Carrying Guns

[Magpie]

Agreed. there is no problem with a smile and a wave, a smile and how you doin', or someone starting a conversation with "this weather, huh" There is a big difference when someone starts a conversation with, you better watch out. I've warned people about things and talked to people in the streets but my conversations usually start out with an excuse sir/mam.

Hm... someone approaches me with a "Excuse me, sir/ma'am," and my first thought is often, mmm... are they going to ask me for money or try to scam me? And do I happen to have any spare bus tickets I can give them?

It may be a cultural thing.

The other day, though, we did have a less than pleasant encounter. We'd noticed a couple who seemed to be in some distress, under the influence of something, perhaps, and clearly homeless (with back packs). When we passed them a second time, the gentleman was passed out on the bench and the woman was sitting nearby. She called to us, so we stopped to talk to her for a moment and let her pet our dog. We were just getting to the point where I was about to offer her some money, when the man on the bench staggered up to us, loudly, aggressively and incoherently complaining that, "NO ONE'S HELPING US!"

To which I said, "I'm sorry I can't help you," and we skedaddled out of there.

I felt bad for him. I wish I could have helped them, but I don't have the knowledge, resources or training to do so. And I knew that I really didn't want to get either myself or my daughter enmeshed in their problems.

But the one thing I didn't feel was that I'd just escaped a life or limb-threatening situation.

It was what it was, nothing more or less.

One thing that's struck me as notable about this thread, is the number of times people give examples of encounters where nothing bad happened, as proof that something bad could have happened. But logically, it doesn't work like that. If anything, the vast number of encounters we have with people that don't end in tears, should be proof that we have less to worry about, not more.

(Not suggesting we should blindly trust everyone we meet, of course!)

 

[bonjing]

(Not suggesting we should blindly trust everyone we meet, of course!)

Agreed. Like the old saying goes; Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

I'll kindly back out of this thread and conversation as I don't want to be looked down by the board community. I hope I have come across as pleasant in our exchanges.

 

[dreiwhit]

I’ve seen FBI/DoJ/ATF studies that indicate that the majority of firearms used in the commission of crimes were acquired through straw purchases or theft. A straw purchase is where someone ineligible to purchase or who might run into purchase limits enlists another person to make the purchase.

Its also a Federal felony, with a sentence of ten years in jail and a fine of up to $250,000. Unfortunately, straw purchasers are rarely prosecuted. The quote from an ATFE former Assistant Director is that "charging straw buyers falls towards the bottom of federal prosecutors' priority lists."

Edit: 44 out of 48,000 straw purchasers and felons attempting to purchase firearms (another felony) were prosecuted in 2010.

In Mexico the majority of illegal firearms came from the United States.

Some firearms do come from the USA, but many also come out of Central America. Many of the firearms are military weapons, and the cartels also have claymore mines, hand grenades and rocket launchers. Those types of weapons aren't available for sale to citizens in the USA. Their weaponry rivals the Mexican military. See this article for more information

 

[Gumbo4x4]

__________________
Listen you said "first of all mass shootings are an American phenomenon."

I said it has also happened in Canada as well as "Now yes the number isn't near what the U.S. has had but it still has had them."

I wasn't making the comparison between the U.S. and Canada. You were. I already know and fully get that the U.S. has had more than Canada. But appearantly you are under the impression that gun violence has never happened at all in Canada (it sure came off that way). And let's be honest gun violence in the form of shooting people and either injurying them or killing them is not confined to the borders of the U.S.

Good lord no one is saying it doesn't happen in the U.S.-that's one thing you won't hear denial from a U.S. citizen. Also do understand that in order to fully grasp the understand of numbers you need to know 1) the definition of mass shooting the person is using as there is no legal definition of one 2) are they including gang violence, home invasions and domestic issues within those numbers. Context is key. I read a BBC article that was discussing the gun-related deaths.

In that article it discusses a magazine (Mother Jones) that did some legwork. They used the definition of 4 or more killed by the attacker but excluded shootings stemming from more conventional crimes such as armed robbery or gang violence. From 1982-present there have been 94 mass shootings and that is not anything to downplay whatshoever but it is a far cry from the "one for everyday of the year" talk that the media likes to present.

Also more people die by suicide than mass shootings...like a lot more. According to the BBC article in the U.S. in 2014 21,386 died from suicide, 11,008 homicides which included 14 from mass shootings and then 1,200 from other (included accidental or war casualties). Now that speaks to mental health of course but a person in Canada has the opportunity to shoot themselves with their gun just the same as a person in the U.S. According to 2009 review a 10-year look showed the majority however in Canada did so by hanging rather than using a gun.

Yes, gang violence and domestic situations are included in "mass shooting" stats in the US. IIRC, it's anything that involves 3 or more victims (wounded counts).

 

[mckennarose]

.....
As you can see we have a gang violence problem, once we get rid of the suicides and gang violence we are actually pretty safe considering our population.

As someone who lives between Philadelphia and NYC, I agree with this 100%. And I can tell you that none of the gang members obtain guns through proper or legal methods. If firearms were banned, they would still be able to get them.
There is not one day that goes by where there isn't something on the local news about gang violence around here, and lots of shootings between rival gangs. Some result in deaths but there are many, many more non fatality shootings. This is my personal experience living near gang areas and something I see on a daily basis.

 

[Jaspers]

Really? Wow. Just because someone carries a concealed gun and has the permit to do so, you don't trust that person?

Do you live in the US? If so, then unless you never leave your house you are around people with concealed guns every day.

I very likely have trust issues so the idea of someone carrying a gun freaks me out as it'd be too easy for them to just pull out their gun and kill me on the spot.

Here in Finland laws about guns are probably stricter so I guess it's just what you're used to.

 

[MaryLovesPoohBear]

Its also a Federal felony, with a sentence of ten years in jail and a fine of up to $250,000. Unfortunately, straw purchasers are rarely prosecuted. The quote from an ATFE former Assistant Director is that "charging straw buyers falls towards the bottom of federal prosecutors' priority lists."

It is used when the state doesn't have enough evidence for a conviction. The Feds can jump in and charge the person with weapons charges.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

It is ultimately the lawmakers who allowed them the ability to own the gun that allow these types of incidents to happen. Yes a gun owner might be directly irresponsible but it that gun owner- in this case, a father- was never allowed to have a gun, it wouldn’t have happened. Tragedies like that are a direct result of allowing citizens to have guns- because, let’s face it, many, many citizens can’t be trusted. Every week I see another news story about an American shooting- that very, very rarely happens in countries where people can’t own guns. You’re safer in a country where no one has a gun, without a gun, than in a country where many, many people have guns and you have one.

The thing to consider though is that it's also a rare occurrence in countries where citizens ARE allowed to own guns. And of course you have places like Mexico where guns are highly regulated, yet they're everywhere.

So, the issue isn't as simple as guns = bad, no guns = good.

 

[Magpie]

Agreed. Like the old saying goes; Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

I'll kindly back out of this thread and conversation as I don't want to be looked down by the board community. I hope I have come across as pleasant in our exchanges.

We have, and thank you for a morning's pleasant diversion!

 

[Gumbo4x4]

I’m not saying all guns- they are allowed in some cases in Britain for recreational purposes. But hand guns are strictly limited- most of our police officers don’t even have them! This is reflected in the much lower homicide rate.

Not really. There was a time when guns were less regulated in the U.K. than in New York. And even then, their homicide rate was a fraction of New York's.

 

[MIGrandma]

I know what you mean about some parts of NOLA at night, but just an FYI, in Louisiana you have to have a permit in LA to conceal carry here. If he would have been caught or would have had to use it, he would have gone to jail.

Do you mean a permit issued to him from Louisiana, or just a permit to conceal carry in general? Because he does have the permit, issued here in Michigan.

This was a few years ago that we were in New Orleans for that particular trip, so maybe laws have changed, I don't know. But at the time of our trip he looked up the laws, to make sure it was legal, and the only state we went through that had different laws than ours at that time was Illinois. He couldn't be carrying his gun through that state, it had to be secured in the lock box.

 

[LSUmiss]

Do you mean a permit issued to him from Louisiana, or just a permit to conceal carry in general? Because he does have the permit, issued here in Michigan.

This was a few years ago that we were in New Orleans for that particular trip, so maybe laws have changed, I don't know. But at the time of our trip he looked up the laws, to make sure it was legal, and the only state we went through that had different laws than ours at that time was Illinois. He couldn't be carrying his gun through that state, it had to be secured in the lock box.

Oh ok. No LA honors many states’ permits so I’m assuming MI was one if you looked it up.

 

[AnnaFloridaLover]

I own a gun. I acknowledge that it has the immense power to inflict much pain and indeed, death. I further know that as such, it needs to be treated with great respect.

I think it's a cultural thing. In the USA, there is approximately one gun for ever man, woman and child. This is the greatest rate in the world. In second place we find Serbia, with 58.21 firearms per 100 residents. My country is way down the list. We just don't see the need or appeal. As I said, a cultural thing.

Why do you own a gun? Furthermore, I would really like you to answer this question. Do you think people with a history of admitted serious mental illness should own firearms?

 

[bcla]

"The man went out with a .45 caliber pistol to try to scare the bear away, but the bear charged him, knocked him down and scratched his face."

I'm thinking the real problem here is that the bear didn't look at the man and go, "Oh no, he has a gun!"

Darn those bears and their lack of respect for firearms.

Also, an airhorn would have worked just as well, or better. Going camping in bear country? Lock up your food and carry bear spray and/or an airhorn (in addition to any guns you might bring for hunting). Meet a black bear? Make yourself as big and noisy as you can, and don't leave a position of safety, if you don't have to.

I enjoy camping but I understand that it comes with certain responsibilities to store food properly such that wildlife aren't attracted to it, and especially such that they aren't rewarded with actual food.

That being said, we have some interesting rules on weapons that might be used on wildlife in campgrounds, and it's not consistent. The campground that I mentioned is on US Forest Service land outside of an incorporated city. As such, carrying a loaded firearm was legal. For years (dating back to rules set during the 1980s) loaded weapons weren't generally allowed on National Park Service lands. There were exceptions where hunting is legal or where a park superintendent authorized it for self defense against wildlife. The parks in Alaska where there are grizzly bears allow it. However, a few years back there was a rider attached to a consumer credit card protection bill that required NPS to allow firearms in accordance with local/state law. So now it's legal to carry a firearm in a campground. It's technically illegal to discharge it, but it's implied that it's legal in a case of self defense. Also - California State Parks doesn't allow the carrying of firearms, except for personal protection in campgrounds. It's kind of an odd rule.

What the National Park Service uses for bear hazing is interesting. Almost all park rangers (even non law enforcement) are tasked with that at one time or another. They have shotguns using rubber slugs, pyrotechnics (I've heard these noises trying to sleep), and paintball guns (using clear paintballs). The strange thing is that while firearms are specifically allowed for people, other weapons are not unless they're specifically allowed by the park superintendent. So no slingshots or bear spray that might be useful against bears. The places where there are exceptions are in Alaska or where there are grizzly bears (Yellowstone, Grand Teton, Glacier).

 

[MIGrandma]

I very likely have trust issues so the idea of someone carrying a gun freaks me out as it'd be too easy for them to just pull out their gun and kill me on the spot.

Here in Finland laws about guns are probably stricter so I guess it's just what you're used to.

Ah, you don't live in the US. I understand better now.

I was a bit "freaked out" myself when DH wanted to get his permit and start carrying a gun. But the more I got used to it, the more at ease I became. And too, then when I took the class myself and learned more about guns, how to use them, practice shooting at the range, etc. now it is totally acceptable to me.

But as to your comment about someone carrying a gun freaking you out as it would be too easy for them to just pull out their gun and kill you, I would not be worried about someone legally carrying a gun as I would be much more worried about a criminal that has one. In fact, when I took the conceal carry permit class the instructor was the police chief of a nearby town and he told us that when he pulls someone over and the person hands him their driver's license and their conceal carry permit it actually puts him more at ease because he knows that person has gone through a background check already and they are an honest law-abiding citizen (well, except for the speeding in their car which is probably the reason they were pulled over ).

 

[Gumbo4x4]

I very likely have trust issues so the idea of someone carrying a gun freaks me out as it'd be too easy for them to just pull out their gun and kill me on the spot.

Here in Finland laws about guns are probably stricter so I guess it's just what you're used to.

I can't speak to how common it is to carry guns around in public in Finland (I assume, not at all common). Interestingly enough though, Finland ranks pretty high for gun ownership (6th, with 34.2 guns per 100 citizens).

 

[luvsJack]

You know, the only real scenario is the one that actually played out? Some guys drinking in the back of their car, warning a stranger about raccoons. (In my neighbourhood, you really don't want to mess with the raccoons! Unless you really want stitches and rabies shots, that is.)

You didn't bluff your way out of anything. You didn't survive a life threatening encounter with a pack of villains. You simply asked a question and they answered and off you went.

When I'm out, I nod and smile at people as I pass them. I say, hi, or "nice day, eh?" As a woman, yes, it's smart to be alert and aware of my environment. But, I also like people, so it's a win-win for all of us.

When I'm out, people ask me the time of day. They ask me when the next bus is. They strike up conversations when I'm waiting outside a store with my dog, or waiting for a bus. I'm not "on alert" for imminent attack, though I am, of course, alert and aware. There's nothing odd about being spoken to in public.

I think we live in very different worlds. And I'm glad I don't have to view every unplanned encounter with another human being as a potential attack on me or my loved ones.

I think you are taking a few examples that people have used completely out of context. No one is saying that every unplanned encounter with someone is potentially dangerous. Had a guy come up to my car yesterday in the drive thru at McD's. I knew he was homeless. He wanted money to be able to bathe. I gave him a dollar and he went to the next person, who bought him food. It never occurred to me to think of him as a threat.

I have chance encounters every single day as does most any human on this planet. I don't think of them as a threat unless there is something very unusual about the encounter. DH has a gun in his 18-wheeler at this very moment. Its not for every encounter he has on the road. Its for that one time he is stopped on the exit ramp and someone comes up to rob him (yes, it has happened). Or when he is asleep at the truck stop and someone tries to break in his truck (happens on the constant with drivers). Its not for EVERY unplanned encounter, its for that chance one encounter where having a weapon to defend himself with is needed.

DD's bf is a cop. He has several friends that are cops. I know 6 cops on this campus and probably 10 more in the local departments. I don't know a single one that has shot someone. But they have guns in case there is a need. No different than a regular every day citizen that has a permit to carry.

Everyone that carries a gun does not see everyone as dangerous. Not at all. But we are talking about guns here so naturally many will mention times they felt better about having one. That doesn't mean one incident defines their entire life!

The incident with my dd's bf, was ONE incident. The guy walked up from the street to a closing business and sat on their sidewalk with a huge knife in his hand. How on God's earth do you determine "oh he is safe and I shouldn't feel threatened?". It took him a minute of talking to him to figure out that he was ok. I just don't think you would have felt the same had you been in the situation. But maybe you really do live in nirvana, who knows? (somehow I don't think Canada is quiet as perfect as you wish to portray it. Neither is the US, of course)

The poster you are quoting here mentioned someone warning him about raccoons. Raccoons? Really? If someone "warned" me about raccoons I would laugh at them. I have a family in my yard! The cats aren't fond of them but otherwise they are fine. I would be suspicious of someone "warning" me about raccoons too. That's just silly. But if someone was drinking heavily (and were visibly intoxicated) and "warned" me about raccoons, I would be very cautious. Intoxication can make anyone (yes, even Canadians) act out of the norm.

 

[LYSE]

I very likely have trust issues so the idea of someone carrying a gun freaks me out as it'd be too easy for them to just pull out their gun and kill me on the spot.

Here in Finland laws about guns are probably stricter so I guess it's just what you're used to.

Especially being non American I can get it...

But just for you and others to consider did you know that American's who legally carry concealed are more law abiding than the general public and even more so than police officers?

Source: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2814691

Permit holders are convicted of felonies and misdemeanors at less than a sixth of the rate of police officers, according to the study. Officers also commit firearm violations, 16.5 per 100,000, seven times more frequently than permit holders, at only 2.4 per 100,000 in Texas and Florida.

 

[Suger Mag]

(Not suggesting we should blindly trust everyone we meet, of course!)

Ah, you don't live in the US. I understand better now.

I was a bit "freaked out" myself when DH wanted to get his permit and start carrying a gun. But the more I got used to it, the more at ease I became. And too, then when I took the class myself and learned more about guns, how to use them, practice shooting at the range, etc. now it is totally acceptable to me.

But as to your comment about someone carrying a gun freaking you out as it would be too easy for them to just pull out their gun and kill you, I would not be worried about someone legally carrying a gun as I would be much more worried about a criminal that has one. In fact, when I took the conceal carry permit class the instructor was the police chief of a nearby town and he told us that when he pulls someone over and the person hands him their driver's license and their conceal carry permit it actually puts him more at ease because he knows that person has gone through a background check already and they are an honest law-abiding citizen (well, except for the speeding in their car which is probably the reason they were pulled over ).

No offense, but I don't know any of you personally so why the heck should I trust you at your word. Who ever says Oh yes... LOL, I am an irresponsible gun owner?

Yes I live in the US, Yes I have owned a gun. But I do not think the answer is more guns... bigger guns... more guns in schools... more guns in Churches... more guns everywhere until we become something akin to a modern day Wild West with everyone ready to pack and fire at wolves and bears and thugs. Not interested in that future world. Guess I really do not have that much faith in my fellow mankind's ability to be responsible and calm and not do something stupid.

 

[LYSE]

No offense, but I don't know any of you personally so why the heck should I trust you at your word. Who ever says Oh yes... LOL, I am an irresponsible gun owner?

Yes I live in the US, Yes I have owned a gun. But I do not think the answer is more guns... bigger guns... more guns in schools... more guns in Churches... more guns everywhere until we become something akin to a modern day Wild West with everyone ready to pack and fire at wolves and bears and thugs. Not interested in that future world. Guess I really do not have that much faith in my fellow mankind's ability to be responsible and calm and not do something stupid.

See my post above mine, you'll find that while there are bad apples most who carry are quite responsible in general, firearms accidents are also at an all time low (and those stats were included in another one of my previous posts..i think)

And just a fun fact the wild west was not too dangerous:

In a book-length survey of the “West was violent” literature, historian Roger McGrath echoes Benson’s skepticism about this theory when he writes that “the frontier-was-violent authors are not, for the most part, attempting to prove that the frontier was violent. Rather, they assume that it was violent and then proffer explanations for that alleged violence” (1984, 270).

In contrast, an alternative literature based on actual history concludes that the civil society of the American West in the nineteenth century was not very violent. Eugene Hollon writes that the western frontier “was a far more civilized, more peaceful and safer place than American society today” (1974, x). Terry Anderson and P. J. Hill affirm that although “[t]he West . . . is perceived as a place of great chaos, with little respect for property or life,” their research “indicates that this was not the case; property rights were protected and civil order prevailed. Private agencies provided the necessary basis for an orderly society in which property was protected and conflicts were resolved” (1979, 10).

What were these private protective agencies? They were not governments because they did not have a legal monopoly on keeping order. Instead, they included such organizations as land clubs, cattlemen’s associations, mining camps, and wagon trains.

http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=803