Mass Shooting Shows Need For Guns In Airports, GOP Lawmaker Says - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51642613]-big post-[/QUOTE] Thanks for the breakdown of the CCW license requirements where you're from, that is actually quite interesting to me. I'll concede that I was way off on the disarm thing, bit of a brain fail there, obviously the weapon would be quite concealed, that is kinda the point after all. I still have trouble believing that the police would be less trained and less equipped to deal with the situation. Also I'm hesitant to mention this as I know that gun crimes are more often than not committed with illegally obtained firearms, but opening up the possibility for a license holder to take his gun into a highly populated area like an airport to shoot people just seems like it far outweighs any potential benefit for allowing it. Like I said, I know this is unlikely, criminals don't go through legal channels to commit crimes, and you have the same risk with giving cops firearms too, but it doesn't sit right with me. I obviously have a lot of bias being from the UK, so it's probably just cultural differences, but adding more guns just seems so wild to me, regardless of how well-trained the carriers are.

[QUOTE=Menien Goneld;51643537]Thanks for the breakdown of the CCW license requirements where you're from, that is actually quite interesting to me. I'll concede that I was way off on the disarm thing, bit of a brain fail there, obviously the weapon would be quite concealed, that is kinda the point after all. I still have trouble believing that the police would be less trained and less equipped to deal with the situation. Also I'm hesitant to mention this as I know that gun crimes are more often than not committed with illegally obtained firearms, but opening up the possibility for a license holder to take his gun into a highly populated area like an airport to shoot people just seems like it far outweighs any potential benefit for allowing it. Like I said, I know this is unlikely, criminals don't go through legal channels to commit crimes, and you have the same risk with giving cops firearms too, but it doesn't sit right with me. I obviously have a lot of bias being from the UK, so it's probably just cultural differences, but adding more guns just seems so wild to me, regardless of how well-trained the carriers are.[/QUOTE] Thing is, theres between 100 million and a billion guns in the US, depending on who you ask, with a more reasonable number of around 300 million. Theres also 14.5 million concealed carry license holders in the US as of July 2016, with a couple million being added every year. Concealed carriers can already carry in places that are far more densely populated than an airport. I can understand some places having exclusivity like a school, church, government building, but the non-secure area of an airport? That just doesn't make sense. I understand that guns can seem like some sort of scary death-dealing exclusively evil weapon, but the majority sit in gun safes and are used for hunting or sporting use. A firearm is only dangerous if you handle it dangerously. When you consider that gun crime is dropping and theres less than 10k deaths a year to 100 million guns (using the low number), the US is doing pretty well with it's gun crime. It's especially less scary when you consider that the majority of deaths in the US come from self inflicted harm; alcohol, cigarettes, obesity, ect. 1 firearm related death is too many, and the majority of those deaths are accidents or suicides, but concealed carry classes help with that. People understanding the weight and the needed safety when it comes to firearms is only good. If you ask me, kids should be required to take a safety course in school so they can be more aware of firearms and how to safely handle them, and not to touch the damn things without permission.

All I've learnt from this thread is that American police are fucking garbage, to the point where its citizens have to take their protection into their own hands. I guess the outsiders' perspective is that this indicates some sort of failing within the American police system, whereas Americans are perfectly fine with it.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;51644550]All I've learnt from this thread is that American police are fucking garbage, to the point where its citizens have to take their protection into their own hands. I guess the outsiders' perspective is that this indicates some sort of failing within the American police system, whereas Americans are perfectly fine with it.[/QUOTE] American police are just fine. But they, like any other police force, have to travel to wherever the situation they were called to is occurring. America is a large country. So the idea is that people would be able to stop the situation or hold off an attacker until police could respond. America is very much a country founded on the principles of self-reliance. Meaning we can take care of ourselves and don't need the government. That doesn't mean the police and government don't have a place. They do. But I, like many others in this country, will not be running or hiding or hoping that the police come and save me in an active shooter type situation. I will deal with anyone that threatens the lives of me or my family. The police will arrive as fast as they can, but most of the time they just end up arriving after things are over.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;51644550]All I've learnt from this thread is that American police are fucking garbage, to the point where its citizens have to take their protection into their own hands. I guess the outsiders' perspective is that this indicates some sort of failing within the American police system, whereas Americans are perfectly fine with it.[/QUOTE] When you have seconds to live, the police are minutes away. It's a simple problem of logistics. If someone is holding me at gunpoint or kicking down my door, I don't need a police officer to pull up in a squad-car 20 minutes later, all he's going to be able to do is process the crime-scene. I need a way to handle the situation myself.

Police are at the airport already by federal regulations. Jesus Christ people. Their response time is only limited to how fast they can run

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;51644550]All I've learnt from this thread is that American police are fucking garbage, to the point where its citizens have to take their protection into their own hands. I guess the outsiders' perspective is that this indicates some sort of failing within the American police system, whereas Americans are perfectly fine with it.[/QUOTE] Well, we can have a police state like the UK does where invasion of privacy is in the norm with 2 dozen CCTV cameras on every street corner, or we can do it like we have been and deal with a slower than average police response time and have the option of defending ourselves, which your country doesn't really allow. Personally I like how things are, where we live in relative safety but can still choice to defend ourselves from any potential threat.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51646563]Well, we can have a police state like the UK does where invasion of privacy is in the norm with 2 dozen CCTV cameras on every street corner, or we can do it like we have been and deal with a slower than average police response time and have the option of defending ourselves, which your country doesn't really allow. Personally I like how things are, where we live in relative safety but can still choice to defend ourselves from any potential threat.[/QUOTE] Hey at least i can live my life without needing to have a weapon on me at all times. People in this country dont need to worry about defending themselves, but then again we dont deal with monthy mass shootings.

[QUOTE=Menien Goneld;51641981]So, statistically concealed carriers commit firearm-related offenses less than police officers. Say I believe this without any source or information offered. This is believable if you accept that concealed carry people aren't involved in as many firearm related incidents as police officers, because why would they? Unless they're deliberately looking for trouble. [/quote] Per John Lott's research police commit [url=http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/02/24/guns-and-new-york-times-why-shouldnt-americans-be-able-to-defend-themselves.html]over 22 times more weapon violations[/url] than concealed carriers. I can accept that police are more likely to be put in a position to screw up, but concealed carriers are carrying day-in and day-out. The 'untrained wannabes' myth falls apart when you look at the evidence, which shows that concealed carriers are far more responsible with their weapons, and in general law-abiding (six times fewer felony convictions), than police. [QUOTE=Menien Goneld;51641981]I would still take a 'minimally' trained police officer over just some guy.[/QUOTE] Then that's how you get the NYPD, so poorly trained and equipped that in [url=url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Empire_State_Building_shooting]a shootout with a disgruntled office worker[/url] managed to shoot [i]nine[/i] bystanders. Those are the people you want taking out a mass shooter? As Cyke explained, concealed carriers are held to a much higher standard. Not a 'similar' standard, not even the 'same' standard, but a much [i]higher[/i] standard than the overwhelming majority of American police who shoot for qualification once a year. Police are not soldiers. When it comes to use of weapons, they're much closer to 'just some guy' than somebody who's jumped through all the hoops to get a permit. [QUOTE=Menien Goneld;51641981]If this tops it, then I must be mistaken, and concealed carry people must be on the lookout for terrorists and mass shooters all the time, in which case, I'm sorry my perspective of your country was so mistaken. I didn't realise that everybody was constantly on alert for the next big incident, even more so than the police [/QUOTE] Nobody's constantly on alert, and that includes police. Concealed carriers do demonstrate better awareness than the general population but nobody is constantly in ready for a terrorist attack. [QUOTE=Menien Goneld;51641981]And before you get into the details of how retention holsters work, I didn't mean that the guy would literally take his gun, but rather that he would disarm him by threatening to shoot him, which could happen anytime.[/QUOTE] Yes, I understood exactly what you meant. Find me examples of mass shooters disarming police by threatening to shoot them. Surely if concealed carriers with hidden guns (you understand that part of 'concealed' is that it literally cannot be visible, right?) are at risk of being disarmed, then uniformed police with holsters on their hips would be at even greater risk. Yet it doesn't happen.

[QUOTE=Zombinie;51634955]It's hard to say why it feels wrong, but I think it has to do with the saturation of guards and security already there.[/QUOTE] If you've ever worked at an airport you will find out the "security" is bullshit. I worked at an airport for almost 3 years, 6 months as a security guard. We were unarmed security, the fuck were we gonna stop? The only people who had firearms were the airport police. Airport security is a fucking joke.

[QUOTE=Pantz Master;51634407]This is a leftist anti-gun propaganda talking point that has somehow caught on and been very successful. Tell me. If somebody is going postal in your office, would you die happy knowing that "at least my co-workers won't shoot me by accident!"?[/QUOTE] If someone goes postal at your workplace chances are you're going to be a dead fool before you can pull that concealed gun, disengage the safety, load it and point it at the already shooting and ready to kill target. Like, I get that it [I]technically[/I] improves your odds of survival, but in any practical setting, unless you're going to work/school/wherever [I]expecting[/I] a shooting to happen (at which point the mental strain would just make you insane), it would not be helpful. Not to mention that it's a band-aid solution regarding all the other problems related to people going postal such as mental health which is by far the most disregarded aspect of all of these shootings. The reason those people go under the radar for so long isn't because they have access to guns and others don't, it's because nobody cares to look.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;51648901]If someone goes postal at your workplace chances are you're going to be a dead fool before you can pull that concealed gun, disengage the safety, load it and point it at the already shooting and ready to kill target.[/QUOTE] 1. That's not how people generally carry. Typically the weapon is kept loaded, and popular designs don't use manual safeties. You can go from normal to low ready in about two seconds. 2. You realize most mass shooting events don't involve the attacker quickdraw killing everyone in the room instantly, right? In examples like the Clackamas Mall shooting or the Uber driver in Chicago, the concealed carriers who ended the threat were bystanders who had time to react to the shooter. [QUOTE=Ganerumo;51648901]unless you're going to work/school/wherever [I]expecting[/I] a shooting to happen (at which point the mental strain would just make you insane), it would not be helpful.[/QUOTE] I don't come home every day expecting to put out a fire but I think a fire extinguisher is helpful to have all the same. Can you give any support for the claim that a CC is useless unless you're expecting to have to use it?

we're heading back to wild wild west. soon you gonna see gun duels on the street :D

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;51648901]If someone goes postal at your workplace chances are you're going to be a dead fool before you can pull that concealed gun, disengage the safety, load it and point it at the already shooting and ready to kill target. Like, I get that it [I]technically[/I] improves your odds of survival, but in any practical setting, unless you're going to work/school/wherever [I]expecting[/I] a shooting to happen (at which point the mental strain would just make you insane), it would not be helpful. Not to mention that it's a band-aid solution regarding all the other problems related to people going postal such as mental health which is by far the most disregarded aspect of all of these shootings. The reason those people go under the radar for so long isn't because they have access to guns and others don't, it's because nobody cares to look.[/QUOTE] My Glock 26 is kept chambered, without a "traditional" saftey inside my kydex inside the waist band holster. It literally takes less than a second to remove it and be able to defend yourself. All that has to be done is for it to be removed the holster and the trigger pulled.

[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;51648265]Hey at least i can live my life without needing to have a weapon on me at all times. People in this country dont need to worry about defending themselves, but then again we dont deal with monthy mass shootings.[/QUOTE] I dont [i]need[/i] to CC, I just choose too because of a minimal chance I may face a threat. In the US, youre given the choice of being a victim, or defending yourself. In your country, youre only allowed to be a victim who hopes and prays a cop shows up in time. And for the record, we have over 300 million people in the US and less than a hundred die due to mass shootings. Its an extremely overplayed issue by the press. [editline]10th January 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Ganerumo;51648901]If someone goes postal at your workplace chances are you're going to be a dead fool before you can pull that concealed gun, disengage the safety, load it and point it at the already shooting and ready to kill target. Like, I get that it [I]technically[/I] improves your odds of survival, but in any practical setting, unless you're going to work/school/wherever [I]expecting[/I] a shooting to happen (at which point the mental strain would just make you insane), it would not be helpful. Not to mention that it's a band-aid solution regarding all the other problems related to people going postal such as mental health which is by far the most disregarded aspect of all of these shootings. The reason those people go under the radar for so long isn't because they have access to guns and others don't, it's because nobody cares to look.[/QUOTE] Hey-hey, yet another person who has no firearms experience, no knowledge of US laws, and no damn clue how guns work, talking straight out of their ass again. Glad you could provide to the discussion.

Actually yeah, I didn't really think the conditions through. Sounds like it would be more useful than I initially thought.

I feel a lot of you guys don't understand the point of conceal carry in a situation like this. If a mass shooting happens, and a concealed carrier is there, it is not his duty to try and be a hero and go after the shooter. The concealed/open carrier is supposed to run just like everyone else if possible to a safe location/exit the area, if the carrier happens to be trapped (as in unsafe to move , being targeted by the shooter and under fire, or no escape available at the moment), the carrier is to draw if the shooter comes near the concealed carrier The weapon is to only be drawn if there are no other options available. The Concealed weapon is there to protect your life first. Do not try to be there hero. In fact in my training I was told to not to try to be a hero in that type of situation.