There is a reason why Canadian law (and in many US states) allows "defensive" violence only when no other option exists. The option to run is better than panicking and firing at anyone who looks threatening.
US problem with open carry
- Thread starter basketcase
- Start date
Where did i say i feel my life is in danger? They are infrequent here not so much in the U.S, You say they are somewhat preventable, what's your solution? Don'y sat get rid of guns, it's in their constitution,
Can you outrun a bullet? Firing a gum while panicking isn't good either but if i had the option of having a gun to defend myself or running, i would choose the gun every time.
You seem to suggest it with all your concerns about being a "sitting duck".
As for somewhat preventable, a federal background check system would help limit access to people who shouldn't own guns and since many mass shooters have mental health issues better funding for treatment and awareness programs would help. Add to that, consistent requirements for safe gun storage to make it more challenging for children or others to access other people's guns. Quite a number of mass shooters would have been without guns if those were in place.
I have no interest in banning guns but I fell our Canadian system has a much better balance between desires of gun owners and public safety.
Actually most of the mass shooters had legal guns, as far as being a sitting duck i would feel that way if a mass shooter was in a place i was and didn't have a gun or no police to protect me you have 2 choices run or try to hide, hence the sitting duck analogy. We do have a better system but their constitution is quite liberal when it comes to bearing arms, very few restrictions. I agree with you on the background checks, that's a no brainer, but the mental health issue is a sticky one, once you are labeled mentally ill and get your guns taken away, if you are cured of your mental illness can you get them back?
I'd love to hear someone try ti quantify just how allegedly superior police firearms training is.
Ignorance is bliss.
Ignorance is bliss.
Odds are it's better than no training at all.
Why don't you 'quantify' the training a citizen with an open carry permit gets, while we wait for someone to chime in about police training being better than that.
You're just repeating yourself, and no one has disputed that obvious point. It in no way speaks to anyone being safer because more untrained citizens with their own agendas are carrying more firepower in more places.
Nor does it address the misidentification that led to the death in this instance.
"No training" that's quite an assumption, much like the assumption that police are "highly trained". The reality is ; the overwhelming majority of police are given some of the most basic firearms training, not unlike what you would find at a carry permit course; basic safety, legality and marksmanship.
What agenda's do untrained citizens with guns have? most people who own a gun know how to use it,
And that is exactly the problem I pointed out.
Many of them shouldn't have been able to own guns if background checks included mental health. Numerous other shooters (especially the school ones) took guns their parents legally owned and they shouldn't have had legal access to.
You keep talking about sitting ducks but the incidence of mass shooters is far, far lower than the number of accidental shootings. Seems like your gun concerns are pure paranoia and simply saying that you need a gun because the laws make it easy for bad or mentally ill people to own guns.
The agenda of those who carry regularly is a paranoia that others are out to get them which by definition makes any active shooter situation more dangerous.
And gun owners typically know how to fire a gun at a target and care for their gun. On average they have absolutely no idea how to deal with an active shooter situation, how to identify themselves to others, or when it is actually appropriate to discharge their weapon.
You'd have to ask each one of them individually. But it's unlikely they burdened themselfes with that firepower after going to the expense and trouble it took to acquire and the right to carry it, for no reason at all. So you tell us what agenda you imagine they have.
What you imagine 'knowing how to use it' includes is for you to say. But until that knowledge includes how to reliably distinguish a mass-shooter from a citizen firing in defence, proven target accuracy of a high degree while moving under stress, and ability to rapidly assess danger to bystanders beyond their target, I'd say they don't 'know how to use it' in the sort of situations we're discussing.
Why do you equate someone who carries a gun to paranoia? why is it paranoia to carry a gun to keep yourself safer? Are you paranoid if you lock the doors to your home? Why do you do it? I'm assuming for safety and security. You can say everyone is paranoid in society, look at all the safeguards we have.
I think the "agenda" they have is to feel safer, why else have one unless you have bad intentions that's a different story, most police aren't sufficiently trained to be effective in mass shooter situations unless they are trained for it like the SWAT team or something similar. It also depends on the situation, if your in a dark bar like the recent shooting in California or at the Pulse night club, yes, the shooter is hard to identify, but if your in a situation like the synagogue shooting or the shooting at the South Carolina church, it was pretty obvious who the shooter was and if there was someone armed in those situations maybe the body count wouldn't have been so high.
You said it, not me.
If someone feels they need to carry a gun every day to protect themselves it sure is paranoia because the actual risk of being confronted by an armed perp attempting to kill you is ridiculously insignificant. The average person is far, far more likely to be run over while walking than require a gun to save their lives.
