Gun Control II

Bullet · Post by **Bullet** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 6:09 pm

lady cop wrote: duty weapon, HK 45. off duty S&W 9. i hate the HK. i hate plastic guns. my 9 weighs more than the 45. we always have 3 full magazines.Have you tried the Kel-Tec 9mm? It is the lightest and smallest 9mm made. You do sacrifice accuracy, because of its size, but that just means more time at the range getting good with it. It has a bolt on belt clip available, and fits nicely on your belt SOB.

Tombstone · Post by **Tombstone** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 6:10 pm

lady cop wrote: duty weapon, HK 45. off duty S&W 9. i hate the HK. i hate plastic guns. my 9 weighs more than the 45. we always have 3 full magazines.
LC,

Are you required to use the HK 45 per departmental policies?

Tombstone · Post by **Tombstone** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 6:11 pm

BabyRider wrote:

A well-armed biker...just tugs at my heart strings...:-4
Thanks for that! That was funny!

Bullet · Post by **Bullet** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 6:11 pm

Tombstone wrote: Hmmm...a 22 Mag mini revolver. That sounds like a nice little gun. I've always been impressed with the .22 mag cartridge.American Arms makes it. It is smaller than the palm of my hand. Very easy to conceal. And the Mag round provides amazing power for the caliber.

Tombstone · Post by **Tombstone** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 6:12 pm

Bullet wrote: ROTFLMAO.....I are nut a much gooder spiller, butt my ghoulfiend heps me a lot. (Lobbing crap grenade. Running for cover)
Bullet,

You should know that you can never run fast enough when you lop a crap grenade!

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 6:13 pm

lady cop wrote: Babyrider...if you go back to the beginning you will see...hammers and crossbows.
Cool...I can do a lot of damage with a crossbow! Of course, you lose that very distinguishable sound of the Mossberg racking a shell to deter intruders...

Oh wait, I get it...you're being funny!! I keep forgetting about your dry sense of humor, LC. :yh_bigsmi

(I know, I know...sarcasm is wasted here :-5 )

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 6:17 pm

Tombstone, re: competition....we have to qualify several times a year, low-light, clearing buildings of bad guys, outdoor on the run scenarios, shotgun, mini-14 and some other exotic stuff in the past couple years. so we kind of compete with each other in our respective squads. some of us also belong to the FOP (fraternal order of police) and go use that range a lot just for fun. (and i buy the wolf ammo for that). otherwise, no i don't compete. however i DO like stuffing it to a couple macho guys on the range

heh heh............and yes, the HK is dept. issue. but we can choose between about 8 different weapons our sheriff will allow us to carry.

Tombstone · Post by **Tombstone** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 6:17 pm

Bullet wrote: American Arms makes it. It is smaller than the palm of my hand. Very easy to conceal. And the Mag round provides amazing power for the caliber.

Okay, nice. A buddy has something similar - but just in .22 LR.

Tombstone · Post by **Tombstone** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 6:21 pm

lady cop wrote: Tombstone, re: competition....we have to qualify several times a year, low-light, clearing buildings of bad guys, outdoor on the run scenarios, shotgun, mini-14 and some other exotic stuff in the past couple years. so we kind of compete with each other in our respective squads. some of us also belong to the FOP (fraternal order of police) and go use that range a lot just for fun. (and i buy the wolf ammo for that). otherwise, no i don't compete. however i DO like stuffing it to a couple macho guys on the range

heh heh

Thought so! And I'm sure it's a good feeling to perform well against some of the others. Shot groups speak louder than words. harhar!

Tombstone · Post by **Tombstone** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 6:21 pm

BabyRider wrote: Cool...I can do a lot of damage with a crossbow! Of course, you lose that very distinguishable sound of the Mossberg racking a shell to deter intruders...

Oh wait, I get it...you're being funny!! I keep forgetting about your dry sense of humor, LC. :yh_bigsmi

(I know, I know...sarcasm is wasted here :-5 )

And have you seen the damage that a two year old can do with a hammer?

(Said in good humor!)

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 6:22 pm

Bullet wrote: Have you tried the Kel-Tec 9mm? It is the lightest and smallest 9mm made. You do sacrifice accuracy, because of its size, but that just means more time at the range getting good with it. It has a bolt on belt clip available, and fits nicely on your belt SOB. oh i wasn't complaining about the weight! i meant it's all steel as opposed to *sneer* plastic. i LOVE my 9mm.it's perfect for me.

Bullet · Post by **Bullet** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 6:23 pm

What do you think of the 40sw caliber?

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 6:29 pm

Bullet wrote: What do you think of the 40sw caliber? never had one in my hot little hands!

minks · Post by **minks** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 10:24 pm

Well we have no choice here in Canada, we have gun control. Not sure this has been a positive thing, only means you can have your gun and shoot it too. But if someone else is caught shooting your gun then you are in deep doo doo, unless of course you reported it stolen.

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 12:45 am

Admitting first that I haven't read this whole thread...I fear guns in a house with children. It seems to me there is a lot of accidental death resulting in guns at home.

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 12:46 am

Also, there was one time I wanted to own a gun. Because I wanted to use it.

Bothwell · Post by **Bothwell** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 1:57 am

Ok so I have lots of answers to my questions but the main one appears to be that gun ownership in the USA is so close to your actual sense of identity that is never going to be stopped.

The statistics are all blah blah to me, I can prove any argument one way or the other with them, e.g. 25% of accidents are caused by drink drivers, ergo instead of chasing this small percentage concentrate on the 75% of sober drivers who cause accidents.

My personal view is that the standards for ownership do have to be higher and as much training in their use as can be reasonably given should happen.

Having had to lug a few weapons around in my time I am not sure I would own any if the ban was lifted over here, I have also had the unfortunate experience to see the havoc they can wreak on the human body at close quarters, in fact this should also be a part of awareness training, a display of the damage caused.

One question I still have is would it ever be possible to standardise the law on weapons across all the States?

ps LC that smith would shoot a lot better without the dirt on it!!

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 8:00 am

koan wrote: Also, there was one time I wanted to own a gun. Because I wanted to use it.

Eeeek! A maddened, trigger-happy Koan on the rampage?! Oh the horror! The humanity!

(I'm just being sarcasiamistic!)

Actually, with my wrist strength (it ws really compromised by my RA, but I'm getting stronger again) I'm worried that anything stronger than a .22 will fly right out of my hands with the first pull of the trigger.

Tombstone · Post by **Tombstone** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 1:06 pm

Bullet wrote: What do you think of the 40sw caliber?
Looking at one with great interest. Don't know what to make of it. Punch of a .45. Speed of a 9 mm.

What are your thoughts about this caliber?

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 1:24 pm

Bothwell wrote: My personal view is that the standards for ownership do have to be higher and as much training in their use as can be reasonably given should happen.

Higher how, Bothwell? What would be the standard for owning a gun, in your opinion? There are classes that are required to own handguns, and even more for getting a CCW.

And your statement about "statistics are just blah blah blah to me" is interesting. Do you not believe the stats, or they just don't change your view?

The gun owners that I know are fully aware of the damage a gun can do to a body, and they also practice on a regular basis to keep their edge.

It almost sounds to me that you think that anyone who wishes to own or carry a gun is looking for an excuse to put a hole in someone. This just isn't the case in my circle.

As for your last question, I highly doubt that standardizing across the States will ever happen. But that's just my opinion.

Tombstone · Post by **Tombstone** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 1:50 pm

Bothwell wrote:

My personal view is that the standards for ownership do have to be higher and as much training in their use as can be reasonably given should happen.

This is already officially in place - per the directive of the local sherriff's department. (For those who want concealed carry permits.) This is also in place with America's long hunting and shooting traditions. Grandfather teaches father, teaches son/daughter, and so on. Of course, not everyone is taught - but you usually find those folks in the urban areas who want to mimic some idiot on the tv screen.

Having had to lug a few weapons around in my time I am not sure I would own any if the ban was lifted over here, I have also had the unfortunate experience to see the havoc they can wreak on the human body at close quarters, in fact this should also be a part of awareness training, a display of the damage caused.

But in our part of the country, it's usually the bad guy that we're looking at. I'd much rather have that than a family member or any innocent.

You are right on the money though. This really is a cultural issue. I wouldn't expect the general populace in the UK to ever think about freedoms and liberty the way we do here. Like minded people tend to flock together. The Pilgrims fled Europe to get away from totalitarianism, to gain freedom, to purse their unalienable rights which Government nor King can take away.

Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.

George Bernard Shaw

One question I still have is would it ever be possible to standardise the law on weapons across all the States?

Doubtful. This is what the 2nd Ammendment is all about. The Feds try to control the "type" of firearms - but it is almost always written by know-nothing politicians who think black guns with pistol grips are "scary". These politicians are always from states with big urban centers - and they are constantly battling crime, social decay, and a host of other problems.

The gun control issue for them is a nice neat tidy package which will cure all of society's ills.

Oh, and don't forget that many of these politicans carry their own concealed weapons or they have private bodyguards packing guns and machine guns. Of course, they demand these protections and "rights", but they don't believe that their consituents should share these rights. Sounds like an old world monarchy, doesn't it?!

minks · Post by **minks** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 2:01 pm

Tombstone wrote: Looking at one with great interest. Don't know what to make of it. Punch of a .45. Speed of a 9 mm.

What are your thoughts about this caliber?

I grew up with the mantra of my father in my head about guns.

Never own one because anybody could out muscle you and use it on you.

So needless to say, no guns for this girl and her 98lb weakling self.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 2:05 pm

minks wrote: I grew up with the mantra of my father in my head about guns.

Never own one because anybody could out muscle you and use it on you.

So needless to say, no guns for this girl and her 98lb weakling self.If you have your gun out and pointed at someone, then it had better be your intent to kill them. And it had better be absolutely neccessary. If you let them get close enough to you to get that gun away from you, then you are either a lousy shot, and shouldn't own a gun, or you don't have what it takes to pull the trigger and shouldn't own a gun.

minks · Post by **minks** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 3:57 pm

BabyRider wrote: If you have your gun out and pointed at someone, then it had better be your intent to kill them. And it had better be absolutely neccessary. If you let them get close enough to you to get that gun away from you, then you are either a lousy shot, and shouldn't own a gun, or you don't have what it takes to pull the trigger and shouldn't own a gun.

Yep you got that right and if you think your going to think twice then consider yourself done in, cause you have to commit to shot another as there is no room for second thoughts.

I hear ya BR.

I could never own a gun I just don't trust myself to believe I would not have second thoughts at the crucial moment.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 4:02 pm

minks wrote: Yep you got that right and if you think your going to think twice then consider yourself done in, cause you have to commit to shot another as there is no room for second thoughts.

I hear ya BR.

I could never own a gun I just don't trust myself to believe I would not have second thoughts at the crucial moment.Good, you took the point of my reply the way it was intended. It's just as important for people to recognize when they are NOT capable of owning a gun. Every bit as important as those of us who do own them to be responsible.

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 4:20 pm

minks wrote: I just don't trust myself to believe I would not have second thoughts at the crucial moment.

Yeah, I'm with you Minks. I'd probably try to talk them out of it, thereby getting myself kiled in thee process. This still worries me, though. I'm a sitting duck for a crazed serial killer or home invasionist.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 4:38 pm

Jives wrote: Yeah, I'm with you Minks. I'd probably try to talk them out of it, thereby getting myself kiled in thee process. This still worries me, though. I'm a sitting duck for a crazed serial killer or home invasionist.
'keep your doors locked and your powder dry', or words to that effect.

:yh_silly

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 4:56 pm

i have a cute little sign on my front slider that says "I DON'T DIAL 911"

Bothwell · Post by **Bothwell** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 1:47 am

Thanks for the very interesting answers, I suppose it is a cultural thing, what really got me started on this was visiting a State where there are a lot of guns (I am told) yet you could be arrested for drinking from an open alcohol container!!!.

So on a lovely sunny beach type of day you could take your .45 down to the shore but not a can of cold beer??

Tombstone I hear what you say (still deciding if you are taking the P**s) but what I meant was it is in the psyche of the USA, Frontiers, defending what is yours etc etc.

chicagolosina · Post by **chicagolosina** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 9:27 am

I was watching the NEWS last night and they were talking about a "smart gun" one that only works when it's legit owner (as verified by one's fingerprint) holds it.

Sounds good, kids can't use thier parents gun, criminals can't use one that they steal (unless they chop off the owners fingers ...eewwwww) and if someone tried to take it away from the Police, it would be useless.

On the other hand, it must have to be computerized...and what if it misfires or the hardrive crashes or some other techincal problem...what then?

Have you heard about this LC...and if so what do you think?

minks · Post by **minks** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 11:48 am

BabyRider wrote: Good, you took the point of my reply the way it was intended. It's just as important for people to recognize when they are NOT capable of owning a gun. Every bit as important as those of us who do own them to be responsible.

Precisely, believe me I am not Anti Gun, I just know my limits and my nature and like Jives said I guess I am a bit of a sitting duck, as I would try and BS my way outta a conforntation. I guess we all take a chance no matter what.

Tombstone · Post by **Tombstone** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 10:25 pm

lady cop wrote: i have a cute little sign on my front slider that says "I DON'T DIAL 911"

Classic!

Here's a suggestion. Why don't you change it to read:

"I don't dial 911. But I will for you!"

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 12:02 am

Tombstone wrote: Classic!

Here's a suggestion. Why don't you change it to read:

"I don't dial 911. But I will for you!"
hate to be a wet blanket, but for those who may not be aware, about the only people on earth who can get away with cute turns of phrase like that, emblazoned on their weapon, are law enforcement, and even then it's frowned upon.

this is also why nobody should ever use those idiotic signs like "protected by smith & wesson", or "those found here trespassing at night will be found in the morning". chances of turning what would have been a justifiable self-defense homicide into a first degree murder charge are significant.

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 3:52 am

You can have private armies here, rob banks, murder and bomb innocent people and get away with it. Its against the Law ya know.

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:30 am

anastrophe wrote: hate to be a wet blanket, but for those who may not be aware, about the only people on earth who can get away with cute turns of phrase like that, emblazoned on their weapon, are law enforcement, and even then it's frowned upon.

this is also why nobody should ever use those idiotic signs like "protected by smith & wesson", or "those found here trespassing at night will be found in the morning". chances of turning what would have been a justifiable self-defense homicide into a first degree murder charge are significant.the cute little 2 inch sign is on my door/slider, not gun slide...and i agree those other ones you mention are ill-advised. the reason that cute little sign is on my door is because my neighbors seem to think i AM 911 and they can wake me up whenever they're drunk and fighting with their partner. i had to quash that.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 11:11 am

chicagolosina wrote: I was watching the NEWS last night and they were talking about a "smart gun" one that only works when it's legit owner (as verified by one's fingerprint) holds it.

Sounds good, kids can't use thier parents gun, criminals can't use one that they steal (unless they chop off the owners fingers ...eewwwww) and if someone tried to take it away from the Police, it would be useless.

On the other hand, it must have to be computerized...and what if it misfires or the hardrive crashes or some other techincal problem...what then?

Have you heard about this LC...and if so what do you think?

gee, leave my fate in the hands of a button battery.

dead battery: dead me.

Tombstone · Post by **Tombstone** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 5:12 pm

anastrophe wrote: hate to be a wet blanket, but for those who may not be aware, about the only people on earth who can get away with cute turns of phrase like that, emblazoned on their weapon, are law enforcement, and even then it's frowned upon.

this is also why nobody should ever use those idiotic signs like "protected by smith & wesson", or "those found here trespassing at night will be found in the morning". chances of turning what would have been a justifiable self-defense homicide into a first degree murder charge are significant.
Agreed. But....I still think it would be funny! (in a world absent of attorneys)

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 1:14 pm

A Karenina wrote:

I'm just gonna be cruelly blunt, LOL! That's not radical, Bothwell! That's reasonable. It's a very good suggestion, and I see no need for concealed weapons to be part of our freedom to defend ourselves, hunt, play sports or anything else.

this is a common misconception, if i may. concealed carry is very important, and serves the common good.

think about it. in a state where only open carry is legal, then those who legally can carry a weapon are explicitly identifiable at all times.

great. what does it accomplish? it means that a criminal is not going to attack that person who is carrying, unless they're ****-eyed or looking to die. what does it mean for those who aren't carrying? they are *also* clearly identified! the victims are much easier to choose - if they don't have a gun strapped to their hip, they implicitly are not armed and are unlikely to be able to defend themselves.

now, switch to concealed carry. in a state where only concealed carry is legal, those who legally can carry a weapon cannot be distinguished from those who are not carrying a weapon. now, the predator is at a much distinct disadvantage - who makes a good victim? who will be able to defend him/herself? only their hairdresser knows for sure.

states that license concealed carry provide benefit to those who *don't* choose to carry. the exceedingly uneasy, unsettling knowledge that there could be one, or ten, armed citizens in that diner you're thinking of holding up creates a strong disincentive for the predator.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 1:17 pm

[and yeah, i'm a little slow on reading through this topic!]

A Karenina · Post by **A Karenina** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 7:04 pm

Hey there

We've missed you around here, Anastrophe!

I totally agree with your post (which disagrees with my post) only if we assume that there are tons of criminals around carrying illegal concealed weapons hunting for human targets.

Or that more criminals would do this once they could isolate the armed from the unarmed.

We'd probably need our resident expert LadyCop to determine whether that's likely or unlikely since it calls for some level of criminal psychology.

I'm willing to be wrong. But I just don't see this issue quite that way. Lots of violent crime doesn't end in murder, and many violent crimes don't have the intention to murder. See what I'm trying to say?

Oh, and don't think I'm gonna be nice about it if I am wrong. So there!

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 7:19 pm

A Karenina wrote: Hey there

We've missed you around here, Anastrophe!

I totally agree with your post (which disagrees with my post) only if we assume that there are tons of criminals around carrying illegal concealed weapons hunting for human targets.

Or that more criminals would do this once they could isolate the armed from the unarmed.
but that's the point. when open carry is all that's allowed, then the criminal element can fairly reasonably assume that if a potential victim doesn't have a gun strapped to their hip, then they are, likely, unarmed - again, rather stands to reason. now, if you were someone intent on mugging someone, would you walk up to the guy with a gun on his hip, or the person without one? it doesn't require that the criminal be carrying illegally - lots of muggings occur strictly by force and intimidation. however, if the law provides for regular citizens to legally carry concealed, then the mugger has to think twice. it's not so easy as 'no gun, no problem', it's 'maybe gun, maybe not, how lucky do i feel today?'

We'd probably need our resident expert LadyCop to determine whether that's likely or unlikely since it calls for some level of criminal psychology.
without respect to the above, it's been demonstrated frequently that concealed carry deters criminals. criminals want easy victims, by and large. there are always exceptions.

I'm willing to be wrong. But I just don't see this issue quite that way. Lots of violent crime doesn't end in murder, and many violent crimes don't have the intention to murder. See what I'm trying to say?
actually, no, i'm not clear what you're driving at. the ability to simply _draw_ a gun when faced with a threat can rapidly deter someone intent on crime. the criminal may have been intent only on the wallet - but with every personal crime, there is the threat of grave bodily harm, and the threat is a legitimate reason to respond with a similar threat, but on a higher, defensive, level.

Oh, and don't think I'm gonna be nice about it if I am wrong. So there!

most states opt for concealed carry, for the reasons i've cited. demonstrable benefit to both those who carry (direct benefit) and to those who choose not to (indirect).

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 9:59 pm

Thanks AK for your confidence in my opinion, i'm not an 'expert', but i do enjoy a bit of experience...i am a believer in carry-concealed for the reasons Anastrophe has enumerated . the citizen who has gone to the trouble, expense and requirements to carry concealed is my ally. and will let me know INSTANTLY if they are holding. my worst nightmare is the illegal weapon in the glovebox, in the waistband, in the boot, under the carseat, under the couch cushion. but the topic was in re: the citizen who doesn't want to be a victim of armed or strongarm robbery. no, the average thug does not know who is armed, but they still pick their victims based on tangible and intangible criteria. that's a whole other thread!

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Sat Mar 19, 2005 11:16 am

Easy wrote: Most Americans (that I know) see the government as the enemy. i hope you don't have the temerity to think you're speaking for me! and please, may a see a source for "most Americans". can you back that statement up?

Tombstone · Post by **Tombstone** » Sat Mar 19, 2005 11:38 am

anastrophe wrote: hate to be a wet blanket, but for those who may not be aware, about the only people on earth who can get away with cute turns of phrase like that, emblazoned on their weapon, are law enforcement, and even then it's frowned upon.

this is also why nobody should ever use those idiotic signs like "protected by smith & wesson", or "those found here trespassing at night will be found in the morning". chances of turning what would have been a justifiable self-defense homicide into a first degree murder charge are significant.

Well, on this thread - I thought some of you would get a chuckle out of this sign that you can buy. See attachment.

Attached files

Tombstone · Post by **Tombstone** » Sat Mar 19, 2005 11:44 am

koan wrote: Admitting first that I haven't read this whole thread...I fear guns in a house with children. It seems to me there is a lot of accidental death resulting in guns at home.

Hi Koan,

Absolutely. Responsible gun ownership includes a very important item: The ability to secure the weapon. If you can't do this, you have no business owning a weapon of any kind. Period.

We have gun safes. Not only to protect and secure away from our children, but their friends, and potential burglars.

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Sat Mar 19, 2005 11:44 am

Tombstone, you KNOW Anastrophe is going to smack us! :wah: but i have a bumper sticker i like too, "notice, driver only has 50 bullets".

Tombstone · Post by **Tombstone** » Sat Mar 19, 2005 11:54 am

lady cop wrote: Tombstone, you KNOW Anastrophe is going to smack us! :wah: but i have a bumper sticker i like too, "notice, driver only has 50 bullets".

ha! That's funny. I have a photo of my friends back slider door. I'm not sure I should post it - but it says: Heavily Armed and Easily Pissed.

He put this up after someone went into his side yard and attempted to steal some large items. He lives in a subdivision - with neighbors all around - but nobody saw these guys attempt to rip down his locking gate (it's huge - it's where he parks an RV) - leaving everything in shambles.

valerie · Post by **valerie** » Sat Mar 19, 2005 12:01 pm

I didn't have a sign per se but 10-15 years ago, I did put up one of

those "human figure" targets that I had used at the local shooting range.

With only one missed shot out of 17. Make 'em sit up and take notice.

Hey, it was a bad part of town and I pretty regularly had scumbags

climbing the back fence...

Tombstone · Post by **Tombstone** » Sat Mar 19, 2005 12:06 pm

anastrophe wrote:

actually, no, i'm not clear what you're driving at. the ability to simply _draw_ a gun when faced with a threat can rapidly deter someone intent on crime. the criminal may have been intent only on the wallet - but with every personal crime, there is the threat of grave bodily harm, and the threat is a legitimate reason to respond with a similar threat, but on a higher, defensive, level.

And to add to this comment: What statistics are showing is that the mere presence of a gun and the ability to make its presence known (unconcealing it, defensive posture) stops over a million potential crimes against innocents each year in the U.S.

Mind you, there is no gun play and there is no shooting. The potential for violence actually decreases at this point and rarely escalates.