Gun Control

[Sabot]

Originally Posted by Accuser

So we train more sheepdogs, right?
Though I should point out, the vast majority (-vast- majority) of police officers have never been shot at. Most haven't had a weapon pointed at them. There is really no training that police officers get that a civilian could not. And some civilians do choose to get that training, as best as it can be obtained.

No, we don't. We don't put poeple in a situation were they're getting shot at by someone with the intention of killing. Not unless that is the prefession they choose. That is a possibilty when you choose to become a police officer, and that is why they get training and preparation for it. But there's no telling even then how they will react, like you said. Nor is there any certainty how a soldier will react the first time those bullets come whistling.

But if there's no telling how poeple who are aware the possibilty and are trained and prepared for it will react, how the fuck can you sit there and say that; "if only someone in that theatre had a gun... he/she would have stopped him". Get the fuck real, okay?

And even if someone had drawn a piece, stood up and fiered back... he would just have put the poeple in there in more danger. There's a reason the police doesn't take chances when there's civilians involved. And there's a reason civilians get up and get the fuck out of there own village in Afghanistan when there's a patrol coming. Two guns firing is double the danger from only one in almost any scenario.

[Accuser]

Originally Posted by Sabot

That is a possibilty when you choose to become a police officer, and that is why they get training and preparation for it. But there's no telling even then how they will react, like you said. Nor is there any certainty how a soldier will react the first time those bullets come whistling.

But if there's no telling how poeple who are aware the possibilty and are trained and prepared for it will react, how the fuck can you sit there and say that; "if only someone in that theatre had a gun... he/she would have stopped him". Get the fuck real, okay?

Just put that strawman away for now. I'm saying that civilians with a firearm and police-level training can be nearly as effective as police officers, should one be unavailable at the necessary time. After all, what are police officers if not trained civilians? Would I prefer a 10 year combat veteran with a 1911? Sure. But that would also fit the bill of an "armed civilian", wouldn't it?

Combat experience counts. Barring that, training still counts. Whether or not the trained and/or combat experienced person is wearing a uniform does not count. And that seems to be the direction that you and Warborn are arguing toward.

[Baneblade]

No, I think Warborn is convinced the police would stop him before he killed 12 people... oh, right.

[Sabot]

Originally Posted by Accuser

Just put that strawman away for now. I'm saying that civilians with a firearm and police-level training can be nearly as effective as police officers, should one be unavailable at the necessary time. After all, what are police officers if not trained civilians? Would I prefer a 10 year combat veteran with a 1911? Sure. But that would also fit the bill of an "armed civilian", wouldn't it?

Combat experience counts. Barring that, training still counts. Whether or not the trained and/or combat experienced person is wearing a uniform does not count. And that seems to be the direction that you and Warborn are arguing toward.

That is purely hypothetical. And mandatory training with said firearm would make the problem EVEN worse. Not only do we have people on the street with deadly wepaons, now we train them how to use them effectively?

You have to understand that this is not about all the people that would use their gun responsibly. It's about the ones that wont. And I'm not talking about crazy nut jobs that goes to war in a movie theatre or in a school. I'm talking about normal people that just aren't responisbe. Kids that think a gun makes them cool. Or what about guns + the use of alcohol? A regular bar fight that used to end with a broken lip and bruises suddenly sends 2-3 people to the morgue.

A government that think that that is an acceptable risk to take just so people CAN carry firearms where they want, when they want, is not fit to govern a country/state.

[Firefly]

Originally Posted by Accuser

I'm saying that civilians with a firearm and police-level training can be nearly as effective as police officers, should one be unavailable at the necessary time. After all, what are police officers if not trained civilians? Would I prefer a 10 year combat veteran with a 1911? Sure. But that would also fit the bill of an "armed civilian", wouldn't it?

Combat experience counts. Barring that, training still counts.

This is all true. I'm not arguing that it's not. I don't care about armed civilians or unarmed civilians (unless they're a danger to me). My issues are:

1) more guns in that theatre in the hands of unprepared, untrained gun-owners would have caused more deaths once the shooting started

2) owning a firearm and knowing how to use it because you spend time at the range doesn't make you properly equipped and properly trained to handle a gunman

[Accuser]

Originally Posted by Sabot

That is purely hypothetical. And mandatory training with said firearm would make the problem EVEN worse. Not only do we have people on the street with deadly wepaons, now we train them how to use them effectively?

Is there something wrong with training police officers in how to use firearms effectively? If not, is there something wrong with training responsible civilians to use firearms effectively? It's the police/civilian divide (and significant lack thereof) that I'm pointing out. I'd prefer that random assholes and rednecks not be armed, but that's the price of firearm availability.

Originally Posted by Firefly

My issues are:
1) more guns in that theatre in the hands of unprepared, untrained gun-owners would have caused more deaths once the shooting started

2) owning a firearm and knowing how to use it because you spend time at the range doesn't make you properly equipped and properly trained to handle a gunman

Indeed. Though I hope that most people who take on the responsibility of carrying a firearm would go to the trouble of training to handle such a life-threatening situation, since that's (likely) the only time they would use it anyway.

[Sabot]

Originally Posted by Accuser

Is there something wrong with training police officers in how to use firearms effectively? If not, is there something wrong with training responsible civilians to use firearms effectively? It's the police/civilian divide (and significant lack thereof) that I'm pointing out. I'd prefer that random assholes and rednecks not be armed, but that's the price of firearm availability

There you go! Right on point. You'd prefer it if irresponsible people do not have firearms. But that is exactly what they'll have, and it is not an acceptable price to pay.

[Accuser]

Originally Posted by Sabot

There you go! Right on point. You'd prefer it if irresponsible people do not have firearms. But that is exactly what they'll have, and it is not an acceptable price to pay.

And yet, the founders of the U.S. and it's modern society have decided that it is. You can certainly have your opinion, but considering current sentiment and Supreme Court decisions, you shouldn't expect things to change anytime soon.

You know, "from my cold dead hands" and all.

[Firefly]

Originally Posted by Accuser

Is there something wrong with training police officers in how to use firearms effectively? If not, is there something wrong with training responsible civilians to use firearms effectively? It's the police/civilian divide (and significant lack thereof) that I'm pointing out. I'd prefer that random assholes and rednecks not be armed, but that's the price of firearm availability.

Indeed. Though I hope that most people who take on the responsibility of carrying a firearm would go to the trouble of training to handle such a life-threatening situation, since that's (likely) the only time they would use it anyway.

Personally speaking, when I was 17 years old I made a decision that I would volunteer to serve my country and accepted the fact that I might be required to give my life so that others could live in peace. At the time that I signed up, the Balkans conflict was in full swing. So that wasn't just an empty thought. When our country was attacked, I again volunteered specifically so that some young pup who didn't need to shave more than once a week wouldn't have to go face down hardened killers. When I got out, I volunteered to continue doing the same job. So it stands to reason, in my mind, that if I'm in a theatre full of people and I'm armed, I'm probably going to take action if I am not tied down by concerns for my family's safety.

Can any of you say the same? I'm sure many of you could. But ask yourself, honestly: are you prepared to die for a perfect stranger? Are you prepared to face down a hail of gunfire and risk a crippling injury, horrific pain, and even death? Will you, when the moment comes, be found wanting or will you stand your ground? I don't think a great many people have thought this through, fully. They think "I have a gun, I am invincible."

If you go to a theatre alone, I fully support you killing yourself in order to make sure that my family can go home with me. If you're in a theatre with someone else, your first priority should be getting them to safety. If your first priority is to draw down and kill someone else, you have serious fucking problems and you need to put that weapon in a gun safe and unfuck your brain first. Life is not a video game and there are no respawns until the zombie apocalypse.

As for all you foreigners with your fanciful notions of why America should be like your country: coulda, woulda, shoulda, but didn't. I don't deal in what-ifs. I don't deal in fantasy unless it's erotic fantasies. You can pontificate and lecture all you want about how my country's society is fucked up and how your society is better. That's fine, that's cool, have fun with that. I don't deal in what-ifs. I deal in reality.

The reality is that for whatever reason, our country has a problem with violence. For whatever reason, our country has access to firearms for private citizens. That is the world in which I live. I also live in a world where people, foreign and domestic, want to kill other Americans for whatever reason. This is the world in which I live, and I have adapted. All of your internet-typings solve exactly zero problems. It's fun to sit here and debate with you, but at the end of the day when I go to sleep at night the world is still the same place and America is still the same place. It's not going to change overnight. Until the day comes when I don't need to worry about protecting my family, I will live in a state where I am able to have a firearms license and I will own a firearm. Woe betide the cocksucker who comes into my house with the intent to take something that isn't theirs.

[Baneblade]

Originally Posted by Sabot

That is purely hypothetical. And mandatory training with said firearm would make the problem EVEN worse. Not only do we have people on the street with deadly wepaons, now we train them how to use them effectively?

Your ignorance is showing. The vast majority of firearm training is about situational awareness, threat assessment, and whether or not use of the weapon is warranted. Hell most instructors will tell you flat out that often times drawing down on someone is an escalation no responsible gun owner should go out of their way to do. The training courses train you to think of your gun last, after all other options are unavailable to you.

Is it realistic to expect all properly trained individuals to react appropriately? No, but then again the training is designed to keep you from drawing your weapon in the first place until there is no other option.

[ziegler]

Firefly....I'd thank you for your service, but this being the internet and all....you'll understand that I dont extend those thanks to just anybody.

You speak the truth though, just wanted to say I agree with your conclusions

[Sabot]

Originally Posted by Baneblade

Your ignorance is showing. The vast majority of firearm training is about situational awareness, threat assessment, and whether or not use of the weapon is warranted. Hell most instructors will tell you flat out that often times drawing down on someone is an escalation no responsible gun owner should go out of their way to do. The training courses train you to think of your gun last, after all other options are unavailable to you.

Is it realistic to expect all properly trained individuals to react appropriately? No, but then again the training is designed to keep you from drawing your weapon in the first place until there is no other option.

It is your ignorance that is showing when you pounce on something like me missunderstanding just exactly what kind of training he meant, without adding anything of value to the discussion. Also, note the question mark at the end... it should give a hint as to what the sentence means.

And stop trying to justify this by presenting training as an option. It is not realistic, and people wont do it, they wont have time to do it, and it wont stop people from taking advatage of it.

[Baneblade]

Originally Posted by Sabot

It is your ignorance that is showing when you pounce on something like me missunderstanding just exactly what kind of training he meant, without adding anything of value to the discussion. Also, note the question mark at the end... it should give a hint as to what the sentence means.

And stop trying to justify this by presenting training as an option. It is not realistic, and people wont do it, they wont have time to do it, and it wont stop people from taking advatage of it.

We require a license to operate a motor vehicle, but don't have similar requirements for firearms. I think that is a mistake. I believe it should be mandatory to not only be a registered and licensed firearm operator, but like driver licensing, you should have to test and qualify to operate certain weapons. The Concealed Carry License being the 'CDL X' of the firearm license. Including requiring at minimum 180 hours of instruction.

[ziegler]

Originally Posted by Baneblade

We require a license to operate a motor vehicle, but don't have similar requirements for firearms. I think that is a mistake. I believe it should be mandatory to not only be a registered and licensed firearm operator, but like driver licensing, you should have to test and qualify to operate certain weapons. The Concealed Carry License being the 'CDL X' of the firearm license. Including requiring at minimum 180 hours of instruction.

You dont have to have a license to drive on your property. I can drive a mack truck across my farm and not a damned thing the government has to say about it.....

Most places dont allow you to carry a weapon in public, without a carry license that requires a back ground check, no criminal convictions, no mental illness and you're required to qualify with an instructor. (granted when my dad got his, and put the first shots dead center the instructor advised him of the following....if your qualifying score is very high, if you ever have to go to court, they are going to look at your accuracy...if you are really accurate, it will be difficult to say you didnt mean to kill him....whereas, if you barely qualify, you have a reasonable chance of saying you were lucky to even hit him....Dad fired the remainder of his shots into the ground.)

[Baneblade]

I'm not talking about private property. I'm talking about public carry of weapons. In many states/cities you can carry a pistol unconcealed in public. But, as soon as you are on private property, you are subject to the limits imposed by the owner. The contention being that the vast majority of 'public' situations where a firearm would be helpful in resolving a situation happen on private property where neither the victim or the suspect were representatives of that owner. So even by being a good Samaritan and carrying your CCW with your permit and your .38, you are still very likely to face legal actions of the property owner.

It's a big mess truth be told and many third parties are trying to inject their own spooge into the orgy. At the end of the day, the only thing we can be sure of is that on our own property we have the right to defend ourselves against unannounced guests with unreasonable intentions. Unless you live in the UK, where you can be sued by a burgler for cutting themselves on your broken window... that they broke to get into your house. Bollox.