

534. << Violence Policy Center claims on concealed carry holders committing murders during this time period.

0.77% - contribution to the overall murder rate by concealed carry holders. (Less than 1%).

8,817,028. Number of Concealed Carry holders in United States (Source:

Concealed carry holders as percentage of population of US (estimate): 2.968%


Percent of concealed carry holders committing homicides between 2007-2011:


Yes, that's an extremely small percent.

Concealed carry holders represent around 3% of the population of the US.

Meanwhile concealed carry holders contribute less than 1% to the overall homicide rate.


The conclusion to be drawn from this - and the data is VERY conclusive - is concealed carry holders are MUCH safer people to be around than the average citizen.

If you enjoyed reading about "Debating an Anti-Gunner, Part III" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
December 12, 2012, 12:13 AM
You missed this:

That VPC document is hugely inaccurate.

December 12, 2012, 12:19 AM
Nice I like your approach :D.

December 12, 2012, 12:25 AM
Perfect. Thanks a bunch! :)

That'll put the nail in the coffin.

Someone in the thread mentioned:


I wonder how many women who were armed have been raped as opposed to unarmed women. that, unfortunately, is the only statistic that really matters to me. Mass shootings are scary, robberies are scary and accidents are scary. but none of these things scare me as much as the thought of my wife, mother, or sister being a victim of sexual assault

The next reply was ANTI:

I doubt her having a gun would make a difference. Id bet they would still try to rape if the had that on their mind , then steal the gun and use it to shoot her. I hope we never return to the wild west ways.

In my closing post;

To return to your original question - "can anyone refute these statistics", try this sociology thesis. It cites 139 sources which combine to definitively show the VPC incorrectly, falsely, or otherwise mis-reported the number of people "killed by concealed carry holders" to vastly inflate their numbers and increase the "shock factor."

Once you take this in to account, it becomes crystal clear that the VPC just wants to scare the bejeesus out of people to advance their political agenda.

To address another fear above;

Wild West is what we have RIGHT NOW in Chicago.

Concealed carry is the civilized answer.

December 12, 2012, 12:28 AM
With the Federal court rendering Illinois' ban on concealed carry unconstitutional, and a battle in the legislature of epic proportions on the horizon, it's more important than ever to sway the public opinion in our direction, in a polite, concise, and effective manner.

Every chance you get.

December 12, 2012, 12:28 AM
Way to finish strong leave em speechless loved the Chicago line lol:D.

December 12, 2012, 04:19 AM
You are casting your pearls before swine, it is arguring with a manhole cover

December 12, 2012, 04:27 AM
Arguing with a manhole cover maybe, but demonstrating to other viewers that this person is indeed a manhole cover may be more to the point.

December 12, 2012, 07:09 AM
There are always two sides in every legislative action:
1. The positive effect, ie. how effective the suggested means are in correcting a problem.
2. What will the side effects and collateral damage be.

Prohibition of alcohol is a prime example of a noble and idealistic law that went horribly wrong. Negative side effects far outweighed the perceived gain, which also was nonexistent because it impacted only those who wanted to obey the law and didn't pose a problem that was addressed.

Most importantly, there's a constitutional principle of innocence until proved guilty. No-one can't be punished for crimes he didn't commit and a loss of means to defend oneself is in effect a punishment. Convicted felons have lost it for a good reason, they've caused it themselves. Accusing the vast majority of CCW holders for being potential murderers because some murderers have had a valid CCW permit is not only childish but insulting, illogical and downright idiotic. It lacks even the most fundamental basic of understanding causality; absolutely no-one commits a murder because they just happen to have a CCW, and even suggesting that banning CCW could prevent a homicidal person from committing a crime is beyond any logic and reason. A determined killer isn't the slightest bit concerned about having a permit to carry a firearm when he doesn't even care about being sentenced to life in prison or even death for what he is determined to do on purpose. As we've seen countless times, the only thing criminals like these are concerned about is the balance of power - just one, equally determined law-abiding citizen with a firearm can stop them. Some of these citizens wear a blue uniform, most don't.

I've never comprehended the level of utter stupidity and denial of logic required for someone to become an anti, not to mention failing to correct his misguided and propaganda-induced beliefs in the face of overwhelming contradicting evidence. Anti-gun mindset resembles a religion, a cult of the worst kind that has a self-righteous doctrine of disregarding all facts and counterfeiting "evidence" to prove their predetermined point at all costs, ad nauseum.

December 12, 2012, 08:19 AM
The irrational anti (legal) gun religion is similar to the Green religion of man mand global climate change. Brainwashed, indoctrinated, self important, synchophants.

December 12, 2012, 09:15 AM
If any of your antis are arguing from an emotional basis, you will never convince them - just look at politics and religion - also both highly emotionally charged issues.

Keep it clear like you have, but do NOT let them drag you down into a "shouting" match; that will help make the point even more - that gun owners are calm and rational, not hyper emotional and out of control

December 12, 2012, 09:31 AM
Over the years, it's become abundantly clear that studies released by the VPC have about as much academic credibility as The Flat Earth Society.

Kudos to Trent for being willing to strike a blow against the ignorance spouted by that dishonest cult.

December 12, 2012, 09:49 AM
Well done Trent. I like to follow your endeavors with debating antis here, because I don't have the patience to do it on facebook or any other websites. I used to, but not anymore. I think you had good facts and well-presented this case, that report about the VPC's fraudulent data is golden. And you know the good folks here at THR will keep you from straying too far in the direction of emotion-based arguments.

And like mjkten points out, you may not ever convince the initial poster he is wrong, but you will perhaps convince (or at least give pause) a lot of other quiet observers. We must remember we aren't only visible to those we directly address in facebook but possibly anyone can read those messages.

December 12, 2012, 09:58 AM
Woke up to this;

I took my famliy to Chicago for a week this Spring, never saw a gun, shooting, or violence. I did see about 1 miilion people I would not feel comfortable sitting next to if they were armed. Guns are not toys. The general population does not have training to use them, or even know how to aim. Having a gun does not make you safe it just adds to the amount of stray bullets hitting innocent kids near your gun battle when you "protect" yourself.

I need coffee before I go off on this dude, try to keep it civil. (Brother of original guy who posted the VPC link and sludge, must run in the family)

December 12, 2012, 10:10 AM
I need coffee before I go off on this dude, try to keep it civil. (Brother of original guy who posted the VPC link and sludge, must run in the family)

Ouch. That was predictable; a loud but well-funded ideological minority and its diciples claiming to speak for the masses, without being able to substantiate absurd claims about "feelings" of no less than a million people. Likewise these individuals are completely incapable of providing any evidence about any regularity or probability of collateral damage - that kind of imaginary scenarios are 99.9% a product of their own, sick imagination.

They live in a massively biased, hollywood-brainwashed fairyland they've created in their own imagination, not reality.

December 12, 2012, 11:08 AM
Since we've switched from a statistics argument (which I won) to an emotional argument (which is nigh-impossible to win), my response followed suit:

The general population which does not have training... does so by choice. Have YOU ever shot a gun or received training? If not, I can see where this sentiment comes from. There are plenty of folks who have received training, both in marksmanship and the legality behind application of lethal force. These folks understand that every bullet which leaves their firearm has a lawyer attached to it, and don't go around "shooting up kids."

You're confusing the good guys with the bad guys.

The bad guys do NOT care where their bullets go. They do NOT care if you are uncomfortable around weapons. They do NOT receive training on marksmanship, legal, or otherwise. And they certainly don't care about gun laws, as evidenced by Chicago's incredibly high murder rate by firearms in the face of a total ban on carry and possession.

December 12, 2012, 11:17 AM
A week in the murder capital of the USA without a single act of violence or homicide?

December 12, 2012, 11:25 AM
I took my famliy to Chicago for a week this Spring, never saw a gun, shooting, or violence. I did see about 1 miilion people I would not feel comfortable sitting next to if they were armed. Guns are not toys. The general population does not have training to use them, or even know how to aim. Having a gun does not make you safe it just adds to the amount of stray bullets hitting innocent kids near your gun battle when you "protect" yourself.
One cannot doubt the truthiness ( of his opinion.

December 12, 2012, 11:40 AM
Original poster responded

I don't like being around guns, and I worry that somebody carrying a concealed weapon might leverage it in disagreements with people, even if they never actually intend on firing it or even getting it out. Having a heated dispute with your neighbor because he's trying to cut down your favorite lilac bush? Let your gun become a little less "concealed" and hope he notices. Cut me off at the intersection? Wave my gun at the *******. Does this ever happen? I don't think they screen people for tendency to throw temper tantrums when they issue gun licenses, do they?

That being said, I don't think I care whether concealed carry is permitted or not.

My Response

Patrick - threatening someone with a firearm is, and will remain, assault with a deadly weapon. Each of the cases you illustrated already are and will REMAIN a felony - with, or without, concealed carry.

Since 2009, it has been legal for me to transport a firearm in my center console with a loaded magazine next to it. (IL Supreme court ruling

I carry an empty 9mm with a loaded magazine next to it in my car - have for years. Not once have I ever had an urge to spend the 2 seconds taking it out of the console to load it, over a traffic or any other incident. Even when some idiot cuts me off. But I sure as hell feel better having it there when I'm waiting in a dark alley in Peoria at 2 AM on a Friday night. I have to sit there 2 minutes for the security gate to open at the datacenter; which is located 1/2 block from Taft Homes in downtown Peoria. Every single time I've gone there I've seen gangbangers on that block, drinking and doing whatever else gangbangers do. Often I've had to get out of the car to remove empty 40's in paper bags, or other obstructions, so I don't run them over and shred my tires.

This being said, the main difference we're looking at here is my 110 pound wife will stand a chance against a 220 pound rapist / robber. Firearms are nothing more than a tool, one that can be used for good or evil. Right now we do NOT have the right to use them for good. Period.

Not to mention that even down state we have a serious crime issue to be concerned with. 15 heroin overdoses in Tazewell county this year. Increased home invasions, burglaries, and assaults. Just a few miles from here *5* armed intruders broke in to a house a few weeks ago. They waited for the husband to leave for work (3rd shift). His wife and two small children were home. Held at gunpoint while the house was emptied. Was the second of TWO armed robberies in Delavan on that day. Followed an armed bank robbery by a couple of weeks.

So even little farm towns aren't safe anymore. You used to not have to lock your doors. Now I won't send my 15 year old boy outside at night without a sidearm. (Jr. has an FOID card and has received extensive training on firearms).

I appreciate your views - and respect them. Everyone has a right to their opinions - both you and I, and Tyler. We don't have to see eye to eye on the issue; but through debates like this we, we can all learn a little more about each other's views, reasons, and rationale. Ultimately it's up to the law makers to decide the issue.

I will say this; if you travel OUTSIDE Illinois, to a state which allows open carry - you'll see all sorts of people carrying firearms. In Kentucky, North Carolina, Indiana, Utah, Arizona, Wyoming, Iowa, Missouri, and Ohio, I've run across plenty of ordinary people carrying firearms. Not once have I ever felt uncomfortable. WE are unaccustomed to it because Illinois has always banned them. In many of the other 49 states... it's become very commonplace and doesn't raise any eyebrows.

December 12, 2012, 11:50 AM
There is an ultimate irony here, is the original poster of the VPC stuff used to WORK for me.

In my lifetime I've had to draw a firearm ONE time in self-defense or defense of others. And it was to save HIS scrawny butt. :)

When he worked for me, he fixed a customer's computer. Left a voice mail saying he removed the virus, what website it came from, and told the customer to be careful visiting sites like that.

The website happened to be a porn site, and the customer's fiancee/wife got the message before he did.

So suddenly and quite unexpectedly we have a 220 pound body builder crashing through the front door of the office. He screams "you're dead -------------" and tries to jump over the counter to get to my tech.

I step back and pull a firearm from under the counter (mainly so HE isn't between ME and the FIREARM). I don't POINT it at him, just back up a few steps at low ready.

I yell STOP.

Guy freezes in his tracks at the sight of the firearm. Says "that's not a real gun."

Continuing to point the weapon at the floor, I say "it most certainly IS real. And you need to leave. Right now."

Guy backs up and leaves. Goes to the POLICE station and turns me in. Detectives come. Investigate the incident. Determine I didn't break any laws. No charges filed.

Anyway.. for a guy who was SAVED one heck of a beating at one point, by me - he should know better than question the benefits of firearms in self defense.

December 12, 2012, 11:50 AM
The only point I will give to an anti-gun person is this: If there were absolutely no guns anywhere in the USA then there would be absolutely no gun violence in the USA. If they can guarantee me that EVERY gun in the country would magically disappear then I would agree with them. I don't care about reduction in numbers or what happens in England or Australia. Our culture has always involved gun ownership and personal responsibility (though the personal responsibility is fading).
The news does not report when a legal gun owner defends himself, his family or his property with a gun because it is rarely newsworthy. They ALWAYS report when a person uses a gun for bad reasons. Anits will never respect your ideas just like I will never respect theirs. As one person put it, the best you can hope for is that someone who is sitting on the fence sees your facts and realizes that you are correct.

December 12, 2012, 12:17 PM
jrdolall said "The only point I will give to an anti-gun person is this: If there were absolutely no guns anywhere in the USA then there would be absolutely no gun violence in the USA."

I, on the other hand, don't care if I'm shot, knifed or hit over the head with a cricket bat. Without access to firearms the smaller, older or weaker person is at the mercy of the bigger and stronger goblin.

The anti's want to focus on gun violence. It's a red herring. Firearms are an equalizer.

December 12, 2012, 12:33 PM
It is frustrating to try to apply logic, and reason to a person that relies purely on emotion which is displayed by most antis. The arguments they've derived from indoctrination, brainwashing, and the liberal media do not hold up to facts, and data, but they could care less.

December 12, 2012, 12:38 PM
His brother Tyler chimed in again.

I have shot guns since I was 6. Hunting fine, strapping to your side as you walk Walmart, Not in my opinion. While I understand legal people want to protect their rights, I feel it tramples my right to feel free ans protected by the
Police. There are too many nutjobs who will be able to carry for my comfort. Its too hard to tell the good guy from the bad.

I responded.

So, where were the police when those 68,720 people were murdered between 2007 and 2011? I mean, the people are dead, so they probably don't care anymore, but the loved ones of those people probably still do.

Where were the police for the 441,169 women that were forcibly raped from 2007 to 2011? Sure all those ladies would have appreciated the help, which they didn't get.

Where were the police for the 2,023,114 robberies and home invasions from 2007 to 2011? That's right, they show up after the robberies are done and file a report so people can claim insurance.

Where were the police for the 4,055,530 aggravated assaults from 2007 to 2011? No worries, the medics will patch you up after you're bludgeoned with a tire iron for your car keys.

Police are great - at writing reports. Someone has to write those reports so the FBI can compile the murder statistics.

December 12, 2012, 12:41 PM
I feel it tramples my right to feel free ans protected by the
Toss this one out. (
Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is an oft-quoted[2] District of Columbia Court of Appeals (equivalent to a state supreme court) case that held police do not have a duty to provide police services to individuals, even if a dispatcher promises help to be on the way, except when police develop a special duty to particular individuals.

Of course, if he's talking about his right to feel protected by the police... well, I suppose he can to feel whatever he wants, but I don't think feelings are a protected right under the law.

December 12, 2012, 12:54 PM
Nice, Solo.

Done and done. We'll see how he responds.

(It's going to help that another FEMALE family member of theirs is on the same thread saying she WANTS the right to protect herself... one brother is non-commital, the other is highly anti-carry despite being a gun owner)

This did take a twist here, I've never debated with a gun owner who was against concealed carry before, or, for that matter, have I ever found one who was against it.

Guess we're not ALL on the same side. :(

December 12, 2012, 02:28 PM
I've come across plenty of hunters who are anti-concealed carry and anti-assault weapon. In fact, my experiences would suggest its very common.

December 12, 2012, 02:38 PM
Trent, some people think that guns are only for their purpose. If you buy a gun designed to shoot deer you're a hunter. If you buy one designed to shoot people, you're a serial killer in waiting.

December 12, 2012, 02:41 PM
Arguing with anti's is like trying to teach pigs to sing.

December 12, 2012, 07:36 PM
I feel it tramples my right to feel free ans protected by the

Wrong on so many levels. Morally, philosophically...grammatically :). He'd rather have some poor SOB cop stick his neck out than take simple measures to protect his own behind:barf:. Ya'know, cops are still there even if you carry; it's not like it's either lawmen or gunmen :rolleyes:

I also enjoyed the (far too frequent) reference to the Wild West as being a playground of weapons, earlier. IIRC, guns were the only thing that allowed productive society to exist back then, because of the indian menace and banditry prevalent in the "unregulated" areas. And even then, the poor were, as always, the most vulnerable to attack and at the same time the least defended. Coincidence?


December 12, 2012, 08:34 PM
Wow. His brother's latest two responses were so filth littered that I'm hesitant to post it on here. I'll block out the cuss words.

My last post

Also, worth noting, police have "no duty to protect" under the law of the land.

Some random lady posted up:

Tyler! The nut jobs have guns anyway! And since when have you felt "protected" by the Pekin police?

Tyler's response (edited for foul language)

Here is my OPINION, dont like it I dont care. I have two kids. I would rather they not grow in a society where carrying a ****** gun will protect them. Where were the Police? In a perfect world they would be there. This is not a perfect world. I agree with Patrick with the neighbor situation. A heated arguement can become violent fast with a gun on your side. I also dont want to walk into Chuck E Cheese and have the idiot next to my kids having a gun. How many accidents a year are there from guns? If People do start to alk with a gun I suppose Ill be forced to as well, since I will have no choice being in a uncivilized nation.

Not all nutjobs "carry" a gun either. How the **** are we to know who is nuts and who is not. Itll be a lottery. Is this dude ok or a ******* nut. With current laws I know that if you are carrying a gun to get away from your ***, If there legal I wont have the option

My response;

Well, people have been telling me for years that if I want to carry a firearm, I should move somewhere where it's legal. In 6 months, it'll be legal in Illinois. So I'll pass the same advice along that people have been passing on to me for the last 18 years of my adult life.

"Don't like it, move."

Canada, New York City, California, they're all very restrictive on guns. Maybe you'd feel safer somewhere else?

December 12, 2012, 09:49 PM
Ohh the good old Tyler.

I will bet money that an appeal or very strict carry laws will come. Our Gov Quinn has the same views as myself. He is great at blocking laws. My view for legal carry is to regulate the people HARD. Ans require extensive training and classes like Drivers ED. Firearm education is a MUST if they decide to "hand" guns to whoever wants them

My response

Madigan will undoubtedly think about appealing to the Supreme Court. If it goes there, realize that it *could* mean that the court will weigh 49 states vs. 1 and decide in the favor of the 49... meaning restrictive laws in NY, CA, etc are overturned in favor of broader carry rights nationwide.

"Our Gov Quinn has the same views as myself"

I take this to mean you also believe in banning those Evil Black Rifles, too? (That's another debate entirely!) It's worth noting that his latest shenanigans with an assault weapons ban were voted down 48-4 in the Senate and UNANIMOUSLY in the house. The lawmakers were not very impressed with his theatrics and bullying.

You DO realize that in order to own a firearm (or carry one) you already have to pass a federal and state background check, not have any domestic or drug offenses, not have any violent misdemeanors, not have any prior mental health record, not be addicted to drugs, and so on right?

What else do you want on top of all of that?


December 12, 2012, 09:51 PM

Man I cracked myself up hard there.

OK enough pro-gun stuff for one day.

Time for a movie. :)

December 12, 2012, 11:15 PM
Nifty - this guy would probably panic himself into a catatonic state if we set foot in Arizona.
If you buy a gun designed to shoot deer you're a hunter. If you buy one designed to shoot people, you're a serial killer in waiting

Hmm, I plan on using this rifle to hunt deer and coyote when I can get the time off...

Thanks for standing up as a polite and steady ambassador of the 2A!

December 13, 2012, 07:02 AM
If you buy a gun designed to shoot deer you're a hunter. If you buy one designed to shoot people, you're a serial killer in waiting

I recently bought two bolt action rifles that were designed in the 1890s to kill people. I'm starting to look for a Mauser, which I'm pretty sure was originally designed for shooting at people. I do own one rifle that I'm pretty sure wasn't designed with shooting at people in mind, ironically it's an evil AR, in 22LR.

December 13, 2012, 08:00 AM
You can tell him that it's people like him who should not possess weapons, someone who would get into a heated argument with a firearm on his hip shows a fatal lack of good judgement and common sense. And since he's anti gun, well, that should pose no problem.

December 13, 2012, 11:15 AM
I hope you guys realize I was playing devil's advocate, and I don't actually believe what was quoted, and are using me as a surrogate to argue against instead of actually arguing with me, because I agree with you.

December 13, 2012, 12:20 PM
OOH a new one!

I saw this coming a mile away, but I'm still trying to figure out how to word my response:

And all those "checks" did us good at the batman shooting? He was kicked out of school , was a known nutjob, yet still managed to get the gun and thousands of rounds

December 13, 2012, 12:28 PM

Right, there's no doubt about any of that. But let me ask you some questions;

Is getting kicked out of school grounds for revoking someone's gun rights?

Is seeking emotional counselling grounds for removing someone's gun rights? I got counselling after my father shot himself, does that make me a nutjob who shouldn't ever own guns? If he'd been admitted to a mental institution he would have been a prohibited person. So, do we blame him? The guns? Or the counselor who didn't escalate the issue to a higher authority?

I shoot - on any given competition weekend - about 1,000 rounds. Should I not be allowed to possess thousands of rounds of ammo? I shoot between 50,000 and 75,000 rounds of ammunition every year in competitions and practice.

What would have happened if that Aurora theatre wasn't a GUN FREE zone, and people were allowed to carry? ONE person with a concealed carry permit could have saved dozens of lives. Instead, those people were unarmed cattle in a slaughterhouse. That guy didn't PICK the theater down the road which ALLOWS firearms. He picked the ONE theater which does NOT allow firearms to be brought inside.

Also; a person who wants to commit mass murder doesn't NEED a firearm.

The last mass murder in the United States was done with plastic boxcutters, and killed thousands.

He could have just as easily planted gasoline at the entrance and exit and lit it off, roasting EVERYONE in that theater alive. The worst cases in United States history of mass murder have been with Arson, and it's a lot cheaper (and requires less training) to light cans of gasoline off.

No, I think we should look at Aurora and think very strongly about what these "Gun Free" (AKA "Target Rich") zones like that theater contribute to our society.

December 13, 2012, 12:42 PM
OP chimed back in.

I don't really fear people committing crimes with their guns in a premeditated way. If they are planning it, they'll plan to get a gun illegally, legally or just use some other weapon, maybe improvised explosives or whatever. I suppose the one thing that I do fear above all else, and I don't think it's happened yet, is that criminals get to the point where they will just assume anyone they plan to mug, rob, or what have you will be carrying. So they just shoot first before there's any chance that the victim might defend themselves. Oh, look! We get whatever cash was in the wallet AND another gun! Sweet! And you can say, well, others would come to the person's defense. I don't think that would be the case most of the time. Muggers don't mug people in broad view. They prey on the ones who are unwise enough or simply have no choice but to be out alone.


Patrick - very good points. However, criminals (as do most humans in most activities), show a tendency to follow the path of least resistance. The same argument you give can also be applied to a police officer out on patrol. Everyone KNOWS they have guns. So why don't criminals just shoot cops who are out alone, and take their guns? (Or sneak up behind them and play whack-a-mole with a baseball bat.)

In the UK and Australia, following their near total firearms bans, home invasions went WAY up. Murder rates continued to climb; but shifted so that the vast majority of them were committed with bludgeoning and bladed instruments (bats and knives).

Meanwhile, over the last decade, as more and more states get concealed carry, murder and crime rates in the US continue to DROP.

Except in Chicago, DC, NYC, and other jurisdictions where carrying or possession of firearms is banned.


December 13, 2012, 12:52 PM

What happens when there is no place left to go where you can count on people being unarmed? Then the path of least resistance becomes: find someone alone, murder them, then take their stuff.

And maybe that will reduce the number of criminals because it takes a special type of criminal who's actually willing to kill someone. The ones who aren't willing to do that might quit the crime game. Who knows.


Knives are still (generally speaking) more effective than guns, inside 21 feet. I can't react, draw, aim, and fire, before you can close that distance on foot and stab me through the heart. (Situational awareness is critical whether you are carrying a firearm or not)

There'll still be murder, muggings, and violence. Regardless.

The difference is when victims have a chance.

You're also correct - there's a VERY serious line between stealing and murder. You're more likely to get beaten severely, than killed.

People steal for MANY reasons - hunger, money for drugs, just the thrill of it.

It takes a HELL of a lot more to actually kill someone. People are shades of gray, no true "good" or "bad"; but you have to be pretty dark inside to take a life for the fun of it.

Our existing laws (outside of gun topic) contribute a great deal to that. Steal a car, rob a person, break in to a home, you get a few years in prison if caught.

Murder someone, the rest of your LIFE is forfeit.

Risk vs. reward plays in, just as with all other facets of life.

December 13, 2012, 12:55 PM
(Both the OP and I have 20ish years of martial arts background - it's why we know each other, so by bringing up how other lethal instruments are as effective as firearms in close quarters, I'm appealing to various situations we've both trained in.)

The end goal of all of this, of course, is to try to get him to view firearms as tools, not objects of fear and loathing.

December 13, 2012, 01:00 PM
Trent is doing a good job of playing whack-a-mole...I applaud !

December 13, 2012, 01:03 PM
Trent, I would have added that if both the defender and perpetrator are armed with knives, the perpetrator can select weak targets. If both defender and perp have guns, he's looking at the size of the pistol instead of the size of the person.

December 13, 2012, 01:10 PM
Good point Skribs.

I've brought the point up thusly:

I'll add another thing that just occurred to me (on lunch break now).

One thing is predominantly more powerful than laws, at deterring crime. Everyone has a very strong self-preservation instinct. (What gives us such a rush when we jump out of airplanes, spar with Sensei Quinn, etc; is overcoming that. We KNOW we'll survive but there's always that doubt.)

Faced with the question of "if I rob this person will *I* die in the next two minutes?", a surprising number of folks will back the hell down and pick a weaker target.

There's thousands of examples I could throw out, but this one happened very recently and is very comical.

(Two male home intruders backed down from an 83 year old lady standing with a walker, and a pistol, in this home invasion (happened last month).)

(Thanks to jbeechel for his other thread on here on November defensive carry for a nice, fresh example to throw out)

December 13, 2012, 03:56 PM
I've enjoyed reading this thread. Since you two know each other, I was thinking that going shooting might help alleviate his fear of firearms.

December 13, 2012, 03:57 PM
Arguing with anti's is like trying to teach pigs to sing.

Not always true. The other thing to remember is that it can positively influence readers who aren't actually in the discussion.

December 13, 2012, 04:01 PM
I've enjoyed reading this thread. Since you two know each other, I was thinking that going shooting might help alleviate his fear of firearms.

Knowing each other, and being friends, are two entirely separate things.

There's a history between us. He used to work for me a long time ago, and was terminated for cause. It's always left a bit of animosity between us.

We happen to also work out in the same martial arts organization (I'm an instructor, he's an advanced student).

I'll tolerate a discussion with him, but don't want to hang out with the guy in my private life.

December 13, 2012, 04:02 PM
I've enjoyed reading this thread. Since you two know each other, I was thinking that going shooting might help alleviate his fear of firearms.

But it seems the FB OP isn't afraid of firearms per se, but rather what happens when an argument occurs and one/both of the arguers has a firearm. Every trip to the range I've had we've all been very nice to each other, so I think it would be very unlikely to show that armed individuals can be physically calm while emotionally angry.

December 13, 2012, 04:07 PM
Having had a run-in with an armed neighbor once in the past, I can actually see their point of view. THAT has to have come from somewhere, sometime. A person doesn't cling to something that closely without there being a reason. They probably DO have a neighbor who they're afraid of.

In my instance, it was over my dog chasing my neighbor's cat. Don't do what my neighbor did, and brandish a loaded 12 gauge at my dog and sweep the muzzle across my sister.

Because I WILL show up at your door and give you a piece of my mind. (He's lucky I didn't contact the state's attorney to press charges for assault with a deadly weapon for pointing the shotgun at my sister).

In other news... dogs chase outdoor cats, it's a fact of life, no need for gun play. :)

December 13, 2012, 04:28 PM
Hey, if I'd had a gun when my neighbor's dog jumped the fence and bit my dog, my dog would have gotten a few less teeth marks. I'll stop the attack on me and my own whether the perpetrator or victim is human or not. That said, I wouldn't have swept my neighbor.

That said, just because we talk about being responsible when carrying doesn't mean all folks who carry are responsible, or even that when heated we will act responsibly. Although people who do carrry, even without training, are still probably going to weigh potentially needing the gun if they get into a fistfight, and may get into less altercations. However, if someone wants to cause harm to another human being, they can do so with or without a firearm.

December 13, 2012, 04:29 PM
Glad I could help Trent!

It's the least I could do after you went through all this with a gun control nut, lol. :banghead:

December 13, 2012, 04:33 PM
Hey, if I'd had a gun when my neighbor's dog jumped the fence and bit my dog, my dog would have gotten a few less teeth marks. I'll stop the attack on me and my own whether the perpetrator or victim is human or not. That said, I wouldn't have swept my neighbor.

Gotta be careful about that. Dogs and cats are protected.

You can put down a coyote, wolf, etc at whim.

But shoot a dog that isn't attacking a human and you run the risk of getting felony charges brought against you for animal cruelty.

(Humans defending themselves or others are fine; my wife's sister killed a rottweiler with a knife a couple years ago when it jumped through the screen in to her HOUSE and attacked her - went after her dog first, then went after her. She was a big time animal lover and it tore her up pretty bad to have to do that.)

December 14, 2012, 01:59 PM
Holy crap I'm busy with debates today.

December 14, 2012, 02:11 PM
Since every gun owner will certainly be drug in to a conversation over this in the coming weeks I offer this tidbit.

The most profound comment I've made so far today was in response to a person screaming for an assault weapons ban in the wake of this shooting:

I said;

Why is it every time someone shoots up a place, people want to take away guns from everyone else who did NOT do it?

There's 50 million legal gun owners in the country who did NOT shoot up a school today.

There's ONE person who did.

So .. punish the 50 million owners over the one prohibited person? This makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE, other than from an emotional knee jerk reaction perspective.

My recommendation is to keep any dialog you engage in VERY short and simple, folks. Emotions are high.

Edited: shooter identified as 24 yr. old.

December 14, 2012, 02:15 PM
Of course you could also mention the horrible school attack that took place in China today where the attacker used a knife. Taking away guns does not eliminate tragic events or the nut cases that cause them.

December 14, 2012, 02:17 PM
Oh I've been quoting that AND the Osaka massacre, as examples of how school massacre's go down where guns are not available.

December 14, 2012, 02:23 PM
Another comment I just made;

I will say this Owen; you may want a sweeping re-write of gun control laws, since our current ones "aren't working."

But consider for a moment, that a person intent on committing mass murder does NOT care about what other statutory violations they might incur on the way. The ONLY way you will prevent this is if you eliminate firearms from the planet; which is impossible as long as the technology to MAKE them still exists.

Even if private possession of firearms was impossible, this guy could have played whack-a-mole with a baseball bat on the back of a police officer's head and taken HIS arms to do it.

There's ALWAYS a way. Limiting or prohibiting private possession of firearms won't work. Regulating what you can buy won't work. Regulating what you can DO with them won't work.

Because someone who's about to kill children doesn't give one THOUGHT about what OTHER felonies they're also committing.

December 14, 2012, 02:32 PM

Just realized this thread should have been called:

"Debating an Anti-Gunner, Part IV"

There's already a thread titled part III of my saga.

December 14, 2012, 02:35 PM
I think where I disagree with all of your logic on this point is that I still think that despite SOME availability of guns, reducing the number would be a positive move. And Trent, the whole taking a police officer's gun point is why only a very small number of police officers in Britain even carry guns anymore. It simply isn't necessary.


I would imagine the families of the British police officers who were shot this year would probably argue against that point better than I.

Fiona Bone, age 32, shot 18 September 2012.
Nicola Hughes, age 23, shot 18 September 2012.
Ian Dibell, age 41, shot 9 July 2012.

December 14, 2012, 02:41 PM
3. In a country of more than 50 million people. Of course, I'd wager the list of American cops in the same situation is hundreds of names a country only six times larger.


Actually, last year it was 62 killed by firearms; roughly the same amount which were killed by vehicles (60).

So we should outlaw cars?

December 14, 2012, 02:49 PM
Dear Trent,
Thanks for all your hard work putting this together, with your permission I am going to laminate it and carry it with me as I go into deep liberal country for a Christmas Eve celebration at my sister's house, perhaps my son and I will quiz each other on the way there to commit these figures to memory.

December 14, 2012, 02:49 PM
Oh come on. Cars have a legitimate purpose, transportation. So do firearms used for pursuits like hunting and recreation (like a firing range, which I have no problem with.) But there are certain guns designed for nothing more than mowing down people.

Someone else chimed in while I was posting my response.

Some cars have no legitimate purpose in transportation, so lets get rid of sports cars. Football provides entertainment and exercise, but both of those things can be gotten in other, less-dangerous ways. Alcohol probably hasn't contributed ANYTHING to society.
It's a slippery slope to want to restrict freedoms because you don't like them.

My response

Not trying to make this hostile, but what you wrote is emphatic of most people arguing a stance purely off of emotion, instead of logic or reason.

Because you don't like guns, you ASSUMED the list of American police officers would be "hundreds of names long." Please keep the debate factual.

Guns aren't designed for "mowing down people" (another emotional argument).

Guns have a VERY specific purpose for self-defense. They are VERY effective in this regard; which is why police carry them.

December 14, 2012, 02:50 PM
Of course you could also mention the horrible school attack that took place in China today where the attacker used a knife. Taking away guns does not eliminate tragic events or the nut cases that cause them.

I generally will go with this, but with care taken that, While a gun is just a tool, it is a HIGHLY efficient tool for killing people. Knifing a person is UP close and personal, takes a fair bit of energy. Be prepared to admit that the possibility of carnage is higher with a gun. on a scale of fists, knife, sword, ......... single action pistol, bolt action rifle, DA pistol, semi pistol, and then semi rifle.. I was going to put fully auto rifle last, but actually thinking about it.. in untrained hands a fully auto would run out of bullets way too fast. Lots of misses.

December 14, 2012, 02:50 PM
Dear Trent,
Thanks for all your hard work putting this together, with your permission I am going to laminate it and carry it with me as I go into deep liberal country for a Christmas Eve celebration at my sister's house, perhaps my son and I will quiz each other on the way there to commit these figures to memory.

Feel free to use anything I write. You don't need to give credit or anything; cut & paste away. Everything I've written in the gun debate threads is public domain.

December 14, 2012, 02:51 PM
This one got a lot of "Likes" by people watching the discussion, was an afterthought to my previous comment.

Also; several times MORE people are killed every year with bare fists and hands, than with assault rifles. Assault rifles represent less than 3% of all gun crime in the US. You're barking up the wrong tree with an assault rifle argument.

December 14, 2012, 02:56 PM
The number of police officers killed last year in the line of duty was 163, if you'd like the specific number. Most guns aren't designed for mowing down people, but assault rifles are. Just because I am not entirely pro-gun doesn't mean I can't distinguish between them. And other countries have banned certain (or in some cases, even most) types of guns and seen benefits in violent crime statistics from that move. Again, I respect your opinions on these issues, and I understand that gun ownership represents an important facet of American life to a lot of people, and I don't necessarily want to change that. But I do believe that this conversation is becoming counterproductive to a certain extent.

This guy is irritating me.


163 TOTAL. 62 by firearm. 60 by vehicle. The remainder by other causes. Be careful trying to twist facts - I do my homework.

Assault rifles aren't designed for mowing down people. I own several (78 of them, in fact; I have a large collection), and they haven't ever been used "to mow people down." There's no instructions that ship with the gun that says "THIS IS HOW YOU MOW PEOPLE DOWN. STEP 1: LOAD WEAPON..."

Also, I offer you this piece of advice. If you want to live in a country which bans weapons, MOVE TO ONE.

There are over 300 million firearms in this country; more firearms than people. If you don't like firearms, you live in the wrong nation.

Sigh.. my patience is wearing thin and it's showing.

December 14, 2012, 03:00 PM
To complete my laminated sheet I would like the reference on % chance of LEO being arrested in a given year vs. CHL holder being arrested in a given year,
the figures on mean#victims killed by active shooter, whether stopped by LEO or CL holder, if anyone has them handy. hank you.

December 14, 2012, 03:05 PM
A rephrasing.

Sorry, I got irritated there.

Let me rephrase.

A standard capacity AR15 carries 30 rounds. It's the "colloquial evil black rifle" that epitomizes everything wrong with firearms, in the eyes of anti-gun folks.
Compare to a standard capacity handgun, we'll use a standard size Glock 9mm; holds 17 rounds standard.
Compare to a reduced capacity handgun (restricted to hold 10 rounds.)

I can fire, accurately, 3 rounds per second from a 5.56 "Assault Rifle", or handgun (standard capacity or extended capacity).

It takes me 10 seconds to fire all 30 rounds out of the AR15. It takes me 4 seconds to load the rifle. (More complex than handgun, magazines are larger, more steps required.) Another 10 seconds to fire another 30 rounds out of the AR15. Benchmark = 24 seconds for 60 rounds.

Now take the standard 17-round capacity Glock. I have to reload the Glock 4 times, but it's faster (takes under a second if you're proficient, less complicated.) So we'll factor one second for reloads. It still takes me 24 seconds to fire 60 rounds. (Same as the AR-15, matching our benchmark).

Now take the reduced capcity 10 round handgun. I have to reload this SIX times to fire 60 shots - for a total of 26 seconds (60/3=20, +6 for reloads), to fire the same 60 shots.

I can still shoot a reduced capacity (restricted) handgun 60 times in under a half of a minute.

So, where's the benefit here?

December 14, 2012, 03:07 PM
I've seen some anti-gun sentiments in the show Flashpoint, but they make a very good case for why knives are just as dangerous as guns: more prevalent (you can find them in ANY kitchen and they're NEVER locked up), cheaper, don't require a background check, unlimited ammo, quieter...

I know this is from a TV show, but all of the above are true.

ETA: Trent, might want to include times for revolvers with speed loaders as well, because that's obviously the next step down.

December 14, 2012, 03:08 PM
I have to modify future arguments.

The individual who they identified today was 24 years old. Not a prohibited person. (EDIT: And, the guy could still legally possess a handgun even if he was 20; as many people pointed out on PM)

Still, the argument against gun free zones applies, tragically.

Anyway wanted to clear that up for anyone following this thread.

December 14, 2012, 03:13 PM
And.. he quit.

Alright, I've found this conversation interesting, but I think we just fundamentally disagree. That's alright. Thanks guys.

That ends that mini debate.

That guy was a hard core anti-gunner. Wanted a complete re-write of gun control laws in the US to be more like the UK model.

December 14, 2012, 04:03 PM
The "illegal gun" issue is apparently back on the table today.

Media announced a Bushmaster AR-15 was used.

Those have been illegal in that state since 1994; Bushmaster rifles are named items in the CT assault weapons ban. (

Another dent in the gun control argument. That's TWO gun laws which didn't matter one bit today; one of which was a ban on the type of firearm used.

December 14, 2012, 04:05 PM
Are you sure it wasn't a compliant version?

December 14, 2012, 04:09 PM
Are you sure it wasn't a compliant version?

No idea. Media has been historically inaccurate in reporting, so who knows.

I'm not arguing the point with people until facts are known. There's enough on the table about gun free zones and lack of armed security to drive the point home.

December 14, 2012, 04:14 PM
Took a few tips from you Trent, and am fairly confident I edged out a victory in a debate with 3 others on facebook also.

Thanks for sharing this, it did come in handy.

December 14, 2012, 04:14 PM

Al Thompson
December 14, 2012, 04:16 PM
Trent, I'm going to close this down as the horrific school shooting is driving too many postings. :(

If you enjoyed reading about "Debating an Anti-Gunner, Part III" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!