Dildos descend on UT Austin in 'Cocks Not Glocks' protest of guns on campus - Polidicks

[QUOTE=OrkO;50949200]and I think a reason for that is that bats and knives simply aren't as effective at killing as an object that is designed specifically to do that. [/QUOTE] Daily reminder that our non-firearm homicide rate is about [i]double[/i] the overall homicide rate of the UK. That is to say that [i]even with[/i] the widespread availability of firearms, we still kill two times more with non-firearm weapons as the UK does with all weapons. It's not the availability of guns that drives our homicide rate, although I won't deny that it's a contributing factor. It's everything to do with our completely broken social system in major cities. Leave out places like Detroit, Philadelphia, DC, and Chicago and our crime rates look downright European.

[QUOTE=catbarf;50949213]Well gee golly it's a crying shame that we live in a country where police responses are upwards of thirty minutes in major metropolitan centers, police have a frightening chance of killing you (the victim) if you are unfortunate enough to not be white, and courts have repeatedly upheld that police have [i]no obligation whatsoever[/i] to protect you. You could be getting stabbed to death by a home invader and if the police officers outside felt scared about entering your house, they would be legally protected if they just let you die. So you know what, sure, if you can fix that situation then maybe we can talk about the necessity of personal ownership of firearms. I mean, it won't actually fix the problem, since our income inequality, lack of education or gainful employment in urban centers, and school-to-prison pipeline drive massive amounts of urban crime, but maybe it will make it better. Until then, though, all this 'in an ideal world you shouldn't need guns' stuff is pie-in-the-sky nonsense that is utterly irrelevant to the discussion.[/QUOTE] The US is different but i'm fine right now without any guns and relying on the police. This "ideal" world does exist outside the US and maybe even in parts of it.

[QUOTE=RB33;50949224]Homicides happens usually because of a reason or motive, right? I was talking about shootings without a real reason. Average criminals don't usually commit those.[/QUOTE] Considering homicide is a common crime you're just straight up talking out of your ass right here. Like, its on the unlikely side, yeah, but uh... People kill people like... Uh... Every day. Like literally every day. Like. Every day. For petty reasons, personal vendettas, because they panic during a robbery, because you woke up during a home invasion, because you happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. [QUOTE=RB33;50949224]A gun in your own home can be fine, carrying in out in the streets is another thing entirely. You don't have crowds in your house or people with their own guns. You would have both if people carried guns outside. Increasing the risk of innocents getting hurt and gun fights erupting. If even more people are armed, it is going to happen. The lack of it happening now might be due to a relative low amount of gun carriers and responsible gun owners. If that changed, so would the risk.[/QUOTE] Stop telling me it will and SHOW ME when its happened, because we've had people who CC firearms for a long ass time and i havent heard of a massive gun brawl breaking out resulting in random innocent deaths as a result. You can keep repeating "nuh-uh it can still happen" all damn day but until you provide evidence your words do not trump reality. [editline]25th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=RB33;50949244]The US is different but i'm fine right now without any guns and relying on the police. This "ideal" world does exist outside the US and maybe even in parts of it.[/QUOTE] No, not really. First off, people still get shot and still get murdered and robbed in Europe. Secondly, a number of the more gun-restrictive locations in the country have some of the highest crime rates. Im not saying its a result of that directly, but the gun deterrent not being as prominent a factor likely contributes to it in some small fashion.

[QUOTE=catbarf;50949237]Daily reminder that our non-firearm homicide rate is about [i]double[/i] the overall homicide rate of the UK. That is to say that [i]even with[/i] the widespread availability of firearms, we still kill two times more with non-firearm weapons as the UK does with all weapons. It's not the availability of guns that drives our homicide rate, although I won't deny that it's a contributing factor. It's everything to do with our completely broken social system in major cities. Leave out places like Detroit, Philadelphia, DC, and Chicago and our crime rates look downright European.[/QUOTE] While it may be true that our non-firearm homicide rate is double that of the overall homicide rate of the UK, our overall homicide rate is four times the overall homicide rate of the UK. From this, one can imagine that firearms do indeed contribute pretty significantly. But like I said, I am not really arguing against gun ownership in the United States; I said before that I think there are much, much more pressing issues [editline]26th August 2016[/editline] In other words, I agree with you that fixing broken social systems in major cities could deter a lot more crime than gun restriction

[QUOTE=catbarf;50949237]Daily reminder that our non-firearm homicide rate is about [i]double[/i] the overall homicide rate of the UK. That is to say that [i]even with[/i] the widespread availability of firearms, we still kill two times more with non-firearm weapons as the UK does with all weapons.[/QUOTE] probably because we have five times the population the uk does, and major urban centers have higher population densities than most of the country in general.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;50949255]Considering homicide is a common crime you're just straight up talking out of your ass right here. Like, its on the unlikely side, yeah, but uh... People kill people like... Uh... Every day. Like literally every day. Like. Every day. For petty reasons, personal vendettas, because they panic during a robbery, because you woke up during a home invasion, because you happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.[/QUOTE] Those are reasons though. Not doing it randomly for no reason. Anyway, any of this doesn't matter. [QUOTE]Stop telling me it will and SHOW ME when its happened, because we've had people who CC firearms for a long ass time and i havent heard of a massive gun brawl breaking out resulting in random innocent deaths as a result. You can keep repeating "nuh-uh it can still happen" all damn day but until you provide evidence your words do not trump reality.[/QUOTE] I explained why I think it isn't happening now but if the belief that carrying a gun is good become widespread. It will inevitable happen. Not everyone got the restraints as you or most people. More guns will lead to more people who should not having them to have them. Those will in turn sooner or later find each other and shoot each other. Which wouldn't happen if neither of them thought it was a good idea to carry a gun. [QUOTE]No, not really. First off, people still get shot and still get murdered and robbed in Europe. Secondly, a number of the more gun-restrictive locations in the country have some of the highest crime rates. Im not saying its a result of that directly, but the gun deterrent not being as prominent a factor likely contributes to it in some small fashion.[/QUOTE] Yes, I am indeed fine and this world does exist. People getting murdered doesn't mean there is a necessity to own a gun. That's what the police is for. That doesn't mean there are not places with less guns and less crime. Carrying guns isn't necessary, has no reasonable benefit unless you live in a place with no law and lots of crime and just needlessly scares people.

[QUOTE=Pops;50949335]probably because we have five times the population the uk does, and major urban centers have higher population densities than most of the country in general.[/QUOTE]We have a lower population density than the UK though, so if you're going to compare population densities of countries versus cities it all falls apart when somebody like me is the only person in a square mile. I don't think using population, density, or any combination are a good metric to use because the UK is wildly different than the USA and the cultural factors that contribute to crime aren't the same. That's why I get a little annoyed when anti-gun people compare X and Y European country with us, I went and showed how stupid that line of thinking is with the grenade thing.

[QUOTE=RB33;50949458]Those are reasons though. Not doing it randomly for no reason. Anyway, any of this doesn't matter. I explained why I think it isn't happening now but if the belief that carrying a gun is good become widespread. It will inevitable happen. Not everyone got the restraints as you or most people. More guns will lead to more people who should not having them to have them. Those will in turn sooner or later find each other and shoot each other. Which wouldn't happen if neither of them thought it was a good idea to carry a gun. Yes, I am indeed fine and this world does exist. People getting murdered doesn't mean there is a necessity to own a gun. That's what the police is for. That doesn't mean there are not places with less guns and less crime. Carrying guns isn't necessary, has no reasonable benefit unless you live in a place with no law and lots of crime and just needlessly scares people.[/QUOTE] Let's assume my home state of Florida. There are roughly 1.5 million CC licenses in use in the state, let's assume these people are carrying, as they most likely are. Now in Broward County, FL there are 105,000 of these license holders, over 1300 sqmi (Roughly the size of your Gothenburg Metro area). There are 80 concealed weapons within 1 square mile of each other every day. (In lieu of Grenadiac's statement, feel free to cut that down 40/sqmi if you would like) How many times have those holders who have inevitably ran into each other on the streets: A) identified the other person as a concealed weapons holder B) decided to cause any interactions with said person (good or bad) C) caused a shoot out

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50949497]We have a lower population density than the UK though, so if you're going to compare population densities of countries versus cities it all falls apart when somebody like me is the only person in a square mile. I don't think using population, density, or any combination are a good metric to use because the UK is wildly different than the USA and the cultural factors that contribute to crime aren't the same. That's why I get a little annoyed when anti-gun people compare X and Y European country with us, I went and showed how stupid that line of thinking is with the grenade thing.[/QUOTE] the population density of new york is twice that of london. i think it's safe to say we have a higher population density on average.

[QUOTE=Revenge282;50949511]Let's assume my home state of Florida. There are roughly 1.5 million CC licenses in use in the state, let's assume these people are carrying, as they most likely are. Now in Broward County, FL there are 105,000 of these license holders, over 1300 sqmi (Roughly the size of your Gothenburg Metro area). There are 80 concealed weapons within 1 square mile of each other every day. How many times have those holders who have inevitably ran into each other on the streets: A) identified the other person as a concealed weapons holder B) decided to cause any interactions with said person (good or bad) C) caused a shoot out[/QUOTE] Keep in mind many CHL holders don't carry. Many people only get CHLs to bypass background checks.

[QUOTE=Revenge282;50949511]Let's assume my home state of Florida. There are roughly 1.5 million CC licenses in use in the state, let's assume these people are carrying, as they most likely are. Now in Broward County, FL there are 105,000 of these license holders, over 1300 sqmi (Roughly the size of your Gothenburg Metro area). There are 80 concealed weapons within 1 square mile of each other every day. How many times have those holders who have inevitably ran into each other on the streets: A) identified the other person as a concealed weapons holder B) decided to cause any interactions with said person (good or bad) C) caused a shoot out[/QUOTE] A. It doesn't matter if they identify each other or not. Those guns might be drawn if it escalates enough. B. Which is a reason it probably have not have happened. They are few holders to begin with and they probably get along with each other. C. If these people for some reason strongly dislike each other and a fight ensue. Is it possible that a shoot out could happen? By having neither armed or just few people in general, the risk is low. The problem is spreading the belief that being armed is good, then this problem will arise.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50949547]Keep in mind many CHL holders don't carry. Many people only get CHLs to bypass background checks.[/QUOTE] Very good point. I would say that half ought to carry. Perhaps my area is a bit biased, but while I know a handful of people who have gotten then strictly for making gun purchases easier, 8/10 still carry with theirs regularly. [editline]25th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=RB33;50949552]A. It doesn't matter if they identify each other or not. Those guns might be drawn if it escalates enough. B. Which is a reason it probably have not have happened. They are few holders to begin with and they probably get along with each other. C. If these people for some reason strongly dislike each other and a fight ensue. Is it possible that a shoot out could happen? By having neither armed or just few people in general, the risk is low. The problem is spreading the belief that being armed is good, then this problem will arise.[/QUOTE] A) it does, because the people who hold these licenses are evaluated by the State as upstanding citizens. Exactly the kind of people who are not prone to lashing out violently, seeking conflict, or just being belligerent in any form. B) That is about the most dense area you will find CC holders in Florida unless you go to a gun show, and by your logic, no one leaves there alive... C) This is completely irrelevant to the issue of CC holders, but again, see point A. There are standards, laws, and ethics that have to be met to get a license and to keep it. And once you have one, any slight fuck up will ruin your chances for it again, and likely a firearm.

[QUOTE=RB33;50949458]Those are reasons though. Not doing it randomly for no reason. Anyway, any of this doesn't matter.[/QUOTE] Yes. And? I dont get your point. The danger is still there, who cares about the motive? [QUOTE=RB33;50949458]I explained why I think it isn't happening now but if the belief that carrying a gun is good become widespread. It will inevitable happen. Not everyone got the restraints as you or most people. More guns will lead to more people who should not having them to have them. Those will in turn sooner or later find each other and shoot each other. Which wouldn't happen if neither of them thought it was a good idea to carry a gun.[/QUOTE] Dude stop telling me and show me. Show. Dont tell. How hard is that? [QUOTE=RB33;50949458]Carrying guns isn't necessary, has no reasonable benefit unless you live in a place with no law and lots of crime and just needlessly scares people.[/QUOTE] It does have a purpose, you're just being ignorant to it because you'd rather ignore a problem than confront it.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;50949684]Yes. And? I dont get your point. The danger is still there, who cares about the motive?[/QUOTE] I don't see why you have to keep talking about it when it wasn't even one of my points, only an exception to who have guns. Criminals have guns. That's it. I never meant anything else with that. [QUOTE]Dude stop telling me and show me. Show. Dont tell. How hard is that?[/QUOTE] Well, go ahead ignore everything I say as long as it isn't exactly what you want. Try give an actual answer to what I wrote instead. I'm supposed to show you evidence of something happening in a scenario which isn't happening. I said it will happen, I can't prove what hasn't happened yet. Common sense tells you that it will reasonably happen. Ignoring what's probable is not good for anyone. [QUOTE]It does have a purpose, you're just being ignorant to it because you'd rather ignore a problem than confront it.[/QUOTE] I don't ignore it, I support it being illegal carrying guns in public. They create more problems than they solve.

People have been carrying guns for hundreds of years. It hasn't been recorded yet. If it happens tomorrow it'll be one time in 600 years of private firearms ownership.

[QUOTE=RB33;50949907]I don't ignore it, I support it being illegal carrying guns in public. They create more problems than they solve.[/QUOTE] You do ignore it. You ignore the reason why he's asking you to provide proof of your claim, so that way the problem you are imagining seems more valid. It has literally never happened. Ever. Once.

[QUOTE=RB33;50949907]Common sense tells you that it will reasonably happen.[/QUOTE] common sense doesn't mean much these days. you're better off thoroughly explaining your reasoning than appealing to something that can mean nearly anything depending on who you're talking to,

[QUOTE=Pops;50949533]the population density of new york is twice that of london. i think it's safe to say we have a higher population density on average.[/QUOTE]Well as I said earlier safety is an illusion: UK population is 64.1 million with a land area of 94,058 square miles which gives them a population density of 681.49 people per square mile, the USA has a population of 318.9 million and a land area of 3,796,742 square miles which gives us a population of 83.99 people per square mile. None of this matters, it's a stupid thing to compare because the USA and the UK are not the same.

Its better to compare a country to itself rather than to another country when determining effects of laws (such as guns). UK murder and violent crime rates have been rising for quite a few decades now. Regardless of attempts by Parliament to outlaw things deemed weapons. Instead of studying the causes of crime and what can be done to make people choose not to commit crimes people just legislate against inanimate objects. I only have one life to live. I prefer the means by which I can most effectively defend it from those who would threaten to take it away. Regardless if they are only threatening my life for some cash or other material. I don't know what they'll do after they've gotten the items they're after or if robbery was even what they really wanted to do. Let me be able to defend my life. If those of you on this forum who choose not to, then don't. I'm certainly not for forcing you to walk around with guns, but don't sit here and try to force me to disarm for your feelings.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50941795]you can't really make 1:1 comparisons with everything. you're comparing apples and oranges with that logic and in some cases it ends up looking really stupid yes a gun and a fire extinguisher can be both preventative measures in a house. but it is sometimes the case that it's wiser to get out of the house then to try tackling the fire yourself. i have nothing against a gun in the house as long as its unloaded and kept in a locked drawer or gun cabinet. just because somebody supports gun law reform doesn't mean you can't have a gun in your house[/QUOTE] a gun you can't get to is as good as no gun at all. firearms safety is more important and more effective than just hiding them [editline]26th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=ShazzyFreak0;50941925]the worst part about this is that one of the best econ professors at the university retired because of the new law. sucks for econ majors.[/QUOTE] I don't want to be taught any subject by a manchild like that

[QUOTE=OrkO;50949132]Gang violence using firearms is very prevalent in the United States, but not so much in countries with strong restrictions on gun ownership. I believe there is a reason for that.[/QUOTE] Yeah, it's called poverty levels and poor education. Gun-related violence is a symptom of the actual problem and not the problem itself. If the US addressed poverty levels, the horribly lacking education standards in poverty-stricken areas, and stuff like mental healthcare then you'd see gun-related crime drop drastically. On the flip side, if the US tried to completely get rid of guns it'd only cause a massive spike in gun crime. There's an absurd number of guns in the nation to begin with and quite a lot of gun owners strongly believe in the second amendment and view it as an important part of our culture. Trying to remove it would see a lot of anti-establishment militias forming and a lot of problems with people like Sovereign Citizens. And if the government tried to seize weapons even if they somehow succeeded in getting rid of the second amendment you'd see lots of news stories about law enforcement arriving to seize someone's guns and a gunfight breaking out over it. Also one other important thing to note: Our current prison system actually encourages reoffending. Since it's a punitive system instead of rehabilitative one you get a felony on your record and you'll suddenly find it very difficult to get a job, especially if the felony is a violent or sexual crime. So getting rid of guns would cause a lot of crime which would feed back on itself through the issues with our criminal justice system resulting in many of those criminals reoffending later on as well. [QUOTE=RB33;50949552]A. It doesn't matter if they identify each other or not. Those guns [B]might[/B] be drawn if it escalates enough.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]might[/QUOTE] [QUOTE][B][U]MIGHT[/U][/B][/QUOTE] This is literally the entire issue with your arguments that he keeps pointing out. You are arguing what [I]might[/I] happen and ignoring that it doesn't in reality.

Snip, late reply

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50949928]People have been carrying guns for hundreds of years. It hasn't been recorded yet. If it happens tomorrow it'll be one time in 600 years of private firearms ownership.[/QUOTE] If you're telling me that 2 people with guns who have met each other never have fired upon each other, then this discussion is over. It should be obvious such a thing must have happened, you don't always have guns to not use them. [editline]26th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Revenge282;50950009]You do ignore it. You ignore the reason why he's asking you to provide proof of your claim, so that way the problem you are imagining seems more valid. It has literally never happened. Ever. Once.[/QUOTE] Claiming that it has never happened is as bad as claiming it has happened without proof. You can't reasonablý know that something hasn't ever happened someplace for some reason. It's a huge claim to say that. Everything has probably happened at least once in our world. But if you think it's that an unreasonable thing to happen. You are free to believe that. [editline]26th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Alice3173;50950304]This is literally the entire issue with your arguments that he keeps pointing out. You are arguing what [I]might[/I] happen and ignoring that it doesn't in reality.[/QUOTE] Reality is currently not mass-arming of civilians and irresponsibe people in public. If it happened, that would likely lead to conflict between gun carrying people. People fighting without guns now would then instead fight with guns. So that's why I hope people are not convinced that carrying guns is a good thing.

[QUOTE=RB33;50950852]Reality is currently not mass-arming of civilians and irresponsibe people in public. If it happened, that would likely lead to conflict between gun carrying people. People fighting without guns now would then instead fight with guns. So that's why I hope people are not convinced that carrying guns is a good thing.[/QUOTE] Uh, we're talking about the US not Sweden so... You're kinda on the wrong track? The entire issue with your argument is you're failing to understand that while it may be a fairly small percentage of the population there are a huge amount of people here who ARE carrying weapons at any given point in time. Yet what you are saying is going to happen simply does not happen. To try to say otherwise is denying reality which is pretty delusional.

[QUOTE=RB33;50949244]The US is different but i'm fine right now without any guns and relying on the police. This "ideal" world does exist outside the US and maybe even in parts of it.[/QUOTE] 'I can trust the police in my country therefore you have no reason not to trust the police in your totally different country, despite the clearly documented differences between our police and yours' Is this seriously what you're arguing? [QUOTE=RB33;50950852]Reality is currently not mass-arming of civilians and irresponsibe people in public. If it happened, that would likely lead to conflict between gun carrying people.[/QUOTE] The reality is that a hundred years ago guns were cheaper, far easier to procure, more socially accepted, less regulated, and regularly bought by people with no formal firearm education whatsoever. And yet your fantasy scenario of bloodbath in the streets [i]didn't happen[/i]. You are arguing on purely hypothetical grounds when every shred of available evidence offers [i]zero[/i] support for your claims. Your argument has no ground to stand on.

[QUOTE=Alice3173;50950880]Uh, we're talking about the US not Sweden so... You're kinda on the wrong track? The entire issue with your argument is you're failing to understand that while it may be a fairly small percentage of the population there are a huge amount of people here who ARE carrying weapons at any given point in time. Yet what you are saying is going to happen simply does not happen. To try to say otherwise is denying reality which is pretty delusional.[/QUOTE] My argument is that if someone says arming people is a good thing, scares away potential criminals and if enough people are doing it. Bad people will do it too, legally as everyone else. Those people in the wrong moment are not as likely to keep calm. It's a real risk that shouldn't be ignored as if it could never happen. Arming people isn't a flawless plan. That's all I wanted to say. Now I am happy living somewhere where this isn't an issue and I don't have to argue things like this. [editline]26th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=catbarf;50950906]'I can trust the police in my country therefore you have no reason not to trust the police in your totally different country, despite the clearly documented differences between our police and yours' Is this seriously what you're arguing?[/QUOTE] Your argument was that this ideal world doesn't exist. I think it does, just maybe not in ths US. [QUOTE]The reality is that a hundred years ago guns were cheaper, far easier to procure, more socially accepted, less regulated, and regularly bought by people with no formal firearm education whatsoever. And yet your fantasy scenario of bloodbath in the streets [i]didn't happen[/i]. You are arguing on purely hypothetical grounds when every shred of available evidence offers [i]zero[/i] support for your claims. Your argument has no ground to stand on.[/QUOTE] Did most people carry a gun when taking a walk then? No violent confrontations ever happened with guns? If people fight without guns, you don't think they could fight with them if they were armed? It's a possibility bad to ignore, however unlikely you think it is.

[QUOTE=RB33;50950912]My argument is that if someone says arming people is a good thing, scares away potential criminals and if enough people are doing it. Bad people will do it too, legally as everyone else. Those people in the wrong moment are not as likely to keep calm. It's a real risk that shouldn't be ignored as if it could never happen. Arming people isn't a flawless plan. That's all I wanted to say. Now I am happy living somewhere where this isn't an issue and I don't have to argue things like this.[/QUOTE] Again, as AaronM202 kept requesting, show proof that these concerns are valid. You keep talking about how it's going to happen yet you cannot back up your claims. Thus your claims are completely invalid.

[QUOTE=Alice3173;50950939]Again, as AaronM202 kept requesting, show proof that these concerns are valid. You keep talking about how it's going to happen yet you cannot back up your claims. Thus your claims are completely invalid.[/QUOTE] forgive me if i'm wrong here, but he's claiming that "open carry could be abused by bad people" and that "people in the wrong moment are not likely to keep calm" the first one is technically correct, as there have been mass shootings committed by people with open carry licenses (this isn't to suggest that there's any causal link there, but that open carry has been abused by a mass shooter), and the second also seems sound in that there are cases where officers who are given days (in terms of hours) of firearms training who misuse their weapon, so are armed civilians better than that? i'm not a fan of the self-righteousness of his last sentence, but I don't understand how the two points there are vehemently disagreeable

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;50950970]forgive me if i'm wrong here, but he's claiming that "open carry could be abused by bad people" and that "people in the wrong moment are not likely to keep calm" the first one is technically correct, as there have been mass shootings committed by people with open carry licenses (this isn't to suggest that there's any causal link there, but that open carry has been abused by a mass shooter), and the second also seems sound in that there are cases where officers who are given days (in terms of hours) of firearms training who misuse their weapon, so are armed civilians better than that? i'm not a fan of the self-righteousness of his last sentence, but I don't understand how the two points there are vehemently disagreeable[/QUOTE] The entire issue is he's arguing on a theoretical level and ignoring reality to do so. It [I]could[/I] be abused by bad people. But the reality of the situation is that it actually isn't abused by bad people so his concern is completely invalid.

[QUOTE=RB33;50950912]Your argument was that this ideal world doesn't exist. I think it does, just maybe not in ths US.[/QUOTE] Oh for fuck's sake, that is [B]bullshit[/B]. I explicitly said that this isn't the reality of the US, and you are the one saying Americans have no reason to concealed carry and should just trust the police. So, what, you're admitting your entire argument is pointless? You can't say 'you have no reason to concealed carry and it will only make things worse just trust the police' and then I point out that the police in the US [I]can't be trusted[/I] try to say 'oh I just mean in the hypothetical case that you have a functioning police force but isn't reality because I'm just here to intellectually masturbate over my opinions'. [QUOTE=RB33;50950912]Did most people carry a gun when taking a walk then? No violent confrontations ever happened with guns? If people fight without guns, you don't think they could fight with them if they were armed? It's a possibility bad to ignore, however unlikely you think it is.[/QUOTE] Yes, they carried guns, and it wasn't enough of a societal problem to ban concealed carry. The need for permits arose as a response to bootleggers and gangsters, not ordinary civilians getting in frenetic shootouts because they saw other concealed carriers. You have still given [I]no evidence whatsoever[/I] that this is a legitimate concern, just empty assertions of oh yeah this will totally happen guys. [QUOTE=Cloak Raider;50950970]the first one is technically correct, as there have been mass shootings committed by people with open carry licenses (this isn't to suggest that there's any causal link there, but that open carry has been abused by a mass shooter), [/QUOTE] Huh? There's no such thing, to my knowledge, as an open carry license. Open carry is generally either legal to everyone or illegal, you get a permit to concealed carry. I've never heard of a mass shooting committed by an open or concealed carrier, I'd be genuinely curious if you have a link. [QUOTE=Cloak Raider;50950970]and the second also seems sound in that there are cases where officers who are given days (in terms of hours) of firearms training who misuse their weapon, so are armed civilians better than that?[/QUOTE] As I said on the last page, most police do not get much weapons training and yes, armed civilians who have gone through concealed carry courses and practice on the weekends have more weapons training and familiarity than your average 'shoots for qualification once a year' cop. If you go back to the last page you can also see that concealed carriers in the US are 23 times [I]less[/I] likely to commit a firearm-related offense than police. The idea that cops are skilled professionals and concealed carriers are gun-packin' yokels is demonstrably false.