Guns

[Blood Eagle]

yup.... All it does is prove how stupid people are...

Title of the video should be, "Untrained and Uninterested Individuals Performing Poorly with Firearms".

 

[Parker]

I heard giving everyone guns was a great idea.

A lot of people can't even shoot the damn things well enough to use them as defensive weapons.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...r-people-try-to-use-handguns-in-self-defense/

Yep, that makes total sense. Do you honestly think that the people who carry a firearm as a means of self defense don't make some attempt to train with it?

 

[Garage13]

yeah and gun free zones are able to deter mass shootings too

 

[Swift]

I don't see why we don't have training for carry license like a drivers license. You go, get the training then you certified to carry. Not a huge deal to me. But of course, the bureaucracy wouldn't allow that to happen.

 

[Blood Eagle]

I don't see why we don't have training for carry license like a drivers license. You go, get the training then you certified to carry. Not a huge deal to me. But of course, the bureaucracy wouldn't allow that to happen.

It's a state by state thing. AZ is the only state that you don't even need a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Most all other states require classes and proficiency tests. The people in the video likely had absolutely no interest in carrying firearms for self defense. I'd like to see the same video with real people who have been approved to carry. That horrible study there involved 77 people of which 35 were Law Enforcement Officers. That's 42 civilians with "varying degrees of firearms training". Funny, they only used 4 regular people on the video and they are obviously on the low end of the spectrum. Another thing to note, the 2nd lady in the convenience store robbery actually shot twice as you can see the slide go back on the fake gun but then it was reported that she did not shoot and the robbers took the money and left. That's a lie to enforce the point of the video. You can clearly see it. Again, this video is pure garbage.

 

[Swagger897]

I don't see why we don't have training for carry license like a drivers license. You go, get the training then you certified to carry. Not a huge deal to me. But of course, the bureaucracy wouldn't allow that to happen.

Because there are some people who can learn by themselves, and others who are hopeless..

Why should I have to go through training when I've been beside a gun all my life?

It's no different than 9/11, where they got their licenses, and still used it for evil.

 

[wareric11]

Better education of the subject and safety around them is needed. Also better monitoring of those with mental disorders. When I was going through depression my family kept the guns away just to be 100% safe (great move on their part). Now I am not going through that so my dad, brother, and I love to go to the range.

 

[Swift]

Because there are some people who can learn by themselves, and others who are hopeless..

Why should I have to go through training when I've been beside a gun all my life?

It's no different than 9/11, where they got their licenses, and still used it for evil.

So, by your logic, if you've been driving, say on your farm, since you were 10 you shouldn't need a licence? Sorry, that's a logical falicy. In my state of Maryland, it's almost impossible to get a carry permit. When oyu get one, usually you can only carry during specific situations. Like taking large sums of money from a business to a bank. It's just ridiculous.

With training, people will have a better understanding of the finality of guns and respect it more. It's not a perfect solution, but it gets us closer to a better nation then the criminals almost exclusively carrying.

 

[Touring Mars]

Why should I have to go through training when I've been beside a gun all my life?

Because there's a good chance that your ability to deal with a life-or-death situation in reality is considerably worse than you think it is? Maybe it isn't, but some form of evidence that proves that you do know how to handle a firearm appropriately would be good.

It's no different than 9/11, where they got their licenses, and still used it for evil.

Training, testing, education etc. will not prevent people from deliberate acts of violence - but that's not really the point here. The issue is how to minimise the risk of law-abiding citizens either killing someone (or themselves) accidentally or as a direct result of mishandling a gun/situation.

The parallels to driving are quite close - alot of people over-estimate their abilities behind the wheel, but at least driving a car (a lethal weapon itself) requires that you pass an ability test to show that you can at least handle a car to a certain level of ability.

 

[Lizard]

If it is a serious job then the criminals are going to be better skilled than your average citizen and they know this. This completely nullifies self defence as the citizen is in no better position or possibly even worse than if they didn't have anything.

Take a robbery for example.
No guns on citizen: Thieves walk in, steal stuff at gun point, walk out.
Guns: Thieves walk in. Someone shoots an item on the shelf or some innocent because they can't aim, thieves shoot the citizen because the citizen has issued a direct threat. Thieves still walk out with the stuff just more people on the ground dying.

And then there is the stuff about shooting people without need.

 

[Joel]

Take a robbery for example.
No guns on citizen: Thieves walk in, steal stuff at gun point, walk out.
Guns: Thieves walk in. Someone shoots an item on the shelf or some innocent because they can't aim, thieves shoot the citizen because the citizen has issued a direct threat. Thieves still walk out with the stuff just more people on the ground dying.

And then there is the stuff about shooting people without need.

And what if the criminals aren't just robbers out for some jewellery and valuables to sell? What if they're not content to just steal stuff at gunpoint and leave? Why do we assume that citizens aren't equally proficient to criminals? If we're talking hypotheticals it's just as reasonable that thieves break in, trigger an alarm system, and then the citizen loudly shouts that they have a shotgun and to leave the property. The thieves have guns too but leave because they don't want to risk their lives over the bit of jewellery they were going to steal.

Of course I fully agree with you that it's always better to deescalate the situation. If a person were to pull a knife or gun on me and demand my wallet and phone, I'd be handing it over immediately whether or not I had a concealed firearm. It's not worth getting in a knife/gunfight over a wallet and phone. I think anyone in this thread who supports CCW would agree, it's not worth it for a TV or your wallet. However, when we're talking about people breaking into your home I don't think it's unreasonable that people would want to have a firearm, if people are breaking into your home there's a lot more they could be wanting to do than just stealing a few valuables.

 

[FoolKiller]

I heard giving everyone guns was a great idea.

A lot of people can't even shoot the damn things well enough to use them as defensive weapons.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...r-people-try-to-use-handguns-in-self-defense/

What the WaPo conveniently forgets to mention is that the proposals for allowing someone like a teacher to carry a gun included having them be trained. Only the nuttiest folks suggested just handing guns out like a free lotion sample. This article, and this study, is only responding to the idiot nut jobs and not the organized groups they claim to be refuting.

It makes no sense to attack the NRA with a no training argument when they constantly promote training and even offer their own courses.

I don't see why we don't have training for carry license like a drivers license. You go, get the training then you certified to carry. Not a huge deal to me. But of course, the bureaucracy wouldn't allow that to happen.

You are required to take a course to get a concealed carry license in Kentucky. They are even offered with deals on Groupon and have their own organized site to aid people in finding one.

If it is a serious job

As 99% of crime isn't. We don't live in the movies. Outside of gang members the random gun violence is often someone who has never shot a person in their lives.

then the criminals are going to be better skilled than your average citizen and they know this. This completely nullifies self defence as the citizen is in no better position or possibly even worse than if they didn't have anything.

Assuming you think, as the ridiculous article you posted claims, that the suggestion is to just hand everyone guns without training, but its not.

Take a robbery for example.

The incidents that spark these debates are actual random public shootings by unstable individuals, but let's play along.

No guns on citizen: Thieves walk in, steal stuff at gun point, walk out.

And the thieves still haven't shot their first person.

Guns: Thieves walk in. Someone shoots an item on the shelf or some innocent because they can't aim, thieves shoot the citizen because the citizen has issued a direct threat. Thieves still walk out with the stuff just more people on the ground dying.

I remember this Tarantino movie. Not Pulp Fiction, obviously, because that one turned sour for the thieves. Reservoir Dogs?

And then there is the stuff about shooting people without need.

Addressed by the suggestion that people own a gun and have proper training, and the fact that these suggestions are being made in response to unstable individuals going on homicidal rampages, not because of your run-of-the-mill robbery.

By the way, I was working at a movie theater when it was robbed by a man with a gun. He never had to pull his gun. He just showed that he had it and asked for the money. Smart criminals aren't waving guns around wildly. They try to stay quiet, not make themselves seem like they will hurt someone, and generally don't want to shoot anyone.


Sometimes I wonder, do people in other countries think that an American town where everyone has guns will look like the one in Hot Fuzz? That's how it sometimes sounds when you all talk about it.

 

[Parker]

If it is a serious job then the criminals are going to be better skilled than your average citizen and they know this. This completely nullifies self defence as the citizen is in no better position or possibly even worse than if they didn't have anything.

Take a robbery for example.
No guns on citizen: Thieves walk in, steal stuff at gun point, walk out.
Guns: Thieves walk in. Someone shoots an item on the shelf or some innocent because they can't aim, thieves shoot the citizen because the citizen has issued a direct threat. Thieves still walk out with the stuff just more people on the ground dying.

And then there is the stuff about shooting people without need.

You give the average criminal far too much credit, while a "serious" criminal doing a "serious job" may be more skilled than the average citizen, the average criminal committing an average crime likely has the same amount, or less (depending on location) experience with a firearm as the average citizen.

The example you used is extremely silly, you think a petty thief is going to risk his life to make a few hundred bucks at best by robbing a gas station or the like? No, the vast majority of the time that they know there is force that will be used against them, they will flee the majority of the time.

Your anti-American bias is pretty amusing but it makes you come across as extremely ignorant. If someone who had never been to America were to read your posts they'd likely think that there is a shootout on every corner at the top of every hour.

 

[Exorcet]

I heard giving everyone guns was a great idea.

A lot of people can't even shoot the damn things well enough to use them as defensive weapons.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...r-people-try-to-use-handguns-in-self-defense/

What stuck out most for me was that the average citizen was clearly holding the gun in a visible manner. The simulated criminal didn't seem to take that into account. I imagine in many cases that a visible gun would prevent the altercation completely.

Besides that, as already said, the premise is pretty ridiculous in that it just hands to guns to people who have no idea how to use them.

 

[Swagger897]

What stuck out most for me was that the average citizen was clearly holding the gun in a visible manner. The simulated criminal didn't seem to take that into account. I imagine in many cases that a visible gun would prevent the altercation completely.

Besides that, as already said, the premise is pretty ridiculous in that it just hands to guns to people who have no idea how to use them.

Showing a gun and saying "I'm gonna shoot you" is a lot different than pulling a gun out and making a lethal shot..

That's the golden rule if you find yourself in a life threatening situation.

With training, people will have a better understanding of the finality of guns and respect it more. It's not a perfect solution, but it gets us closer to a better nation then the criminals almost exclusively carrying.

Please elaborate on your version of training. Mine is knowing the capabilities of the weapon, and using the weapon enough where I know everything from the trigger pull to the placement of the bullet. That's enough for me. Having to learn when to use a gun in certain situations, not so much. You shoot when you are facing the fact that you might not make it out or someone else isn't going to either.

Because there's a good chance that your ability to deal with a life-or-death situation in reality is considerably worse than you think it is? Maybe it isn't, but some form of evidence that proves that you do know how to handle a firearm appropriately would be good.

I'd say having a strong upbringing with weapons from family and throughout scouting quided me more than what the average person in that WaPo article has gone through.

 

[Swift]

Please elaborate on your version of training. Mine is knowing the capabilities of the weapon, and using the weapon enough where I know everything from the trigger pull to the placement of the bullet. That's enough for me. Having to learn when to use a gun in certain situations, not so much. You shoot when you are facing the fact that you might not make it out or someone else isn't going to either.

Something like an autocross for guns. Now, this is only for concealed or other carry permits.

I think a driver's license is insufficient. Every new driver should have to go to an autocross. Why? To learn the limits of a car. So, the same thing for the guns. Have a training session with paint ball like cops do to understand how quickly and easily things can turn on you. That's all.

 

[Swagger897]

Something like an autocross for guns. Now, this is only for concealed or other carry permits.

I think a driver's license is insufficient. Every new driver should have to go to an autocross. Why? To learn the limits of a car. So, the same thing for the guns. Have a training session with paint ball like cops do to understand how quickly and easily things can turn on you. That's all.

That's a tad bit unrealistic (okay, maybe more than that) but I understand where you're coming from.

I see something like this for those who are first time buyers, that can be ordered by the state (not the feds because that would impose on the 2nd(err... maybe that's contradicting but somehow that's how I'd do it)) to train people. I'd prefer the idea that when the buyer completes the course, the gun is transferred from state to buyer (or some arranged way with licensed dealers). The issue with that is used guns sold by owner..

 

[Garage13]

If it is a serious job then the criminals are going to be better skilled than your average citizen and they know this. This completely nullifies self defence as the citizen is in no better position or possibly even worse than if they didn't have anything.

Take a robbery for example.
No guns on citizen: Thieves walk in, steal stuff at gun point, walk out.
Guns: Thieves walk in. Someone shoots an item on the shelf or some innocent because they can't aim, thieves shoot the citizen because the citizen has issued a direct threat. Thieves still walk out with the stuff just more people on the ground dying.

And then there is the stuff about shooting people without need.

like i said proper training by the citizen can deter and stop criminals.limiting gun mags and other gun control measures have zero effect on the criminal

 

[Michael88]

like i said proper training by the citizen can deter and stop criminals.limiting gun mags and other gun control measures have zero effect on the criminal

Besides, there is a law that prohibits people from shooting people to death as well. I guess its safe to say that those who ignore this law also don't care much about laws limiting magazines and the types of firearms legally available.

''I'm going to kill a bunch of people, but look, I won't be using those high capacity magazines because they are illegal in California.''

 

[Garage13]

yeah because criminals will always find ways of obtaining firearms even when you ban them

 

[Swift]

yeah because criminals will always find ways of obtaining firearms even when you ban them

Just like they get drugs,even though they are banned.

 

[Peasantslayer]

The average sentence for someone caught in possession of a gun without a license in the UK is 4 and half years, over here you have to go through a process lasting months just to obtain a license limited to hunting rifles and shotguns and every aspect of your home is checked to make sure your house and weapons are secure. It would make sense for the USA to at least make things a little harder to reduce the number of gun crimes in the country.

Just like they get drugs,even though they are banned.

But if illegal drugs were made legal they'd be much more prevalent don't you think? Anything made illegal is automatically more expensive and harder to obtain if going to prison wasn't enough.

 

[Swift]

But if illegal drugs were made legal they'd be much more prevalent don't you think? Anything made illegal is automatically more expensive and harder to obtain if going to prison wasn't enough.

Of course. But banning something doesn't mean you will have less of a bad action. Look at the countries with the strictest gun laws. They still have mass shootings. Some more than the USA.

 

[FoolKiller]

But if illegal drugs were made legal they'd be much more prevalent don't you think?

Would they? If we legalized heroin do you think people would suddenly go out and become junkies just because they can? Oh sure, some would experiment to see what it was like, but you are talking about people who primarily have no bad intentions in their decision. I think you would wind up with a large portion of any increase being due to the people who use it socially or on the weekend, similar to alcohol and most of the anecdotal tales I hear from Colorado. I don't see a lot of stories coming out of pot heads being problematic.

Of course, getting a gun to "try" it is not as cheap as a legalized drug. Trying a gun will involve going to a shooting range and renting one for use from the range, and only using it at the range. Pricing to buy a gun not the same as recreational drugs. And those who do buy it when it is legal primarily aren't looking to go commit a crime. In fact, using a legal gun in a crime is a very good way to get caught as the bullet can be connected with the gun, and a legal gun has a manufacturer's serial number that can be used to track down its owner, even if only through receipts of purchase.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Actually, I did look up in the dictionary what paraphrasing was, and no, what you did isn't paraphrasing, since I never said that having guns under stricter regulations was the solution to all murders. Which is exactly what you said ("in your own words") I said. And it's simply not true. I would have to be very naive, and would be basically calling every American stupid (because if the solution is so simple, why didn't they carry it out?).

Didn't say all murders/violence but the general sense of murders/violence by guns, you said regulation would help stop incidents which I paraphrase, and thus did so correctly, the added words you gave it are of your own volition and not mine. Thus you trying to spin it as not something loosely based on your own verbiage isn't correct.

What was discussed was the subject of guns. I've already said, very early in the thread, that a lot of things contribute to these events. And as a society, it is our duty to prevent these things from happening, starting with something as simple as not bullying someone just because "we" think he/she is a loser and deserves to be bullied.

Agreed and also easily covered in human rights thread so I'll leave it at that.

If Joey D's statements about getting a gun are true, that either means you can't see the truth, or you just don't care about it. If what you say is true, and no further regulations are needed on guns, then I apologize for this large, innecessary discussion.

One way or another, there's little point in discussing this. I'm over here, and you are over there. When I get to the US and get a gun, I'll be able to see whether gun regulations are good enough, or bad. That came out wrong.



Out of curiosity though, what's the standard procedure to getting a gun legally?

So it's either I'm right or a double negative...yeah that doesn't make much sense since the situation you want to discuss is more difficult that that. Since Joey D gave a vague idea of what was so easy about the purchase I'm not sure how you expect me (almost as if I could read his mind) to figure out what or even if his statement is true compared to mine.

So I'll tell you the reality of things (which you can verify from others on this thread) to purchase a rifle, shotgun or any type of long gun of reason you have to be 18. To purchase and legally carry a handgun you have to be 21. Now when you go and Purchase a gun through a gun retailer (even Bass Pro Shop or Walmart) you have to go through a back ground check using the NICS. Which was put in place due to the Brady Act of the early 90s.

Now what I told you above is a federal mandate, the other regulations and checks are done by various states and change from state to state. In my state all you need in the Federal checks and you're good to go and can virtually own anything in the state as long as you have the required Federal documents (so even automatic weapons via Class III).

The only issue I see and maybe this is how Joey D went about it, is there are loop holes which I explained in the other thread. Such as second hand purchase. Meaning I could sell you a gun and you wouldn't need to do a check or fill out paperwork involved. This can also be done online or at gun shows. However, most places selling guns are FFL dealers even vendors at Gun Shows or Online, it's those craiglist sellers or random garage sell guys at the gun shows that don't care.

 

[Swagger897]

I know there's a place in my city's square where he has a boat load of Mosins, and I don't recall him doing a background check on me. Same for when my dad bought me my Mauser, but that was second hand from a guy at work...

 

[Grayfox]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/03/us/texas-lawmakers-approve-bill-allowing-guns-on-campus.html?_r=0

What are peoples thoughts on this?

 

[Danoff]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/03/us/texas-lawmakers-approve-bill-allowing-guns-on-campus.html?_r=0

What are peoples thoughts on this?

Students carrying guns is part of the reason that the shooter who climbed the UTexas clock tower didn't kill a lot more people. Everyone loves to talk about how hard it is for the random armed citizen to shoot and kill someone on a murderous rampage but they forget how effective a little bit of resistance is at buying time for the cops to arrive.

 

[Swagger897]

Yeah... that's sorta an iffy one... On one hand, you (supposedly) have a bunch of responsible kids who are knowledgeable (supposedly) about the issues at hand, and should be responsible enough to carry if they have gone through the correct procedures to do so.


On the other hand, I see a version of me (I'm a small guy, not real built, but that's all I'm relating to) who has depression (I have no depression, I find that something that doesn't exist) and goes off like all the other mass shootings we've had. Of course, it could be just a pistol, but a pistol with a few concealed clips is gonna hurt a lot of people.

I don't think now is the right time to do such. I foresee another mass argument and uproar over this..

 

[Swift]

Students carrying guns is part of the reason that the shooter who climbed the UTexas clock tower didn't kill a lot more people. Everyone loves to talk about how hard it is for the random armed citizen to shoot and kill someone on a murderous rampage but they forget how effective a little bit of resistance is at buying time for the cops to arrive.

Thank you! This is the simple point that the left can't seem to grasp.