A question for this group--

[digonswine]

It's hard to get a grasp on what people are doing, so I thought I'd ask--

I am wondering what is the general SOP for those carrying weapons.

Are weapons generally carried in a state where they are ready to fire by just pulling the trigger or are they kept in a state where the safety is on or something like it?

I have heard from some some coworkers that they are kept in a state of "pull trigger-fire"
Like you pull it out and it requires nothing but a trigger-pull to fire the weapon. No safety, no nothing.

Is this how some carry their weapons? If so, why?

I can't pretend to be a friend of this group-but I DO want to know what the standard is regarding this.

Thanks-BTW- i am busy , but will respond!

[guillaumeb]

1. And if you do carry "ready to go", as it were, why?

[The Polack MSgt]

2. well it depends

There are several types of pistols used for concealed and duty carry.

Double action revolvers do not have a safety mechanism to prevent firing but the trigger pull required to cock the hammer and then fire the weapon is so long that it would be very hard to accidently fire it.

Modern revolvers do have a mechanism that prevents accidental discharge if dropped or jostled though

Semi automatics (self loading, magazine fed pistols) are required by law to have a safety of some sort. It would take several paragraphs to describe the various mechanisms used to prevent an accidental discharge in the hundreds of models sold in the 115 years that semi automatic pistols have been popular.

In my opinion - Only an idiot keeps his weapon in an unsafe condition - by which I mean safety selector on fire and a round in the chamber.

On the other hand I don't carry a pistol. I live in a normal rural area and crime in general is lower than when I was a child so I don't see the point.

[digonswine]

3. Yeah -I know double-action

I agree--only an unsafe idiot keeps the weapon in a condition where a little trigger-pull fires the gun,


I am old school-never keep the gun in a position where trigger-pressure fires the weapon.
Always assume the weapon is loaded.
Always assume a weapon given to you is loaded and unsafe.
Never allow the barrel end to sweep anything living, etc.

I live in northern Wisconsin and have refused to hunt with the fuckheads that don't treat guns the way they should.
There are many that have no idea how to handle these things and they are too easy to own and this must stop.

[AllaN01Bear]

76. even though i dont have guns , i was trained this way too.

was taught that guns are tools and need to be respected,

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

4. First, I understand busy, no need to reply at all to me

FYI, I don't carry. I did at one time thoroughly enjoy target shooting with a rifle. I tried a few handguns and didn't enjoy it. Because I am busy, I evaluate the time it would for me to be proficient, safe and reliable with a CC handgun carried for self-defense as exceeding that which is available to me.

I have heard from police officers that I know that they carry with a round in the chamber and safety on. That's draw, aim, safety off, squeeze the trigger equals a shot.

BTW welcome.

[digonswine]

5. that's reasonable-

BTW-I have been here a long time-I appreciate the welcome!

I honestly don't get why people are so concerned about bearing arms. I really don't get it.

It seems that some are threatened by lack of control. It makes sense.

The ones that think they will keep the government in line, however, are misguided at best.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

6. Cool I just haven't seen you around in this group much

Agh control... Control, other than self-control is a myth.

The "end of the world" folks and the "defense against the government" people maybe haven't quite thought it through enough.

[digonswine]

11. OK-maybe not control-

Full disclosure-I was a bit in the bag when I wrote that and am not completely sure how I meant it at the time-wait, no-my account was hacked!-that's it!

I am sure I don't mean that one carries to be in control, but, rather, in the event that some event happens, they can have a level of control not available to them without the gun.

Please believe me--I truly do not understand what it is that would make someone feel they need to carry a gun-unless, of course, they truly live where the threat of violence is a statistical reality.

BTW-I am not expecting you to elucidate all the reasons this could be and is certainly off-topic re: my OP.
I will open myself up to criticism with a list off the top of my head of the reasons one might choose to carry a gun:

-protection-lives in an really dangerous place
-think they live in a dangerous place
-judges the world to be more hostile than it is
-fear of bringing a knife to a gun fight(helpless)
-exerting their rights(because they can)
-exerting their rights(in your face libtards)
-has been the victim of a crime(prevention of victimization)
-tradition
-rebelliousness
-reflection of their own masculinity
-thoughts of heroics
-thoughts of just desserts


Anyway-those are just my thoughts. I suspect that the main reasons sit between the 2nd and 4th of my reasons listed above-but I surely do not know. People don't seem to talk about it much.

Again-I am not asking you for quick and easy answers to all this-not your job! I am just always interested in what motivates people.
AND-I appreciate that you have put the mental energy into making responsible decisions about carrying--unfortunately many do not do the same. You seem to see carrying a a tremendous responsibility, which is why I think so few should do it. This is one reason why I think that those that most want to carry weapons are the ones I LEAST want to be able to do so. I have trouble trusting their judgement.
Have a great weekend!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

24. I say control is myth because...

...imposing supposed "control" over people by legislation does several wrong headed and counterproductive things. First, expecting and representing a law to be "control" is dishonest. I'm not aware of other laws being termed things like "drunk driver control" or "murder control".

Second, it is by empowering and partnering with those who own guns that some progress can be made. In most states selling a gun means either accepting a wholesale price from a licensed dealer (or selling through the dealer for a fee or commission) or taking a chance that the private party to whom you transfer ownership might be a prohibited person. By giving a seller access to an NICS BGC, folks are permitted to do the safe and right thing. (What does the ad say? "Knowing > something or other....)

Third, stop pursuing bans on weapons that which are defined by arbitrary non-functional terms. If you want to ban 50 plus round mags outside a home or range okay. If you want to ban guns that fire more than 100 rounds per minute, fine. I'm okay with these because they're functional. Banning a gun because it has a pistol grip or adjustable stock is ridiculous.

I made an assessment of what I would be comfortable with if I was going to to carry and I'm not capable of integrating that with my current life situation. I don't think it's up to me to decide for others in situations different from mine, what they should be doing. Buying and carrying a gun is often a cheaper alternative to moving somewhere safer. My interest in guns is sporting. My interest in the RKBA is as a human right.

Thanks for the good discussion.

[digonswine]

29. By "control"-I was referring to a person's feeling of being personally in control--

But i get your point.

I do, though, think that laws and consequences can lead to a control of sorts.

I would agree that working WITH gun owners would be a good thing. I feel that the fringe control the argument.
Again-I have guns, I hunt, I kill dear(sometimes), and do not want to not be able to do so.
I will happily accept restrictions on my rights to do so. Especially ones that save any lives.
I don't care if the gov knows what I have regarding guns.
I will happily restrict the number of guns I have.
I will happily report all gun purchases.
I will gladly give up the right to clips that allow more than 3 rounds(mine has up to 5)
I will happily prosecute those that feel they need a 20 round clip.
I will look critically upon those that feel they need total freedom in this arena are bad actors.

Your second point--I agree it would be nice to have sensible support.

Third-this should be easy.

Sorry for the delay in response--I work all week as a science teacher

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

33. Like many Democrats, you are logical and respectful

Conversations like this lead to folks thinking, maybe brainstorming, about combinations of things that work or help.

Don't worry about the delay. During the week my time here is rather limited as well.

Everyone gains emotional security by following their own assessment of their needs and allocating their resources as they see fit. I define freedom as people following their own judgement in making their own lives satisfying and using their time, earnings and abilities as they see fit. If you have a 200 acre ranch outside a city and want to build your own shooting range, go for it. Firing guns in your downtown condo without some life threatening event is a no-no.

Laws and consequences absolutely lead to control but only among those who are just to begin with and exercise self-control. IMHO, laws serve as tools and criteria for the courts and prosecutors to use in the pursuit of justice. The evil among us will ignore laws and find ways to do what they want. That's life. Empowering more people to feel in control of their own areas of influence and emotionally congruent with the needs of their neighbors will lead to people working together rather viewing with suspicion the motives of their neighbors. If law enforcement offered free NICS BGCs to those selling guns, folks would be on board with doing something positive for the community. If law enforcement offered voluntary registration for those who want it, that may be a step in the right direction. Registration for licensed carriers seems like a good idea.

Bringing the non-fringe into the discussion would be a good thing. I don't see Ted N and Nancy P ever sitting down to reach a consensus but the reasonable folks need to express themselves and own the direction of any laws proposed. This is fundamentally the area that this quote applies: "But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men."

As a hunter you have my respect. I'm fine, so to speak, hiring folks to kill for me. Lawyers also have my respect, I'll hire one when I need one. I've never hunted. I don't have a deep freezer....
I think 99% of hunters are extremely careful and safety conscious. Maybe a few will drive through the brush on ATVs shooting at anything that moves.

Three to five rounds seems fine to me for hunting for deer hunting. For hunting wild hogs that travel in packs maybe not but I'm not a hunter.

If you carry in public, follow the state law. If that's CC only and 10 round mags, follow the law. I don't like OC but I guess you live in Tucson and half the town is OC then fine. I won't be.

That third point, yeah it should be but it isn't. Some folks (folks with the public's attention) are like a dog with a bone for an AWB. I remember crazy things from some folks. The group that thought Barrett rifles would be shooting down 737s is definitely in the fringe you mentioned.

There has been AFAIK, about 4 cases where high rate of fire guns were used in a crime. I'm fine adding bump stocks to the NFA registry. I also would prefer the registry to be opened.

Have a great weekend.

[digonswine]

56. I can't say I agree with your idea of personal freedom-

Everyone gains emotional security by following their own assessment of their needs and allocating their resources as they see fit.

I do not trust those that feel they need to carry. It is not about allocating their resources.
I don't believe that people are rational actors.
I think following emotion is a bad idea.
I think and know our brains and judgments are based upon the skills and reactions we evolved before our arms outweighed our cerebrums.
There should be in our eyes a big blinking beacon that says "you are perceiving this incorrectly!!" and usually biased in your favor!
Until these people can show they are rational actors-I say no guns for you.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

58. re: trust and personal freedom

No matter the logic and diligence employed in the determinations, the goal for almost everyone is personal security. Having enough food for the day. Being relatively safe at home. Etc. The basic goal in all of economics is trying satisfy unlimited wants and needs with limited resources.

Some of us will feel safer if we a weapon. Some will feel safer if we have a security system. Some of us will feel safer if no one else has weapons.
Some of us will feel safer if we strengthen our perimeters with Foo gas.

Trust: I trust a few people, mostly immediate family and close blood relations. In God we trust, everyone else keep your hands where I can see them.

And my fundamental most important from among the USMC Rules for Gun Fighting: Your number one Option for Personal Security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.

Have a great weekend.

[digonswine]

61. A few things-

I was reading through the exchange after a week--I am not in Tuscon-I am in very safe north central Wisconsin.
I agree that most people have personal security in mind when they carry.
I certainly like the Rules for Gun Fighting you mention.
I disagree with the idea that 99% of hunters are safe. This is patently untrue. There are many hunters here in northern WI that come up from Chicago. We call them, probably unfairly, FIB's-Fuckin' Illinois Bastards.
These are those that buy up the land-making it unaffordable to the locals-post the shit out of it-making tracking deer impossible, and generally screwing up that which was once a tradition where locals played like neighbors.
Their gun-handling skills are worrisome(not ALL of them, of course!)
I have seen some crazy unsafe gun-handling. I have refused to hunt near a few that clearly did not respect the rules of gun-handling and will never hunt with them again. Yet-they can still hunt around me in an unsafe manner.
The idea that we let people decide what makes them safe and allow them that courtesy is a bit nuts to me.
Why are there no warnings on guns that say you are more likely to be killed with a gun when you possess one?
A gun present seems to increase the odds of being killed by a gun.
I can't be reasonably sure-but it would seem as though the presence of a gun, in any average situation, increases my odds of being killed by a gun.
So--don't carry a fucking gun in my presence. Your(not YOU you) right to carry takes years off of my life(on average).
I really don't care what makes people feel better or what is their motivation. This falls under the simple concept of--your right to punch out with your hands ends at my face.
One more thing--you might surround yourself with totally rational and well-meaning gun owners.
I have encountered MANY(more than 2) that have other troubling characteristics-I will mention a few--persecution, stepping on their rights, mistrust of government, to name a few.
Gun nuts are called gun nuts for a reason. It is their biggest thing. The fact that it is their biggest thing makes them the perfect candidates for not being able to carry guns.
And--the studies that are actually available show that having a gun on your person changes how you react to certain situations. OF COURSE it does. Of course it does. The biggest tool you have changes how one reacts.
Finally-I have personally chosen to react to a few people differently based upon the likelihood that they probably have a gun.
This is a problem--it means that the normal social reward or opprobrium is missing.

[Straw Man]

62. A few more things.

A gun present seems to increase the odds of being killed by a gun.

Yes. It is impossible to be killed by a gun when there is no gun present. Does that really need to be said? It's a meaningless truism.

So--don't carry a fucking gun in my presence. Your(not YOU you) right to carry takes years off of my life(on average).

Umm ... no, it doesn't. You are not a statistical amalgam, and merely being in the presence of a gun does nothing to your personal life expectancy.

Gun nuts are called gun nuts for a reason. It is their biggest thing. The fact that it is their biggest thing makes them the perfect candidates for not being able to carry guns.

I'm sorry, but that's complete nonsense. It's the type of Catch-22 mumbo-jumbo that gun-haters use to try to make their case for total disarmament. I own a modest collection of guns. I use guns recreationally and frequently carry one for self-defense. You would probably call me a "gun nut," but guns are not my "biggest thing." My loved ones are my "biggest thing," and my second-biggest thing is music. Most of the people I shoot with have similar value systems. You are operating with a set of blinkered stereotypes that distort your perceptions.

And--the studies that are actually available show that having a gun on your person changes how you react to certain situations. OF COURSE it does. Of course it does. The biggest tool you have changes how one reacts.

Perhaps, but not necessarily in the way that you think it does. For example, I have a friend who was a bad road-rager until he got his CCW and started to carry a handgun. At that point, he realized the potentially dire consequences of getting into these idiotic conflicts and mended his ways accordingly. "Let it go" became his mantra.

Your opinion of your fellow human being seems to be curiously low for someone on a progressive website.

Finally-I have personally chosen to react to a few people differently based upon the likelihood that they probably have a gun.
This is a problem--it means that the normal social reward or opprobrium is missing.

Yes, it is a problem, and it's strictly your problem. Unless someone is actually threatening you with a gun, there is no reason for these fears.

[digonswine]

66. One at a time-

How is the first a meaningless truism?
You(for the rest of this statement-please assume I am not talking about you, specifically) are carrying a gun, you have just increased my odds of being killed by a gun. Not just that, you have increased my odds of being killed. I will accept that the odds are still quite low-but it is not nothing.

I don't see how you can say that the increased amount of guns in my presence does not increase my odds of being killed. I will say that my saying that it takes years off of my life could be a bit hyperbolic. My being an amalgam is irrelevant. Am I safer with a gun near-by-on average, or not?

Gun nuts are called gun nuts for a reason. It is their biggest thing. The fact that it is their biggest thing makes them the perfect candidates for not being able to carry guns.

Sorry-this is how many vote. This is a big deal for how many otherwise progressive vote-you can't pretend otherwise. In my opinion-yes my opinion-holding one's nose and voting R because of their stranglehold on the gun vote is the essence of a single-issue voter. And-YES-that means it is their biggest issue. That is what that means in practice.

The fact is-people do seem to behave differently when there is a gun to fall back on. The science(scanty) seems to show this. How would it not? A person has the great equalizer as support. The idea that it would have no effect on how one interacts with others is simply daft. If you think someone has a gun, and you do not, and you treat them in the same way--then you are an idiot. You are not an idiot-so the dynamic changes--this is basic in how we deal with world politics.

The last point--that it is my problem---well, fuck no, it is not.

I don't live in this fantasy world where everyone is a sensible conscious actor.

I live in the real world-where any confrontation can end in craziness.

You already know this, I know you do.

This is the reason that otherwise good actors don't intercede when some shitheel is verbally abusing his kids. We know that this is just the type of fuckstick that will pull it out.

We KNOW the wife-abuser piece of human garbage will pull it out-they have nothing to live for-we stand idly by while they push people around. it is because we know they have the ability to kill us and don't give a shit about their own lives.

So-yeah-I will step in when I can--but those of us in the real world can hesitate.

This is not strictly my problem. You go ahead and blindly trust your paranoid neighbors.


Now--I do know that some of my neighbors have guns. A few carry. I get along.

One more thing-I do not believe you or anyone else treats an open-carrying weirdo like one would treat a normal person.

[digonswine]

82. I think responding to you is most likely a waste of time-

You have shown you don't listen and will obfuscate.

But I'm a masochist and can't help it, I guess.

I'll start with the first--the presence of a gun does indeed increase the odds of being killed by one. Households with loose guns are dangerous for that reason. This is not to say that ALL people that own guns are being unsafe-But-generally this is the case.

Second--um-yeah-being in the presence of a gun does for sure increase my odds of being killed by one. No brainer. But somehow, this is my problem,I guess-geez.

Third--this is not all about you. Just today-and you'll just have to take my word for it-I was kayaking on my local river. Someone had on their truck 2 stickers--one was something like "My second amendment rights protects all of your other ones"--BTW-I know I butchered that-but that was the idea. The second was " If you plan to take my guns, you had better bring yours"--again-not the same words but the same sentiment.

These people are fucking nuts-right?

I have said it before--it is EXACTLY the fuckers that want to carry that I least trust to do so.

Fourth--anecdotal evidence--studies say otherwise.

Fifth--it is apparently my problem that I react differently to those with guns from those without openly carrying a gun.
Do you even live on this planet? Do you actually interact with people?

I am not talking about the weirdo her in northern Wisconsin that fears a bear attack(a very real fear, a very infrequent end). Perhaps you may not have interacted with the true gun nuts. They can not be counted on to see reality as it is.

It's nice to know that I only need to worry when I am currently being threatened with a gun. Whew!

Thanks for setting me straight and not being at all condescending or irrelevant.

BTW-I am not for total disarmament, I hunt and have guns.

I am glad that your loved ones are most important to you. I want reasonable and restrictive controls on guns. This is not a cultural thing nor is it a move to limit freedom.

I teach in a school. We have to talk to kids about this shit all the time. I have absolutely no patience for my anyone that pretends to care and does not want to consider access to guns as an issue. These people are now not worth talking to. They speak of carrying themselves instead of tackling the real problem.

I only ask you to consider what restrictions might help. Personally-If I knew no more kids(or whomever) would die-I would gladly dump the guns. Not everyone is a "gun-grabber"--

And, yes--It DOES appear to be the most important thing to people like you. Please explain how I am wrong so I can learn a bit.

[Straw Man]

87. If it's such a waste of time, ...

... why did you do it twice?

I think you're mistaking disagreement for obfuscation. Not at all uncommon.

[digonswine]

90. I missed that I responded previously-time went by and I am a busy feller-

I did say I am a masochist. I'll take a look this weekend. If I am wrong about obfuscation, I will admit it.

It does not appear that you responded to the points made in rebuttal. As always-I could be wrong-I'll take a look soon(ish)!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

63. replies on select if not most points

First, a general sort of opinion/aside on the GC topic: IMHO, GC, in some respects, is in its infancy. The mostly depression era beginnings were anemic by today's standards. Progress and political evolution isn't a painless process. My fellow DU members have enlightened me in many ways and continue daily to teach me. I wanted to take this opportunity to say thanks to you and to any one reading who has written on the site.

I am not in Tuscon-I am in very safe north central Wisconsin.
I agree that most people have personal security in mind when they carry.

Most states have a number of requirements facing folks seeking a CC license.

I disagree with the idea that 99% of hunters are safe.

Virtually nothing is "safe". We traffic accidents and stairway falls and we have shootings at schools and churches to underscore that. I live in a Philly suburb. It's probably an hour or more away to an area where hunting would be appropriate. (I don't hunt not do I discuss it very much) I think most hunters make an effort to be safe. I expect that some hunters (like many drivers I see weaving through traffic at 10-20 mph faster than the surrounding cars) just aren't good at it.

The idea that we let people decide what makes them safe and allow them that courtesy is a bit nuts to me.

It is a rather limited to what you do in your own home. Carrying in public (in most states) requires a bunch of costs, time, effort and BG screening. I'm okay with that. Some states have scaled that back to you need to pass the NICS to buy the gun and you need ID and a pulse. I'm not exactly on board with that. As I said, I'm not viewing myself as a viable candidate for carrying. That's due to many reasons but basically two very key issues. One being I just don't enjoy shooting handguns so I don't see myself making the degree of practice required a priority. Second thing, I was never even marginally good. IMO it would take more time and money than I have to become proficient in low stress situation like a range. My vision is poor and I sleep without my glasses so even at home, I'm not going to be fit to respond to that kind of emergency. I'm rather sure if you take a reputable handgun self-defense course, these aspects will be covered.

Why are there no warnings on guns that say you are more likely to be killed with a gun when you possess one?

Probably because there isn't a law requiring that.

A gun present seems to increase the odds of being killed by a gun.

I'm not sure about that.

Your(not YOU you) right to carry takes years off of my life(on average).

I would think that's wrong. In 2016 there were 14,415 firearm homicides and about 23,000 firearm suicides. (Also, 500+ fatal shootings by law enforcement.) Doing crude math and making a few reasonable estimates (based on the numbers from 2015) the average person lifetime lost due to firearm murders is about 24 days.

One more thing--you might surround yourself with totally rational and well-meaning gun owners.
I have encountered MANY(more than 2) that have other troubling characteristics-I will mention a few--persecution, stepping on their rights, mistrust of government, to name a few.

All I can say about that is that persecution is the kind of problem that won't abate simply by removing a gun from the person. The "stepping on their rights" folks have sort of a 57 varieties. The ones that need to walk around the shopping center in tactical gear carrying an AR are mostly just looking to start with a cop and collect a settlement. The "mistrust of government" folks would include many of the country's founders. I'm not worried about most of that group, today.

I do get what you're saying. I realize that for some folks in some instances there is truth in the saying, "If all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail." I just want to point out that at least 2 out of 7 people in the US owns a gun and far less than 1% ever uses their "hammer" for self-defense in public. I conclude that those folks do have a lot of self-control.

On the political pro-"control" side I also see the same "hammer" issue and I find more of a fair share of legislators using their own hammers trying to figuratively nail jello to the wall. Certainly some laws need changing or updating. IMHO most of the progress to be made won't be achieved through penalties and restrictions.

Have a great weekend.

[digonswine]

74. I did not see this post-

I can't reply now-but will.
I think what you said is interesting and don't want to ignore it--I'll get to is when I can!!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

75. I know teachers take a lot of work home

Take your time, it's not a rush.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

81. I don't want you to get the idea that...

...I'm against all restrictions. I am against restrictions that can't really accomplish much.
I also feel that some types of laws (AWBs) are election losers.

[digonswine]

83. Hi--

I will start with this-I can't tell if it the 1st or 2nd point-

It is about safety--
I am never going to look for 100% safety. Not gonna happen. I am talking about those that are not cognizant of their actions. I don't think they are intentionally being dumbasses, but they are unsafe. They did not absorb the weak teachings of Hunter's Safety.
To be clear-I think we just throw privs at people in this country. The ability to drive a car seems to depend upon the mood of the DMV person at the time. It is fair to say, I think, that we don't take safety very seriously in this here US of A.

I would like it to be VERY HARD to get a licence to carry a gun. I think confiscation is a bit far, but purchasing should be a real hassle.

We know a few things from the studies that have been done.I am not going to detail all of the nasty effects of having a gun in the house. We all know the data and I don't want that discussion.

I work in a school-I teach in a school. Kids are scared-beyond the point they should be, perhaps, but they truly are. I try to do my part to explain that school is a safe place.

I will ask you or anyone that wants to respond--for their questions--

Why are there no adults doing anything about this?
Why in the world do we need to worry about a nut entering our school and killing us?
BTW-if you(not YOU DIS) respond with logistics and advice about the number of entrances to a school-you instantly lose any credibility with any thinking person.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

88. Hi back at you

Hoping you have a great holiday...

Safety is an all-pervasive and intrinsic part of life. I have fire extinguisher in my kitchen and airbags in my truck. I don't leave my navigation to a GPS since driving to and/or through more dangerous areas is maybe the computer controlled "best option". I drive defensively. I try to make my choices, course and speed predictable and apparent to other drivers. I focus on what they are doing and try to predict their intentions and courses. I routinely check the current and power rating on extension cords to confirm the safety margin for their use with the intended appliance.

In many aspects of my work, safety is an absolute necessity. One of the absolute basic and initial steps toward safety is an assessment of the situation. I'm going to say something here that you and many folks probably won't like. You said:

"I try to do my part to explain that school is a safe place."

In very plain language, it isn't. This is demonstrated across the country and carried by the news media. Schools overall are statistically safe but, in general, remain soft targets for disaffected and disturbed people. Just because these perpetrators are ill and disturbed, does not make them stupid nor lacking in logic. The deadliest mass murder at a school in the US occurred in Bath Township, MI in 1927. I think fire bombs were the principal cause of most deaths. One way to strategically increase school safety on a city or county wide basis is open more schools and make them smaller so that any casualties at any one location will be limited and the smaller facilities will become less attractive.

I very much agree with your motivation. Since your objective is to teach and motivate your students to learn, having them distracted by the thought of being involved in school shooting won't help with that. Explaining why they are safe and from what and why is empowering. In 2015 there were 62 casualties of school shootings across 21 separate events where 21 of those died. That is from among a population of tens of millions of people attending school everywhere in the US. (There were over 50,000,000 people between ages 6 and 18 in 2015 in the US). Using history as a guide, it seems very, very unlikely that any individual student will be shot at school.

Of the various plans for security and making schools harder targets, I find it surprising that security cameras aren't mentioned more often. This one of the cheaper and most important aspects of overall safety. Video surveillance could and has been a lifesaver. Detecting an intruder armed or not is very important. Being able to alert local law enforcement is important. I mentioned above the 21 incidents from 2015. Would it surprise you know that about one in 4 of these shootings is unsolved with no suspects? Without video, emergencies are harder to detect and usually more advanced when discovered. Detecting a heart attack or stroke victim would be possible. Seeing someone choking or the beginning of a fire could be possible.

Like many other health threatening conditions, early detection is part of the answer. Do we all love the idea on being on camera? Probably not but adding video surveillance to densely attended soft targets makes a lot of sense. Removing from a huge population an even more huge number of weapons will probably be less reasonable. Cameras and 2-way intercom along with telephones and a 911 backup line (cellular) would be a plan.

Knowledge is power. Most school shooting not ending in a preemptive suicide by the assailant end with or soon after the arrival of law enforcement. Shortening the time before law enforcement is called shortens the time available for the attack and limits possible causalities.

Why are there no adults doing anything about this?

Many adults are "doing" "something". Some are working against each other. (Hyperbole active: There are those that want a nationwide house to house confiscating all firepower greater than a BB gun. There are those that want to require teacher to be armed. Hyperbole off.) As I said before, giving a teacher anything from a handgun to a howitzer is the wrong course.

Why in the world do we need to worry about a nut entering our school and killing us?

We need to plan for dealing with any situation demonstrated by precedent or contemplated as probable.

Changing the world has to begin by each of us changing ourselves. If we are concerned about the rights of animals and having them raised as a crop, the way to help isn't by trying ban meat. Becoming a vegetarian is a start.

...if you...respond with logistics and advice about the number of entrances to a school-you instantly lose any credibility...

Schools have doors and walls for a reason, not just to keep out the mosquitoes.

Just my thoughts.

[digonswine]

89. I did have a great holiday--thanks

I would say that schools are safe. I know they are a safe space and where kids can get away from fucked up parents, etc.

They are not designed as bunkers-they shouldn't be. I don't want my small school to employ metal detectors or strip-searches(hyperbole).

Schools are truly a safe place for students. Now, if someone is trying to find, as you say, a soft target, any place where there are many people in a given place there is surely an opportunity. We are not a bunker, nor should we be. Perfect safety in not possible within our system. I would not want to have that be the case.

School is a safe place, but we train staff and kids for appropriate action for a time when when it isn't.

We do have security cameras and the entrances are controlled by staff. This is not to say someone could not get in with a little cooperation from a classmate.

We have a good plan-as good as can be for a situation and without constantly drilling students to the point of terrifying them.

They take this intruder plan seriously-more than the monthly fire drill.

I must say that your animal-rights analogy is a bit weak. It looks like you want to slowly acclimatize the American public into just not wanting to have all these guns. Like we just need to be less gun-centric and gun-owning and then we can solve the problem. You may not have meant that, but I read it that way. We should pause to remember-it IS the gun nutters that have the guns and are vocal to the point where the rational discussion is made impossible-at least on that side.



I also don't see any real response regarding the adults doing anything.

I will ask you directly--do you support strict restrictions on gun-ownership, who gets access to guns, safe gun storage rules, harsh penalties for those that allow access(family) to those guns, magazine restrictions and harsh penalties, gun-registration, proof of safety, etc. that could actually serve to improve safety? There have been a couple of times lately where kids had free access to family guns.

I feel like we don't take these things seriously.

I will say again--any person that does not see access as a problem can not be a reasonable partner in preventing gun violence. I am not asking for your multifaceted plan that would solve this whole problem-just an idea where you think the limits are. I'll probably disagree but it's worth the effort, I think.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

91. re: "School is a safe place..."

Agreed. There are some very safe places:
https://goo.gl/maps/G2FZvGtkq9L2
But I don't want to be there.

Many pro-regulation folks like to say that the founders never thought about semi-auto and full-auto weapons when they wrote the BOR. There were examples of those (expensive and uncommon) weapons in that day. I have my doubts that they conceived that the population of the city where the Declaration was written and signed would exceed that of the whole country at the time. I don't think they thought about the idea of a shopping mall with multiple floors that sat on the better part of square mile. I don't believe they considered the idea that a school like my high school (auditorium occupancy 4200) wouldn't fit the whole student body.

Combining the type and variety of environments we have today, I honestly am not sure what the founders would have to say about guns. I will brainstorm a bit to answer your questions and concerns. Paper work is beginning to defoliate a forest somewhere and accumulate on my desk at work so I have to roll to work soon.

Access is a problem. A part of the answer is to empower the owner in any sale to know that the buyer is allowed and safe. I'll get back to you soon. Our IT folk have the internet set tighter than a bull's butt in fly season but DU is freely available.

Thanks again for the ideas.

[digonswine]

93. It's silly to take the founding fathers' ideas as perfect for today's problems-

I really don't care what they have to say about the problems of today. It is like trying to consider what Newton would say about quantum mechanics.

Access is not a problem-it is THE problem.

I can't quite get the concept where we consider the founders' ideas when we face a current issue. Their ideas are irrelevant at this point and seem to be an excuse for acting like our hands are tied.

This is not some religion where we have to defer to the text. We are rational actors in the modern day. I never really understood this deferment to the original document-like the country will dissolve if we step outside of these rich, landowning, racist, and elite persons' ideas about governmental powers. We live now. We have problems now. We live in a paper-thin version of democracy as it is.

I lose precious educational time because of this. Kids learn less because we have to talk about this. Kids get to worry about their safety because of this. Kids think they are not safe in a safe place because of this. Kids worry about a school shooter because of this. Kids have to train to react to a shooter because of this. We have to discuss options because of this. Kids' education suffer because of this. I can go on and on-because of this.

Because some folks think their precious rights trump all of these other rights. It is totally backward-I can only think that any rational person would agree. This is why people like me look at people that trumpet gun rights as selfish and backward. This is where we diverge.

This truly pisses me off-we get a precious few minutes with students and then we have to spend many of them with this shit. When you add this to the unnecessary testing, we lose many weeks with students.

I am not blaming you-but those that think all of these things are difficult or complicated and sweep the real problem under the rug are being obtuse and irresponsible.

If you want gun rights-I say fine. It is your responsibility to regulate it. I'm sick of it. It is YOUR problem to solve, right?

Again-I am happy that you are on the right side of politics(according to me), but FFS--you need to step up and change the culture. You are the culture. A little help would be great.

You seem like a decent dude--I would appreciate a response to more than one of my points-(not all of them-nobody is perfect!)

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

94. I promise to elaborate but also please check out #92

I did cover other issues there.

I left work at 7:45PM ET and I'm waiting for dinner right now so this will be short and to the point.

I can't quite get the concept where we consider the founders' ideas when we face a current issue.

Our existing system is based on the Constitution (1787 Philadelphia model) that the founders developed. Maybe things about it need to change. That was considered in its writing and provisions exist to make changes.

Excepting possibly certain small towns, this country is not a democracy. All levels of current government that I am aware of operate as a representative republic. Certain officials are elected in democratic election is the only democratic thing about the US.

I will indeed address changing culture and, to a degree, address your own duty to help. Clearly a charismatic and articulate person with knowledge and discernment could come on the political scene and relieve us of some of our difficulties by his/her leadership in the updating of our laws. I don't know what subjects you teach but every teacher has the opportunity to not only relay facts on the topics but to also inspire the class by relating material about the trailblazers in that area of study. Maybe science, maybe law, maybe writing or art. Today's students need to be inspired. Most all the Republicans I know (I used to be one) are not friends of change.

This man has an inspiring story:

https://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/gov/constexport.pdf
Albert P. Blaustein was professor of law at Rutgers (The State University of New Jersey) School of Law. He authored numerous scholarly works on the subject of constitutionalism including a six—volume work on the U.S. Constitution entitled Constitution of Dependencies and Special Sovereignties. Blaustein helped draft more than 40 constitutions worldwide and visited many of those countries. In 1991, he helped to write the constitution for the Russian Republic. Professor Blaustein died in 1994.

In all areas of work and study there are inspiring stories to tell of those passionate about their work. Just because one is not paid as a professional does not make his efforts less admirable. I remember a quote from John Houseman: "What Mrs. Burns and many others are wrong about is the meaning of the word, which has to do with motivation, not quality. Remember "amo, amat, amas", the Latin verb "to love". The meaning of "amateur" is "he or she who does a thing for the love of it". There is no higher reason for singing than the love of doing it. In that respect, you do qualify as amateurs. And I salute you for it."

In high school I came loath history and I avoided it altogether in college. Today I eagerly read about history and those passionate enough to achieve historic significance.

Again-I am happy that you are on the right side of politics(according to me), but FFS--you need to step up and change the culture. You are the culture. A little help would be great.

You seem like a decent dude--I would appreciate a response to more than one of my points-(not all of them-nobody is perfect!)

Thanks, you're a decent guy in my book as well. I try address what I missed over the weekend.

I'm now going back to kitchen for some seconds and desert. Butter pecan ice cream...

By the way, what do you teach? Subject(s), grades...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

95. I think I covered most of your issues and questions...

...in replies #91, 92 and 94.

I think I have demonstrated that I am negotiable and reasonable in discussion of and means toward progress on this issue. I would like to address a few frequently suggested measures which that I find untenable and/or counterproductive.

Assault weapons ban:
Opposition to anything from airline hijackers to the Boston Red Sox require first and most importantly identification. The overall material changes and permutations to law trying to eradicate the AR-15 and similar patterned rifles along with semi-auto versions of rifles such as AK-47/74 and others eminently demonstrate that no narrow functional definition of such a weapon is possible. Working to ban in some way the possession or acquisition of what is one of if not the best selling type of rifle in the country today is more divisive than useful. (A double-action revolver has about the same operation as a semi-auto.)

Registration:
Privacy issues and fear of the information becoming public in this day of hacking and data compromise along with the fact that this can lead to criminals developing compromised data into a firearm shopping list for robbery and burglary.

I'll pause here for now.
Talk to soon. Have a good week.

[digonswine]

96. You have been reasonable in discussion, which I appreciate, of course--

I am bombarded with ideas from teachers and some students. They seem, almost entirely, to focus on solutions that avoid the guns themselves.

Yes-I think we treat mental illness in this country in a superficial manner. We treat all illness here as an individual problem. We treat illness as a personal weakness. We treat mental illness doubly so. We treat addiction like a mental weakness instead of what it is. We treat child abuse as a matter of parent choice--at least in the county I am in. Officials throw up their hands-not always their fault, since we don't fund the people that are entrusted to deal with these issues. Where I am, one would need to kill their kid in order to have them helped by the system--a total failure. No accountability, no responsibility for anyone. We send boxers into the ring with their hands tied and feet in shackles. It's fucking pathetic. We take little seriously. Kids get systematically abused, exposed to the worst of our species, and just blithely blame them for their own shortcomings. I have personally written kids off as being "fucked" and having no chance based upon their environment. And I am usually right. It makes me want to puke-knowing what is going on and not having any power to change it.

We don't take real problems seriously. Conservative fucks whine about taxes while the kids in their district get nothing in the way of help-this is conservativism.

Jeez-that was bleak.

Again- I would put the onus on gun enthusiasts for this one.

"The overall material changes and permutations to law trying to eradicate the AR-15 and similar patterned rifles along with semi-auto versions of rifles such as AK-47/74 and others eminently demonstrate that no narrow functional definition of such a weapon is possible. Working to ban in some way the possession or acquisition of what is one of if not the best selling type of rifle in the country today is more divisive than useful."

This seems a bit weak, truly.

It is the classic excuse that there is no way to do it. It also reeks of shit when popularity is appealed to. I say-I will give up my guns, or register them, or whatever I need to do to decrease the amount of gun deaths in this place. That is an adult being a responsible person.

When fuckheads discuss putting veterans in our schools to protect them, when we have to have metal-detectors in every public place, when they talk about too many entrances, when they talk of armed cops having to die, when they speak of teachers being armed, or students needing to be armed, constant training for armed intruders, constant anxiety for students worrying about it, being consistently made aware of it, interfering with education, worrying about safety, teachers having plans and practicing them instead of teaching, preaching constant situational awareness(noting exits and escape routes, and living in fucking fear in what is supposed to be the safest space for all students)--MAYBE we have our priorities poorly aligned. Maybe we have gone off the rails.

Again-where are the adults, here? Your privacy issues seem a bit silly for those of us that do a job.

If I seem a bit annoyed-I am. Your(maybe not YOU you) shit has cost me and my students days and weeks and untold stress.

I have personally decided that it is not worth it. Selfish gun-owners, that care only for their own perceived rights-to the exclusion of the needs of others, can fuck themselves. They need to work on the problem or face the future where they have no voice. Again-this is THEIR problem.

If you can't tell-I have had enough of it and am probably done discussing it(maybe). But I am a glutton for punishment. I think discussion is the way forward and will probably respond in time.

Please remember--there are people dealing with this every day and most of them are kids.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

97. re: I have had enough of it and am probably done discussing it(maybe).

Selfish gun-owners, that care only for their own perceived rights-to the exclusion of the needs of others, can fuck themselves. They need to work on the problem or face the future where they have no voice. Again-this is THEIR problem.

I'm not a gun owner but I'm trying to work on it right now. I don't see gun owners as a monolithic unit. EVERYONE has the solution to this problem as a burden.

These events are not monolithic. Their causes can't be resolved simply by blaming guns and gun owners. In my opinion, while their is a need for the planning and practice of a tactical response for such events, there needs to be a an ongoing assessment of these activities and continuing planning and preparation by district officials and administration officials at each school. Communities and individuals have the burden of dealing with neighbors and family members that have problems. Reducing this entire problem to planning for a tactical response is shortsighted at best.

There are facets of this issue that need to be addressed by government but most of them don't have a national solution. What may work well in Baltimore or DC may not work at all in Anchorage or El Paso.

There is a suicide problem ongoing and I believe that part of that problem overlaps some mass shootings.

Take care. "Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men."

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

92. Responses to a few

Last edited Thu May 31, 2018, 03:46 PM - Edit history (1)

I will ask you directly--do you support strict restrictions on gun-ownership, who gets access to guns, safe gun storage rules, harsh penalties for those that allow access(family) to those guns, magazine restrictions and harsh penalties, gun-registration, proof of safety, etc. that could actually serve to improve safety? There have been a couple of times lately where kids had free access to family guns.

strict ownership restrictions:
I support universal BG checks (UBCs). I think some kind of NICS access through local law enforcement.

who gets access:
This is a complicated issue. The aspects of storage, home possession and use, children, ammunition, BGCs and mental health all play a role. I'll get back to you.

harsh penalties for those that allow access(family) to those guns:
The worst example here is the Sandy Hook shootings. Clearly, unattended to mental health issues are ignored at the safety of anyone in the household (with or without a gun) except IMHO there is a particular danger to the community as well if the unstable person has already used a gun to kill a housemate/family member. The UT Austin shootings may be one of the best examples. I'm seeing death as a harsh penalty. I'll detail more soon.

Off to work.

ETA:
I really don't know what to do overall about families and access in the home. The youngest person visiting my home in the last 5 years is my now 29 year old daughter. I would be comfortable having a gun in my house but would use a trigger or other appropriate individual lock. A locker or gun safe would also be appropriate. Folks with either children and/or persons with mental health issues have the challenge that they and the community are in more danger from an unsecured gun than a home invasion or robbery.

I am entirely opposed to registration for guns other than those used for SD carry. (I will feel less shot or less dead from a registered gun.)

I can see magazine restrictions on the order of 20-30 rounds. I'm also okay with ban bump stocks. (The Las Vegas scumbag used bump stocks.)

I have no idea what proof of safety means. I think folks that are negligent need to accountable for their negligence and should make it their business to learn what the courts see as negligence. Those that seem okay with hanging the SKS or colt on a hook in their back entry just inside the unlocked door need a wake up call.

The biggest part of picture is the updating/correcting the NICS database and providing access for private sales. Federal funding should be provided for all of that. (To make an analogy, having a heavy duty steel gate is no use if the perimeter fence is made of duct tape and aluminum foil.

Hope this helps.

[gejohnston]

64. Why are there no warnings on guns that say you are more likely to be killed with a gun when you poss

because it simply is not true. The claim is based on a very flawed study by and ER MD named Author Kellerman. He did various revisions that ranged from 64 times more likely to 2.5 times more likely. None these revisions stood up to even the most basic peer review scrutiny. Also, if you read the study, owning a gun less of a risk factor than drinking alcohol, renting, smoking pot, and being single.

It was done by a nonscientist, published in a journal not related to the issue (should have been in a peer review criminology journal).
https://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x334436

http://guncite.com/gun-control-kellermann-3times.html

[digonswine]

67. Scientific American says different--

Show me a good study where you are statistically safer with the gun.
https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/160/10/929/140858

I can only assume that you would support great research.

I have said this before--I do actually protect my household with a safely-kept rifle and shotgun.
I am kinda on your aide.

This does not need to be a big issue--most people do not need numerous rifles and shotguns to be safe.
I do not understand, in any way, why this should be an issue for any progressive.

I work as a teacher in a northern state. The idea that we should have some teachers packing heat in the off-chance that a kid comes in with an AR-15 is just plain nuts. That is what it is---plain crazy.

The concept that a teacher should engage in some firefight-rather than getting kids to safety is nuts. It is crazy and irresponsible.

This is true-you would be pissed off if a teacher was more focused on the enemy than getting your own kids out.
As a teacher--I will do anything to keep the kids safe. That is normally to get them out. I say "fuck you" if you think my job is engaging in some crazy firefight.

[gejohnston]

68. false delima

define "safer". You are neither safer or not, it is simply an inanimate object like any other. The "stabbed with a knife but shot by a gun" reflects an irrational belief that a piece of metal has agency over a human. A gun is a tool like anything else. Self defense is a human right. Scientific American isn't what it used to be.

ARs are rarely used. Most mass murders in the US are with pistols, just like Australians lean towards gas/match combos. The worst school (college) was with a Walther P-22 and a lot of magazines.

Most schools have one door into each class room. I don't think teachers should be forced to carry, however those who are responsible enough to carry outside (and do) I don't see the reason to prevent them. Even that would be a fail-safe. If the attacker can get to the class room, your security already failed. The gun is a fail-safe, not the first line nor end all and be all. Like I said in other places, I'm not a fan of making major policy decisions, especially civil liberties, on a rare occurrence (relative to our population.)

However, there are fewer mass murders in schools, about half, than 30 years ago. It is just that the media drones on about it for weeks, complete with violating the code of ethics by advocating anything. On average, about 10 per year die in school shootings (usually gang or directed at one person) most school homicides are stabbings and beatings. Twelve die each year of head injury playing football. Compare the odds of all K-12 being shot (1 in 614K) vs the odds of high school football players (a much smaller population) getting killed playing football.

Check your classroom and make a plan on how you would evacuate the room and how fast you could do it. Can you lock the classroom door from the inside? Outside, are there places where accomplices can ambush? Always have a back up plan. Are your students large and old enough to ambush the attacker enmass? Rush a gun, run from a knife. Fire extinguisher? He might off himself with the first sign of resistance, like VT shooter, Lanza, when the cops show up, a mall in Seattle where a CCW holder just drew his gun and the attacker offed himself.
That is assuming crazy. Terrorists are a different issue.

[digonswine]

69. I can't agree-

I actually have to think about this-you don't.

Of course the security systems fail--we teach kids-it is not some locked-down prison.

One part of my job is to keep those under my charge safe.

My classroom is always locked to the outside.

That means that I have to think about all of the scenarios that could arise and keep the kids as safe as possible. Pretty simple.

Now think-You have to see that if I would carry a weapon, my responsibilities change. They really do.

In my job right, I have a few options in the really unlikely chance that we are threatened by someone that has a gun.

Number 1 is get the kids out of the building.

Number 2 is get them out even if the gunner is fairly close. Their hit rate is poor for running targets.

If they are right outside the door and there is no time--it is to barricade.

Get the fuck out of windows if we can-leaving someone to maintain the barricade(ME)

They get in-- attack and smother-take casualties.

Nowhere in this scenario do I pull out my Glock and fire away. That's stupid.

That's the plan. It ain't pretty but I want to keep kids alive.

Put a gun into the mix and safety goes out the window. You need to see this is the case. It is clear-right?

You get to hypothesize whereas I actually need to to be prepared.

It's nice that you think teachers should not be "forced to carry"--if you think for even a short time, you see that an armed teacher changes this paradigm.

What if a few teachers are designated to carry guns? Now it is their job to stop the killing. All of the things they need to do to prevent death are now out the window. Upon further reflection, I can only assume that you can see clearly that this is a terribly misguided idea. Am I not correct?

BTW-any time someone mentions that guns are some inanimate object the entire world rolls their eyes. "A gun is a tool like anything else"--this is no argument--lame at best. It IS a tool--one meant for destroying tissues and life.

So, it would appear, that most of the advice you give regard people like you. We need to be aware and watchful. Though no one in my school would admit it, limitations of guns might actually prevent some people from having guns.

Please don't let your passion blind you to the harm they do. And don't give me any fucking advice about how to protect my students.

You're whole mindset seems to be a walking facepalm.

[gejohnston]

70. if it is locked to the outside,

I wouldn't evacuate unless you think the door would be breeched. If your school was built in the 1950s or later, you might not be able to open the windows. That is the case of all of the ones around here.

It's nice that you think teachers should not be "forced to carry"--if you think for even a short time, you see that an armed teacher changes this paradigm.

I don't see how.

What if a few teachers are designated to carry guns? Now it is their job to stop the killing. All of the things they need to do to prevent death are now out the window. Upon further reflection, I can only assume that you can see clearly that this is a terribly misguided idea. Am I not correct?

If I had a system like that, I would not choose teachers. I would use non teaching staff.

BTW-any time someone mentions that guns are some inanimate object the entire world rolls their eyes. "A gun is a tool like anything else"--this is no argument--lame at best. It IS a tool--one meant for destroying tissues and life.

It is a statement of empirical fact. It is meant to launch a projectile. Some are designed for paper. However, it can be used by good to destroy evil or evil to destroy good. It is only as good or evil as the person holding it.

So, it would appear, that most of the advice you give regard people like you. We need to be aware and watchful. Though no one in my school would admit it, limitations of guns might actually prevent some people from having guns.

Situational awareness is always a good idea. How many people get hit by cars because their face is in their phone. Yes it does prevent some people from having guns, usually people like this: NJ police were dragging their feet for her purchase permit. http://www.nj.com/camden/index.ssf/2015/06/berlin_murder_victim_told_neighbor_about_gun_permi.html In the 1920s, the KKK pushed for purchase permits in places like Michigan to prevent certain people from getting guns. Same with South Carolina's handgun ban (1902-1911 before it was overturned).

Please don't let your passion blind you to the harm they do. And don't give me any fucking advice about how to protect my students.

Simply some professional advice from someone who had to actually plan for such things, just not in this country. Harm? At least five (not counting the two by the CDC) studies show that guns do more good than harm.

You're whole mindset seems to be a walking facepalm.

Only because I am operating from practical experience and research, not simply ideology.

[digonswine]

73. I will reply in order of your responses-

1. Yes--evacuation is almost always the best. Remove the target. In the room-we are sitting ducks. Unless they are right outside the door-you evacuate. It would take minutes to leave through window(in need of breaking and clearing). These aren't prison doors-shoot through the glass and unlock. We are leaving this building.

2. You don't see how-fine. I do. Please see my post #72. It is quite clear and obvious.

3. Non-teaching staff are also in the classrooms with the teachers, for the most part. We don't have the luxury of having roving bands of gun-toting employees.

4. So what? Yup- a gun is a tool for killing. They are good for that. And humans use them-sometimes for ill. I will certainly prefer a school shooter becomes a school stabber. Don't pretend that the access to guns is not an issue and that guns aren't just better at ending life.

5. Boilerplate gunsplaining. Anyone that thinks access to guns has nothing to do with gun violence is delusional. Any solution to gun violence that does not address access is window-dressing. This is a simple idea-though not a simple problem, of course. On the ground, we have little control over this.

6. I would like to see-in a balanced way-how these killing-machines do more good than harm. You know-studied seriously. It appears to not be the case, but we will not find out anytime soon.

7. I think you know I am not speaking from ideology. I am a hunter. I have guns. I work in the profession we are discussing. My practical experience-you know-from someone actually responsible for peoples' safety right now, tells me that the thoughts you have shared are not accurate or helpful. I happen to know what I am talking about in a concrete way. Perhaps you should listen to people that are actually dealing with this stuff instead of sticking to what you think is correct.

[gejohnston]

78. just a few things

1- if possible

2- I don't see how that is mutually exclusive. If it comes down to you and your kids vs the threat your survival instinct and tribalism (your students being your tribe) is likely to kick in.

3- not relevant. Teachers would be locked in the rooms with the kids while staff augment the SRO.

4- school stabbers are common in China, and the death tolls are often high. Attackers are often adults.

5- Not a valid argument. I deal with violence in general (the world was a far more violent place before they were invented). Statements like that leads me to believe that gun control activists don't actually care about violence or saving lives, just pushing a culture war. Also, the consensus among criminologists is more guns does not mean more crime (the plurality is makes no difference. The next largest minority is more guns less crime).

6- Defensive uses, usually with no deaths, outnumber criminal uses.

7- While I have not been in the teaching business, I have dealt with security issues and listened to experts in those areas. That is what I learned from those people (and being in a couple of war zones, literally).

[digonswine]

79. There is no perfect response to a situation of an active shooter-

I feel like some people think there is a way to plan for all contingencies when there is not.

Maybe-just maybe, having guns around is not best for this situation? Could that be true? I'm sure having a gun is sometimes best-but why must it always be so? It's sort of silly to think it could be.

When responses to similar events are looked at, certain behaviors of those leading students have been shown to reduce harm. Guns in the classroom is not one of those things.

1. If possible--change that to almost always possible and preferable.

2. I said-"If armed, a teacher would be conflicted regarding this action. I think that the goals of keeping all safe and taking out the threat are mutually exclusive. That is, you can do one or the other but not both."
I don't want survival instinct to have squat to do with my decisions. When the sympathetic nervous system kicks in, the ability to make good decisions plummets. This is how cell phones are mistaken for guns and otherwise ok cops can reach for, pull out, and fire their gun instead of the taser they intended. Most folks don't do great thinking when threatened.

3. We have no SRO nor do most school our size. We will not be locked in rooms-we will be the fuck outside and gone in almost all cases. Stating put is the death sentence.

4. Not relevant. This is making the perfect the enemy of the good as mentioned before. Stabber is not killing at a distance. Stabber outside room 1 has nothing to do with the exit of room 2. Stabber is not getting into the barricaded classroom(which we would do as last resort.) Stabber is easier to incapacitate if they do gain entrance. Comparisons to knives used in killings is a silly and classic ineffective tactic and argument. Which would YOU prefer?

5. What you are stating has no relevance to what I am talking about. Don't push that shit onto me when it is very far from my court. Yup-I just don't care. Can you say with a straight face that if a person had a very hard time accessing a gun like those used in mass shootings, that that would have no effect on the number of people they could kill? This is NOT about more guns-more crime. That argument has 100% nothing to do with this. Classic bait and switch. It might be an argument in your mind but not in mine.
Any talk of improving safety is pure fakery without a discussion about access.
There has been a decrease in violent crimes in this country for sure. No thinking person attributes this to more guns, anyway. It has happened despite the increase. I suggest reading Steven Pinker's-The Better Angels of our Nature for info on this. It actually is just a really good, enlightening book and not one about guns really at all.

6. Could be-I can't say. Maybe it should be looked into. But it is STILL irrelevant. I am not for disallowing all people to own guns. Again-I have guns. I am saying that the way we go about allowing them for nearly anyone is nuts.
I suspect that many carriers think long and hard about the responsibility. I think many, if not most, are LESS likely to get into a kerfuffle or escalate a situation because of that responsibility. But many are not this way. I think that if someone is willing to go through more training, take a class or two, reapply yearly to own the gun, and whatever else is shown to be of any help-they are the ones that we can have more confidence in.

7. Your response here is disappointing. When talking to someone in the middle of it, working in concert with law-enforcement and their current practices, having thought through this with real responsibility, you still act like you know you are right. I think your ability to accurately assess this issue is clouded by ideology. The beam is in your eye--I am trying to be logical, as in all things.

I feel like any further response from me would be a waste. I personally don't see a vast disagreement here to be a big thing, though. As long as you are on the side of right and vote against the bastards, it's all good! Take care--JP

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

71. If I might interject...

It's nice that you think teachers should not be "forced to carry"--if you think for even a short time, you see that an armed teacher changes this paradigm.

I am decidedly against forcing anyone anywhere to be armed.
The following practical reasons express my reasoning:
* "Forcing" anyone to do anything is anti-liberty.
* "Forcing" someone to do something generally returns substandard results.
* Specialization is the rule in today's world. For example designating a lunch lady to maintain the soccer field may not be yield optimum results.
* A school should have a mission focused security and emergency force.

School districts should have policies, operating plans and mission tasked staff to assess the needs and work with the administration of each school to provide security and emergency services. Many tasks within school hours on school grounds are safety critical. It seems to me not an option to leave critical responses to unsafe or hostile conditions to those not specifically and carefully practiced and prepared for these eventualities.

I'm an engineer. Some of my responsibilities include quality assurance. I've worked on everything from medical equipment to weapons systems. I don't take safety and mission critical planning lightly. I have worked in highly regulated industries where government certification is an aspect of the development process. Statements about "good guys with guns" are over simplistic and often misconstrued.

Have a great day.

[digonswine]

72. You might-

We are a small school that has no moneys available to hire anyone for safety specifically. We train the teachers and students on the best ways to keep the largest number of us alive.

In this way, we are somewhat prepared-to the degree we can be.

The best response, as I see it and, if possible, is to GTFO with all students. The teacher is also, if possible, tasked with alerting the whole school of the fact of and location of the shooter. This would let others know to GTFO.

Naturally, one's course of action depends upon the physical location of the room, proximity to exits, etc.

Most, if not all, of my coworkers take this seriously and have mentally and physically prepared to take action. If armed, a teacher would be conflicted regarding this action. I think that the goals of keeping all safe and taking out the threat are mutually exclusive. That is, you can do one or the other but not both.

[oneshooter]

77. Take a look at this,

http://shelterinplace.com/

[spin]

26. Before I retired I lived in a fairly bad section in the Tampa Bay Area. ...

I lived in the same home for 35 years. It was a great neighborhood when I bought the house but over the years it changed. When you see cops running down your street in daytime with guns drawn or a drive by shooting happens two houses down the street from yours, you may decide to carry a weapon for self defense. Fortunately I never had a situation where it I was attacked.

Now that I have retired and moved to a more rural area I still have a carry permit and carry. Perhaps old habits die hard or perhaps I realize that there is violence and crime even in rural areas.

If my carry weapon was a fairly large pistol and required a belt holster it would probably spend almost all of its time in a safe. However I carry a 5 round snub nosed revolver that is small and light. On the way out the door I just grab it and it’s pocket holster, slide both into my pocket and head out the door.

[HeartachesNhangovers]

7. Every gun model that's designed for duty use or concealed carry

has a generally-accepted carry mode. In every case, accepted practice is to have a cartridge in the chamber plus additional rounds in the magazine.

Revolvers have been abandoned by the police and military, but continue to be carried by members of the public. Revolvers have no manual safety and are designed to be carried with a round in each chamber and are fired by simply pulling the trigger.

The Glock handgun (in various calibers) is probably the most widely-used by police in the US, and possibly by the public. Again, these are designed to be carried with a round in the chamber. Glocks have no manual safety and are fired (like revolvers) by simply pulling the trigger.

The 1911 handgun (originally designed for military use, mostly abandoned by law enforcement, but still widely carried by members of the public) DOES HAVE a manual safety. The 1911, once again, is designed to be carried with a round in the chamber and is fired by first disengaging the manual safety (as the gun is drawn) and then pulling the trigger.

I would say that the trend in handgun design for decades now, for police, military and public use, is to NOT have a manual safety that must be disengaged before firing.

[digonswine]

9. It would seem to me that that is not terribly safe-

I don't like the idea that there is no "catch"-nothing to do but to apply pressure to the trigger. This goes against the safety practices one employs while hunting.

[oneshooter]

17. If you are worried about a revolver discharging if dropped

AL modern (after 1970 or so) double action revolvers have a "hammer block" that engages if the hammer is let down manually, many engage when the trigger is released. I have 2 DA/SA semi auto handguns. they have a "decocking lever" that allows the hammer to fall on a block. The hammer can not set off a round even if dropped. Pulling the DA trigger drops the block, as does manually thumb pulling the hammer to full cock.
The M1911 pistol has 2 safety's. One a manual safety that locks the hammer back, two a safety in the back of the grip that must be depressed by the shooter gripping the grips or the firearm will not fire.

All also have another safety, the person controlling them, THAT SAFETY NEEDS TO WORK AT ALL TIMES.

[digonswine]

85. I am not terribly worried about a dropped revolver--

But you knew that.

I am concerned about the idea that a trigger-pull is what is required for someone to to fire their weapon.

You and I both know that it is unsafe to keep a weapon in that condition. It is unsafe to keep a weapon in condition where it only requires one pull of the trigger to kill. We all know this. It is the fundamental truth in Hunter's Safety. In every state. To deny this would be silly. In fact, it would be truly foolish. One might even say, that to keep a firearm in such a position would be irresponsible. Unethical. Bad or even wrong. But, again--irresponsible.

[gejohnston]

8. I carry a

pistol that doesn't have a manual safety, but has a trigger pull like a double action revolver or a double action revolver. My son carries his without a round in the chamber (aka Israeli carry, called that being IDF policy and common if not law among civilian gun owners in Isreal.

[digonswine]

10. Please see my post (#9)

I must say that I have not used double action revolvers so I don't know just how much trigger pressure is required to fire the thing. I hope it is not too easy--
One reason I wrote the OP is because I have seen the viral videos of idiots accidentally firing their weapons when pulling them out of the holster, shooting one's own leg, etc. It confused me a bit, since, if the person was handling and storing the weapon correctly on their person(or so I thought), then such an accident would be nigh on impossible.
BTW-I knew I guy that did that, as well---he actually is a complete idiot in every way I can think of, so it was no surprise.

[gejohnston]

14. About 8-10 pounds

NYPD alters their issue pistols for 12 pounds. Some striker fire pistols are as low as 3-4 pounds. I would never use one without a manual safety. I haven't seen the videos, but I'm thinking that could be the problem. That certainly was true with LAPD when they phased out revolvers and double action semi autos for striker fired. That has to do with poor training in the academy, keep your paws off the trigger until ready to fire. When I hunted (wife and I don't eat enough red meat anymore to justify it) I never chambered a round until I was ready to fire.

all pistols (unless it is a "Ring of Fire" gun from the 1970s) are as safe as the person holding it.

[oneshooter]

18. The "New York trigger" for a Glock is 12lb.

THAT and a lack of training/practice is why NYPD can not hit their targets.

[Straw Man]

31. Viral videos.

One reason I wrote the OP is because I have seen the viral videos of idiots accidentally firing their weapons when pulling them out of the holster, shooting one's own leg, etc. It confused me a bit, since, if the person was handling and storing the weapon correctly on their person(or so I thought), then such an accident would be nigh on impossible.

Not true. One of the most famous viral videos is of a man attempting a fast draw with a 1911, a pistol that DOES have a safety. His problem was switching the safety off too soon during his draw -- in other words, while the pistol was still pointing down at his leg. A safety is not idiot-proof. Nothing is.

[sarisataka]

12. If I am carrying something

Without an external safety such as a DA revolver or my SIG then it is indeed ready to fire. If I am carrying my 1911, then the safety is engaged while in the holster although sweeping it off is part of the draw.

Two reasons-
First, a pistol should not even be drawn until there is an immediate threat. A gun is not for scaring someone off, it is to defend against a imminent risk of death or serious bodily harm when all other options have failed.
Second, trigger discipline is the ultimate safety and the finger does not touch the trigger until a choice to fire has been made.

Why do you not consider yourself a friend of this group? What do you believe is the goal of Democrats here?

[digonswine]

13. Well-

Some here have opinions I don't share. I want it to be quite difficult to be able to carry a gun. I don't see it as a right for all. I think it is way too easy to get them, to carry them, --I would like to see more restrictions is place(I won't get into what those would be, since it is a long convo that this medium is not conducive to, and I don't have all of the answers.) I admit-I don't trust most people to handle the responsibility of carrying and that a large proportion of people are bad at perceiving reality.
Your two reasons are fine-I agree. I know people that can't be counted on to put a lot of thought into the responsibility that goes with carrying these things. I feel the same about how we allow people to drive cars. We practically give away driver's licenses to people that show no evidence of their understanding of their own roles behind the wheel.
I have no faith that people are as discipline and understand their responsibility with what they do in the way that you seem to. I am sure many people think hard about these things. I am also sure that many do not even consider this.

I do not celebrate our open laws in this regard. In the past, I have seen some in this group celebrate the loosening of carrying restrictions. I have seen some that have stated that the 2ndA is the most important of our rights. I don't even think of it as a right, but a privilege. In that way, I would say I am not a friend of this group.

I have also seen some in this group express support for stricter regs and sensible laws. I am not comparing most of you to those that would hand out guns in Easter baskets(or some other ridiculous thing).

My more sober self retracts that I am not a friend to this group-I simply have disagreements, which is OK. It does sometimes, though, attract some nuts.

One more thing--I don't quite get why this right is such a big deal for people. I truly do not. Why is this such a great dead horse to flog? But, being the hypocrite I am, here I am joining in the flogging!

[sarisataka]

16. I have not seen a lot

Of celebrating of removing gun laws except in the case of those that are simple feel good laws that are not actually improving the safety for anyone. I would venture to say all here have no issue with there being some restrictions on purchase and ownership of firearms and the vast majority would favour additional restrictions to varying degrees. There have been some posters who appeared here who are of the no restriction at all variety but they tend to not last long.

When you talk about privilege I am not sure if you are referring to ownership or the ability to carry outside of one's home. The former I see as a right no less, nor any greater, than any other, which of course May reasonably restricted as any other right can. As for the ability to carry outside of one's home I do look on that as more of a privilege which can and should be restricted to those who can show themselves responsible enough to handle it.

Disagreement is fine, even if it is of a robust form, as long as both parties are open-minded and actually listen to the other- growth and Improvement is nearly inevitable. Those who come to a debate with simple contrariness and a fistful of Middle School level sexual innuendos I do not see as open-minded nor do I believe they are even interested in any change. They simply enjoy the disruption.

Speaking for myself, I find myself more active on this topic then others as I am in 98% agreement with the Democratic party platform. On most subjects my input would be limited to "me too". Even on the subject of gun control I am far more in line then opposed to it however I believe it can be improved keeping in mind the ultimate goal of reduction of all forms of violence and in particular gun violence.

[tortoise1956]

23. Hey, welcome to your own opinion!

I appreciate that you are wiling to discuss it rationally - that is not often present in the dustups that occur here.

Let me point out a couple of things:
1. I'm not very impressed by those who practice in-your-face open carry weapons. That, more often than not, pushes the average person on the street away from embracing the second amendment.
2. If it were up to me, you wouldn't be able to purchase a weapon until you showed proof of completion of a gun safety course. My dad made me take the NRA gun- and hunter-safety courses when I was 8 years old before I was able to even touch a rifle, and I believe that helped instill in me a respect for firearms that persists to this day, 53 years later.
3. I see no reason to allow unrestricted open or concealed carry. Frankly, I don't care at all for open carry, and concealed carry should require, once again, completion of an extensive safety course as well as a practical demonstration of your ability to operate firearms.
4. I would push for national Concealed Carry, with all 50 states having to meet the same federal minimum standards - no way do I want anyone from a state that issues a CC license to someone just because their body is warmer than room temperature, to be able to CC in my town...

I would like to add that the mere fact that the United States exist is due to the colonists rising up when the Crown tried to disarm them in an attempt to quell unrest caused by excess taxation and the refusal to recognize the rights they were entitled to as English subjects. They recognized that without the right to keep and bear arms, the other rights of the people are indefensible. After all, if the British had successfully disarmed the colonies, we wouldn't be arguing about this. (We probably wouldn't be arguing at all, but calmly discussing it over tea and crumpets...LOL!)

And with that, I'll leave you alone. Thanks for the rational presentation of your point of view, and the willingness to at least listen to me and others when we respond.

[jimmy the one]

34. 2nd amendment mythology excerpt

tortoise: I would like to add that the mere fact that the United States exist is due to the colonists rising up when the Crown tried to disarm them in an attempt to quell unrest caused by excess taxation and the refusal to recognize the rights they were entitled to as English subjects.

Presumably you are referring to the concord massachusetts armory where the british went to 'confiscate' british cannon which was feared would fall into rebel hands unfriendly to the crown. This was british cannon & the british had the right to them, the only confiscation was done by americans who felt the cannon suddenly was theirs. Yes the brits also took or destroyed muskets & gunpowder, most likely supplied by the british.
During the french & indian wars 1756-63 the british & colonists fought side by side the french & certain 'western' tribes. The british sent 20,000 muskets to america from britain to supply the colonists & the war effort. These muskets constituted a large part of american arms circa 1775. American gunmakers were relatively few & produced only dozens per year, they spent a good deal of time repairing. It wasn't until the french sent 125,000 musquettes to washington a year or so later that americans had a goodly supply. Indeed washington fought the first skirmish of the french indian war.
The british side of this tale you spin, is that the colonists grew ungrateful of british help during the french/indian wars, & confiscated british firearms to help in their rebellion. Understandably the british did not want this to happen.

The british did not try to confiscate american firearms en masse, as the nazis did with jewish.

[tortoise1956]

36. Speaking of mythology...

I see J1 is back spinning tales from his fertile imagination. Let me see if I can address at least some of his flights of fancy:

First of all, he keeps trying to differentiate between “British” and “colonists”. The fact is that most of the colonists considered themselves to be loyal British subjects, and as such, expected to be allowed to enjoy the rights of British subjects. That included the right of all loyal Protestant subjects to bear arms for their defense.

I can't lay my hands on the post, but J1 himself actually (accidentally, I think) provided a link one time to a British source that confirmed that, although the right to bear arms in pre-revolutionary war England was limited, it was indeed an individual right. In lieu of that, here is a BBC story that talks about guns in Britain over the years... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7056245.stm

In 1767, Mr. Gerard Hamilton, a member of Parliament who opposed taxing the colonies and indeed thought that the taxes were impermissible under English law, wrote in a letter that”there are, in the different provinces, about a million of people, of which we may suppose at least 200,000 men able to bear arms,: and not able to bear arms, but having arms in their possession, unrestrained by any iniquitous game act. In the Massachusetts government particularly, there is an express law, by which every man is obliged to have a musket, a pound of powder, and a pound of bullets always by him:” quite a few more muskets than he would have you believe...

https://books.google.com/books?id=sADdt5lUSsoC&pg=PA203&lpg=PA203&dq=william+gerard+hamilton+to+gerard+calcraft+letter+armes+in+the+house&source=bl&ots=SvxHxqFvLd&sig=lzw3gWXFov6i7pTKMUoT6hrpAys&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwissI38oOHaAhWHrFkKHbCFBKIQ6AEIRzAE#v=onepage&q=william%20gerard%20hamilton%20to%20gerard%20calcraft%20letter%20armes%20in%20the%20house&f=false p. 203

The British sent troops to America in 1768, led by General Thomas Gage. This was in response to colonial proclamations denouncing the taxes that were being levied on the colonies. These proclamations were considered by the King to be disloyal, in a speech November 8, 1768 at the opening of Parliament.

In 1774, after the Boston Tea Party, the first of the Intolerable Acts referenced in the Declaration of Independence were passed. Among them was an act that gave the governor absolute authority over all judicial and official appointments and removals, as well as appointing sheriffs who then selected all jurors. Gage was appointed Governor of the Massachusetts Bay colony, and told to use his troops as necessary to quell the unrest.

Gage's first effort to disarm the colony came when he began to restrict withdrawals from the local powder houses, where gunpowder that had been imported was stored until merchants and provincial authorities made their withdrawals, without his express order. He rescinded this order after a couple of incidents that were publicized in the local papers.

On September 1, 1774, Gage decided to seize all remaining powder in a powder-house on Quarry Hill. He had been informed by a brigadier general (Brattle), that all powder left in another powder-house in Charlestown was the King's property because all private powder had been removed, and his intention was to ensure that no more British gunpowder fell into the colonists hands. He then began once again to restrict any withdrawals of ANY gunpowder, private or public, from the powder-houses. When the colonists aired their complaints in the Suffolk Resolutions, Gage wrote to Lord Dartmouth (the instigator of much of the unjust actions that led to war) that he thought it prudent to prevent the withdrawal of any powder at all, no matter who it belonged to. He also instituted search and seizure operations at the main entrance to Boston, impounding all firearms and associated material (bullets and powder) that were found.

On October 19, 1774, the King and his ministers put in place a 6-month ban on exporting arms and ammunition from Great Britain, and importing arms or ammunition into the colonies. (That would fall under the heading of disarmament, wouldn't it?) However, the Dutch, who always enjoyed tweaking the nose of the British, cheerfully set about bypassing the ban and providing aid to the colonies, with some success. (This ban was extended for another 6 months in April 1775, but of course by then open hostilities had begun) As a direct response to the knowledge of the ban reaching the colonies, an armed colonial force overran a British fort at Portsmouth and confiscated all arms and ammunition.

The arms storage at Concord was NOT British property. It had been amassed by rebel forces at several farmhouses in the area. Gage had been told by a spy that there were 4 brass cannon there, which were almost certainly ones that had been stolen from the British months earlier. When Gage heard this, he directed a force of 700 men to go to Concord and seize and destroy the rebel caches, and specifically to spike any brass cannon they came across. He also provided a map containing the locations of all houses, barns, etc., where the material was stored. This expedition, of course, led to “the shot heard round the world”. And as far as I can find out, there is no evidence that the brass cannon were ever at Concord.

One quick note – firearms were much more common than J1 would have you believe. According to the study at the link below based on probate records:

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1489&context=wmlr

more than half of all probate records of the time showed guns as part of the estate. They were more common in well-to-do inventories than in poorer ones, of course,but there were present even there. This correlates with the militia requirements that the colonies levied on able-bodied men to be able to show up armed and equipped to defend the community.

As for long rifles, there were at least ten companies of sharpshooters formed at the beginning of the war. These consisted of frontiersmen who had spent their entire lives perfecting the art of shooting accurately to protect themselves and provide for their families. These sharpshooters had been used with great effect during the French and Indian wars. Their main limitation was the time required to reload, which was one of the reasons that they obsessed over hitting their target with the first shot - because the chances of reloading and getting a second shot at the same target were vanishingly small.

The first company that joined Washington's army immediately made their presence known by picking off key British personnel at ranges up to and sometimes exceeding 200 yards with regularity. This led the British to accuse the Americans of being bad sports, since this simply wasn't done...

I think that about covers it. I'll stand by for more Fractured Fairy Tales...

[krispos42]

15. Carrying for self-defense generally means being able to draw and shoot quickly.

Because you can't guarantee you'll have time to get your gun ready and you can't guarantee you'll have both hands free and you can't guarantee that the explosion of adrenaline in your system won't mess up your fine motor skills and clarity of thought.

The KISS principle: Keep It Simple, Stupid!

Your average concealed-carrying person will do so in the same fashion as other people that carry guns for self-defense: loaded and ready while being safe from negligent discharges.

Here's a broad overview of handguns and how they operate.

One of the most widespread of the former is the many variations on the Colt 1911 pattern. This is a semi-automatic pistol with a "single action" operating system; the trigger can only release a cocked hammer to fire the gun. The trigger cannot cock the gun if the hammer is down. As such, this type is commonly carried "cocked and locked"; an ergonomically-correct safety is mounted on the side of the pistol and is switched to "on" after the gun's magazine is inserted and the slide is cycled by hand. Moving the slide cocks the hammer and loaded a round in the barrel. With the safety on, the firing mechanism is frozen. When the gun is drawn, as part of the drawing process the thumb is used to disable the safety. Note: nearly all 1911 pistols also have a "grip safety", a spring-loaded bar that protrudes from the rear of the grip. When not depressed, the grip safety also disables the firing mechanism. The grip safety is naturally disabled by gripping the pistol, while the manual safety requires a deliberate action to disable. Other companies make single-action semiautomatics that work in a similar fashion.

Many semi-automatic pistols are "traditional double action" guns. They are like single-action guns except that the trigger has the ability to draw back an uncocked hammer if needed. The first shot of this type of gun can be either from the uncocked position (with a long, heavy trigger pull) or the user can manually cock the hammer (short, light trigger pull). After the first shot, the gun re-loads and re-cocks itself like a single-action pistol. Note that there are some models that can be carried cocked-and-locked. Because the double-action trigger pull is much longer and heavier than a single-action trigger these guns may not have a manual safety (replaced by a decocking lever), or people carrying them may not use the manual safety if the gun is carried uncocked.

Some semi-automatic pistols are "double action only" guns. There is no provision for the hammer to be cocked so every shot is a longer, heavier pull than a single-action gun. These guns usually do not have a manual safety.

Many semi-automatic pistols are "striker-fired" pistols; the Glock is the most common example of this. When the user inserts a magazine and cycles the slide, a round is loaded into the barrel and the firing system is partially cocked. There usually is no external hammer or safety to manipulate; instead there is a safety lever built into the face of the trigger. The firing mechanism has a block to keep the striker from setting off a cartridge, and only moving the trigger can move the block. The safety lever on the trigger prevents the trigger (and thus the striker block) from moving. The act of putting your finger on the trigger deactivates the safety, and pulling the trigger finishes cocking the striker, moves the striker block, then releases the striker to fire a round. Taking your hand off the trigger activates the safety. Some striker-fired pistols also have a grip safety; I have one like that. These guns usually do not have a manual safety.

Single-action revolvers are what you commonly see in cowboy movies; you have to cock it each time you fire, and because they are not semi-automatic the user must manually cock it before each shot. Because single-action revolvers were phased out for concealed-carry and duty carry by the double-action revolver (and later the semi-automatic pistol) those that are sold tend to be full-sized and chambered for powerful cartridges. If you're carrying one of these, then either it's a modern version with modern safety features and you're carrying hammer-down on a full cylinder, or you're carrying a faithful replica of an original, which means you're carrying hammer-down on an empty chamber in the cylinder. These do not have manual safeties.

Double-action revolvers have the ability to cock the hammer with a trigger pull. Most double-action revolvers have an external hammer so you can manually cock the gun if desired, and some are double-action-only, which can only be cocked by pulling the trigger. Both of these kinds are commonly carried for self-defense because they can be fired faster and require less manipulation of the gun. They can also be reloaded faster than single-action revolvers. These do not have manual safeties.

[digonswine]

21. So--

Because you may be in a hurry AND fumbling with one hand AND at the mercy of epinephrine-fueled tunnel-vision-we need to make it EASIER to fire the gun?
That doesn't sound too great to me. It seems, too, that these stupid accidents with kids and firearms and the accidental firing of guns and killing people just would not happen if these things were more safe. One in the chamber and a few pounds of pressure--this is simply not safe by any reasonable person's standards. No one that hunts responsibly can possibly think this is OK. It goes against the most basic of safety practices.

[krispos42]

27. Responsible people keep guns in this state only when...

...they are either actively carrying them (on their person) or when locked in some sort of quick-access safe. People that own guns leave many, if not most or all their guns, unloaded when not in use.

I own several guns. All but two are stored disassembled, and the two "shit happens" guns are locked up and hidden.

Stupid gun accidents with kids are due to negligence. Not many little kids are stripping handguns from the belt holsters of their parents or using power tools on safes.

[digonswine]

28. I still can't see-

how carrying a gun with no safety on or even available is safe. Any 12-year-old that has been through hunter's safety will tell you that. If you have a gun that has no safety-this is inherently unsafe. It just is(unless not loaded). I'm not sure how much more clear this needs to be. If you have a gun that requires a trigger-pull to fire-this is unsafe.
As a hunter, I constantly check that my safety is on. Always. It only goes off when I intend to shoot and kill a deer.
I would need to be convinced that carrying in that way is safe.
Carrying a gun that is ready to fire in that way is patently unsafe.
I consider carrying a gun around to be a great responsibility. A "this is how people do it"attitude is pretty lame.
Let me be clear--I don't trust people. I think many are foolish and can't be trusted to be responsible.
Any person who thinks they can carry a weapon around, without the mechanical prevention of their making a mistake, is someone I don't trust.
I also look askance at those who think they need to carry a weapon-at least in most communities.
Those that most see the need to carry are exactly the ones that should not be doing so.
Sorry for taking so long for the response!

[Straw Man]

30. There's a big difference ...

... between carrying a long gun for hunting and carrying a pistol for self-defense. When you're hunting, you're constantly moving over rough terrain (unless you hunt from a blind or treestand), and your attention is focused on other things besides the gun. Furthermore, the gun is in your hands at all times, and is subject to interference from branches, etc.

A handgun carried for self-defense is (or should be) carried in a secure holster that covers the trigger. The gun itself is never to be handled except when you put it on, take it off, or use it to defend your life. Furthermore, pistols that don't have safeties generally have longer, heavier trigger pulls to lessen the possibility of a negligent discharge. And of course there is the cardinal rule of safe handling: keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to shoot. I would hope that you practice this even with a firearm that is equipped with a safety.

Need I remind you that second only to "I didn't know it was loaded" in the list of lame excuses for a negligent discharge is "I thought the safety was on"? A mechanical device can be an added layer of safety, but it should never take the place of safe handling. The best a safety can do is prevent you from doing something that you shouldn't be doing anyway.

So you think that all guns without safeties are inherently unsafe? Except for a few 19th-century oddities, this would include every revolver ever made.

[krispos42]

35. The question would seem to be "safe from what?"

Accidental discharges?

When hunting, you are often required to traverse rugged terrain, including pushing your way through tree branches and brush and so forth. Obviously, a manual safety is required to prevent something like a branch from sneaking inside the trigger guard and causing an accidental discharge. A Glock-style safety would NOT be reasonable for a field gun. This is on top of the regular need to have the gun safe against being dropped or handled roughly. Hunting guns have manual safeties, period.

However, when we're talking about a holstered handgun there is zero chance of such an event happening. Obviously, you want the gun to be safe from discharging when dropped or handled roughly, but "tactical" and "hunting" are two different activities that have different demands on the gun.

Obviously, people carrying concealed will not be drawing their pistol unless there is some kind of serious threat; this is analogous to your "it only goes off when I intend to shoot and kill a deer" comment.

As I noted, there are mechanical safeties with concealed-carry guns. Some are built into the trigger itself, some are built into the sides or backs of the guns, and some are long, heavy, deliberate trigger pulls. Nobody with any brains is carrying a gun with a light trigger pull and no safety engaged.

[HeartachesNhangovers]

19. I think the main reason that safeties on handguns

can't be compared to safeties on rifles has to do with the heaviness of the triggers.

You have noted that rifles almost always have manual safeties, and that is true. It's also standard practice to engage the safety on the rifle whenever it isn't being shot. However, rifles - especially hunting rifles - have lighter triggers than handguns. Rifle shooters typically try to get their triggers down below 3 pounds. 2-pound triggers are common on rifles. Some rifle triggers are measured in ounces rather than pounds.

Handguns - unless they are exotic competition guns - are never sold with triggers this light. Police and members of the public that carry handguns typically walk around with 6 to 12-pound (!) triggers, and that includes the Glocks and similar designs.

There is a practical limit to how heavy a handgun trigger can be, since it is very difficult to shoot accurately with a heavy handgun trigger: having to apply a lot of force with your trigger finger makes it hard to keep the barrel pointed where you want. The extreme example of this is the NYPD, which specifies heavier-than-standard triggers on their guns. For this exact reason, NYPD officers are notoriously bad shots. In one especially notorious incident a few years back, 2 NYPD detectives wounded NINE bystanders in the process of shooting ONE suspect, who wasn't that far away from them.

In short: the relatively heavy trigger on a handgun acts as a safety. Most handgun manufacturers already produce such heavy triggers that the trigger is the biggest factor in poor handgun shooting.

[aikoaiko]

20. I haven't carried in years, but when I did...

I carried one of three guns.

1. 1911-style doublewide with a manual safety on and one in the chamber. I only carried this in the winter with a shoulder holster.

2. A very small .380 semi-auto in my pocket holster (Kel-tec P3-AT). One in chamber. It didn't have a manual safety.

3. Light-weight five round .357 revolver in pocket holster. No manual safety.

The most important features for safe carry were:
1. Was I able to conceal it easily, but still access it quickly
2. Did I have a quality holster that retained the firearm well.
3. The most important safety was not unholstering my weapon.

[tortoise1956]

22. I carry occasionally...

Because a couple of years ago, I was accosted at a red light by a younger, verbally abusive man with a tire iron who announced his intention to beat my head in for cutting him off on the road. (Wasn't me, but that didn't matter to him) Luckily, he ran out of time and I was able to drive away when the light turned green. I swore that I wouldn't allow myself to be a victim, ever. The truth is that at 61 years of age, I no longer am physically able to defend myself against a younger assailant without resorting to some sort of equalizer.

Even with all that, though, I don't tend to carry most of the time. depends on where I'm going. (For example, when my stepdaughter ended up in an unsavory part of Las Vegas with a flat tire, I definitely stuck my pistol in my pocket before going down to fix it for her...) When I do, I usually carry a .380 semi-auto with a 14-round magazine in my front pocket (DeSantis holster), with a decocker safety in the SAFE position and the chamber empty. Firing the weapon entails drawing it from my pocket, racking the slide to chamber a round, moving the safety to the FIRE position, and pulling a double-action trigger. In other words, there's no friggin' way I'm accidentally shooting myself in the leg!

As for those who claim that you need to be able to shoot immediately upon drawing the weapon, I would submit that if I have allowed circumstances to deteriorate to the point that I don't have 3 seconds of time to draw and ready my weapon, I haven't been paying enough attention to my surroundings.

Does this answer your question? If not, let me know and I'll be glad to follow up.

[jimmy the one]

37. (redirected) British 'have arms' decrees

tortoise: I see J1 is back spinning tales from his fertile imagination. Let me see if I can address at least some of his flights of fancy:

One recent tale from your infertile imagination supposed that wm rawle intended 'going abroad' to mean going out to the front & back yards of one's house. My DU link below proves rawle meant it as traveling to foreign lands.
>>> tortoise: The most common definition of "abroad", in the language of the times, was outside, as in outside of your house. This invalidates all the fancy language J1 used while talking about traveling armed in foreign countries, https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=205510
__________________

tortoise: J1 himself actually provided a link one time to a British source that confirmed that, although the right to bear arms in pre-revolutionary war England was limited, it was indeed an individual right.

Tortoise above corrupts what I posted, & below is the proof. Observe how he takes one sentence from the 'british source' out of context, disregarding what followed. That is considered unethical, a misrepresentation, & a LIE, since in context it meant an individual right to belong to a militia:

21 British Scholars, my 'british source': The {scalia} Court also correctly recognized that the Second Amendment right to bear arms was an individual right to have and use arms for “self preservation and defense” as in its English predecessor.
However, contrary to discredited scholarship upon which Heller relied, the right to “have arms” embodied in the English Declaration of Rights did not intend to protect an individual’s right to possess, own, or usearms for private purposes such as to defend a home against burglars (what, in modern times, we mean when we use the term “self-defense”). Rather, it referred to a right to possess arms in defense of the realm. Accordingly, the right to own or use arms for private purposes is not a right deeply rooted in our nation’s tradition, https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=178205

tortoise: .. The fact is that most of the colonists considered themselves to be loyal British subjects, and as such, expected to be allowed to enjoy the rights of British subjects. That included the right of all loyal Protestant subjects to bear arms for their defense.

Pretzel logic take 4 is it now? Tortoise argues that colonists loyal to the crown would've been distressed over the british confiscating cannon & arms at concord & elsewhere in order to prevent their mutual adversaries, the rebel colonists, from having those arms with which to fight against themselves - the loyalist/tories - and the crown.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

40. "...the right to "have arms" embodied in the English Declaration of Rights...

...did not intend to protect an individual’s right..."

You seem to miss the point that having a law protecting a right which names a purpose for that protection which explains a government's nexus for making said law doesn't negate other common lawful uses of the right.

It is the same with the 2A. The federalists wanted a national government with a purview of unifying the sovereign states with common interests. Many of the people wanted a delineation of and protections for the rights of the people. That there is A reason for a law named in the law can not be enforced as a limitation of the innate human right of self-defense.

If you want to argue for some collective rights intention for the 2A, please site an authority contemporary to the Founders sharing, in explicit terms, that exact position.

Did the EDoR intend to protect the individual right? I don't know and neither do I care. It is clear that self-defense is valid lawful use of force. Taking the position that self-defense is just using only weapons less efficacious than those in common use by criminals is rather disgusting and Constitutionally offensive.

[jimmy the one]

41. Scalia cited Ben Oliver in heller

dscntn: If you want to argue for some collective rights intention for the 2A, please site an authority contemporary to the Founders sharing, in explicit terms, that exact position

How about Antonin Scalia? the author of the heller decision? will that do?

Benjamin Oliver, from Right of an American Citizen, 1832 (+emph): "The {2ndA} declares ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The reason is, ‘because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.’
. . . The provision of the Constitution declaring the right to keep and bear arms was probably intended to apply to the right to bear arms for such {militia related} purposes only, and not to prevent Congress or legislatures from enacting laws to prevent citizens from going armed. A different construction however has been given to it.” (1832)

Saul Cornell: The problems with Scalia’s plain-meaning originalism are evident in his glib dismissal of the influential nineteenth-century legal commentator Benjamin Oliver:

Scalia, 2008 heller decision: We have found only one early 19th-century commentator who clearly conditioned the right to keep and bear arms upon service in the militia—and he recognized that the prevailing view was to the contrary. “The provision of the constitution, declaring the right of the people to keep and bear arms, &c. was probably intended to apply to the right of the people to bear arms for such [militia-related] purposes only, and not to prevent congress or the legislatures of the different states from enacting laws to prevent the citizens

Sure, by 1832 when Oliver wrote my above top, a militia/individual dichotomy was in full bloom, which was the 'different construction'.

Cornell cont'd: ..it is hard to believe that the Court would cast aside the most influential popular legal writer of the antebellum era. Oliver was a protégé of Justice Story. He not only studied with the influential jurist, but Oliver actually coauthored an important popular legal reference work with Story. More to the point, Oliver’s interpretation of the original meaning of the {2ndA} is almost identical to Story’s discussion.
In his analysis of the meaning of Article I, Section 8, Story noted that: "It was nevertheless made a topic of serious alarm and powerful objection. It was suggested, that it was indispensable to the states, that they should possess the control and discipline of the militia. Congress might, under pretence of organizing and disciplining them, inflict severe and ignominious punishments on them. The power might be construed to be exclusive in congress. Suppose, then, that Congress should refuse to provide for arming or organizing them, the result would be, that the states would be utterly without the means of defence, and prostrate at the feet of the national government. The militia might be put under martial law, when not under duty in the public service. http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/students/groups/oslj/files/2012/04/69.4.cornell.pdf

Cornell: Scalia’s basic assertion is demonstrably false. Oliver was not alone in his views, but shared them with Joseph Story. The notion that there was a general consensus on the meaning of the {2ndA} that supports an individual right with no connection to the militia is simply gun rights propaganda passing as scholarship.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

43. And in that regard:

The provision of the Constitution declaring the right to keep and bear arms was probably intended to apply to the right to bear arms for such {militia related} purposes only, and not to prevent Congress or legislatures from enacting laws to prevent citizens from going armed. A different construction however has been given to it.”

The 2A explicitly articulates a right. The 2A explicitly ascribes it to the people.

You mention that Scalia noted that "...the prevailing view was to the contrary." Was this assertion incorrect?

I'm unconvinced that the Founders intended to protect a collective right but perhaps there is some remote possibility. However, I don't think so. Also, if the 2A was intended as protection for the collective aspect of the RKBA, that still says nothing to the effect of denying any individual component of that right. What I am looking for is writing from some authority, such as Oliver or Story, which argues to deny an individual RKBA for lawful personal purposes.

Explaining that the right of self-defense, a natural right, must exclude the use of firearms really stretches belief. The Heller opinion acknowledges that, like most other rights, the RKBA is not unlimited nor absolute.

So you have Scalia who explains reasonable restrictions are not a problem for the RKBA as in reasonable restrictions do not negate the right. You have Oliver saying that the intent of 2A was to protect the militia abilities of the people. I'm not reading anywhere yet that someone contemporary with the Founders has ever completely denied that any individual RKBA. This would mean that denying that right would class firearm ownership as a type of privilege.

Mea culpa I didn't ask for evidence from a Founder or a contemporary explaining that the individual and personal RKBA was a privilege.

[tortoise1956]

42. Earth to J1...

Wow – where to start? J1 is still defaulting to attempted character assassination and outright lies when he can't prove his point. Let's discuss some of them – again.

J1 has created a fanciful Foreign Half/Domestic Half argument out of whole cloth to try to explain Rawle's limitations on the second amendment. Quoting from his post:

One recent tale from your infertile imagination supposed that wm rawle intended 'going abroad' to mean going out to the front & back yards of one's house. My DU link below proves rawle meant it as traveling to foreign lands.
>>> tortoise: The most common definition of "abroad", in the language of the times, was outside, as in outside of your house. This invalidates all the fancy language J1 used while talking about traveling armed in foreign countries,

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=205510 

OK - let's look at exactly what Rawle wrote, as well as the format:

In most of the countries of Europe, this right does not seem to be denied, although it is allowed more or less sparingly, according to circumstances. In England, a country which boasts so much of its freedom, the right was secured to protestant subjects only, on the revolution of 1688; and it is cautiously described to be that of bearing arms for their defence, "suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law." An arbitrary code for the preservation of game in that country has long disgraced them. A very small proportion of the people being permitted to kill it, though for their own subsistence; a gun or other instrument, used for that purpose by an unqualified person, may be seized and forfeited. Blackstone, in whom we regret that we cannot always trace the expanded principles of rational liberty, observes however, on this subject, that the prevention of popular insurrections and resistance to government by disarming the people, is oftener meant than avowed, by the makers of forest and game laws.

This right ought not, however, in any government, to be abused to the disturbance of the public peace.

An assemblage of persons with arms, for an unlawful purpose, is an indictable offence, and even the carrying of arms abroad by a single individual, attended with circumstances giving just reason to fear that he purposes to make an unlawful use of them, would be sufficient cause to require him to give surety of the peace. If he refused he would be liable to imprisonment.

Notice 3 separate paragraphs? That is because Rawle was following the rules of English writing – when you have a change or modification to the train of thought you are pursuing, open a new paragraph. After he finished discussing how the right to bear arms is treated in other countries, he ended the paragraph and began another that stated that it wasn't an unlimited right. He then used yet another paragraph to detail two cases in which the bearing of arms would be outside the law. Notice he didn't talk about an assemblage in a foreign land in the first instance, so there is no reason to assume he was discussing foreign travel in the second instance. As a matter of fact, Rawle's precision in his writing would have led him to specify if he was using a word in other than the common accepted definition.

Of course, I suppose you could use J1' s theory as a basis to hold that if Rawle was discussing foreign travel only, then those limitations only exist while an American is outside the country, and not inside the country. So, traveling armed in the United States is fine – just don't leave the country. Since it is a pretty good assumption that Rawle was discussing actual limitations of the right while inside our borders, once again his concoction fails to hold up.

(The foreign/domestic half argument seems to be the brainchild of J1 alone as far as I can tell, since there doesn't seem to be anyone else on the internet who espouses that view. As an unsupported, illogical and nonsensical invention, it neither merits nor receives any further mention.)

Finally, J1 goes on to screech that

Tortoise above corrupts what I posted, & below is the proof. Observe how he takes one sentence from the 'british source' out of context, disregarding what followed. That is considered unethical, a misrepresentation, & a LIE, since in context it meant an individual right to belong to a militia:

He then quotes sources that state that it was an individual right, but it was limited. I stated (and I quote): “although the right to bear arms in pre-revolutionary war England was limited, it was indeed an individual right.  “ So, the two parts of this statement are 1 – it was limited, and 2 – it was an individual right. That matches what his own sources state. So what I wrote was true.

So, J1, who's the baldfaced liar here? That would be you.

As a side note - to the best of my knowledge, even after the beginning of actual hostilities, the patriots (they stopped being rebels when they won the war...) did not actively take up arms against the loyalists unless they had begun fighting for the British. This seems to be borne out on the several sources I have checked on the internet. There were differences in how Loyalists who had lost property during the war were treated afterwards, depending upon what colony they had resided in. If anyone has different information, please provide links for future research.

[jimmy the one]

50. jto checkmates the pretzel logic

tortoise: Notice 3 separate paragraphs? That is because Rawle was following the rules of English writing – when you have a change or modification to the train of thought you are pursuing, open a new paragraph.

You footstick again, due your inexperience with Wm Rawle. Unfortunately for you, Rawle footnoted a paragraph you refer to above, with a quote from englishman edward coke, who lived circa 1600.

Rawle, 1825: An assemblage of persons with arms, for an unlawful purpose, is an indictable offence, and even the carrying of arms abroad by a single individual, attended with circumstances giving just reason to fear that he purposes to make an unlawful use of them, would be sufficient cause to require him to give surety of the peace, If he refused he would be liable to imprisonment.8

footnote 8: 3 Coke's Inst. 160. Hawkins, b. 1. c. 60.
pg 70 - 71: http://www.portagepub.com/dl/causouth/rawle.pdf

Rawle's footnote 8 is referring to Sir Edward Coke, an englishman who lived circa 1600, who published rules & regs regarding english law. So it's evident that Rawle was citing how englishmen would've handled the 'carrying of arms abroad'.
Checkmate on tortoise.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/coke-selected-writings-of-sir-edward-coke-vol-i--5/simple

tortoise: Notice he didn't talk about an assemblage in a foreign land in the first instance, so there is no reason to assume he was discussing foreign travel in the second instance. As a matter of fact, Rawle's precision in his writing would have led him to specify if he was using a word in other than the common accepted definition.

You footstick again. Rawle indeed denoted he was referring to foreign travel, ie england, by the footnote to Coke.
Here is the passage from Coke, from my paper to the scotus justices I was telling you about:

Jimmy the one wrote: .. in this particular paragraph, Rawle cited Edward Coke's 3rd Institutes of English Law, circa 1600: "Nor to bring force in affray of the country.. that if any doth enter into, or detaine with force any houses, lands, or tenements, the party grieved may have a writ upon his statute, directed to the sherif, by force of which writ, if the sherif find the force, then if any after proclamation made, (which proclamation is by reasonable construction to be made for avoiding of bloodshed) shall disobey, or if it be found by inquiry [??word uncertain], the sherif is to seize their armes and weapons, and to arrest and take the offenders and commit them to prison".
(There were several other similar decrees on carrying arms in England, by Coke, on the very page this was copied from. Rawle also cited Englishman Wm Hawkins - 1824, similarly worded english law).

Rawle was citing what could happen, by law, to unlawfully armed Englishmen, according to Edward Coke circa 1600's - not excluding foreigners or Americans if they went specifically to England and assembled with arms for unlawful purposes.... any armed assemblages or single individuals could be from any governments, such as Frenchmen visiting London. This applies to our argument in that Justice Scalia cannot single out the American RKBA as what Rawle was referring to, since Rawle's referring to Coke clearly marks the reference as English.
Note I cannot find an link to the exact coke quote this morning & have to go. Here is a link which might suffice, chap IV: http://files.libertyfund.org/files/911/0462-01_LFeBk.pdf

[jimmy the one]

38. redirected #2, prevention not disarmament

As is your wont, you (tortoise) too often don't denote what you are referring to, rather you simply post paragraphs+ & expect readers to magically interpret what you are driving at.
In your post 36 - note I don't know if it is your opinion or a copy & paste from history book - there is a lengthy review of what precipitated the rev-war and the early stages of it, & you rest back smugly with ad hominem as if your paragraphs validate all you contend, when they really don't. Your own post reaffirms my position, & makes yours leak like a sieve:

tortoise posted, or wrote: Among them was an act that gave the governor absolute authority over all judicial and official appointments and removals, as well as appointing sheriffs who then selected all jurors. Gage was appointed Governor of the Massachusetts Bay colony, and told to use his troops as necessary to quell the unrest.
Gage's first effort to disarm the colony came when he began to restrict withdrawals from the local powder houses, where gunpowder that had been imported was stored until merchants and provincial authorities made their withdrawals, without his express order. He rescinded this order after a couple of incidents that were publicized in the local papers.
Sep 1, 1774, Gage decided to seize all remaining powder in a powder-house on Quarry Hill. He had been informed by a brigadier general (Brattle), that all powder left in another powder-house in Charlestown was the King's property because all private powder had been removed, and his intention was to ensure that no more British gunpowder fell into the colonists hands.
He then began once again to restrict any withdrawals of ANY gunpowder, private or public, from the powder-houses. When the colonists aired their complaints in the Suffolk Resolutions, Gage wrote to Lord Dartmouth (the instigator of much of the unjust actions that led to war) that he thought it prudent to prevent the withdrawal of any powder at all, no matter who it belonged to. He also instituted search and seizure operations at the main entrance to Boston, impounding all firearms and associated material (bullets and powder) that were found.

Rebellion was in the air in the colonies after the boston tea party, & gage would've been remiss not to protect crown property from rebellious colonists, & this would've been approved by loyalists & perhaps most of indifferent neutrals.
------------------------------------
tortoise: Oct 19, 1774, the King and his ministers put in place a 6-month ban on exporting arms and ammunition from Great Britain, and importing arms or ammunition into the colonies.

tortoise remarks: (That would fall under the heading of disarmament, wouldn't it?)

Pretzel logic take 5. Technically no, since it was a preventive measure, not confiscatory or a RiF - reduction in force.
Rebellion was in the air; to ship arms to your potential enemy is not a wise idea. Duh. Cont'd next post.

[tortoise1956]

44. Disarmament

As I stated in the parts you quoted, Gage had stopped allowing any withdrawals from the powder-houses, either public or private stores. That is a clear case of disarmament, especially when it was coupled with the ban on importing arms and powder. Somehow, though, I doubt you will allow your brain to untwist itself and concede the point.

As for the Boston Tea Party, that was a direct response to yet another Intolerable Act (the tax on tea), which was driven by parliament and the King. Face it - the Crown decided that there was no need to do nothing more than pay lip service to its overseas colonies, and it blew up in their face. no matter how loud the patriots voices were, they would not have been able to sway public opinion without the plentiful provocations provided by the British government.

Another historical reference - Lord Dartmouth's orders to Gage. It is very instructive to read them and discover that, no matter how far back in history you go, bureaucrats have always been out of touch with events that unfolded outside their immediate purview...

https://emergingrevolutionarywar.org/2018/04/03/acts-of-a-rude-rabble-general-gage-lord-dartmouth-and-ignorant-orders/

And once again, we won - that makes us freedom fighter, not rebels...

[jimmy the one]

47. arms embargoes

tortoise backpedaling as fast as he can: As I stated in the parts you quoted, Gage had stopped allowing any withdrawals from the powder-houses, either public or private stores. That is a clear case of disarmament,..

What you mentioned previously is not what I replied to, which was this: tortoise starting new paragraph: On October 19, 1774, the King and his ministers put in place a 6-month ban on exporting arms and ammunition from Great Britain, and importing arms or ammunition into the colonies. (That would fall under the heading of disarmament, wouldn't it?)
... about midway down: https://www.democraticunderground.com/1172206840#post23

To which I said no, that wasn't technically disarmament, since no one had been disarmed by a ban or an embargo.
Another example of tortoise moving the goalposts & blowing smoke.
I think the bans could be called a tactical or strategic embargo on arms to a potential enemy.

tortoise: As for the Boston Tea Party, that was a direct response to yet another Intolerable Act (the tax on tea), which was driven by parliament and the King. Face it - the Crown decided that there was no need to do nothing more than pay lip service to its overseas colonies, and it bl

Why are you bringing up superfluous information which has nowt to do with the arguments?

[jimmy the one]

39. redirected #3, Fort Pownal, Maine

tortoise, cont'd: This ban was extended for another 6 months in April 1775, but of course by then open hostilities had begun) As a direct response to the knowledge of the ban reaching the colonies, an armed colonial force overran a British fort at Portsmouth and confiscated all arms and ammunition.

What does tortoise mean by 'colonial force'? without specificity you imply the rebels. Please tell us what side the 'armed colonial force' was on, that you refer to.
Let's scrutinize tortoise' rendition above of the attack on british fort pownal, maine:

Letter from British general Gage to Ft Pownal's col Goldthwaite, ~april 1775: Considering the present State of the Country, the most daring and illegal Attempts that have been made against his Majesty’s Government even to the Seizing and dismantling of his Forts. Lt. Graves Commander of his Majesty’s Armed Schooner “Diana” together with a Detachment of His Majesty’s 64th Regiment, are Ordered to Fort Pownal, with directions to take onboard all the Artillery and spare Arms belonging to, and in Store at said Fort: and this is to require you to deliver said Artillery and spare Arms into the Charge of said Lt. Graves, that they same may be secured for the present, and returned at a proper season

same time, observer writes: Presently after came on shore an officer who enquired for the commander of the fort and on seeing him presented an order from General Gage for the cannon and spare arms. He then returned on board and immediately appeared a large number of soldiers on the deck (which had not before been seen) who directly got into boats and came ashore, marched into the fort and went to work getting out the cannon which was carried on board

link: Goldthwaite said that was a reasonable request and then read them Gage’s letter which had ordered the removal. He then explained he had had no choice, it was King George’s fort and weaponry after all, and then pointed out Graves’ threat to destroy everything if opposed. https://allthingsliberty.com/2016/09/fort-pownal-colonial-maine-1775/

[tortoise1956]

45. WTF are you talking about?

I wrote about a fort in Portsmouth being overrun by colonial forces. That would not be referring to the British or their mercenaries.

And the fort I discussed was Fort William and Mary, not Pownall:

http://www.unionleader.com/article/20151206/NEWHAMPSHIRE0310/151209484/1049/NEWS50&template=mobileart

Where in the hell did you pull that one out of? Best you return it before it goes bad...

[jimmy the one]

46. Ports mouth, common harbor

tortoise: I wrote about a fort in Portsmouth being overrun by colonial forces. That would not be referring to the British or their mercenaries.

I suppose I'm partly at fault for thinking you were describing the event properly & accurately.
You clearly said 'portsmouth', not 'new castle' NH. Plus you did not specify a state, and there is a portsmouth in maine as well as new hampshire. And they both had their forts raided, one in 1774, other 1775.

tortoise link: “Dec. 14-15, 1774, several hundred men overpowered the small British garrison at Castle William & Mary, now Fort Constitution, New Castle, and removed quantities of military supplies.
Fort William and Mary was a British fortification manned by soldiers of the Province of New Hampshire. The fort, known as “the Castle,” was situated on the island of New Castle,
Dec. 14, 1774, patriots from the Portsmouth area stormed the post and seized the garrison's powder, which was distributed through several New Hampshire towns for potential use in the growing struggle with Great Britain. On Dec. 15, 1774 again raided the fort, this time seizing numerous cannons.
Britain, which wanted to focus its attention on the military situation in Massachusetts, abandoned the fort, moving remaining equipment to Boston along with Gov. Wentworth.

While portsmouth & new castle are only a few miles apart, new castle is on an island, portsmouth inland, and you do need to get your facts straight before berating others for your own incompetence.
Again you make my point, that the rebels stole from the crown in this case. Reminder to tortoise: for your argument you are supposed to be posting instances where the british stole from the colonists, not vice versy.
-------------------
tortoise: .. the fort I discussed was Fort William and Mary, not Pownall:

You lie. You did not mention the fort by name, you insert the name here to save face. From what you described below, fort pownal would fit moreso than fort Wm & Mary, since you said 'portsmouth' with no state mentioned. Again, do not blame others for your own incompetence. You should be apologizing for not being clearer in your original post.

Here is how you originally described the 'action':

tortoise: On October 19, 1774, the King and his ministers put in place a 6-month ban on exporting arms and ammunition from Great Britain, and importing arms or ammunition into the colonies. (That would fall under the heading of disarmament, wouldn't it?) However, the Dutch, who always enjoyed tweaking the nose of the British, cheerfully set about bypassing the ban and providing aid to the colonies, with some success. (This ban was extended for another 6 months in April 1775, but of course by then open hostilities had begun) As a direct response to the knowledge of the ban reaching the colonies, an armed colonial force overran a British fort at Portsmouth and confiscated all arms and ammunition.
--------------------------
tortoise wrote: As a direct response to the knowledge of the ban reaching the colonies, an armed colonial force overran a British fort at Portsmouth

The link tortoise posted contradicts tortoise' sentence above, attributing the raid on Ft Wm & Mary to Paul Revere's first ride.

tortoise' link: These raids, set off by Paul Revere's ride to Portsmouth on Dec. 13, were among the first overt acts of the American Revolution.”
------------------------------
tortoise: I wrote about a fort in Portsmouth being overrun by colonial forces. That would not be referring to the British or their mercenaries

tortoise contradicts himself again, unsure whether colonials could BE british, or not be british: .. he keeps trying to differentiate between “British” and “colonists”. The fact is that most of the colonists considered themselves to be loyal British subjects, and as such, expected to be allowed to enjoy the rights of British subjects.

[tortoise1956]

49. And again with the calumnies...

Once again you see fit to call someone a liar without any basis in fact. Truth is, I didn't claim I had originally named the fort. You were the one that chose the wrong fort. And I notice you didn't respond to my pointing out that your other personal character attack on me was both untrue and slanderous

Hey Mods - how many times will J1 be allowed to personally attack people and insult other posters before he qualifies for the big boot? I know we aren't Castle Bansalot, but surely accusing other posters of lying on multiple occasions (without justification) deserves some sort of response.

[jimmy the one]

59. how to lodge a complaint

tortoiseA: Hey Mods - how many times will J1 be allowed to personally attack people and insult other posters before he qualifies for the big boot? .. surely accusing other posters of lying on multiple occasions (without justification) deserves some sort of response.

I think the 'Mods' would need you to actually post some of the transgressions you claim I made. I have remained civil, being snarky is not (necessarily) a violation of tos. I have not called you a liar, tho you called me a liar. I posted evidence of you either lying or posting misinformation, while you simply accuse people of improper posting without providing evidence.
I'll give you an example of how to do it:

1) tortoise : ..surely accusing other posters of lying on multiple occasions (without justification) deserves some sort of response.

Examples of tortoise accusing jimmy the one of 'lying', on multiple occasions:
tortoise, Post 42: Finally, J1 goes on to screech that
tortoise, Post 42: So, J1, who's the baldfaced liar here? That would be you.
tortoise, 42: J1 is still defaulting to attempted character assassination and outright lies when he can't prove his point.
tortoise, 42: J1 has created a fanciful Foreign Half/Domestic Half argument out of whole cloth

Now, tortoise, to get the mods to act on your complaint, you need to cite me actually calling you a liar without justification. When I did say you lied, I provided the evidence in a paragraph first.

2) my post 37: jimmy wrote: Tortoise above corrupts what I posted, & below is the proof. Observe how he takes one sentence from the 'british source' out of context, disregarding what followed. That is considered unethical, a misrepresentation, & a LIE, since in context it meant an individual right to belong to a militia:
british scholars: .. embodied in the English Declaration of Rights did not intend to protect an individual’s right to possess, own, or usearms for private purposes.. it referred to a right to possess arms in defense of the realm.

The second time I said tortoise lied, was when he claimed to have discussed Fort Wm & Mary, when he had not mentioned the fort by name, & had misidentified the town where the fort was located (tho town's mis-identity was later understandable).

tortoise: .. the fort I discussed was Fort William and Mary, not Pownall:
jimmy: You lie. You did not mention the fort by name, you insert the name here to save face.

That's how it's done.

[jimmy the one]

60. more contradictions

tortoise: Notice 3 separate paragraphs? That is because Rawle was following the rules of English writing – when you have a change or modification to the train of thought you are pursuing, open a new paragraph.

Yet you had no problem whatsoever in disregarding your own rules above, when arguing you were referring to a preceding paragraph above the one I was referring to:

tortoise 1st paragraph: On September 1, 1774, Gage decided to seize all remaining powder in a powder-house on Quarry Hill. He had been informed by a brigadier general ,.... (much text) .... impounding all firearms and associated material (bullets and powder) that were found.

tortoise starting a new paragraph, referring to the King of England & ministers, not to Gage, nor the boston tea partiers: On October 19, 1774, the King and his ministers put in place a 6-month ban on exporting arms and ammunition from Great Britain, and importing arms or ammunition into the colonies. (That would fall under the heading of disarmament, wouldn't it?)
... about midway down: https://www.democraticunderground.com/1172206840#post23

When I said no, that was not disarmament, tortoise tried to include paragraphs above the one referring to the King & ministers, so as to justify his errant use of 'ban'.

tortoise backpedaling: As I stated in the parts you quoted, Gage had stopped allowing any withdrawals from the powder-houses, either public or private stores. That is a clear case of disarmament,..

Tortoise must think if he does it it's ok, if others do it, it's wrong.
----------------------------------------------

tortoise: Since it is a pretty good assumption that Rawle was discussing actual limitations of the right while inside our borders, once again his concoction fails to hold up.

Since tortoise was dead wrong on the above, proved by a mere footnote which he didn't see, it seems the concoction was all tortoises.

tortoise: (The foreign/domestic half argument seems to be the brainchild of J1 alone as far as I can tell, since there doesn't seem to be anyone else on the internet who espouses that view. As an unsupported, illogical and nonsensical invention, it neither merits nor receives any further mention.)

Now that my 'brainchild' has shown to be valid correct & spot on, and is not 'unsupported illogical or nonsensical' it seems tortoise has crawled into his shell & is suddenly being, well, speechless about it. Yes, there was a domestic half, and a foreign affairs half, to Wm Rawle's 2A treatise, a good way to put it.
Hopefully it is the last we will see of tortoise' ridiculous argument that 'going abroad' meant going outside to your front or back yard.
And hopefully tortoise will stop pretending he knows much about Wm Rawle's writings & other historical vignettes, when most all he really knows is superficial, and a keen willingness to twist facts about.

[jimmy the one]

51. correction on fort pownal

I have to correct a misconception I had regarding the previous discussions on forts.
Portsmouth town/city lies on the border between maine & new hampshire, in new hampshire with maine less than a mile across the river. I errantly contended that Fort Pownal was in a town called portsmouth, when it was not, it was in a maine town stockton springs. I confused the article I cited which mentioned portsmouth, with the fort pownal actually being in portsmouth.
Apologies to any handful of readers following this. None to tortoise since he owes dozens, and my argument is not altered that much.

I errantly wrote: You clearly said 'portsmouth', not 'new castle' NH. Plus you did not specify a state, and there is a portsmouth in maine as well as new hampshire. And they both had their forts raided, one in 1774, other 1775.

The portsmouth in maine I referred to, was a result of the border town portsmouth appearing as a maine resort in a website. Both states had forts raided, not portsmouth. https://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowTopic-g28940-i175-k8648800-4_days_nights_in_Maine_Portsmouth-Maine.html

The historic working port of Portsmouth continues to contribute significantly to the economy of Portsmouth and the towns of New Castle and Newington in NH and Kittery and Eliot in ME.
The Piscataqua River which determines part of the boundary between the states of New Hampshire and Maine and empties into the Atlantic Ocean east of Portsmouth,
http://www.goportsmouthnh.com/explore-portsmouth/the-seacoast/

[spin]

25. I legally carry a snub nosed revolver. ...

A S&W Model 642 .38+P.

It’s small and light enough to be a good pocket pistol and I catty it in a pocket holster.

Since it is a double action only revolver if loaded it will fire if you pull the trigger. There is no mechanical safety that you can engage or disengage.

Of course I carry it fully loaded with five rounds in the cylinder. Most modern revolvers are safe to carry fully loaded.

[jimmy the one]

32. dig on spot on

digon: I truly do not understand what it is that would make someone feel they need to carry a gun-unless, of course, they truly live where the threat of violence is a statistical reality.

I don't know if there is really any such place re violence being a 'statistical reality', outside of known drug haven bums slumming down by the rivers. Recently Detroit had the highest violent crime rate in US, ~2,000 per 100,000 people for year of 2104. That means over the course of a year there's a 2% chance of being a victim. Of course unreported crime would be higher perhaps 5%, which still means over 90% chance you would not be victim of a violent crime over a year. It's just that certain urban areas are relatively more dangerous than others.
I never carried concealed, figure the risk far greater than remote benefits, but if I did it would be unloaded with any bullets in my house or glove compartment.

Gary Kleck's infamous dgu study (defensive gun use), albeit a load of crap, revealed that 54% of dgu's are 'verbal', by just mentioning 'stop go away or I'll get my gun'. Another 20% or so is simply brandishing a firearm, as I could do with an unloaded pistol.

dig on spot on: I would agree that working WITH gun owners would be a good thing. I feel that the fringe control the argument.
Again-I have guns, I hunt, I kill dear(sometimes), and do not want to not be able to do so.-incriminating, ha!
I will happily accept restrictions on my rights to do so. Especially ones that save any lives.
I don't care if the gov knows what I have regarding guns.
I will happily restrict the number of guns I have.
I will happily report all gun purchases.
I will gladly give up the right to clips that allow more than 3 rounds(mine has up to 5)
I will happily prosecute those that feel they need a 20 round clip.
I will look critically upon those that feel they need total freedom in this arena are bad actors.

I regret to inform you, you are somewhat being appeased here. These are generally unwelcome views on rkba. However I support you & hereby plant a kiss of death. I renounced any 2nd amendment right after 2008 heller, as being a subversion of
original intent. Even so, I could go down the nearest gun shop & most probably purchase any gun they had for sale. There is no 2ndA background check to purchase. There might be a far right gun owner who wouldn't, calling me a tree hugging libral, but I could eventually get a gun. The 2ndA is obsolete outdated & a hindrance to preventing & decreasing violent crime rates & safety in america.
The violent crime rate in US fell dramatically during the clinton years, and guess what? so did the gun ownership rate drop dramatically, approx the same 30% rate. Less gun ownership rate, less crime. https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=197829

[Straw Man]

48. Correlation.

The violent crime rate in US fell dramatically during the clinton years, and guess what? so did the gun ownership rate drop dramatically, approx the same 30% rate. Less gun ownership rate, less crime.

I'm sure the drop in violent crime had nothing to do with the booming economy. Nothing whatsoever.

[krispos42]

65. That last paragraph looks like crap.

First off, most violent crimes don't involve guns so reducing the number of privately owned guns by 30% would only have dropped violent crime by 10% or so... assuming that a substitute weapon was not used.

Second, the violent crime rate dropped because us liberals were able to get our social agenda passed a generation before. By cleaning the lead out of the air and water, and by giving women control over their reproductive organs via safe, legal, and readily available abortion and birth-control services the kids born after about 1972 were less likely to be born in circumstances that foster a life of violent crime AND were not brain-damaged from lead poisoning. So twenty years later, the supply of new violent criminals dropped sharply as healthy, wanted babies grew into young adults and they were in better circumstances.

The drop in crime was not due to hardware control; it was due to getting our social agenda passed! The more women control their reproduction, the more the air and water is clean, and the more we treat drug addiction as a treatable illness rather than a criminal proceeding, the lower our crime rate will be.

And I find it fascinating that, according to the survey, gun ownership rate would drop from 45% (or so) in 1990 to 35% (or so) in 2000, that somehow a quarter of gun owners would just get rid of all of their guns... particularly when new gun sales were doing quite nicely during the 90's.







I dunno. If a quarter of gun owners decided to get rid of their guns, where did they go? That's a lot of used guns hitting the market, dozens of millions, yet new-gun sales remained steady at about 15 guns per 1,000 people per year through most of the 90's after a surge in about 1993 that probably had to do with the 1993 AWB.

It's entirely possible that sizeable fraction of gun owners decided they weren't going to tell a voice on a phone if there was a gun in the house, particularly with a gun-control president in the White House. Note that when Dubya was elected the number goes back up while new-gun sales remain flat; the fact that a Republican was in the White House might mean that fewer gun owners lied to the voice on the phone during that era.

[jimmy the one]

80. fair points

krispos: .. most violent crimes don't involve guns so reducing the number of privately owned guns by 30% would only have dropped violent crime by 10% or so..

A fair point, only 8% in 2012. I should hereafter note that non fatal gun crime, rather than referring broadly to violent crime, declined during the periods noted, ~1992 - 2000, and ~2001 to 2017;

May 2013, Bur Justice Stats: Firearm-related homicides declined 39% and nonfatal firearm crimes declined 69% from 1993 to 2011
.. Firearm-related homicides dropped from 18,253 homicides in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011, and nonfatal firearm crimes dropped from 1.5 million victimizations in 1993 to 467,300 in 2011.
.. For both fatal and nonfatal firearm victimizations, the majority of the decline occurred during the 10-year period from 1993 to 2002. The number of firearm homicides declined from 1993 to 1999, rose through 2006 and then declined through 2011. Nonfatal firearm violence declined from 1993 through 2004 before fluctuating in the mid- to late 2000s.
.. In 2011, about 70% of all homicides and 8% of all nonfatal violent victimizations (rape, sexual assault, robbery and aggravated assault) were committed with a firearm, mainly a handgun. A handgun was used in about 7 in 10 firearm homicides and about 9 in 10 nonfatal firearm violent crimes in 2011. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/fv9311pr.cfm

2007-11, about 1% of victims violent crimes reported using a firearm to defend themselves.. A small number of property crime victims also used a firearm in self-defense—about 0.1 percent of all property victimizations.
------------------------------
krispos: If a quarter of gun owners decided to get rid of their guns, where did they go?

They didn't go, national gunstock increases yearly due to sales, offset slightly by normal attrition failure due to age or unreliability factors (ring of fire, cheap sat night special discards). The reason for the decline in gun ownership rate 1992 to 2000 to now, largely, was that new gun owners did not keep pace with increases in population. From 1993 to 2001 US population increased by 25 million people. A goodly (maybe most) % of new guns during that period went to existing gun owners.

US pop -- 1993 260 million (rounded) ... 2001 285 million .... 2016 323.4 mill
1960 180.67 million .... 1970 205 million ...... 1980 227 million
http://www.multpl.com/united-states-population/table

And note your firearm sales graph somewhat corroborates a decline in gun ownershio rates 1993 - 2000, due a decline in gun sales from ~1993 to 2000, for handguns & rifles, while shotguns didn't budge much, remained flat. Read actual sales lines, not the linear line which is a mean or median or average indicator line to fit, ugh, whatever.
Rifles 1993 sales: 10 rifles/1,000 people; 2000: 6 rifles/1,000
Handgun 1993: 14 handguns/1,000; ............... 2000: 6 handguns/1,000
The increase in rifle & handgun sales began ~2009, the obama years (shotguns flat).
----------------------------------------
Krispos: So twenty years later, the supply of new violent criminals dropped sharply as healthy, wanted babies grew into young adults and they were in better circumstances.

Fair points; I believe the rise in violent crime/gun crime from the mid 1960s to early 1990s was spurred by the rise in popularity of the semi automatic firearm (esp by criminals), primarily handguns, while revolvers dropped in relative proportion of national gunstock to ~19%, and semi auto handguns rose to ~19% (oddly enough same %, last figure I saw ~2010) - all rifles ~30%, shotguns ~30%, others the rest.

DoJ/BJS: During the two decades from 1973 to 1993, the types of handguns most frequently produced have changed. Most new handguns are pistols rather than revolvers. Pistol production grew from 28% of the handguns produced in 1973 to 80% in 1993.
The number of large caliber pistols produced annually increased substantially after 1986. Until the mid-1980's, most pistols produced were .22 and .25 caliber models. {tho criminals sought larger caliber sa handguns}.
Production of .38 caliber and 9 mm pistols began to increase substantially in 1987, so that by 1993 they became the most frequently produced pistols. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF

year ........... viol crime rate
1960 ...................... 161 ..
1966: ..................... 220 .. Semi-auto coming into vogue
1976: ..................... 468 .. Semi-auto en vogue
1980: ...................... 597 .. Semi-autos in full swing {wiki above}.
1986: ....................... 620 -- '87; 610 - '88; 637 - '89 {more large cal production}
1990: ...................... 732 -- 91, 758;
~1993: gun ownership rates begin to decline to year 2000
2013 ......................... 368 .. still TWICE the 1960's rate
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=189985

[Timewas]

52. Most semi auto

Hand guns have a safety/de-cocking capability, one exception is also one of the most popular handguns and probably the most carried by leos. The Glock pistols have what is referred to as a "safety" but it is designed only for keeping the gun from discharging when dropped. It is a small lever built into the trigger itself that unsafes the gun when the finger presses on the trigger, if carried with a round in the chamber it requires nothing more than a trigger pull to fire..Nothing more.. it is (IMHO) one of the most unsafe handguns around, a lot of CC holders do not have the trigger discipline required to safely carry a Glock.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

53. Neither do many that OC

Some of them do have a badge and uniform and depend on your tax dollars for their pay.

[Alea]

54. Glocks are safer than you say

It has more safeties also. The trigger pull weight 6-9 lbs is a safety itself. If you pull the trigger that hard then you intend the gun to fire. The trigger also has 2 levels of trigger pull. The first half inch takes about 3 lbs, then you hit more resistance that requires at least 6-7 lbs to overcome and fire the gun.

The trigger itself has a little lever on it that has to be depressed for it to even move. Because of where it pivots, small fingers have a hard time depressing it and pulling the trigger. The first time I ever tried I couldn't pull it. You need more finger on the lower part of the trigger. Most people pull from the center and adults have big enough fingers so this don't matter, but young kids are going to have a hard time either pulling the trigger at all, or pulling the trigger back far enough to fire the gun.

Then as you said, the firing pin safety block. It blocks the firing pin at all times until the trigger is most of the way back, making it nearly impossible to fire if dropped.

Also, one thing most people don't even know about glocks, is that when a glock is cocked and ready to fire, it's not fully cocked. Pulling the trigger not only depresses the firing pin safety block, but it moves the partially cocked firing pin further to the rear, fully cocking the gun just before the trigger sear releases the firing pin. This is done so that if, and a big if, the firing pin safety block gets stuck depressed, and if, another big if, the firing pin slips off the trigger sear, because it's only partially cocked it doesn't spring forward with enough force to fire a round. This also means anyone that carelessly shoots someone and says "I didn't even touch the trigger, the gun just went off" is full of shit. Everyone says that but most people accidentally fire a gun because they pulled the trigger fingering it, or intentionally because they thought it was unloaded. Saying "it just went off" is just a lie you tell the police or family member to try and get out of your careless screw up.

In short, they're designed to shoot when you want it to shoot, and not shoot when you don't mean for it to shoot. A manual flip safety is not a cure all requirement to make a gun safe. Cocked rifles, shotguns, and most automatic pistols that can fire from single action, where only slight movement fires the gun definitely need a safety. An example would be a cocked bolt action rifle or a Colt type 1911 pistol with the hammer back. Once cocked they go off easy so a safety is necessary. Guns that need a long stiff trigger pull of 6 + lbs aren't going to accidentally fire if you touch the trigger or snag it on a small branch. They might fire if you forcefully jam it into you pants or in a holster, but then you're being a moron anyway and just as likely to click off a safety and make the gun fire as you would be with a non safety pistol.

Said earlier in the thread, a double action revolver has no safety. The length and force of the trigger pull means it's not easily fired in double action use. Why no safety for single action use on a revolver when they fire so easily if the hammer is back? It is assumed if you cock it into single action mode, you are going to shoot. Only an idiot would walk around with a cocked revolver unless they had some kind of imminent threat. Glock assumes, and rightfully so, that if you put enough pressure on the trigger to make it fire then you want it to fire, and that your very unlikely to ever put enough pressure on the trigger to fire it accidentally. It also follows reasonable theory that if you're so careless that you accidentally discharge a glock because it had no safety, that you're just as likely to accidentally discharge a gun with a safety.

Remember, no gun has a safety once the safety is off, and people accidentally discharge guns with safeties all the time. If a glock had a safety and the safety was off, it would still be a hard gun to accidentally discharge. It's my opinion that with or without a safety it's one of the safest pistols available for responsible or careless people.

[Timewas]

55. Everyone

Has the right to their own opinion...Have owned several glocks and will take my Beretta for safety over glocks every time.. I am not anti gun and not anti glock really just don't like them being misrepresented as all that safe a gun especially for beginners with little or no training.

[oneshooter]

57. Glocks just don't feel right in my hand. n/t

[digonswine]

84. re you saying there should be limits regarding who carries what? Sure seems that way.

You know-trigger-discipline and all.

This seems like a limiting factor for carrying. I am sure you would agree.

[Timewas]

86. Not at all

I just think everyone should be aware that what Glock calls a safety is way way different than most other safeties.. there is no actual "safe" on a Glock, that little lever is not what i would cal a safety... but that is just my opinion...carry whatever you are comfortable with and would use if the need arrises

[kudzu22]

98. I don't carry very frequently

but when I do, I carry ready-to-fire. Reason being, if you need your gun to save your life, the one second it takes to load it can be one second more than you have. I carry in a holster that covers the trigger, so I have no fear of accidental discharge.