West Virginia’s Crime Rates Decline After State Adopts Constitutional Carry Law FBI data indicates a steady decline in violent crime since 2016

[ScytheBearer]

For me, the issue of whether or not to carry a gun for protection boils down to one thing. Are you prepared to pull the trigger? If you aren't prepared to shoot another human being, then the argument for carrying a gun for protection is moot. Even if you have trained extensively and could shoot to wound rather than kill, you still have to fire on another person. Regardless of the law, there is no point in having a weapon you're unwilling to use. In fact, it's more likely that your gun will become their gun. I am a single woman living alone and would seem to be someone reasonably expected to have a gun for protection. However, I've never gotten one simply because I don't know if I could pull that trigger.

What you describe in not unique to civilians and is unaltered by military training. I have seen Marines fail to return fire because they couldn't shoot at another human being. This response is based in the cultural pounding on the sixth commandment we all experience. Fortunately for those Marines, I am a pagan and a fairly good shot.

[xrayy]

For me, the issue of whether or not to carry a gun for protection boils down to one thing. Are you prepared to pull the trigger? If you aren't prepared to shoot another human being, then the argument for carrying a gun for protection is moot. Even if you have trained extensively and could shoot to wound rather than kill, you still have to fire on another person. Regardless of the law, there is no point in having a weapon you're unwilling to use. In fact, it's more likely that your gun will become their gun. I am a single woman living alone and would seem to be someone reasonably expected to have a gun for protection. However, I've never gotten one simply because I don't know if I could pull that trigger.

this is one very important aspect but not the only one.

the question is also who is the triggerman (background) and is he sane and capapble to assess a situation in a short time. i doubt many people do apart from cops or soldiers doing their daily training and even they fail from time to time.

if i see what has happened watching a weaponless man shot video - stopped by a neighborhood watch (???, two men grabbing their guns) and now the jogger is dead just because he liked to run and watch through his neighborhood -i'm disturbed. a situation like this shows there it is not only the trigger problem but mostly a general mental attiitude and capability problem. if i see some posts here i'm really happy to live in a country without the second amendment and we do not need a weaponized neighborhood deputy who thinks he needs to play a cop game with his son or friend which can and it did end deadly for a weaponless jogger. as a young boy i did exactly the same what the jogger did - i trespassed a shell watching around and not only one - in my neighborhood. I'm glad that i am still alive and that no spare time cop urged me with his pump gun. one innocent life ended in an amercan neighborhood - too early - no excuses - no chance to turn back time. just disturbing - it could have been me or anyone else who trespassed a shell in his life, just born in the wrong country with people in the neighborhood who think they can play or have the ability to act like cob deputy with weapons without any knowledge how this works.

 

a society who tolerates or even supports acting like that including supporting nra (???) and legalizing mass shooting capable weapons for private use to such a degree seems to me not healthy.

[HeyYou]

 

For me, the issue of whether or not to carry a gun for protection boils down to one thing. Are you prepared to pull the trigger? If you aren't prepared to shoot another human being, then the argument for carrying a gun for protection is moot. Even if you have trained extensively and could shoot to wound rather than kill, you still have to fire on another person. Regardless of the law, there is no point in having a weapon you're unwilling to use. In fact, it's more likely that your gun will become their gun. I am a single woman living alone and would seem to be someone reasonably expected to have a gun for protection. However, I've never gotten one simply because I don't know if I could pull that trigger.

this is one very important aspect but not the only one.

the question is also who is the triggerman (background) and is he sane and capapble to assess a situation in a short time. i doubt many people do apart from cops or soldiers doing their daily training and even they fail from time to time.

if i see what has happened watching a weaponless man shot video - stopped by a neighborhood watch (???, two men grabbing their guns) and now the jogger is dead just because he liked to run and watch through his neighborhood -i'm disturbed. a situation like this shows there it is not only the trigger problem but mostly a general mental attiitude and capability problem. if i see some posts here i'm really happy to live in a country without the second amendment and we do not need a weaponized neighborhood deputy who thinks he needs to play a cop game with his son or friend which can and it did end deadly for a weaponless jogger. as a young boy i did exactly the same what the jogger did - i trespassed a shell watching around and not only one - in my neighborhood. I'm glad that i am still alive and that no spare time cop urged me with his pump gun. one innocent life ended in an amercan neighborhood - too early - no excuses - no chance to turn back time. just disturbing - it could have been me or anyone else who trespassed a shell in his life, just born in the wrong country with people in the neighborhood who think they can play or have the ability to act like cob deputy with weapons without any knowledge how this works.

 

a society who tolerates or even supports acting like that including supporting nra (???) and legalizing mass shooting capable weapons for private use to such a degree seems to me not healthy.

 

I would point out, that even "Real" cops have been taken to task for shooting unarmed citizens.... sometimes, within a very few seconds of arriving on-scene. Of course, taking the guns away from the cops is really a non-starter. Expecting unarmed individuals to go up against armed individuals simply doesn't work.

[ScytheBearer]

 

 

For me, the issue of whether or not to carry a gun for protection boils down to one thing. Are you prepared to pull the trigger? If you aren't prepared to shoot another human being, then the argument for carrying a gun for protection is moot. Even if you have trained extensively and could shoot to wound rather than kill, you still have to fire on another person. Regardless of the law, there is no point in having a weapon you're unwilling to use. In fact, it's more likely that your gun will become their gun. I am a single woman living alone and would seem to be someone reasonably expected to have a gun for protection. However, I've never gotten one simply because I don't know if I could pull that trigger.

this is one very important aspect but not the only one.

the question is also who is the triggerman (background) and is he sane and capapble to assess a situation in a short time. i doubt many people do apart from cops or soldiers doing their daily training and even they fail from time to time.

if i see what has happened watching a weaponless man shot video - stopped by a neighborhood watch (???, two men grabbing their guns) and now the jogger is dead just because he liked to run and watch through his neighborhood -i'm disturbed. a situation like this shows there it is not only the trigger problem but mostly a general mental attiitude and capability problem. if i see some posts here i'm really happy to live in a country without the second amendment and we do not need a weaponized neighborhood deputy who thinks he needs to play a cop game with his son or friend which can and it did end deadly for a weaponless jogger. as a young boy i did exactly the same what the jogger did - i trespassed a shell watching around and not only one - in my neighborhood. I'm glad that i am still alive and that no spare time cop urged me with his pump gun. one innocent life ended in an amercan neighborhood - too early - no excuses - no chance to turn back time. just disturbing - it could have been me or anyone else who trespassed a shell in his life, just born in the wrong country with people in the neighborhood who think they can play or have the ability to act like cob deputy with weapons without any knowledge how this works.

 

a society who tolerates or even supports acting like that including supporting nra (???) and legalizing mass shooting capable weapons for private use to such a degree seems to me not healthy.

 

I would point out, that even "Real" cops have been taken to task for shooting unarmed citizens.... sometimes, within a very few seconds of arriving on-scene. Of course, taking the guns away from the cops is really a non-starter. Expecting unarmed individuals to go up against armed individuals simply doesn't work.

 

Really? In spite of it taking weeks or months for police to even admit that a prisoner died in their custody? Even when police often deny their involvement in civilian deaths? Even when police stand by and watch another officer kill a prisoner. Even when police video contradicts claims of officer innocence in the death of a prisoner? Even in spite of FBI statistics which indicate that half of all fatal police caused deaths are recorded/reported by friendly coroners as something other than what they actually are, homicide by cop?

 

Where can I get some of what you're smoking.

[HeyYou]

There are right about 700,000 police officers in the US.

Police shoot around 1000 people per year.

So, because .001 % of cops shoot people, (and that is ALL officer involved shootings, not just the ones that make the news) you would disarm the cops? I fail to see any logic in that response at all.

 

If the cops are disarmed, and the criminals are not, what do you think is going to happen to the crime rate? How about the number of officers killed every year? Do you think anyone would actually WANT to become a police officer under those conditions? What do you think the long-term affects on the crime rate would be from that??

 

Bear in mind, disarming the criminals simply isn't going to happen. Just not practical.

[ScytheBearer]

There are right about 700,000 police officers in the US.

Police shoot around 1000 people per year.

So, because .001 % of cops shoot people, (and that is ALL officer involved shootings, not just the ones that make the news) you would disarm the cops? I fail to see any logic in that response at all.

 

If the cops are disarmed, and the criminals are not, what do you think is going to happen to the crime rate? How about the number of officers killed every year? Do you think anyone would actually WANT to become a police officer under those conditions? What do you think the long-term affects on the crime rate would be from that??

 

Bear in mind, disarming the criminals simply isn't going to happen. Just not practical.

 

 

You keep focusing on one aspect of Officer Involved Deaths. For every person shot by police, another half dozen or more are strangled, shocked until unconscious, smothered, bludgeoned, pressed, dragged behind police vehicles, and left handcuffed in stress positions until they lie dead on the ground.

 

And even though it only takes one cop to deliberately kill someone in custody, it takes the rest to deny the killing, lie about the killing, help cover up the killing, change the death certificate of the victim of the killing, hide the evidence of the killing, stonewall an investigation into the killing, destroy evidence of the killing and finally blame the victim of the killing for their death.

 

And before you claim that Law Enforcement is under attack and is forced to defend itself. ,,, According the the FBI, in 2020, 46 (forty six) officers were killed in the line of duty. For that same period, the FBI statistics claim that 5,000 to 8,000 people died at the hands of the police (that number is imprecise because killings by officers are poorly tracked and reported in the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting system while officers killed are precisely tracked), only 1,021 were fatal shootings. And those numbers are seriously suspect.

 

You ignore the apple/barrel analogy and excuse the killings as inconsequential. From where I sit, one deliberate death at the hands of an officer is too many. What we have is thousands a year, and that is unforgivable. And that many deliberate deaths makes the cops the criminals.

Edited November 8, 2021 by ScytheBearer

[HeyYou]

 

There are right about 700,000 police officers in the US.

Police shoot around 1000 people per year.

So, because .001 % of cops shoot people, (and that is ALL officer involved shootings, not just the ones that make the news) you would disarm the cops? I fail to see any logic in that response at all.

 

If the cops are disarmed, and the criminals are not, what do you think is going to happen to the crime rate? How about the number of officers killed every year? Do you think anyone would actually WANT to become a police officer under those conditions? What do you think the long-term affects on the crime rate would be from that??

 

Bear in mind, disarming the criminals simply isn't going to happen. Just not practical.

 

 

You keep focusing on one aspect of Officer Involved Deaths. For every person shot by police, another half dozen or more are strangled, shocked until unconscious, smothered, bludgeoned, pressed, dragged behind police vehicles, and left handcuffed in stress positions until they lie dead on the ground.

 

And even though it only takes one cop to deliberately kill someone in custody, it takes the rest to deny the killing, lie about the killing, help cover up the killing, change the death certificate of the victim of the killing, hide the evidence of the killing, stonewall an investigation into the killing, destroy evidence of the killing and finally blame the victim of the killing for their death.

 

And before you claim that Law Enforcement is under attack and is forced to defend itself. ,,, According the the FBI, in 2020, 46 (forty six) officers were killed in the line of duty. For that same period, the FBI statistics claim that 5,000 to 8,000 people died at the hands of the police (that number is imprecise because killings by officers are poorly tracked and reported in the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting system while officers killed are precisely tracked), only 1,021 were fatal shootings. And those numbers are seriously suspect.

 

You ignore the apple/barrel analogy and excuse the killings as inconsequential. From where I sit, one deliberate death at the hands of an officer is too many. What we have is thousands a year, and that is unforgivable. And that many deliberate deaths makes the cops the criminals.

 

I would love to see where you got that "5-8000" number from. I suspect that is pure bull excrement.

 

Yeah, cops killing folks, when it ISN'T self defense, is indeed bad. No argument there. Taking away their guns isn't going to fix that. Taking away the criminals guns isn't going to fix that. Training isn't going to fix that. Changing laws isn't going to fix that. In reality, you are NEVER going to completely solve that issue. Unless, of course, you simply got rid of ALL the humans. Then it wouldn't be a problem.

 

Your last line makes zero sense to me. Please point out where I excused anything.

[modder3434]

 

For me, the issue of whether or not to carry a gun for protection boils down to one thing. Are you prepared to pull the trigger? If you aren't prepared to shoot another human being, then the argument for carrying a gun for protection is moot. Even if you have trained extensively and could shoot to wound rather than kill, you still have to fire on another person. Regardless of the law, there is no point in having a weapon you're unwilling to use. In fact, it's more likely that your gun will become their gun. I am a single woman living alone and would seem to be someone reasonably expected to have a gun for protection. However, I've never gotten one simply because I don't know if I could pull that trigger.

What you describe in not unique to civilians and is unaltered by military training. I have seen Marines fail to return fire because they couldn't shoot at another human being. This response is based in the cultural pounding on the sixth commandment we all experience. Fortunately for those Marines, I am a pagan and a fairly good shot.

 

 

It is a shame the commandments and Christianity has gotten so watered down in the past 100 years. Over time translations and meanings shift, and if you didn't have prior knowledge, its easy to get caught up in new translation. The original commandant was "thou shall not murder", meaning no unlawful killing, nothing that could result in bloodguilt. Killing in War and for Survival was expected.

 

Or as the John Wayne stated in "Big Jake", "There are two reasons to kill. Survival and Meat". A layman would assume meat and survival correlate to the same thing, but "Survival" was a polite version of stating killing someone to prevent them from killing you is acceptable.

[xrayy]

something is deeply wrong in the u.s and it becomes even more and more visible when a 17 year old right wing supporter can behave like an idiot instead of doing his homework. who let him travel with a pump gun to a demo in another city to be able to kill (in this case white) two people without any consequences ? what a sign to the people around the world and the american society!

planning or provoking a situation to be able to act in "self defence"(as the jury found out) is the new tactical workaround to kill people on a demo without consequences ?

What is the message? what about the causal chain? and not even one, no - two and at least one more were shot or injured by this person!

even in best case if this happens by accident but the question is how ? - if i do not travel with a AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle to a demo! do we have war in america that a child as a travel tourist needs an ar15 on a demo ?

this is a scandal and another sad moment for america. the problem: it will take a long time to shoot all these nasty people by faked self defence on demos who to not like how white supremacists and supporters profit from provoked self fullfilling "self defence" cases supported by the justice.

 

i am waiting to see that another jury in georgia or wisconsin will announce kkk not guilty for anything in the past. i'm sure the jury is easy to find. i'm also sure some people will celebrate this as a proof of "americas freedom". well done, wisconsin justice! as a true nra supporter i would say - take all your ar15 or buy them and travel to the next demo and play "self defence" with the protesters. at least i would call it "war".

[HeyYou]

something is deeply wrong in the u.s and it becomes even more and more visible when a 17 year old right wing supporter can behave like an idiot instead of doing his homework. who let him travel with a pump gun to a demo in another city to be able to kill (in this case white) two people without any consequences ? what a sign to the people around the world and the american society!

planning or provoking a situation to be able to act in "self defence"(as the jury found out) is the new tactical workaround to kill people on a demo without consequences ?

What is the message? what about the causal chain? and not even one, no - two and at least one more were shot or injured by this person!

even in best case if this happens by accident but the question is how ? - if i do not travel with a AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle to a demo! do we have war in america that a child as a travel tourist needs an ar15 on a demo ?

this is a scandal and another sad moment for america. the problem: it will take a long time to shoot all these nasty people by faked self defence on demos who to not like how white supremacists and supporters profit from provoked self fullfilling "self defence" cases supported by the justice.

 

i am waiting to see that another jury in georgia or wisconsin will announce kkk not guilty for anything in the past. i'm sure the jury is easy to find. i'm also sure some people will celebrate this as a proof of "americas freedom". well done, wisconsin justice! as a true nra supporter i would say - take all your ar15 or buy them and travel to the next demo and play "self defence" with the protesters. at least i would call it "war".

He was acquitted by jury of his peers. Essentially, he fired in self defense. You don't like it? Too bad. Try watching the video, and then consider what you might have done.