Gun Debate Discussion

[Ghostrider]

Well, my two cents here...
If you carry a weapon, you should always be in "yellow" mode. That means you're constantly scanning, evaluating potential threats, identifying dangers and getting ready to switch or "orange" (potential threat identified, possible imminent danger) and "red" (clear and present danger, target identified). That, however, takes a lot of discipline and a lot of toll on your poor mind because you need to stay focused at all times and at the same time have full awareness of what's going on. It can be done but at the end of the day you're pretty much exhausted. If you're the kind of person who has all kinds of thoughts going through their minds, it's downright murder.

Going about your business while at the same time evaluating threats, cover, concealment, escape routes and so on may be interesting for one hour and so, but in a whole day it bluescreens your mind. I carry - though not every day - and I don't live in central Slaughter City, so the threat level is on the low side, but it's there and I need the thing for my trade.
After a while you end up adjusting to it, but it's always stressful and yet you would do a disservice to yourself and everybody else if you weren't observing tight discipline while carrying. Your weapon is just a mindless tool, the person who wields it is all that counts and the person misfires way more often than the weapon.
Try it for a day, most people are not even aware of what the car on the other lane is doing, and trying to ID a potential bad guy in a crowd is way more difficult.

That said, I like having the option to tax my poor brain...

 

[Linguofreak]

A quick-reacting bystander is the problem. Real life is no computer game, in which you already know in advance that somebody will really be shooting. Even if you see the shots right in front of you, it will take a pretty long while before you even realize what goes on there and that your mental preparations for the current situation are void.

How many shots did he fire, I think he used a Glock with large magazine, around 20 shots before he needs to reload? If you don't aim, 20 shots are done in less than 8 seconds. (a bit more than two shots per second). It is no .45 Magnum, in which the recoil already limits how fast you can fire.

If you don't aim, you say. I've not heard much as to how carefully he was aiming.

As for the number of shots fired, bystanders reported fifteen or twenty, but according to the Wikipedia article, he had a 30 round magazine and was tackled while he attempted to reload, which would suggest 30 rounds fired.

From personal experience, I would say you need at least around 3 seconds alone for locating from where the shooting comes and who is shooting. Especially if it is in a crowd, in which many people are suddenly running in any direction because they heard shots, but can't (like you) instantly tell from where the shooting comes. If you can pull out your weapon in 2 seconds, arm and load it (nobody sane runs around with a loaded gun in peace times),

Any American on the forum who carries a gun can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that most Americans who bother to carry a gun do carry it loaded. After all, given the purpose that these people say they carry guns for (self-defense), it would seem rather stupid not to carry the gun loaded, for the very reasons of loading time that you just mentioned.

you are already pretty fast.

5 seconds are over now.

How long if the gun is already loaded, but the safety switch is set?

Also you need to aim much better than he does, for not helping the bad guy.

This is my biggest concern in such a situation (along with the possibility of being mistaken for the shooter by other bystanders oneself), and indeed there may have been people on the scene who were carrying (I don't know) who neglected not to draw or fire for this reason.

My best reaction time in the army at this time had been just about one second for a new target to aim on it. six seconds over.

And that is pretty much in favor for the bystander. In reality, a normal person that did not practice especially for the situation, would need much longer to react. Nobody really practices to quickly grab, load and arm his pistol.

I think you'd be surprised by a lot of our gun carrying folk. A lot of them take carrying a gun seriously and train seriously. Many are former military.

And then, there is the "playing the hero" problem. If the shooter sees you messing with your pistol, he will not give you a friendly advice and ask you if you want to join his killing spree. Of course he can't shoot all people who suddenly draw a pistol. But many of them.

In which case he is shooting at people prepared to defend themselves rather than unarmed innocents.

And if all people would charge towards him instead of getting their guns, he would most likely have only one chance to shoot somebody, and not really a chance to aim good. A pistol is just a heavy piece of metal in a fist fight.

Apparently nobody charged him (at least not successfully) until he stopped to reload. And the guy that finally tackled him had been shot himself.

Maybe I now described better what I mean with "John Wayne movies". In the real world, you are not always on tension for a gunfight, you don't have a plot to follow. Even as soldier in a war zone, you need a pretty long time to get ready. Even if you know that something will happen. I rarely have seen somebody get ready faster for defense than 3 seconds, and that with the rifle already loaded and literally announcement of the attack.

But here you're talking about a rifle, which strikes me as a weapon that would be much slower to aim than a pistol, which would be the most likely weapon for a defender to be using in such a situation.

That is secondary. Cops aren't automatically better in reacting quickly, especially on such a harmless event.

The point I was making is that one of my big concerns, that of a defender being mistaken for an attacker by another defender, is gotten rid of if the defender is a cop in uniform. Of course, that also makes him an obvious target for the attacker.

OK, you are right there.

 

[Urwumpe]

Loaded = Bullet in the chamber.

I don't know the proper English term there and my dictionary isn't much of a help.

It makes really no sense to run around with a bullet in your chamber, if the threat level is low. There is a pretty high danger of accidents otherwise. In the German army, you usually do that only at night patrols or in wartime.

 

[Linguofreak]

Loaded = Bullet in the chamber.

I don't know the proper English term there and my dictionary isn't much of a help.

The term you're looking for is "with a bullet in the chamber" or "with a bullet chambered".

"Loaded", AFAIK, means that there is at least one bullet in the gun, whether chambered or not. (I could be wrong, as I'm not a gun-o-phile, but from the way I've generally heard the term used, this is what it means).

 

[Adelanthal]

Simply put: loaded = rounds available, whether in the magazine or the chamber. There's not really a good common term for having a round chambered. Often called "one up the spout", but no blanket term. Having said that, military usage is Condition 4: weapon unloaded, Condition 3: weapon loaded, no round chambered, Condition 2: Round chambered, safety on, Condition 1: Round chambered, safety off, ready to fire. Most people carry in Condition 3, as Condition 1 is just an accident waiting to happen, and it's unlikely, but all too easy for Condition 2 to inadvertently be moved to Condition 1 if the safety catches on the holster unnoticed. Further, it only takes a moment more to rack the slide during or after draw then to just draw.

 

[Urwumpe]

Further, it only takes a moment more to rack the slide during or after draw then to just draw.

Also, it removes one very important communication channel... The sound of a H&K G3 being explicitly chambered can be heard even many hundred meters away, if you want to, and usually bypasses the brain and goes directly to the legs.

And you don't need to point your rifle in another direction for it, like you need for the warning shot.

(Sadly, they only permitted me once to lead a patrol in training, afterwards the instructors avoided repeating the lesson with me... I was too good. And in actual duty, I never needed to do the full program)

 

[Quick_Nick]

People around here keep guns and rounds everywhere. And indeed, many people train carefully. (You must if you want to legally keep a gun)

 

[jedidia]

Also, it removes one very important communication channel... The sound of a H&K G3 being explicitly chambered can be heard even many hundred meters away, if you want to, and usually bypasses the brain and goes directly to the legs.

Some silly persons in swiss army leadership had the totally stupid idea to carry chambered on watch on the peak of the "terrorist threat" (not that there ever was one to speak of in switzerland), which led to problems with being less intimidating because of exactly this. The practice was abandoned again after about 3 accidents with saftey catches.

In a crowd with someone already shooting, it won't help you much though. And if people actually have trained using their gun, chambering shouldn't take even a second, especially with a pistol. We had to do rechambering in case of a misfire or missload (two bullets dilivered by the magazine) in three seconds, and that was including reaction time. flipping the saftey catch should be a total no-brainer and no-timer for anyone with at least a bit of training that is familiar with his gun (unless the design makes it harder on purpose). I wasn't in a fighting unit, so we didn't have much rifle training, but even we could flip the switch back and forth with the thumb without thinking about it (we had some excercises where we aimed secured, on command had to flip the switch, fire, and flip it back again in under a second).

 

[SiberianTiger]

People around here keep guns and rounds everywhere. And indeed, many people train carefully. (You must if you want to legally keep a gun)

Do you have states that permit only having a gun at home, and not walking with a gun everywhere? If yes, what people in these states can do to maintain their training level? Shoot beer cans in their backyard?

 

[Aeadar]

So far as I know, all states have concealed carry permits that one can apply for; barring that, when going to the shooting range, for example, usually keeping the firearm partially disassembled (and of course, unloaded) in the trunk of your car is sufficient. I'm not entirely sure of that, though. I've only ever owned 'black-powder' replica guns myself.
But shooting beer cans in the backyard is pretty much a no-no, unless you live in a very rural area. :lol:

 

[Tommy]

So far as I know, all states have concealed carry permits that one can apply for;

Not so. Wisconsin, at least does NOT have a concealed carry permit. In most communities, even off-duty police officers are discouraged from carrying. Open Carry IS allowed by the State Constitution, and no local law may prevent that. There are areas that are exempt from the Open Carry law, like schools, bars, churches, hospitals, etc, and any business or homeowner can institute a "No Firearms" policy which is enforcable.

That said, Wisconsin has had more than it's share of notable serial killers - Ed Geins, and Jeffery Dahmer, for instance (niether of whom used firearms for their killing).

Up north, where I live, guns are commonplace. When I was in High School (25 years ago) it wasn't uncommon to see a rifle or shotgun in a rack in a pick-up truck window in the student parking lot. There is a shooting range just outside town which is open (and free) to public use. Hunter Safety courses (performed by the Dept of Natural Resources) are available to students 12 and over at the local school.

The new Governer, Scott Walker, supports concealed carry so things may change. However, even if concealed carry is legalized the right of property owners to forbid firearms will stay the same - and in states where concealed carry is allowed many shopping malls and public areas have rules against firearms on the premises (except by certified "active" off-duty police officers). It should be noted that almost all "Mass Shootings" have occurred at places that prohibit firearms - schools, businesses, malls, etc. The shooters choose these locations because they are "soft targets" - they know it's unlikely that their potential victims will be armed and able to defend themselves.

DISCLAIMER: I am a former Law Enforcement Official - and don't own or carry a handgun. I just don't see a reason - and VERY few of the people who want to carry a gun have any good reason to do so. I do fully support the right to keep and bear arms - by any adult not: a felon, certified insane, or with a history of violence - and they can keep and bear those arms for any reason they see fit (ie, hunting, defense, etc).

To those who say this guy wouldn't have done this if he didn't have a gun, I say BS. He did this cause he's a nut, and if he coudn't buy a gun he would have tried to make one. Actually, it's far easier to make a bomb than a gun - so count your blessings that he COULD get a gun.

 

[Urwumpe]

Actually, it's far easier to make a bomb than a gun - so count your blessings that he COULD get a gun.

It is far easier to kill yourself with the attempt to make a bomb than to kill yourself getting a kitchen knife.

I am no fan of too lazy gun laws, I could use easily the same arguments as the NRA for saying that everybody should have the right to own a nuclear weapon at home, for proper defense against a nuclear armed government. It is insane, if you think about total gun freedom.

Most shootings actually happen in places, where it is easy to get guns AND ammo legally. This is not because guns make people bad. It is because bad people can easily exploit it, when people look away.

Everybody can now say that this shooter should never had gotten his gun at all, because everybody can see that he is insane. But why did nobody see it when he bought his gun? maybe because the US laws can be summarized as "You give me the money and show your passport, I make a note in my book that you bought this gun at my place and give you this gun. Have a nice day. If you give me a much more money, I will even close both eyes and remove all serial numbers from the gun, so nobody can tell that it was me who gave you this gun." The weapon trader has nothing to fear, so he must not do any controls, the gun owner does not care, if he has something to fear. The collateral damage is cleaned up by other people.

The same mechanisms also apply to illegal guns - if everybody has the right to legally own a gun, unless insane, criminal or liberal (which combines the first two), etc, how can you really tell that somebody illegally owns a gun before the guy is arrested for shooting somebody? You again make it easy to look away.

I don't think that this kind of system really works out. In all three big German spree killings in the past years, we had the same pattern: Person with big psychological problems, that are known to everybody, gets a gun, either by entering a shooting sports club or being related to somebody who is and who does not take weapon safety serious. The Erfurt shooter trained in a police shooting club! Against moving targets! Without anybody there noticing that this guy was a wacko. That sport shooters are permitted to literally pile up functional weapons is another thing that disturbs me. If somebody has 20 weapons in his house, he can be sports shooter or political extremist. Often he is both. :facepalm:

And this happily goes on... a 5 year old can fire a machine gun in the USA, but permitting him to vote is irresponsible. It is easier to buy a pistol in some places, than getting a good beer. You can carry a pistol in public, but don't get seen drinking a glass of wine in front of your house.

And you wonder why so many people get assassinated in the USA? Really? I wait for the day when a 7 year old shoots his elementary school teacher for giving him a bad grade. The more people glorify this solution, the more likely people will do it. The easier you make this solution, the more likely people will choose it.

 

[Tommy]

It is far easier to kill yourself with the attempt to make a bomb than to kill yourself getting a kitchen knife.

Anyone crazy enough to commit this kind of murder is plenty crazy enough to risk making a bomb - and megalomaniac enough that a knife just isn't enough.

I am no fan of too lazy gun laws, I could use easily the same arguments as the NRA for saying that everybody should have the right to own a nuclear weapon at home, for proper defense against a nuclear armed government.

I'm no fan of lazy gun laws either. I think anyone wanting to purchase any sort of firearm should have to show that they are competent in it's use and care. The instructors of those courses should be trained to spot the nut jobs. That said, let's not forget that the 911 hijackers took commercial flight school, even showed an interest in flying into buildings - and nobody raised any red flags. The problem isn't with guns - it's with the "Greed Culture".

Most shootings actually happen in places, where it is easy to get guns AND ammo legally.

Most gun crime here in the US happens in places with the highest restrictions on gun ownership. NYC and Washington DC have the highest gun crime rates in the country - and you can't buy guns or ammo in either city. If you look at the world wide statistices for "developed" (aka first and second world) countries with a stable and empowered government (not run by cartels like Mexico), you will find that the percentage of violent crimes that involve guns (rather than any other - or no - weapon) is highest in counties that have stricter gun laws. Counties that have a lower gun crime rate than the US have a MUCH lower violent crime rate overall. Robbery, Rape, and assault are SIGNIFICANTLY higher in cities that have gun bans.

I could use easily the same arguments as the NRA for saying that everybody should have the right to own a nuclear weapon at home, for proper defense against a nuclear armed government.

Even in this countries first years, it was never intended that a citizen should be able to win (or even stalemate) against the government. The purpose of allowing citizens to own arms is that they can at least make a stand long enough to attract attention. If you can hold off the government for a couple hours you will attract media attention. This makes the government very careful to ensure that it has just cause before it comes against you. If the citizens are unarmed, the government can attack or arrest anyone - for any reason (or no reason at all)- and get away with it because nobody would even be aware that it happened. You aren't supposed to be able to win - just put up a good enough fight that people notice and ask why the government is trying to arrest you. You don't need nukes for that. You don't even need machine guns for that.

a 5 year old can fire a machine gun in the USA

Fire one, yes. Possess one, no. In order to legally possess a full auto gun you need a FEDERAL firearms DEALERS permit - which requires passing a background investigation.

You can argue that this nut would have done less damage if he couldn't get a gun and used a knife. I'll respond by pointing out that he could have done far more damage by simply driving a car into the crowd - so should cars be illegal? And that a couple heroic bystanders wouldn't have been able to prevent him backing up and taking another go at it, and doing yet more damage.

Even people who hate the government are appalled at this event, and will be less confrontational now. While it is tragic, the loss of life and damage done are far less that what was caused by the recent riots in Italy. If your country needed a wake-up call, would you rather it came at the hand of a lone gunman hurting a few people, or at the hands of a mob hurting hundreds?

The US has looser gun laws than Germany, but we've only spawned a few terrorists who were US citizens and have done any real harm. I'm old enough to remember the Bader-Meinhoff gang, and the hundreds of violent incidents they performed.

And you wonder why so many people get assassinated in the USA? Really? I wait for the day when a 7 year old shoots his elementary school teacher for giving him a bad grade.

What "so many people". Compared to what other country? The US has, for it's size, one of the lowest "assasination" rates (for non-gang related incidents) than most countries. Gang Violence is another thing - caused by socio-economic inequity and the "War on Drugs" (which created a hugely profitable black market - the same as the Prohibition did in the twenties. We Americans are, it appears, slow learners).

In fact, in the last 50 years, there have only been two actual attempted political assasinations (both failed).

Sure, killings make the headlines - but you never hear about the people who's lives are saved because they had a gun to protect themselves - that gets buried in the back pages. A female friend of mine woke up one night because some guy was breaking into her bedroom. She grabbed a gun and he went out the window as fast as he could. He got cut, and left a very nice DNA sample. Three days later, another woman was raped and killed in her bedroom - and DNA evidence proved it was the same guy. Owning a gun saved my friends life, and it didn't make the paper at all since no-one actually got hurt.

This attack didn't happen because of guns. It happened because the guy was a nut, and the fact that people have been using terms of violence when talking about politics probably didn't help. We have politicians talking about "targeting" districts - even putting crosshairs and bullseyes on maps. We have Radio Talk Show hosts using violent speech, threats, and insults riling people up - because it increases listeners. We have created a culture of violence, and gun ownership has nothing to do with it.

I think we need to try and solve the real problems - not slap a band-aid on a symptom.

I think it's absolutely, shamefully tragic that people had to die and be injured for us to even admit there is a real problem.

The saddest thing is that the culture of violence isn't to blame for this particular event - the guy was just nuts. From all appearances, he wasn't even politically motivated - he just wanted to kill someone - anyone - and she was a high profile target.

 

[Urwumpe]

NYC and Washington DC have the highest gun crime rates in the country - and you can't buy guns or ammo in either city.

Look at a US map and tell me, are there checks if you bring the gun from another state into these towns? Also it is a lot more about poverty and population density still.

The US has looser gun laws than Germany, but we've only spawned a few terrorists who were US citizens and have done any real harm. I'm old enough to remember the Bader-Meinhoff gang, and the hundreds of violent incidents they performed.

I also remember them and know that the German groups of them had been pretty much less active as their world-wide supporters. also, the USA also have their share of terrorism in the past, just for example rank the KKK not as "southern social club", but as terror group.

All German terror groups so far also relied on foreign supporters for getting weapons, from NATO(Network Gladio, Munich Octoberfest bombing) to Hesbollah (Sauerland group).

 

[Tommy]

Look at a US map and tell me, are there checks if you bring the gun from another state into these towns?

You can get them in the next county, much less the next state. The point is that in these cities law abiding citizens don't have guns - so criminals feel much safer preying on them.

just for example rank the KKK not as "southern social club", but as terror group.

Point granted, I tend to think of terrorists as political, and the KKK are racist scum - not political.

All German terror groups so far also relied on foreign supporters for getting weapons,

The point is that they DID get guns. Unless you can magically uninvent the firearm you have to deal with them, not just pretend you can make them go away. No matter what laws you pass the criminals will still get guns - you'll just be giving them more sheep to feed upon. Anti-gun laws, even nationwide, do NOT prevent gun crime. Period. It simply prevents the innocent from being able to protect themselves.

People who support gun bans do so because they want to feel safer - and never mind that the safety they feel is an illusion. I would rather BE safer than FEEL safer. Here in Wisconsin one of the big reasons people are in favor of the concealed carry law is because they feel afraid if they see people carrying guns - they feel safer if the gun is hidden. It's absolute stupidity. I'm much safer if I know there is a threat than I am if my head is in the sand.

Realistic and effective gun legislation wouldn't ban guns (except machine guns - you don't need full auto to hunt or defend yourself and are far more likely to hit an unintended target). It would create a system that ensures gun responsibility. You should be required to take a class on gun safety, maintainance, and marksmanship. If someone is being treated for mental health issues that information should be available to law enforcement, and gun ownership priveledges revoked. People with a history of violence should not be allowed to possess guns (currently only convicted felons are prohibited).

There should be a waiting period for ALL gun purchases. Guns should only be sold by licensed dealers - currently in many places I can buy a gun from an individual - on the spot - and guns are listed in the newspaper classifieds.

I'm not against gun laws - but I am fervently against gun bans.

 

[SiberianTiger]

At any rate, we've gotten quite far off topic here and should probably quit before the moderators yell at us!

Okay, but before you leave, I'd love to listen to your expert opinion on whether "non-lethal" guns (traumatic guns) are more preferable to be held by civilians than ordinary guns, or not.

 

[Urwumpe]

You can get them in the next county, much less the next state. The point is that in these cities law abiding citizens don't have guns - so criminals feel much safer preying on them.

Still, the worst problem is not the criminal, but the husband shooting his wife after a few years, or the weirdo getting upset with the US dollar. Criminality is background noise. But if you start letting citizens fight criminals themselves, they become a bit criminal themselves... which is why we invented police, so the fallout is limited to a few carefully selected individuals who are unlucky enough to do this job.

Point granted, I tend to think of terrorists as political, and the KKK are racist scum - not political.

I don't draw a line there. If fear and violence are your means of achieving your political goals, you are a terrorist for me. I don't even see a difference between a US politician using just verbal violence for generating fear, or a suicide bomber really killing people. They are both terrorists, if both get their power by scaring people in submission.

I am not pro gun bans for the safety of people, but against gun freedom for achieving the same.

Banning something has never prevented anything. But freedom requires responsibility and we currently have the active and passive freedom of election without responsibility, and you can see how that ends.

 

[Ghostrider]

Well... Responsability is absolutely tied to freedom and individual rights. Otherwise they're not rights, they're mere privileges. Personally, I think that the more people are responsabilized, the safer society becomes. Not really politically correct in this era of personal de-responsabilization...

 

[Urwumpe]

Aye... privatize gains and socialize losses...Bloody pseudo communism.

 

[Ghostrider]

How long if the gun is already loaded, but the safety switch is set?

But here you're talking about a rifle, which strikes me as a weapon that would be much slower to aim than a pistol, which would be the most likely weapon for a defender to be using in such a situation.

Hm, I missed this part of the thread and for this I'm sorry (RL keeps intruding, darn it). Anyway...

Rifles and pistols have very different uses, which are determined by range. I'm basically a rifle person, cannot help it, once a rifleman always a rifleman. Rifles have better range, greater power, greater accuracy: when the man with the pistol meets the man with the rifle, the man with a pistol is a dead man.
I personally find the rifle far easier to aim at any distance, it's far more stable and if the fight becomes close, you can always use it as a staff weapon. However, the rifle is carried either in "ready" position (barrel pointed forward and down, stock to the shoulder), "patrol" position (weapon carried close to the body, barrel down, stock resting on the forearm, weak hand on the handguard) or simply slung over the shoulder ("not ready" position). It can however be brought to action very quickly if you've been well trained (and if you're not, please leave the heat home).

Pistols, on the other hand, are carried holstered. Getting your pistol out of the holster and into a Weaver stance ready to fire in a very short time takes some serious training and your breakout time will also depend on your holster. Personally I use a Blackhawk Serpa holster, which absolutely will not let your weapon free unless you're depressing the release button on it while pulling on the butt - which also means that your trigger finger will be out of the trigger guard and resting above it as it should be and the barrel will be pointed downwards.

Pistols must be carried loaded, and with a chambered round, or you might as well leave it home. Once upon a time the Mossad trained its agents to chamber the round upon drawing, but it had more to do with the fact the weapons they had at the time were of poor quality or not very reliable than any other consideration. They've long discontinued the practice. Carrying that way is just asking for trouble because 1) you're losing precious time 2) your other hand might be out of commission. Pistol range is 7 meters and below, at that distance the advantage goes to the one who fires first. More than 7 meters is very rare and in a crowded situation, rule 4 applies: be aware of your target and surroundings. You can risk injuring an innocent, which is a big no. Beyond 7 meters, you can probably either take cover or get away.

How long if the gun is already loaded, but the safety switch is set?

If you're trained well enough (and again, if you're not leave the heat home and save it for the range) you can do it while drawing without thinking. Anyway, some pistols (like my SIG Sauer P228) do not have manual safeties and the weapon is carried in double-action mode. You only have to pull the trigger (which is a long pull in DA but more than OK for the range). Glocks have an internal safety which is disengaged by beginning the trigger pull.

I don't really like manual safeties which have a reason to be only on single-action semiautos. On a double-action weapon it's only extra baggage, the only safety that counts is the hammer safety, which prevents accidental discharge if the weapon drops or strikes something hard. The only safety measure with guns or anything else lies inside your skull.