Do you believe you are more safe (in public) when others are carrying?

[Warp]

And, BTW, this is The High Road, which is pro 2nd Amendment, but not brain dead. Debates about who should carry and what they have to do to qualify are allowed.

Here is a thread for it

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=9470192#post9470192

 

[Arkansas Paul]

But I want live fire, and an accuracy minimum, and a knowledge of self defense laws and castle doctrine in your home state. I want personal interviews, references, fingerprints, background checks, firearms seized from men who have protective orders issued against them.

Oh you do?

Well I want IQ tests done before people can procreate and sterilization for people who have been convicted of child abuse but somehow I get the feeling that would be deemed unconstitutional.

My point it, it doesn't matter what we want.
See my sig line.

 

[jrdolall]

'troll' with over 800 posts? Please be serious. Your attempted insult is meaningless and silly.

And NO, your hated federal government doesn't have to be in charge of any mandatory training. The NRA and its instructors could come up with qualifications, or private club instructors could do so, an they could administer the test.

But I want live fire, and an accuracy minimum, and a knowledge of self defense laws and castle doctrine in your home state. I want personal interviews, references, fingerprints, background checks, firearms seized from men who have protective orders issued against them.

And, BTW, this is The High Road, which is pro 2nd Amendment, but not brain dead. Debates about who should carry and what they have to do to qualify are allowed.

I want lollipops and cotton candy for all.

So a troll can't have 800 posts?

You friend are either delusional or a troll. Makes no difference to me whatsoever. I personally believe that gun ownership is far too restrictive as it is. Why should I "need" qualified instruction to be allowed to do something I have been doing since I was a babe? My grandfather gave me my instruction.

Please don't imply that a person is brain dead. If you want severe gun restrictions and mandatory training in all 50 states with live fire exercises then I am sure there are plenty of places you can go to get that. I especially like the part where the Feds should allow the NRA to administer the training. And of course the "personal interview" section of your post makes a lot of sense. The word ludicrous comes to mind. Your thoughts are indeed valuable to those of us who support RKBA because they are all way left of most of THR's participants.
FYI I happen to agree that violent criminals should not have guns. I also think that someone that is so violent should be incarcerated for the rest of their lives.

 

[NoVA Shooter]

jrdolall
And NO, your hated federal government doesn't have to be in charge of any mandatory training. The NRA and its instructors could come up with qualifications, or private club instructors could do so, an they could administer the test.

It's all great to say 'let's have the NRA come up with qualifications' but who is the only entity that can put the force of law behind it? Yep, the government. And as soon as the government has their hands in it, it won't matter who comes up with the qualifications.

jrdolall
But I want live fire, and an accuracy minimum, and a knowledge of self defense laws and castle doctrine in your home state. I want personal interviews, references, fingerprints, background checks, firearms seized from men who have protective orders issued against them.

Where to start?

Accuracy minimum by whose standards? I'm pretty sure the NRA would say that hitting the broad side of a barn at 3 feet would qualify, but I'm also pretty sure the anti gun crowd would say bulls-eye off-hand 100 shots in a row at 2 miles. Who then gets to arbitrate?

Personal interviews, references, fingerprints, background checks? Well, aside from the logistical impossibility of doing this (what you have stated is the same for getting a clearance, and that costs several thousands of dollars and takes 6 months), the occurrences of CCW holders using their weapon illegally or irresponsibly is so low that it makes this a useless gesture.

 

[buck460XVR]

The average shooter i see at the range is more likely to hit an innocent bystander. I don't think it makes a significant difference either way.

^^^agreed. This is why I answered the same way. In order to feel safer with others armed, you need to have the confidence and faith that they have the ability to hit the BG, without shooting you and everyone else in the room too.

 

[Shifty]

I think most of us would feel more safe if we were convinced that every CCW person was as safe, thoughtful, courteous and moral as we judge ourselves to be......... but that will never happen.

You just can't rely on an unknown variable to intervene. And I am no damn hero, if things get stupid, I'm getting me and mine the hell out ASAP, and consider never drawing my weapon a victory.

Having said that, I have often wondered, no wife, no kids, and being in an advantageous position to aid an innocent...... would I be able to? Hope I never have to find that out. That is why I respect our LEO's. Running towards danger.

 

[hso]

so low that it makes this a useless gesture

That pretty much sums everything about this up. There are no credible studies that indicate that CCW holders are a threat to the public nor are they a benefit. The violent crime rate has fallen through the decades where we had few states that permitted carry and through the more recent years where there are far more states permitting carry than those that don't. The number of accidental deaths have fallen at the same time indicating that the increasing number of people with carry permits of one sort or another aren't a danger to themselves or the public statistically.

These questions amount to arguments over the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin, but the one thing we need to keep in mind is that the rate of deaths due to firearms keeps falling in the face of all claims that we need to put restrictions on gunowners regardless of the facts to the contrary. It doesn't matter that we "think" requiring training/clearance/permission to carry makes "good sense" or not any more than "thinking" that you're "safer" with someone carrying around. The facts don't support either feeling and no one should have the government impose restrictions or requirements upon the whole of the population based on our personal mythology any more than they should impose restrictions or requirements for other things we hold as articles of personal faith.

 

[oneounceload]

In a publicly accessible location, in a shall-issue state, do you believe that you are more safe if at least one other person at your location is carrying a firearm? (most likely a concealed pistol).

How would you know if they are carrying concealed?

 

[Warp]

The average shooter i see at the range is more likely to hit an innocent bystander.

That begs the question...why do licensed carriers so rarely hit innocent bystanders?

Surely these are, to a great extent, the same people you see at the range. Or perhaps they are the people you don't see at the range because they don't even go practice, and are less proficient than the average shooter at the range.

I propose that what you think is false, that the average shooter at the range, given the nature of a self defense firearm use, is NOT more likely to hit an innocent bystander.

Given the way actual factual real life works...they simply cannot be as dangerous to innocents as you say.

 

[Noah]

As an 18 year old who cares about the safety of those around me, and cannot carry a gun until I am 21, I absolutely feel safer when I know people, even strangers, around me are carrying. Every time a guy walks into the grocery store I work at wearing a gun tee shirt and printing a bit, or they are open carrying (Once ever few months) or (most often, you've probably done it) they print or even flash their gun while they are bending over to unload their cart, I feel good. Every person carrying a gun that I have ever spoken to (which is pretty much anyone I meet that I know or see is carrying, because a nice conversation about guns makes any work shift better) has been friendly and eager to chat once they realize I'm not calling 911.

Every CCWr I've personally met, to include my Uncle and father, and instructors at Appleseed shoots and rifle matches, always makes me happy to know I'll have some backup should evil strike.

It has always been my experience that everyone who actually bothers to legally carry a firearm everyday is competent and responsible and really has their head screwed on straight, but that might just be me.

 

[mljdeckard]

(I am partway through "On Combat" right now. It has a whole chapter on pooping yourself.)

 

[lxd55]

I agree. get between you and yours and back them out and if you can't get them on the deck and put yourself in the middle. be on the ready with your sidearm toward the threat.
bbl up hands at the ready. then pray it goes away.

 

[USAF_Vet]

I have buddies who I know carry. I know how well they shoot, so in a word, yes, I feel safer. But to assume I'm safer because other people are/ may be armed, I pay it no mind.

 

[buck460XVR]

This thread is like so many others, where folks are getting upset with folks that have opinions different than their own. Their opinion does not mirror mine and thus they and their reasoning must be wrong.......or maybe I'm wrong?

My opinion is, if you cannot trust the police to protect you when presented with a threat, you cannot trust folks around you to protect you. They may, but that is a big if. Thinkin' they make you safer, with no knowledge of their skill and proficiency is only making you more vulnerable. Just them having a gun on their person does not make you safer, and this was the question asked.

 

[gym]

Not unless the threat were on one side and the people with guns were on the other. I wouldn't want someone in back of my family shooting past me to hit someone else. With the majority of permit holders being inexperienced and not that good a shot to begin with, I would prefer that they were not trying to shoot someone near me or mine.
It's a recipe for disaster in a crowd, if it were a clear shot with no one in back of me trying to shoot through me, but again its impossible to answer this question as each situation is different.

 

[Warp]

This thread is like so many others, where folks are getting upset with folks that have opinions different than their own.

When those opinions are that other people's Rights and Liberties should be forcibly restricted by armed government employees...yeah...that can be upsetting.

Their opinion does not mirror mine and thus they and their reasoning must be wrong.......or maybe I'm wrong?

Some of the reasoning being presented in this thread is demonstrably wrong. It is incorrect. It isn't a matter of opinion. We have literally milliions of examples all over the country to look to.

My opinion is, if you cannot trust the police to protect you when presented with a threat, you cannot trust folks around you to protect you.

The question(s) posed in this thread never, in anyway, said nor implied ANYTHING about "trusting" anybody else to protect you.

Just them having a gun on their person does not make you safer, and this was the question asked.

Yes, that was (more or less) the question that was actually asked.

 

[Warp]

Not unless the threat were on one side and the people with guns were on the other. I wouldn't want someone in back of my family shooting past me to hit someone else. With the majority of permit holders being inexperienced and not that good a shot to begin with, I would prefer that they were not trying to shoot someone near me or mine.
It's a recipe for disaster in a crowd, if it were a clear shot with no one in back of me trying to shoot through me, but again its impossible to answer this question as each situation is different.

Let's try something.

How about you present to us a list of licensed carriers from shall issue (or no license required) states with no training requirement who have accidentally shot an innocent bystander while gunning for a threat.

 

[gamestalker]

Absolutely feel safer knowing another is there to assist in stopping the threat.

GS

 

[silicosys4]

I do not feel safer, or less safe. My gun isn't to "save the day" or to "get the bad guy", its to protect my life as I make a retreat from an unsafe area.
Why would someone else protecting themselves as they retreat from an unsafe area make me personally any safer?
I think people have an idea of an impromptu "posse" of good guys forming in the event of a shootout with a bad guy with every good guy knowing who the bad guy is and coordinating spontaneously with each other to "take the threat down".
Mistaken identity, confusion, and gunplay between ignorant innocents is too much of a risk to stay and actively "hunt and engage" a shooter when multiple people in a situation have guns and are doing something other than getting the heck out of the area.

 

[buck460XVR]

When those opinions are that other people's Rights and Liberties should be forcibly restricted by armed government employees...yeah...that can be upsetting.

For the life of me, I have no idea where this comes from. Was someone in this thread actually suggesting that?



Some of the reasoning being presented in this thread is demonstrably wrong. It is incorrect. It isn't a matter of opinion. We have literally milliions of examples all over the country to look to.

Reasoning is the thought process that folks use. It is like an opinion and is as varied as the person using it. It may use facts as part of the process, but it also uses logic, common sense and previous experiences.



The question(s) posed in this thread never, in anyway, said nor implied ANYTHING about "trusting" anybody else to protect you.


I only said I need to trust folks around me in order to feel safer. I didn't say you had to. The question presented was how I felt, not how I knew you felt. If I'm in a room full of people, whether or not they have firearms on them or not, I have to trust them to feel safe. Are you saying you feel safe in a room full of folks you don't trust?




Yes, that was (more or less) the question that was actually asked.

Well, at least we agree on one thing.....

Feeling safe is a state of mind.

 

[buck460XVR]

In a publicly accessible location, in a shall-issue state, do you believe that you are more safe if at least one other person at your location is carrying a firearm? (most likely a concealed pistol).

For purposes of this question ignore the outside chance that something happens and you both end up with guns drawn, not sure if the other is a threat or not.

Warp,
In you OP, you do not tell us the skill level of those with firearms, nor do you tell us their intent. You only tell us that at least one other person at the location has a firearm on them. You don't say if that person or persons are able to carry a gun legally, only that you are in a shall-issue state. You also do not state whether that person or persons is a good guy or bad guy. Bad guys are likely to have a concealed pistol also.

 

[Warp]

For the life of me, I have no idea where this comes from. Was someone in this thread actually suggesting that?

Confusion (on my part) between my two threads. Disregard.

Reasoning is the thought process that folks use. It is like an opinion and is as varied as the person using it. It may use facts as part of the process, but it also uses logic, common sense and previous experiences.

Claiming "common sense" when what is being said completely disagrees with actual factual real life is pretty silly. "Common sense" is exactly what the gun control pushers claim when they say taking our guns and keeping us from acquiring new ones is the right thing to do.

I only said I need to trust folks around me in order to feel safer. I didn't say you had to. The question presented was how I felt, not how I knew you felt. If I'm in a room full of people, whether or not they have firearms on them or not, I have to trust them to feel safe. Are you saying you feel safe in a room full of folks you don't trust?

I believe I am most likely safer if the room full of people includes another licensed carrier than the otherwise-same room full of people without another licensed carrier.

Statistics and real world events support this/are the basis of this.

Warp,
In you OP, you do not tell us the skill level of those with firearms, nor do you tell us their intent. You only tell us that at least one other person at the location has a firearm on them. You don't say if that person or persons are able to carry a gun legally, only that you are in a shall-issue state. You also do not state whether that person or persons is a good guy or bad guy. Bad guys are likely to have a concealed pistol also.

Yeah, I forgot to stipulate that.

See post #7. I should have edited my OP at that time to include post #7's verbage in the OP.

 

[lxd55]

I still think it funny that some here think I should assume your skill set is better than mine, that they cannot trust me to carry but I should trust them and they cannot believe that theirs may be lacking. To me this thought process is flawed because it becomes a my dog is better than your dog argument.
Question. When you are out on the weekend how many people did you pass that were carrying?
Did you even think about it? I never do. Plus I would never pull my firearm except for a DIRECT threat to my wife or myself, I do not care enough about the rest of the world to get involved in someone else's crap. This is just a lazy day of thinking anyway, because of the fact that the majority of us will never have to pull a sidearm except to clean it and put it up until the next time we wander around. Yes I feel very safe knowing others carry, reason being is that I trust most think the same as I.

 

[skoro]

In a publicly accessible location, in a shall-issue state, do you believe that you are more safe if at least one other person at your location is carrying a firearm? (most likely a concealed pistol).

It's bad idea in MOST situations for a civilian to apply deadly force in a 3rd person role. Unless you know with certainty who's who and what's happening, you're better off staying out of it. That "thug" could be an undercover LEO.

 

[Warp]

It's bad idea in MOST situations for a civilian to apply deadly force in a 3rd person role. Unless you know with certainty who's who and what's happening, you're better off staying out of it. That "thug" could be an undercover LEO.

1. If there is an active/mass shooter, you may be better off not waiting until they are shooting you before you take action.

2. If the active/mass shooter goes for the other carrier before me/mine, and the other carrier neutralizes them or keeps them busy, even if just for a moment, me/mine are most likely better off as we now have more time to get away or find cover.

3. If I choose to intervene in a situation, that is my choice, and all available information would be factored into that decision. There are certainly plenty of real world scenarios where I believe it would be reasonable and prudent to act. See my sig line regarding good men doing nothing for thoughts on this matter.