WAY OT: Keeping gun in vehicle

stlcharcoal

SkySaw said:

Some people can handle the whole gun thing; unfortunately, too many others get carried away. If you have gun in every room in your house (just in case), there is no way you can ensure the safe handling of each of those weapons. 

What if you live alone, or with others that are trained?  (And on the rare occasion when you have guests, you secure your firearms.)

What if they're in biometrically controlled lock boxes?  They're only $100-200, I have quite a few of them and am a dealer for one company.

Plenty of us are prepared, highly trained, and responsible all at the same time.

And while if you want to believe that you have a higher chance of being killed by gun violence in the US (which isn't remotely true if you're not going to commit suicide, join a gang, etc.), then you have a much MUCH lower chance of being killed by a knife, bomb, beating, disease/virus, plane crash, vehicular accident, starvation, war, etc, etc, etc in the United States.  I say we have it pretty damn good here.  Room for improvement......sure!  But not at the expense of punishing the good guys.

smokeyw

kthacher said:

stlcharcoal said:

kthacher said:

 

This is a US-centric argument that fails any sort of sanity check.   Entire countries outside of the US are essentially "gun free zones".   Countries that have dramatically less mass-shootings than the US.  By this logic, those countries should have more mass shootings, not less.   The fact that they don't, exposes this argument as nonsense.  Perpetuated by those who will use any flawed logic to advance their agenda.

I expect that this point-of-view will subject me to ridicule here, but as far as I am concerned these gun loving threads have no place here, so fire away.   

Not sure how your country defines "mass shooting", but here it's 3+.  That means the count is skewed by murder-suicides and gang related killing--not terrorists.  Factor those out, and the stats are incredibly low for the size of country, number of people, and the number of guns......and they have gone DOWN over the last 10 yrs (but media coverage has gone up.)

I'm not trying to downplay the horror of the real ones, but it's not what the media and gun-haters try to make it.  And when Rolling Stone magazine puts one of the shooters on the front cover of their magazine, it just makes other whackos want to follow suit.  If we didn't have "gun violence" in this country, we would have "knife violence", "bomb violence", or "vehicle violence".  The crazies/killers are going to find whatever they can to inflict the most damage on the easiest target......in Germany, that was a truck......In Ohio it was a knife.....in France it was a truck, a bomb, and guns.  Bad people do bad $hit and you're not going to stop it not matter how many laws you pass and how much stuff you take away from the law abiding citizens. 

I was not suggesting new laws or taking anything away from anyone.  I was simply pointing out the fallacy in the quoted post.  That 'gun free zones' increase the incidence of mass shootings.  If that was the case, then countries with stricter gun control should experience more mass shootings.  But they don't.  So the initial argument, which is simply a convenient opinion, is flawed, simplistic and plain wrong.  I am prepared to have my point refuted with facts, but I expect to wait a long time to hear any fact-based argument that people arming themselves reduces mass shootings or gun-based violence.   In fact, the statistics suggest the complete opposite conclusions.  

Let's just take other countries out of the equation. It is not comparing apples and apples since the other countries have far fewer guns than there are in this country. The fact is that most mass shootings (by far) in this country, are in gun free zones.

nolaegghead

stlcharcoal said:

 

If there's one thing I learned in undergrad and graduate level statics classes, charts and stats can be made to look however you want them to.

Again not apples to apples.  The US includes suicide in their "gun violence" numbers, others countries do not.  If other countries do include suicide by gun, then they are in fact lower because suicides are committed by another more easily accessible means.  If there's a way to see above chart excluding suicide, then it holds more weight.

Or put up the chart that shows the CRIME rate in Australia since 1996.....hint, it's gone UP.  Just like it did in Chicago, Britain, and every other city, country, or state that instituted victimization.  Yet the folks that made those laws, still have their ARMED security personnel.   

http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/mr/mr23/mr23.pdf

stlcharcoal

kthacher said:

  

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34996604

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Like anyone is going to trust the BBC and the University of Sydney (Australia) to report US statistics vs. their statistics accurately and without biased.  Believe what you want to from foreign media, and I'll believe what I see first hand in my country. 

nolaegghead

LOL!  "what I see"

nolaegghead

I find this tangent to be highly entertaining.  What I don't understand is why someone representing a business that has nothing to do with a controversial topic would get involved in an argument that no one is going to win.  Seems like that might go against the best practices of business 101. 

kthacher

stlcharcoal said:

kthacher said:

  

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34996604

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Like anyone is going to trust the BBC and the University of Sydney (Australia) to report US statistics vs. their statistics accurately and without biased.  Believe what you want to from foreign media, and I'll believe what I see first hand in my country. 

Powerful argument.  Compelling, convincing and well done.  You win.

ps - you may wish to explore the new and fascinating subject of references and data sources cited in articles.  

fishlessman

i personally know one suicide by gun and 4 by rope, obviously we need to ban rope

stlcharcoal

nolaegghead said:

LOL!  "what I see"

Just 15 minutes from "Feghanistan" buddy--our warehouse is less than 5.  My best friend is a police officer, and his partner was killed on a traffic stop two months ago.  Another friend & longtime customer is police officer and his fellow officer ambushed on a traffic stop over the summer (guys is paralyzed for life).  Two separate incidents of people getting gunned down last month on the I-55 within eyesight of our old warehouse.  Scary times in STL, and it's not the good guys committing the crimes.  BTW, I worked EMS for 10 yrs--saw quite a bit of "gun violence" (9 out of 10 were suicides BTW).

nolaegghead

Good thing there's no legislation to ham-string reporting, collecting and analyzing gun statistics in the US, AM I RIGHT?!

stlcharcoal

nolaegghead said:

I find this tangent to be highly entertaining.  What I don't understand is why someone representing a business that has nothing to do with a controversial topic would get involved in an argument that no one is going to win.  Seems like that might go against the best practices of business 101. 

Slow day, I guess......and you have never seen me here hyping my product.  Only defending it or what I believe in.

nolaegghead

As an advocate of population control and the Darwin Award, I support the 2nd amendment, although I also believe you should lose your rights to it if you are a violent criminal, have a history of domestic violence or are being treated for psychological issues that may result in harming yourself or others.

nolaegghead

stlcharcoal said:

nolaegghead said:

I find this tangent to be highly entertaining.  What I don't understand is why someone representing a business that has nothing to do with a controversial topic would get involved in an argument that no one is going to win.  Seems like that might go against the best practices of business 101. 

Slow day, I guess......and you have never seen me here hyping my product.  Only defending it or what I believe in.

Carry on, please.  I'm always entertained by your posts.

HofstraJet

nolaegghead said:

As an advocate of population control and the Darwin Award, I support the 2nd amendment, although I also believe you should lose your rights to it if you are a violent criminal, have a history of domestic violence or are being treated for psychological issues that may result in harming yourself or others.

Don't current gun laws already prevent categories 1 and 3 from holding a permit?

PS - I hate that I cannot type outside the shaded boxes sometimes and cannot delete them.

nolaegghead

stlcharcoal said:

nolaegghead said:

LOL!  "what I see"

Just 15 minutes from "Feghanistan" buddy--our warehouse is less than 5.  My best friend is a police officer, and his partner was killed on a traffic stop two months ago.  Another friend & longtime customer is police officer and his fellow officer ambushed on a traffic stop over the summer (guys is paralyzed for life).  Two separate incidents of people getting gunned down last month on the I-55 within eyesight of our old warehouse.  Scary times in STL, and it's not the good guys committing the crimes.  BTW, I worked EMS for 10 yrs--saw quite a bit of "gun violence" (9 out of 10 were suicides BTW).

Of course you're going to "see" a lot of gun violence if you're associated with first responders.   That doesn't qualify you to extrapolate any opinion about the collective state of affairs in a 370 million population country. 

First order of business, as with any issue, is to analyze data with due diligence (accuracy - probably something that needs to be worked on) and then decide if there are any reasonable steps that could be taken to mitigate any of the problems.

stlcharcoal

nolaegghead said:

stlcharcoal said:

nolaegghead said:

I find this tangent to be highly entertaining.  What I don't understand is why someone representing a business that has nothing to do with a controversial topic would get involved in an argument that no one is going to win.  Seems like that might go against the best practices of business 101. 

Slow day, I guess......and you have never seen me here hyping my product.  Only defending it or what I believe in.

Carry on, please.  I'm always entertained by your posts.

The kids get off school early today for Christmas break, so play time is almost over.  See ya on the next one.

westernbbq

Spaightlabs said:

westernbbq said:

Glock 17 with two  15 round clips and a .357 magnum are in my safe...just in case...

Step 1:  Learn the terminology.  Your Glock does not have a clip.  It has a magazine.

Just sayin'.

My bad.   I had clip as ref point for years and had been corrected a few times....

stlcharcoal

nolaegghead said:

stlcharcoal said:

nolaegghead said:

LOL!  "what I see"

Just 15 minutes from "Feghanistan" buddy--our warehouse is less than 5.  My best friend is a police officer, and his partner was killed on a traffic stop two months ago.  Another friend & longtime customer is police officer and his fellow officer ambushed on a traffic stop over the summer (guys is paralyzed for life).  Two separate incidents of people getting gunned down last month on the I-55 within eyesight of our old warehouse.  Scary times in STL, and it's not the good guys committing the crimes.  BTW, I worked EMS for 10 yrs--saw quite a bit of "gun violence" (9 out of 10 were suicides BTW).

Of course you're going to "see" a lot of gun violence if you're associated with first responders.   That doesn't qualify you to extrapolate any opinion about the collective state of affairs in a 370 million population country. 

First order of business, as with any issue, is to analyze data with due diligence (accuracy - probably something that needs to be worked on) and then decide if there are any reasonable steps that could be taken to mitigate any of the problems.

I get what you're saying and agree with it for the most part.  However, the BBC and University of Sydney, Australia are nor more qualified to give their opinion of "gun violence" of a country on the other side of the globe when they're handpicking what stats they want to use.....so they can paint the picture they want to paint. 

nolaegghead

Any studies should be scientific and follow the scientific method.  The data collection methodology must be defined, with the data, everything transparent and, as with true scientific methods, other scientists will add to it, replicate or contradict the results until a consensus is reached and everyone agrees that the model is the best given the available data. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Opinions and politics have no part in this study although researchers sometimes start with the current model's presupposition that they prove or disprove as a frame of reference. 

Toxarch

kthacher said:

Toxarch said:

You ever notice that pretty much all mass shootings happen in "gun free zones"?

There were a bunch of people who went to see a movie in a theater in Colorado. They didn't allow guns inside so those with licenses left their guns in their vehicles. A guy came in with a gun and started shooting people. I'm sure lots of people pulled out the cell phones and called 911. The cops did not arrive before a bunch of people died. I'm sure, like some have stated here, many of those people thought they were in a place where they would never need a gun to protect themselves. One licensed legal carrier could have stopped that shooter pretty quick.

I try not to go places where I think I might need a gun. But I have no idea where some lunatic will decide they want to shoot people. I have a LTC. I'll use my gun to protect myself, my family, and a stranger if needed.

This is a US-centric argument that fails any sort of sanity check.   Entire countries outside of the US are essentially "gun free zones".   Countries that have dramatically less mass-shootings than the US.  By this logic, those countries should have more mass shootings, not less.   The fact that they don't, exposes this argument as nonsense.  Perpetuated by those who will use any flawed logic to advance their agenda.

I expect that this point-of-view will subject me to ridicule here, but as far as I am concerned these gun loving threads have no place here, so fire away.   

Go look up the incredibly high number of stabbings and death by hammer in those countries. So your flawed theory of "safe zone" countries is invalid.

Toxarch

Spaightlabs said:

Toxarch said:

 I'll use my gun to protect myself, my family, and a stranger if needed.

You would be well-served to protect yourself and your family and leave the strangers to protect themselves. The 'I have a gun and I'm gonna be a hero'  fantasy is nice and it may give you warm fuzzies about why you carry - to be the great protector of the unprotected - but in reality the idea of concealed carry is self-protection, not crowd protection.

If you find yourself in a 'situation' you would be wise to first use your brain and then your weapon if necessary to extricate yourself from the situation.

Let's say you are in The GAP buying yourself a new pair of skinny jeans.  You hear what you think is a gunshot.  A 16 year old girl folding sweaters yells 'gun'.  You see a pimply  kid holding a gun, and take the hero's role double tapping him twice center mass.  everyone gets out safely.  When the SWAT team rolls him over, they find the gun - a price gun - he was marking skinny jeans down for the big Christmas sale.  The gunshot was in a rap song playing in the store.

If when you heard what you thought was a gunshot and heard someone yell gun and moved quickly towards the exit of the store, everyone would be at Christmas dinner.  But now you and Trevor aren't.

You aren't trained as a tactical operator or a police officer.  Leave that to your buddy the State Trooper.

It's a good thing that YOU don't own any guns if you mistake sounds from a rap song in the GAP for actual gun shots. You should remain a keyboard commando sharing bogus scenarios that have never happened so the rest of us can get our eye rolling exercises in. You have no idea what my training or background is.  

Toxarch

nolaegghead said:

@Killit_and_Grillit  I understand where you're coming from.  We aren't one of those countries where horrific things are commonplace.  If anyone thinks that, they really aren't paying attention to those other places.  That said, terrible things happen here, and the media amplifies them while statistically, we're just a place were a medium level of horrific stuff happens, in terms of first world indu

kthacher said:

stlcharcoal said:

kthacher said:

 

This is a US-centric argument that fails any sort of sanity check.   Entire countries outside of the US are essentially "gun free zones".   Countries that have dramatically less mass-shootings than the US.  By this logic, those countries should have more mass shootings, not less.   The fact that they don't, exposes this argument as nonsense.  Perpetuated by those who will use any flawed logic to advance their agenda.

I expect that this point-of-view will subject me to ridicule here, but as far as I am concerned these gun loving threads have no place here, so fire away.   

Not sure how your country defines "mass shooting", but here it's 3+.  That means the count is skewed by murder-suicides and gang related killing--not terrorists.  Factor those out, and the stats are incredibly low for the size of country, number of people, and the number of guns......and they have gone DOWN over the last 10 yrs (but media coverage has gone up.)

I'm not trying to downplay the horror of the real ones, but it's not what the media and gun-haters try to make it.  And when Rolling Stone magazine puts one of the shooters on the front cover of their magazine, it just makes other whackos want to follow suit.  If we didn't have "gun violence" in this country, we would have "knife violence", "bomb violence", or "vehicle violence".  The crazies/killers are going to find whatever they can to inflict the most damage on the easiest target......in Germany, that was a truck......In Ohio it was a knife.....in France it was a truck, a bomb, and guns.  Bad people do bad $hit and you're not going to stop it not matter how many laws you pass and how much stuff you take away from the law abiding citizens. 

I was not suggesting new laws or taking anything away from anyone.  I was simply pointing out the fallacy in the quoted post.  That 'gun free zones' increase the incidence of mass shootings.  If that was the case, then countries with stricter gun control should experience more mass shootings.  But they don't.  So the initial argument, which is simply a convenient opinion, is flawed, simplistic and plain wrong.  I am prepared to have my point refuted with facts, but I expect to wait a long time to hear any fact-based argument that people arming themselves reduces mass shootings or gun-based violence.   In fact, the statistics suggest the complete opposite conclusions.  

Talk about an incredibly skewed chart meant to fool the masses. Using the same scale, the Australia line would be almost flat.

Let's use that same graph and look at it in a different way. So Australia bans guns and their deaths drop 1.5 people per 100K. During that same time, the deaths in the US drop 4 people per 100K and the US did not van guns. One could infer that the ban on guns had zero effect on the decline in gun deaths and there was some other cause for the drop. And if guns are banned in Australia, then how do they have any gun deaths at all? Shouldn't that number be zero?

nolaegghead

"Well, I think it's also an idea of an opinion. And that's—on one hand, I hear half the media saying that these are lies. But on the other half, there are many people that go, 'No, it's true.' And so one thing that has been interesting this entire campaign season to watch, is that people that say facts are facts—they're not really facts. Everybody has a way—it's kind of like looking at ratings, or looking at a glass of half-full water. Everybody has a way of interpreting them to be the truth, or not truth. There's no such thing, unfortunately, anymore as facts."  -- Scottie Nell Hughes

kthacher

Toxarch said:

kthacher said:

Toxarch said:

You ever notice that pretty much all mass shootings happen in "gun free zones"?

There were a bunch of people who went to see a movie in a theater in Colorado. They didn't allow guns inside so those with licenses left their guns in their vehicles. A guy came in with a gun and started shooting people. I'm sure lots of people pulled out the cell phones and called 911. The cops did not arrive before a bunch of people died. I'm sure, like some have stated here, many of those people thought they were in a place where they would never need a gun to protect themselves. One licensed legal carrier could have stopped that shooter pretty quick.

I try not to go places where I think I might need a gun. But I have no idea where some lunatic will decide they want to shoot people. I have a LTC. I'll use my gun to protect myself, my family, and a stranger if needed.

This is a US-centric argument that fails any sort of sanity check.   Entire countries outside of the US are essentially "gun free zones".   Countries that have dramatically less mass-shootings than the US.  By this logic, those countries should have more mass shootings, not less.   The fact that they don't, exposes this argument as nonsense.  Perpetuated by those who will use any flawed logic to advance their agenda.

I expect that this point-of-view will subject me to ridicule here, but as far as I am concerned these gun loving threads have no place here, so fire away.   

Go look up the incredibly high number of stabbings and death by hammer in those countries. So your flawed theory of "safe zone" countries is invalid.

Show me some comparison stats on stabbings and hammer deaths.  I delivered some statistics to help make my point.  You should do the same.    You are making this case, so prove it with numbers.  Until then, this is just more opinion and very likely fabrication to back up a poorly constructed argument.  

smokeyw

We are not in another country. We are in the United States. The fact is, in this country, most mass shootings are in "gun free" zones. This is what we have to deal with. Chicago has some of the most stringent gun laws in our country. Yet they have probably the highest gun crime rate in our country.

kthacher

smokeyw said:

We are not in another country. We are in the United States. The fact is, in this country, most mass shootings are in "gun free" zones. This is what we have to deal with. Chicago has some of the most stringent gun laws in our country. Yet they have probably the highest gun crime rate in our country.

So, is the point to these posts to advocate elimination of all gun-free zones?  In other words, make the entire country a gun-rich zone?

Spaightlabs

Toxarch said:

Spaightlabs said:

Toxarch said:

 I'll use my gun to protect myself, my family, and a stranger if needed.

You would be well-served to protect yourself and your family and leave the strangers to protect themselves. The 'I have a gun and I'm gonna be a hero'  fantasy is nice and it may give you warm fuzzies about why you carry - to be the great protector of the unprotected - but in reality the idea of concealed carry is self-protection, not crowd protection.

It's a good thing that YOU don't own any guns if you mistake sounds from a rap song in the GAP for actual gun shots. You should remain a keyboard commando sharing bogus scenarios that have never happened so the rest of us can get our eye rolling exercises in. You have no idea what my training or background is.  

Well, go ahead and enlighten me on your training and background.
 
The Rambos with a 'special operator' fantasy who are going to use their guns to protect others intrigue me.

I've only been through a few self defense weapons classes, but all of them shared a common theme of protecting self and family and extricating one from the situation ASAP.

It's been a few years though, so maybe the new school is to whip out your weapon and head on in to engage.

If you are in a crowded restaurant  ( I know, it could never happen) and you hear a shot from the back and when you get back there a guy is pointing a weapon at a woman how do you quickly discern if she is a stranger that needs to be protected and who is in immediate mortal threat?  What if she fired a shot and he drew to protect himself?  What if he's a plain clothes officer and you've now got a firearm drawn?

Your training probably covered all of that.

fishlessman

fishlessman

nolaegghead