250th Mass Shooting in 215 Days

[Mr Brown]

Just want to play devil's advocate about open/concealed carry. Just because a state allows it, doesn't necessarily mean that someone is going to be there with a tool on them to stop the threat. Think of how many people you encounter on a daily basis who don't have a gun on them, or have never even touched a gun. I live in a rural area so it's a bit different here. Lot's of hunters, but they're almost all fud's. They care about their hunting rifles/shotguns and that's about it.

I know a lot of people WAY more into guns than I am that never carry. I know a few people who only own one handgun, and it goes with them everywhere. I'm somewhere in between. I only own weapons that could possibly serve a purpose to me if I needed them to.

I carry every single day, everywhere I go, unless it's a *sigh* gun free zone. Sometimes open, sometimes concealed. The AR is usually with me as well.

To me it's more about saving me and mine, than stopping a mass murderer. If someone attacks me or my loved ones, I do not have time to wait for the cops. It's all about taking your life in your own hands and getting the job done. That being said, if I happened to be in a place where a shooting was taking place I would absolutely step in and to to stop it, without a second thought. I think if more people had this mentality and actually strapped up every day and made good habits to practice, things could be a lot different.

Just my .02 cents.

Keep reading.....

 

[Falkonworks]

Keep reading.....

I read the entire thread

 

[08BusaKY]

I’m not against guns or even people carrying them. I can totally get why people like and collect guns. I have to admit that when is see some one open carrying I think “that dude has a complex”. People probably think that about me when I pull up on a Busa, oh well...
My sister is a teacher, as were my parents so I’m really turned off by the idea of arming teachers. The idea teachers can be trained easily does a disservice to our police and military.
I’m probably benefiting from the idea that “that guy might have a gun” as I travel the country, I’ll admit that. It is a very complicated issue and unfortunately extremely political. Fast motorcycles, on the other hand, are an issue that brings a large number of different people together.

I never open carry but it doesn't bother me if other people do. Just not my choice.

 

[Mr Brown]

I read the entire thread

Then you know I addressed exactly what you suggested. You're right, most people aren't carrying, which is as it should be. Carrying isn't enough, training and experience are absolutely necessary for successful outcomes in any scenario.
I live in a rural area also, but I've lived in major cities and firearms were present in both settings.
We like to think we would act in a manner consistent with our beliefs, but the truth is, until an individual is placed in that situation we don't know how we will react.

 

[jellyrug]

I don't believe anyone is color blind (myself included). The best of us will suppress our initial reactions to allow actual experience to prove or disprove our suspicions.

For the human race to survive eventually, we will have to work together as one with strategies to save the planet. Your thinking is still at level 0, I think more in terms of level 1, and hopefully a few generations from now humans will think at level 3. But, you probably will not identify with that or know what it means.

 

[Falkonworks]

Then you know I addressed exactly what you suggested. You're right, most people aren't carrying, which is as it should be. Carrying isn't enough, training and experience are absolutely necessary for successful outcomes in any scenario.
I live in a rural area also, but I've lived in major cities and firearms were present in both settings.
We like to think we would act in a manner consistent with our beliefs, but the truth is, until an individual is placed in that situation we don't know how we will react.

You talked about training but we're not really talking about the same thing. The way I understood your points was that training was necessary to gain access to firearms, but I don't necessarily agree. it's not that I disagree, but I am more of the thinking that if you make the decision that your are going to get one, you should be able to. The training is up to you after the purchase.

What I was getting at was that if more people took it upon themselves to train, examine scenarios that you might be thrown into, etc, then they will be more prepared in that situation.

But that ignores the main point of my entire post, which was that just because carrying is legal doesn't mean that someone IS going to save you. So talking about how Ohio is an open carry state, and then saying that "the police still had to end the shooting" is implying that just because people CAN carry guns, that people are actually GOING to use them, or have some obligation to do so. The police stopped the shooting because that's their job.

 

[fallenarch]

For the human race to survive eventually, we will have to work together as one with strategies to save the planet. Your thinking is still at level 0, I think more in terms of level 1, and hopefully a few generations from now humans will think at level 3. But, you probably will not identify with that or know what it means.

Buy the comments you have made on this site and the way you express opinions I think you are being generous with yourself. Race is fast becoming an age issue. Kids don't see it the same, many don't see it at all. This will lead to further mixing and eventually the race issue will simply be obsolete. But for now, most people have prejudices even if they are held privately or they don't even realize it themselves.

But mixing is not the best answer. Ideally, we would become more excepting of different perspectives as that makes for a stronger whole. The strongest organisms in nature are the most diverse, not the most homogenous.

 

[Mr Brown]

You talked about training but we're not really talking about the same thing. The way I understood your points was that training was necessary to gain access to firearms, but I don't necessarily agree. it's not that I disagree, but I am more of the thinking that if you make the decision that your are going to get one, you should be able to. The training is up to you after the purchase.

What I was getting at was that if more people took it upon themselves to train, examine scenarios that you might be thrown into, etc, then they will be more prepared in that situation.

But that ignores the main point of my entire post, which was that just because carrying is legal doesn't mean that someone IS going to save you. So talking about how Ohio is an open carry state, and then saying that "the police still had to end the shooting" is implying that just because people CAN carry guns, that people are actually GOING to use them, or have some obligation to do so. The police stopped the shooting because that's their job.

My pointing out of Ohio being an open carry state was in response to 08's comment about response time and private citizen involvement. I was saying that allowing people to carry firearms doesn't necessarily mean people are, or that those who are will engage.
I didn't think training should be required for gun ownership, I think it should be taught to everyone, in school. A basic firearm safety and training class should be a part of every district's curriculum. And national service should be compulsory too, but I digress.....

 

[08BusaKY]

Buy the comments you have made on this site and the way you express opinions I think you are being generous with yourself. Race is fast becoming an age issue. Kids don't see it the same, many don't see it at all. This will lead to further mixing and eventually the race issue will simply be obsolete. But for now, most people have prejudices even if they are held privately or they don't even realize it themselves.

But mixing is not the best answer. Ideally, we would become more excepting of different perspectives as that makes for a stronger whole. The strongest organisms in nature are the most diverse, not the most homogenous.

Unfortunately all through time as long as people are different races, religions, and sometime no differences except for the red or blue bandana or the colors they wear (bikers) there has always been hate and violence. It has been that way from the beginning of time and sadly I do not think it will change. Also fighting over land is a big factor too.

The mixing of races may lessen some of that but will be far from eliminating it.

 

[Mr Brown]

Unfortunately all through time as long as people are different races, religions, and sometime no differences except for the red or blue bandana or the colors they wear (bikers) there has always been hate and violence. It has been that way from the beginning of time and sadly I do not think it will change. Also fighting over land is a big factor too.

The mixing of races may lessen some of that but will be far from eliminating it.

Familiarity with different people typically leads to understanding and mutual respect.
Race in this country has always been a flashpoint for hate and violence, arguably because it has always been tied to economic advantage and control.

 

[Mr Brown]

But mixing is not the best answer. Ideally, we would become more excepting of different perspectives as that makes for a stronger whole. The strongest organisms in nature are the most diverse, not the most homogenous.

This implies that racial differences are biological, and that is inaccurate. There is no race gene, there are genetic markers for specific phenotypes, and societies attach racial significance to these properties.

 

[fallenarch]

This implies that racial differences are biological, and that is inaccurate. There is no race gene, there are genetic markers for specific phenotypes, and societies attach racial significance to these properties.

Yes many of the differences between races can be traced cultural (non-genetic) influences. But those differences should make the whole stronger, rather than weaker. But because we are often adverse to differences (tribalism) we look at the different strengths that various peoples have as threats, not potential.

 

[08BusaKY]

Familiarity with different people typically leads to understanding and mutual respect.
Race in this country has always been a flashpoint for hate and violence, arguably because it has always been tied to economic advantage and control.

What about the hate and violence between gangs? They may be the same race and be in the same economic state but still kill each other.

 

[Mr Brown]

Yes many of the differences between races can be traced cultural (non-genetic) influences. But those differences should make the whole stronger, rather than weaker. But because we are often adverse to differences (tribalism) we look at the different strengths that various peoples have as threats, not potential.

Agreed, cultural diversity makes a stronger world. The problem arises when diversity becomes hierarchical. My (insert cultural marker) is better than your (insert cultural marker). This has historically been tied to economic gain, and almost invariably leads to domination and exploitation.

 

[Mr Brown]

What about the hate and violence between gangs? They may be the same race and be in the same economic state but still kill each other.

Most of the time gang violence is tied to criminal enterprise and the money at stake. Once members leave the gang, they tend to recognize the similarly they share with their former rivals.

 

[08BusaKY]

Agreed, cultural diversity makes a stronger world. The problem arises when diversity becomes hierarchical. My (insert cultural marker) is better than your (insert cultural marker). This has historically been tied to economic gain, and almost invariably leads to domination and exploitation.

That domination is usually tied to the majority.

 

[Mr Brown]

That domination is usually tied to the majority.

Not necessarily the numeric majority though.

 

[08BusaKY]

Not necessarily the numeric majority though.

True it is sometime the more aggressive group...

 

[Mr Brown]

That domination is usually tied to the majority.

Think in terms of land ownership in this country. When the first European settlers arrived they were outnumbered, but their method of organization was so utterly foreign to the native people that they were able to take over. The concept of owning property didn't exist, the native people scoffed at the idea that they could be excluded from land.

 

[08BusaKY]

Think in terms of land ownership in this country. When the first European settlers arrived they were outnumbered, but their method of organization was so utterly foreign to the native people that they were able to take over. The concept of owning property didn't exist, the native people scoffed at the idea that they could be excluded from land.

That and some land was purchased really cheap because the sellers were not thinking in the long term (e.g. the Louisiana purchase).