[LV10101]

Originally Posted by WestieJeff

The population is over 300 million. The military has 1.4 million active duty personnel. That's assuming every single military person would go along with a tyrannical government and fire on their own people (not likely). Even with high powered weaponry, unless they are willing to nuke their own populace, a large armed populace could overtake the government.

WestieJeff...You are again showing your ignorance of the subject. You are including total population in your thought process, doesn't work that way. Furthermore you can only include the nuts that would want to overthrow the US Government, number goes way down. That "nutcase" base of the population would easily be defeated. The US Government is not going to allow ANYONE, citizens or not to overthrow the US Government.

[WestieJeff]

Boy, you sure love to make personal attacks to anyone with whom you don't agree.

Gun violence rates are higher yes, but overall violent crime rates are in many cases lower. When criminals fear guns, they're less likely to rape, assault, and perform home invasions.

Personally I prefer to have the ability to protect myself against violent crime.

Regardless, this thread has gone off the rails. This belongs in a different forum, this has nothing to do with Vegas.

Originally Posted by LV10101

Your other comment "What about a knife, can I use that when I get angry?" proves your level of knowledge...please go tell those parents in Connecticut what if that shooter had a knife. Stop allowing yourself to consumed by ignorance of the subject in a attempt to prove your point of view. The facts are clear, we have an over saturation of guns in this country and our gun violence is much higher than other civilized countries.

[LV10101]

WestieJeff...I think your comments allowed this thread to, as you put it, "gone off the rails". Personal attacks, nope just facts. Please stop with the "Gun violence rates are higher yes, but overall violent crime rates are in many cases lower."...we are talking about gun violence, which is extremely high compared to most other civilized countries.
Also your comment "When criminals fear guns, they're less likely to rape, assault, and perform home invasions." is not accurate. First if you are concealed carry and someone has a gun on you what do you do? There is a thing called "tactical advantage" and no matter if you are armed or not tactical advantage is important.

Do you know the most proven ways to not have your house broken into or the much less likely "home invasion" you mention...get a "beware of dog" sign, even if you don't own a dog and get a alarm sign even if you don't have an alarm...guess what they work way better than a gun, less mess too. If someone knows you own guns it is actually going to be more of a target to some criminals...are you home 24/7?

Please WestieJeff, look at the statistics and facts, it is that simple.

[ddrhazy]

Well, that's a large reason why carrying knives are outlawed in major metro areas. The possibility of major carnage is much higher with a gun than a knife though.

10 million armed civilians is not stopping a tank rolling down your neighborhood. The only thing stopping it is either the unwillingness of the military members to follow orders or to have tank penetrating artillery rounds.

[swagger]

Originally Posted by ddrhazy

What's asinine about acknowledging the fact that people get angry and have an easier method of killing people?

People are already armed. A lot more people than you think - especially in this state.

If your fears were founded in reality, then these events you're so concerned about would be common, every day occurrences. They're not. Your concerns aren't based on facts, just emotion. Sorry.

Realizing that we've strayed from the topic, I'm done. Feel free to start another thread about it if you want. Maybe I'll join in. Have a good weekend.

[swagger]

Originally Posted by LV10101

I was at Walmart (go figure) a couple weeks ago and noticed a woman with a pistol on her right hip walking around Walmart. She also was on her cell phone, guess what hand she was holding her cell phone with, yep right hand and she had items she was purchasing in the left hand. She was not paying attention, too in to her phone conversation and it would have taken someone very little force to disarm her. These are clueless people who are not only endangering themselves but also endangering others by carrying weapons with no training.

How do you know she had no training? Was she missing the obligatory "I've had gun training" facial tattoo or something?

As for the rest, you're just looking for something to complain about. No doubt you'd say that this guy is "trained" to carry a gun, yet he directly compares to the person in your alleged walmart encounter.

By the way, in defensive shooting situations, civilians as a group fire fewer rounds than cops as a group, hit fewer bystanders than cops and are more accurate than cops. If you want to disarm anyone in the name of public safety, you should be calling for the disarming of cops. Note that I'm not anti-cop - quite the opposite - but if your concern is TRULY about disarming people in the name of public safety, and not simply a thinly veiled argument for the disarming of the general public as a whole, then you'd be going after the cops' guns before mine.

[swagger]

Originally Posted by ddrhazy

10 million armed civilians is not stopping a tank rolling down your neighborhood.

Are you really that ignorant? I'm not usually so direct, but man, seriously?

Google "Afghanistan" with "war" and see what you can find. I can't believe you actually said that... wow...

[ddrhazy]

I'm not going to continue this conversation as it's veered off topic and I really don't wish to continue a conversation with someone who calls me "ignorant" either.

[BBMW]

You can say you don't agree with the Second Amendment, which you obviously don't. But to say it isn't legitimate says that it isn't part of the constitution, and this it's not enforceable. That is factually incorrect. I bring up the SCOTUS, because their the final arbiter of what is constitutionally legitimate, and they have spoken on the subject, affirming the Second Amendment, and that it confers a direct right to individuals. This is now completely settled.

The fact that you don't trust civilians to carry guns in your problem not their's. You have neither the right, nor the authority to stop them.

Some metro areas do make it hard to own a gun. But that number has shrunk significantly. In point of fact the fallout of the SCOTUS decisions mentioned above has started a domino effect that will eventually force all states and municipalities to allow their citizens to own and carry handguns (among other weapons.) Recently Illinois, having lost one of the cases I was talking about above, was basically forced to allow civilian carry. Chicago, which is on of the metro areas you talk about, had not choice but to accept this.

Originally Posted by ddrhazy

I have the right to state my opinion. Not sure why you bring up SCOTUS. I know more about constitutional law than most people, no point bringing it up.

I'm sure if I threw a fuss at management, I could've gotten him thrown out. But I don't want someone to potentially lose their life in another Costco fiasco.

I have no trust in the average person open carrying responsibly. Who's to say they get into a heated argument and use their weapon in anger? I understand major metro areas making it so hard to own a gun, I'd do it to if I was a lawmaker and Nevada will probably go that way in a few more decades as well.

[LV10101]

Originally Posted by swagger

How do you know she had no training? Was she missing the obligatory "I've had gun training" facial tattoo or something?

As for the rest, you're just looking for something to complain about. No doubt you'd say that this guy is "trained" to carry a gun, yet he directly compares to the person in your alleged walmart encounter.

By the way, in defensive shooting situations, civilians as a group fire fewer rounds than cops as a group, hit fewer bystanders than cops and are more accurate than cops. If you want to disarm anyone in the name of public safety, you should be calling for the disarming of cops. Note that I'm not anti-cop - quite the opposite - but if your concern is TRULY about disarming people in the name of public safety, and not simply a thinly veiled argument for the disarming of the general public as a whole, then you'd be going after the cops' guns before mine.

Swagger I believe I pointed out why I believe she has no training, it really doesn't matter she wasn't using basic training and is risking the safety of others.

Furthermore you talk about civilians and cops with the attempt to compare the two groups...doesn't work. If your statistics are correct you would need to go further in to the stats to find the truth. How often are those citizens using their guns on others in a public area? To say the "average citizen is more accurate than cops" is probably the most ridiculous comment I've seen on here. Yep, please disarm the cops that is a great idea.