What happens when a person with a gun is properly in place to stop a mass shooting?

[corwin]

Originally Posted by lotus503

and thats your opinion, personally I think there are many reasons outside of the ability to shoot to choose LEO.

I listed a bunch of things LEOs have over CCW a bit back regarding non shooting standards.

I must have missed it but what they have doesn't really make all that much of a difference because in the end LEO's have one fatal design flaw, they aren't everywhere all the time. We don't get to choose, the bad guy does, and given the choice they pretty much exclusively pick where LEO's aren't around.

We agree that given a choice we want the best around us in a hostile situation, in reality the best we can hope for is a good guy with a gun to counter the bad guy, whoever they may be...I'll bet we also agree in pretty much any of those situations we would prefer it to be ourselves with the gun

[bignateyk]

Originally Posted by corwin

Waiting periods have little effect, not many shootings happen right after a gun is purchased and none in recent memory at all...I'll agree with skill testing for CC, I really don't care for no license states, Texas has a decent enough requirement for skills testing to get licensed as well as a big background check, everywhere should be as thorough

All I had to do in PA was send in $20, and 12 days later I got a crappy piece of paper (not even laminated and didn't have photo ID on it).

[corwin]

Originally Posted by bignateyk

All I had to do in PA was send in $20, and 12 days later I got a crappy piece of paper (not even laminated and didn't have photo ID on it).

That is sad...many who agree with me on a lot won't like me saying it but that is too low of a bar in my opinion. Texas is a 10 hour class with a range test, full FBI background check including fingerprints and cost of the license alone was $140 not counting the class which was another $100. In the end I get a nice card with my picture, took almost 2 months but I had to clear up a little incident from my teenage years so that delayed it a couple weeks. I know people in Texas talk big most of the time but in this case I really think they get it right for what should be required to carry

[monovillage]

Originally Posted by corwin

That is sad...many who agree with me on a lot won't like me saying it but that is too low of a bar in my opinion. Texas is a 10 hour class with a range test, full FBI background check including fingerprints and cost of the license alone was $140 not counting the class which was another $100. In the end I get a nice card with my picture, took almost 2 months but I had to clear up a little incident from my teenage years so that delayed it a couple weeks. I know people in Texas talk big most of the time but in this case I really think they get it right for what should be required to carry

By making it expensive, time consuming and intrusive they make it less likely that honest and law-abiding citizens will make the commitment to exercise their rights. By the time you purchase a firearm and have jumped through the hoops you outline most people will have spent @ $1,000.

Yet so many Democrats will say that even a $5.00 drivers license is far too much of a restriction, if not outright suppression of their rights.

[corwin]

Originally Posted by monovillage

By making it expensive, time consuming and intrusive they make it less likely that honest and law-abiding citizens will make the commitment to exercise their rights. By the time you purchase a firearm and have jumped through the hoops you outline most people will have spent @ $1,000.

Yet so many Democrats will say that even a $5.00 drivers license is far too much of a restriction, if not outright suppression of their rights.

There are reduced fee options for people who qualify and there are cheap guns available as well so no they don't HAVE to spend $1k, anyone who wants to carry a gun in public should demonstrate some commitment to it though and at least an initial proficiency

And yes I get the stupidity of throwing a hissy over needing an ID to vote and saying it infringes on that right while wanting so many restrictions on this, I support both though and find neither to be beyond what should be considered reasonable

[Lalakai]

There is a huge difference between the states on their guidelines and requirements for CCW's/CPL's which is why there was so much controversy regarding reciprocity on the CCW/CPL issue between the states. At the same time there are huge differences in the annual LEO requirements for weapon qualifications and those differences can exist within a state. I've seen CPL holders that could outshoot some LEO's, but those same CPL folks should never even be able to operate much less own a firearm due to personality or mental challenges. There is no easy answer or defense regarding CCW/CPL holders, but it is a step in the right direction and even if it's a "crappy 4 hour video review session" that's slightly better then no session. And even the LEO that only qualifies once a year, never ran an active shooter trng, would still be more preferable to 95% of CCW/CPL holders, due to the training that all LEO's have to complete. On the large plus side, is the very very small percentage of shootings that have involved CCW/CPL holders, showing that for the vast majority of them, it's something they take seriously.

But I completely agree that the media neglects to cover the situations where a private citizen with a firearm has stepped in and saved a life or lives.

[HumblePie]

Originally Posted by corwin

There are reduced fee options for people who qualify and there are cheap guns available as well so no they don't HAVE to spend $1k, anyone who wants to carry a gun in public should demonstrate some commitment to it though and at least an initial proficiency

And yes I get the stupidity of throwing a hissy over needing an ID to vote and saying it infringes on that right while wanting so many restrictions on this, I support both though and find neither to be beyond what should be considered reasonable

Same.

The idea of our government is you have all the rights and liberties you want to have until those rights abridge the rights others. Meaning, you have every right to swing your fist around, but that right ends where it contacts a stranger's face.

That's how the vast majority of our laws are setup. Take example drunk driving. Perfectly legal....

WHAT humblepie??!?!? But drunk driving isn't legal ANYWHERE!!!

Wrong. If I have my vehicle on my land out in the boonies I can drive all the drunken donuts I want. No cop is going to stop me, arrest me, or throw me in jail. Nor could they legally. I can legally drink, drive, and do both on my own property so long as my actions aren't abridging the rights of others nor harming them.

Now if I want to drive while drunk on a public roadway with others? Yep. HIGHLY illegal. Because those actions recklessly endanger the lives of others once I've gone past the legal BAL (blood alcohol level). Even still, I can have a beer and go for a drive afterward legally. With 1 beer, BAL isn't high enough to impair anyone potentially while driving.

The same thing with guns. Pretty much unrestricted on private property as it should be. If I want to shoot as much as I want with whatever I want on my land so long as my actions aren't infringing upon others then who cares.

However, I have no problem with regulating the taking of arms in public places so long as I can do so if I prove myself responsible. Hence why I have no problems with CHLs at all. Just like a I need a drivers license to be on a public roadway, I don't mind requiring people to have a license to carry a gun in public.

But legislation that requires people register, which is basically licensing, for private ownership of a firearm in their own homes. I do not agree with. There are several aspects of the guns laws I agree with and several I don't. Those I've listed thus far are examples.

[corwin]

Originally Posted by HumblePie

Same.

The idea of our government is you have all the rights and liberties you want to have until those rights abridge the rights others. Meaning, you have every right to swing your fist around, but that right ends where it contacts a stranger's face.

That's how the vast majority of our laws are setup. Take example drunk driving. Perfectly legal....

WHAT humblepie??!?!? But drunk driving isn't legal ANYWHERE!!!

Wrong. If I have my vehicle on my land out in the boonies I can drive all the drunken donuts I want. No cop is going to stop me, arrest me, or throw me in jail. Nor could they legally. I can legally drink, drive, and do both on my own property so long as my actions aren't abridging the rights of others nor harming them.

Now if I want to drive while drunk on a public roadway with others? Yep. HIGHLY illegal. Because those actions recklessly endanger the lives of others once I've gone past the legal BAL (blood alcohol level). Even still, I can have a beer and go for a drive afterward legally. With 1 beer, BAL isn't high enough to impair anyone potentially while driving.

The same thing with guns. Pretty much unrestricted on private property as it should be. If I want to shoot as much as I want with whatever I want on my land so long as my actions aren't infringing upon others then who cares.

However, I have no problem with regulating the taking of arms in public places so long as I can do so if I prove myself responsible. Hence why I have no problems with CHLs at all. Just like a I need a drivers license to be on a public roadway, I don't mind requiring people to have a license to carry a gun in public.

But legislation that requires people register, which is basically licensing, for private ownership of a firearm in their own homes. I do not agree with. There are several aspects of the guns laws I agree with and several I don't. Those I've listed thus far are examples.

Great post HP, I agree completely...

On a side note did you hear that the city of Austin is trying to get Travis county to break their contract with the Saxet gun shows? I never would have thought that would happen in Texas, of course it is Austin but still...

[HumblePie]

Originally Posted by corwin

Great post HP, I agree completely...

On a side note did you hear that the city of Austin is trying to get Travis county to break their contract with the Saxet gun shows? I never would have thought that would happen in Texas, of course it is Austin but still...

The rest of Texas pays attention to Austin?

[corwin]

Originally Posted by HumblePie

The rest of Texas pays attention to Austin?

Not much Still a shitty thing to try, not that I've ever attended a gun show but still it's about as dumb as I can think of

[techs]

Shens.

Someone show me a list from reputable sites of all the mass shooters who were stopped by civilians with guns.

[Londo_Jowo]

Originally Posted by techs

Shens.

Someone show me a list from reputable sites of all the mass shooters who were stopped by civilians with guns.

What happened to your sig? Proven to be a lie?

[corwin]

Originally Posted by techs

Shens.

Someone show me a list from reputable sites of all the mass shooters who were stopped by civilians with guns.

I love your avatar but you are an idiot...that is all

[RampantAndroid]

Originally Posted by Londo_Jowo

What happened to your sig? Proven to be a lie?

Who is his avatar, anyway?

As for a list...I dunno. There was a mall in Utah, 2007. There was Oregon a month or so ago. There was a church in 2008...Columbine had an armed gaurd who failed to do anything...

If I actually looked somewhere for a list I might find better info. But that's off the top of my head not giving enough of a shit to find a list. I mean, this is techs. If you find a list he'll still call shens and not change his view.

[corwin]

Originally Posted by RampantAndroid

Who is his avatar, anyway?

I'd like to know myself

Originally Posted by RampantAndroid

As for a list...I dunno. There was a mall in Utah, 2007. There was Oregon a month or so ago. There was a church in 2008...Columbine had an armed gaurd who failed to do anything...

If I actually looked somewhere for a list I might find better info. But that's off the top of my head not giving enough of a shit to find a list. I mean, this is techs. If you find a list he'll still call shens and not change his view.

Exactly why I didn't bother...the only places that bother to make lists of such things would never be deemed acceptable, all the shit for brains who oppose CC don't dare acknowledge the good things that happen one at a time let alone make a list

[RampantAndroid]

Originally Posted by corwin

I'd like to know myself

I TOTALLY forgot about google image search.

linky

[jstern01]

Originally Posted by corwin

I love your avatar but you are an idiot...that is all

So that is your answer? Insult a poster asking a legitimate question. Please point to one single example of a mass shooting being stop by an arm civilian? Hell even Combine had two officers and they failed to stop the massacre.

Simple fact is as long as we have nuts that can get guns via lousy enforcement, loopholes and just plain lax laws; the potential for mass shootings exist. If we can limit the number of deaths, but restricting large capacity magazines and/or semi automatic weapons we should.

Now it seems that if you are legit, buying a gun, then undergoing a background check and mental health check should not be an issue. The same rules that gun shops have to follow, should be the rules that apply to a gun show. Honestly unless you are going to commit a crime, what is the harm in waiting 3 or more days to get your gun?

If you sell a gun to your neighbor/friend, and he commits a crime. Well guess what you should be held responsible for selling the gun used in a crime. Just like bars are being held accountable for not cutting of people who are drunk. Don't like it, sell the gun to a gun store.

[corwin]

Originally Posted by jstern01

So that is your answer? Insult a poster asking a legitimate question. Please point to one single example of a mass shooting being stop by an arm civilian? Hell even Combine had two officers and they failed to stop the massacre.

Simple fact is as long as we have nuts that can get guns via lousy enforcement, loopholes and just plain lax laws; the potential for mass shootings exist. If we can limit the number of deaths, but restricting large capacity magazines and/or semi automatic weapons we should.

Now it seems that if you are legit, buying a gun, then undergoing a background check and mental health check should not be an issue. The same rules that gun shops have to follow, should be the rules that apply to a gun show. Honestly unless you are going to commit a crime, what is the harm in waiting 3 or more days to get your gun?

If you sell a gun to your neighbor/friend, and he commits a crime. Well guess what you should be held responsible for selling the gun used in a crime. Just like bars are being held accountable for not cutting of people who are drunk. Don't like it, sell the gun to a gun store.

You don't have an avatar...and you're an idiot

Examples have already been given, and private sales of guns is legal at the federal level, don't like it then have it changed, gun shows are no different than anywhere else.

Oh yeah, did I mention you're an idiot?

[monovillage]

Originally Posted by corwin

There are reduced fee options for people who qualify and there are cheap guns available as well so no they don't HAVE to spend $1k, anyone who wants to carry a gun in public should demonstrate some commitment to it though and at least an initial proficiency

And yes I get the stupidity of throwing a hissy over needing an ID to vote and saying it infringes on that right while wanting so many restrictions on this, I support both though and find neither to be beyond what should be considered reasonable

Sorry, but I have a serious problem with a constitutional right that can only be used by relatively wealthy citizens, that if you're poor or on a fixed income that this right doesn't really apply to you.
I see a huge difference between a $5 drivers license and a $500 or $1,000 or a $5,000 gun license.

[RampantAndroid]

In WA, you must pass a background check to buy at a gun show. Background check is waived if you have a CPL. Seems like a good system.

[corwin]

Originally Posted by monovillage

Sorry, but I have a serious problem with a constitutional right that can only be used by relatively wealthy citizens, that if you're poor or on a fixed income that this right doesn't really apply to you.
I see a huge difference between a $5 drivers license and a $500 or $1,000 or a $5,000 gun license.

Concealed carry is not a constitutional right, I'd have a different opinion if it was but it's just not...and even if it was I would want to know that the ones who were knew how to use it, here in Texas that's part of the program and I like that.

Originally Posted by RampantAndroid

In WA, you must pass a background check to buy at a gun show. Background check is waived if you have a CPL. Seems like a good system.

Pretty sure that's only from dealers, just like everywhere else...private sales are still done without a check and are perfectly legal, unless WA banned private sales at gun shows

[bignateyk]

Originally Posted by corwin

Concealed carry is not a constitutional right, I'd have a different opinion if it was but it's just not...and even if it was I would want to know that the ones who were knew how to use it, here in Texas that's part of the program and I like that.

Pretty sure that's only from dealers, just like everywhere else...private sales are still done without a check and are perfectly legal, unless WA banned private sales at gun shows

Yeah, the private sale thing is more of a problem. I sold an AK47 to a guy, and there is nothing that needs done. I copied down his drivers license info just in case he committed a crime with it I would have some kind of info when the police came knocking on my door.

[bignateyk]

Originally Posted by monovillage

Sorry, but I have a serious problem with a constitutional right that can only be used by relatively wealthy citizens, that if you're poor or on a fixed income that this right doesn't really apply to you.
I see a huge difference between a $5 drivers license and a $500 or $1,000 or a $5,000 gun license.

And yet the average welfare leaching trailer dweller doesn't seem to have any trouble affording a plasma TV or mustang.

[corwin]

Originally Posted by bignateyk

Yeah, the private sale thing is more of a problem. I sold an AK47 to a guy, and there is nothing that needs done. I copied down his drivers license info just in case he committed a crime with it I would have some kind of info when the police came knocking on my door.

Under federal law that is completely legal, and you make the most money yourself from the sale. I'm overly cautious and they few times I've sold guns I go back to a dealer to sell them, now that I've joined a gun club I can sell them to other members but I will still restrict sales to people with a valid CCW only, that's better than a NICS check and about as sure as you can be.

[HumblePie]

Originally Posted by corwin

Concealed carry is not a constitutional right, I'd have a different opinion if it was but it's just not...and even if it was I would want to know that the ones who were knew how to use it, here in Texas that's part of the program and I like that.

Pretty sure that's only from dealers, just like everywhere else...private sales are still done without a check and are perfectly legal, unless WA banned private sales at gun shows

The bolded is what screws up most of the pro-gun crowd. And some of the anti-gun crowd.

The 2A says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, but that doesn't state in public exactly. So long as I can own, carry, and shoot whatever I want on my private property, the clauses of the 2A is fulfilled. As long as I can demonstrate I can carry a firearm safely and responsibly in public then it is the duty of the government to allow me to do so. Same thing if I want to drive a vehicle in public. I have to demonstrate I can do so safely and responsibly. Nor should being allowed be cost prohibitive.

In my eyes, the government shouldn't have laws that restrict ownership of whatever property I want to have on my personal property or in my vehicle. Those are my areas of domain. Nor should the restrict me if I'm not on my property anymore as long as I have shown my right to do something does not directly infringe, endanger, or stomp on the rights of others. Carrying a concealed handgun responsibly does not infringe, endanger, or stomp on anyone else's rights. Just like driving a car on a public roadway doesn't.

I have NO PROBLEM with the federal laws forcing a minimum mandatory training for carrying out in public, but leave how the implementation of the training is done as a state right. As well as laws that prevent states from making that training cost prohibitive. THOSE are reasonable gun laws.