Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I prefer concealed. I feel those people are more... responsible? professional? My grandfather was a police chief, when off duty he always concealed his firearm.
As a whole... I am not sure I trust any of them. Neither concealed or open carry means they are remotely capable of handling a situation, doesn't even mean they're capable of using them. Something like the Aura theater shooting, could have been an even bigger disaster with the above.
A bigger disaster? What is worse then a psycho killing unarmed people with impunity? A law abiding citizens defending themselves..
yeah this is the reality. More guns. . .doesn't necessarily equal safety for anyone. I mean even when mass shootings hit areas of places where there are firearms (military bases) you still see pretty high death tolls. Even when cops are involved (i..e NYC street) if its crowded, more people get hit by friendly fire than the bad guy.
I'm sure there is some fantasy somewhere where you jon doe is the hero from a 1 in 40,000,000 event. . .where you stand up and take down that bad guy. In reality you either die, or run like everyone else, or shoot and hit the wrong person. . .all are more likely than stopping someone.
Hell James Holmes was so armored up. . .you shooting at him would of just attracted his fire.
never bring a pistol to a Semi-rifle fight
He was not wearing body armor, he was wearing web gear...and even if he was, you could have hit him in the legs, knees, arms, balls, neck, head, or chest, even if it did not go through the vest it would hurt a great deal, or stun him to the point were you could get off a head shot.
open carry is safer for the rest of us who don't need guns to protect ourselves outside our homes. those of us who have went decades without getting into a stupid situation just using street smarts and common sense. I have never been mugged or attacked by a stranger because I practice fantastic situational awareness. I do not go looking for problems. the odds of someone like me being a victim of violent crime by someone I do not know are astronomically low. the reason some people think regular people are being savaged on the streets is because we have a 24 hour news cycle and local stories can get international attention on the internet in minutes.
anyways, I prefer open carry, so I can avoid the nuts who think they have to bring a gun everywhere.
Kinda' hard to 'practice fantastic situational awareness' when your house borders the White Mountains National Forest in NH at 3:00 AM.
Open carry, should be allowed during the summers, when minimal clothing is worn. How are you going to conceal it with shorts, tee shirt and flip flops, unless you carry a purse.
Conceal carry is better during the winter.
You are right, that being said if a customer is harmed when their rights were violated, Starbucks will be very very very liable.
Their rights aren't being violated when a property owner tells them they cannot bring a firearm on the property. It's the property owners property. They hold no liability above that which they would have if they had allowed someone carry a firearm on their property.
Again; it makes little sense the gun hawks that have little understanding/respect for private property. One would think private property was an equally important subject.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gunlover
A bigger disaster? What is worse then a psycho killing unarmed people with impunity? A law abiding citizens defending themselves..
There is zero training required to carry a firearm. A jumpy trigger finger panicking is just as dangerous to those around him.
Their rights aren't being violated when a property owner tells them they cannot bring a firearm on the property. It's the property owners property. They hold no liability above that which they would have if they had allowed someone carry a firearm on their property.
Again; it makes little sense the gun hawks that have little understanding/respect for private property. One would think private property was an equally important subject.
There is zero training required to carry a firearm. A jumpy trigger finger panicking is just as dangerous to those around him.
Naw you just really want to obey a guy holding a gun with Parkinson's disease If criminals were really smart there wouldn't be any..... Funny how so many are in congress huh?
yeah this is the reality. More guns. . .doesn't necessarily equal safety for anyone. I mean even when mass shootings hit areas of places where there are firearms (military bases) you still see pretty high death tolls. Even when cops are involved (i..e NYC street) if its crowded, more people get hit by friendly fire than the bad guy.
I'm sure there is some fantasy somewhere where you jon doe is the hero from a 1 in 40,000,000 event. . .where you stand up and take down that bad guy. In reality you either die, or run like everyone else, or shoot and hit the wrong person. . .all are more likely than stopping someone.
Hell James Holmes was so armored up. . .you shooting at him would of just attracted his fire.
never bring a pistol to a Semi-rifle fight
You have your "facts" a little mixed up. With the exception of exactly one case (Giffords shooting), every mass-shooting in the past 50 years has been in a location where ordinary people were prohibited by law or other rule from carrying a weapon. Yes, even the ones on military bases. Unless they are in an active war zone or otherwise stationed in an area where carrying is necessary, US soldiers are not permitted to randomly wander about base carrying firearms. Only MPs and soldiers on guard duty are allowed to be armed, which means military bases are really no different from any other location where only the police and security guards are allowed to defend themselves.
And as already mentioned, Holmes wasn't armored. If he had gone to one of the larger or closer theaters where a few of the audience members could legally carry concealed there likely would be a few more people breathing the air today. I'm not saying a good guy could have stopped the shooting completely, and yes it's even possible the good guy could have hit an innocent. But instead of 12 deaths and 70 injuries, maybe 4 deaths and 30 injuries. And even if some of those deaths and injuries were caused by the good guy's bullets, wouldn't that still be better than 12 and 70? Also, Holmes started with a shotgun, switched to a rifle which jammed, and then finished with a pistol.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If criminals were really smart there wouldn't be any..... Funny how so many are in congress huh?
