Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Recently, my husband and I went to a movie. It was a packed theatre. My husband is a former sniper and....FOR SURE....he was carrying. If you had knew he was in the audience that day would you have felt safe or nervous?

If you're expecting a show of hands from those who, in light of recent shootings at movie theaters, would be thrilled to know that your husband was there to protect them I'm sure you'll get a few - but I ain't raising my hand.
At least 20% of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans have PTSD and/or depression so no, the thought of your former sniper husband sitting there going through who knows what in his life with who knows what running through his mind and putting his emotions on edge isn't comforting nor would it have made me feel safe. Nah - knowing he was in the audience I'd have left immediately.

First of it is concealed, so you would not have to freak out. Personally, I would not trust a uniformed officer with a gun. Why don't you stop sitting on your hands and educate yourself. You probably also think the government infringes on your first amendment rights.....so how do you propose we vet gun ownership? Should the government be able to check your medical records for mental health issues if you choose to purchase a gun or happen to buy the ingredients for bomb making?
Do you trust ANYONE with a gun?

Anonymous wrote:I would agree with your analysis if we were talking about hiring someone to do a job. The question was whether you feel safe or unsafe when others around you are carrying firearms. The fact that someone is currently receiving a W2 for employment that typically requires carrying a gun seems like a weak justification. Do you feel unsafe if a retired police officer is carrying a gun?

Well we're all different and we all have different perceptions and presumptions that affect our attitudes and impact our arguments and justifications. That being said, I'm not a person who takes a job lightly. I take pride in my work and I have this, I don't know, delusional idea that most others share the same mindset when it comes to work ethic. So for me the if it is a person's job is to serve and protect then I put a great deal of faith and trust in that individual because it takes a great of character and commitment to not only accept such a duty but also to accept being held accountable for their actions when performing that duty. That's probably why people are more pissed off when cops egregiously shoot unarmed civilians than when criminals do - we expect more from those men and women hired to serve and protect us than some average Joe Schmo out for himself. But I digress...
No. I'm not calmed by the presence of a retired police officer packing heat in the same room with me because he/she is no longer obligated to protect and serve me nor are they held to the same standards of accountability for their actions as now retired everyday Joe Schmo's than when they were active officers.

I would agree with your analysis if we were talking about hiring someone to do a job. The question was whether you feel safe or unsafe when others around you are carrying firearms. The fact that someone is currently receiving a W2 for employment that typically requires carrying a gun seems like a weak justification. Do you feel unsafe if a retired police officer is carrying a gun?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Recently, my husband and I went to a movie. It was a packed theatre. My husband is a former sniper and....FOR SURE....he was carrying. If you had knew he was in the audience that day would you have felt safe or nervous?

If I saw someone with a gun in a theater - even legally allowed concealed carry - I'd leave immediately. No way in hell I would feel safe.

Does that apply to police officers? Secret Service agents?

If it's a person's JOB to carry a gun, concealed or otherwise, most are okay with the idea of them carrying - its their job. Society has this weird tendency to trust people assigned to a certain job to be responsible and competent and to do carry out their jobs with professionalism. What society doesn't tend to trust are any old Joe Schmo's. That's why we get professional dentists to fill our cavities as opposed to putting our trust in any old Joe Schmo with a drill...that's why we get professional doctors to vaccinate our children as opposed to putting our trust in any old Joe Schmo with a needle and a vial. Again, its a weird tendency and I can't totally explain it but for some reason just because we see some Joe Schmo with the equipment we're not inclined to trust Joe Schmo to do the job effectively. So no it does not apply to police officers or secret service agents - its their job and they're professionals not just some Joe Schmo's packing heat in a theater.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Recently, my husband and I went to a movie. It was a packed theatre. My husband is a former sniper and....FOR SURE....he was carrying. If you had knew he was in the audience that day would you have felt safe or nervous?

If I saw someone with a gun in a theater - even legally allowed concealed carry - I'd leave immediately. No way in hell I would feel safe.

Does that apply to police officers? Secret Service agents?

I would feel safer knowing that there's a trained sniper carrying in the theater.

Also, the 20% PTSD figure is highly exaggerated, and even still, it's offensive to imply that a veteran who is suffering from PTSD is a walking time bomb about to commit a violent crime.

Anonymous wrote:Recently, my husband and I went to a movie. It was a packed theatre. My husband is a former sniper and....FOR SURE....he was carrying. If you had knew he was in the audience that day would you have felt safe or nervous?

If I saw someone with a gun in a theater - even legally allowed concealed carry - I'd leave immediately. No way in hell I would feel safe.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Recently, my husband and I went to a movie. It was a packed theatre. My husband is a former sniper and....FOR SURE....he was carrying. If you had knew he was in the audience that day would you have felt safe or nervous?

If you're expecting a show of hands from those who, in light of recent shootings at movie theaters, would be thrilled to know that your husband was there to protect them I'm sure you'll get a few - but I ain't raising my hand.
At least 20% of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans have PTSD and/or depression so no, the thought of your former sniper husband sitting there going through who knows what in his life with who knows what running through his mind and putting his emotions on edge isn't comforting nor would it have made me feel safe. Nah - knowing he was in the audience I'd have left immediately.

I'd be more concerned that every movie theater is full of sketchy people with guns and legally there is no way to kick them out until one of the starts firing on the crowd. That is also how I imagine it would go if guns were legalized in school. "That weird kid showed up every day for a month to class with a gun on his hip, and there was nothing we could do about it. Then one day he snapped, shot the teacher, and then killed himself while a bunch of "patriots" opened fire and wounded five of their classmates."

Anonymous wrote:Recently, my husband and I went to a movie. It was a packed theatre. My husband is a former sniper and....FOR SURE....he was carrying. If you had knew he was in the audience that day would you have felt safe or nervous?

If you're expecting a show of hands from those who, in light of recent shootings at movie theaters, would be thrilled to know that your husband was there to protect them I'm sure you'll get a few - but I ain't raising my hand.
At least 20% of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans have PTSD and/or depression so no, the thought of your former sniper husband sitting there going through who knows what in his life with who knows what running through his mind and putting his emotions on edge isn't comforting nor would it have made me feel safe. Nah - knowing he was in the audience I'd have left immediately.

Recently, my husband and I went to a movie. It was a packed theatre. My husband is a former sniper and....FOR SURE....he was carrying. If you had knew he was in the audience that day would you have felt safe or nervous?

Speaking of concealed carry, I noticed that not too many people were thrilled at the actions of the lady with a concealed gun permit who shot at a fleeing shoplifter outside Home Depot.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/10/08/woman-with-concealed-gun-permit-shoots-at-fleeing-shoplifter-could-face-charges/

Critics flooded the Auburn Hills Police Department’s Facebook page with disparaging comments about the woman who unloaded on the shoplifter.

“I am more worried about an armed vigilante than a non-armed petty theft criminal,” one Michigan man wrote.

“Life ain’t Grand Theft Auto,” another commenter wrote, referring to the popular video game criticized for allowing players to do just about anything they want on-screen. “You don’t freakin’ shoot at shoplifters!”

Many of the comments were directed at the cops who let the woman walk away after the incident.

“Why in hell is she not arrested for opening fire in a public place that could have mistakenly hit a bystander?” one person wrote. “Shoplifting is a misdemeanor, not a shoot-to-kill offense. They should’ve tackled the woman down for public endangerment.”

Every time I see a gun hater buy their kid a toy gun or a bloody video game... I don't know what to think of it. You people are insane. Much much more insane than the craziest gun zealots out there.

Anonymous wrote:I consider myself a moderate re: guns, but am really against concealed carry. Anyone else? I could be happy with a few restrictions on gun ownership or carriage of guns-- no weapons in most public places, raise the minimum age of gun purchase or registry to 21, close the loopholes.

No registry and no gun ban. Enjoy your guns, at home.

Go home to England. Please?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fault in that logic is that a gun can be used for self-defense without resulting in a homicide. But the biased NYT (redundant) chooses to misinterpret the statistics.

No...no...no...it ain't about biased and misinterpreted statistics.
A gun is for killing - period. The argument of self-defense comes in after the fact when somebody is already friggin dead and if he's got a good attorney a guy can pretty much shoot a nun in the back of the head while she's walking down the produce aisle of the supermarket and get off on self-defense. After the acquittal the case falls under the category of self-defense statistically but the reality is dude shot a nun in the back of the head while she was walking down the produce aisle of the supermarket. F--- the statistics.

What are you prattling on about?

A gun can also be used as a deterrent. That's the part you're ignoring, and the NYT ignored. All your other words are just useless blather.

Rather than being used for self-defense, guns in the home are 22 times more likely to be involved in accidental shootings, homicides, or suicide attempts.
For every one time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were 4 unintentional shootings, 7 criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Web-Based Injury Statistics Query & Reporting System (WISQARS) Injury Mortality Reports, 1999-2010

Useless blather?

It's certainly worth considering the dangers that a gun inherently brings, and increased risk of suicide or accidental shooting are certainly among them. However, those statistics are not valid because they don't account for how much crime is prevented from the deterrence factor, nor do they count the next level of how many invasions were stopped when the thug was confronted with a gun. Look, I don't own any guns. However, I know that many people in my neighborhood do. Criminals are aware of this, to a significant degree. Knowing that, even in more rural, remote areas far away from police stations, many homeowners are armed is a significant deterrent to crime against home and property. You simply can't deny this.

+1000

I will ask OP again: stop lying. I linked to research proving that guns are often used defensively in America. Why are you denying the facts?

Anonymous wrote:Why do gun promoters not take the data into consideration? Concealed carry does more harm than good:

...since 2007, at least 763 people have been killed in 579 shootings that did not involve self-defense. Tellingly, the vast majority of these concealed-carry, licensed shooters killed themselves or others rather than taking down a perpetrator.

The death toll includes 29 mass killings of three or more people by concealed carry shooters who took 139 lives; 17 police officers shot to death, and — in the ultimate contradiction of concealed carry as a personal safety factor — 223 suicides. Compared with the 579 non-self-defense, concealed-carry shootings, there were only 21 cases in which self-defense was determined to be a factor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/26/opinion/the-concealed-carry-fantasy.html

The article is very misleading. They are including all killings by a concealed carry person even when they are not actively concealing or even carrying the firearm. Or if they used a firearm they don't have a permit to conceal carry. Cases like a domestic fight in a home where they go and get the gun then shoot someone. Or in the case of most suicides in the home where they go and get the gun.

To do this topic justice you would want stats that only included cases where a person is actively canceling and carrying the firearm on their person.

Lastly, one of the resources provided in the article does a better job of disusing justifiable homicides.
http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable15.pdf