longbough

It seems, whenever I discuss the issue of gun-control in debate I spend most of my time addressing popular preconcieved notion about gun-owners.

Here's how I was trained - and what I believe. I don't presume to speak for all gun-owners, but this is the way I was trained and it's what I consider basic to understand for people who don't.

1.) If someone wants to steal my wallet, car, briefcase etc. I DON'T reach for a gun (if I had one) - I let him have it all. That's what insurance is for.
2.) If someone verbally threatens me, I DON'T reach for a gun (if I had one). I try to talk to him and find a resolution.
3.) If someone verbally threatens my family, I DON'T reach for a gun (if I had one). I stand between him and my family and try to talk to him to find a resolution.
4.) If someone verbally threatens my family AND he's holding a knife I DON'T reach for a gun (if I had one). I stand between him and my family and try to talk to him to find a resolution.
5.) But if someone is charging at my helpless family with knife (or other weapon) in hand, clearly intending to do physical harm, - I WILL draw my weapon to STOP him.

*Note: I said STOP, not KILL. It's not just a euphemistic distinction - it's an IMPORTANT one. My intent is to STOP an act of violence directed against myself or a loved one ... that's all. The mortality/morbidity of my target is not the main issue.

i.e. If I happen to shoot and miss but the agressor drops his knife and/or runs away - the aggressor is STOPPED.
If I shoot him and the bullet lacerates the thoracic aorta but he is able to plunge a knife into a loved one just before he dies from rapid internal bleeding - the aggressor is NOT STOPPED.

My only concern is the protection of my family - the aggressor's health is a secondary consideration. That's why we say that a gun in personal defense is for STOPPING a violent act.

6.) Anger, anxiety, sadness or nervousness are not emotions conducive to proper use of firearms. The reason why professional training is so important is to keep your emotions or neuroses from confounding your ability to think rationally. Breath-control, meditation, education and simulations all play a role in this regard. The implicit truth is that, if one were to "justifiably" shoot someone - it would be a calculated, deliberate conscious decision conducted efficiently - not one provoked by anger, hatred or revenge.

It doesn't mean you should be cold-blooded and emotionless ... that's not true at all. Anger, fear, sadness and other emotions are all important (they make us human) - but they are incompatable with certain critical situations - self-defense is one of those situations.

For example, another situation where volatile emotions are inappropriate is in a physician working in the ER (that's what I've done in the past). Someone comes in requiring intubation (mechanical ventilation) but they're fighting everyone because you're shoving a big tube town their throat without analgesia or sedation because it's an emergency ... My emotions and empathy would have me concerned about his level of comfort - but that delay would certainly cost the patient his life. Basically: Intubate him in a few seconds or he's going to die .. period.

I've had many times in the ER when I have had to be functional through more than one patient tragedy - otherwise I'd be useless to the other patients who needed me. But while driving home I'd pull over just so I could cry/scream alone.

If I ever find myself shooting someone for the purposes of self-defense - I'd like to think clearly during the encounter - but also deal with the emotional, psychological impact only when it is all over.

**Note: I also don't believe in brandishing a weapon until the moment I decide to use it.

Some people believe that a firearm brandished in a threatening manner without shooting can stop a situation. It would make sense since, statistically, over 90% of confrontations have ended after presentation of the weapon. But I'd still have to disagree with "brandishing" as a threat for several reasons.

The ability to shoot another individual under the right circumstance requires training as well as mental and physical discipline. The decision to shoot takes place over a split second. When you brandish a weapon you have placed yourself in a "mental" grey zone where you can't account for all the possibilities at once. What if the person looks you in the eye and faces you - he doesn't attack - but he also doesn't run away? You'll notice many criminals don't quite cooperate even when facing several officers pointing guns at them. What do you do then? I'm not saying this will happen - but it does happen.

At that moment he has the moment to read your body language - (fear? confusion? anger?) - until you actually face the situation you don't know in advance how you'll truly react. A common trick is to confuse your senses by begging for mercy and holding their hands up while obviously advancing on you - Your ability to empathize gets mixed signals because your mind doesn't see any clear reason to shoot - it's extremely difficult to shoot someone looking at you begging for mercey while he's crawling toward you - even if you KNOW he's faking.

Let's say this was a confrontation in the home and he runs away. Now you have a criminal on the loose who knows where you live and knows you have a gun in the house. Most likely he won't come back. But sometimes they do ... If I were in that situation it'd be hard for me to sleep for a weeks/months knowing that someone might return.

Also, if you draw your weapon without the immediate intention to shoot - you are depending on some instinctual "trigger" to allow you to shoot as the situation demands. If the "trigger" isn't CRYSTAL CLEAR the delay will cost lives.

e.g. You have your gun drawn on a burglar who approaches you slowly with his hands in the air saying "Let's talk about this, buddy." You tell him to stop and talk from where he's standing - but he keeps approaching slowly calmly saying, "I'm not armed. I just want to talk." In your mind you know he's probably just trying to close the distance between you two - You keep yelling at him to "stop." but he doesn't..... at what point do you shoot (if at all)? When he's got his arms raised in the air and 20ft away? 15ft? 10ft? 5ft? ....

I don't want to be in that situation - that's why I don't brandish.
---------

ziadel

did'nt Cooper make that line 21 feet or something?

__________________
Ron Paul '08
Vote for Freedom
Go ahead and google Dr. Ron Paul. You'll like what you read.

dksuddeth

the moment you draw your weapon and that burglar does NOT turn around and run but continues walking towards you.....you shoot. It doesn't matter whether he's 3 feet or 30 feet away. If he continues to approach you instead of retreating, he is a threat to your life and you are entitled to defend yourself.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

longbough

I'm not talking entitlement so much as human nature. I'm not saying you're wrong - it's just that it is EXTRAORDINARILY difficult to shoot someone who may be approaching but doesn't look like he's about to attack (e.g. hands up and facing you) especially if he's looking at you in the eyes.

longbough

Nope.
7 yards is the rough distance covered by a charging subject in 1.5 seconds. Therefore we train to draw a weapon from concealment and place 2 rounds in the thorax of a target at 7 yards in 1.5 seconds.

I'm sure you knew that.

shakran

I don't have a gun but I have trained with and carry a knife. I have the same policy. If the knife comes out in a conflict, it's coming out because I intend to kill someone with it. Otherwise, it stays clipped in my pocket.



Also, keep in mind that while YOU may have weapon discipline, MANY who own weapons do not.

Bill O'Rights

Very true.

However...the same can be said for pretty much anything.

While YOU may be a safe driver, and follow the rules of the road, MANY who own cars do not.

While YOU may be a responsible drinker, and respect your limits, MANY who drink alcohol do not.

While YOU may pratice "Safe Sex", MANY who get laid do not.

While YOU may have put on clean underwear this morning, MANY who own them did not.

You get the idea.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

shakran

Did we REALLY need to go there Bill?

Yes, of course you're right. I pointed that out because a lot of people use that argument to say "see? Guns should be allowed no matter what. I'm safe with them!" And whether you agree that guns are constitutionally protected rights or not, that argument doesn't hold water.

ratbastid

That's actually very much NOT longbough's policy.

longbough's policy isn't about killing someone with anything. His policy is about stopping an act of violence. He said, "the aggressor's health is a secondary consideration." It IS a consideration. It just comes after his own safety or the safety of those he's protecting.

This is off topic, and I don't mean to threadjack with it, but I have to say, I'm deeply conflicted about the personal ownership of guns. On one hand, I hear sombody like longbough talk about the rigor and discipline and responsibility they approach gun ownership with, and I'm ALL for it. On the other, I see people talking and behaving totally the other direction about their guns--full of pompous grandstanding and swaggar--and I want laws and rules and regulations to keep weapons way far away from those people. I don't know. Maybe there's nothing to to but to take the good with the bad, but... "the bad" results in lost lives. I'm very, very torn about it. I don't mean to turn this into a gun control thread at all, just to respond to the (excellent) OP.

shakran

But it's a little different with a knife. A gun actually gives you more options. If I shoot you in the leg it's gonna hurt like hell, and you'll know you've been shot. If I slice you in the leg (and miss the femoral artery of course) and it's a well-sharpened knife, you might not even know you've been cut until later. That's why if I pull my knife, I'm not going to be aiming for targets that won't physically drop him without relying on pain. And since targets that will physically drop him tend to be ones that will also kill him. . .




I think you're probably in the majority there. Even die hard NRA members surely don't want idiots to be running around with guns. What we can do about that while still allowing non-idiots to have guns, that's a pretty tough question.

dksuddeth

we already have idiots running around with guns. All one needs to do to confirm that is read the national news and count the gun violence stories. We are already doing all we can to allow non-idiots to carry by requiring federal background checks and training before a license is issued. what more would you like? implant minority report chips in the brain stems so you can preempt someone going off the deep end?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

shakran

Wow. I wasn't even trying to get a rise out of someone with that one, but if you wanna throw down, here goes.

You have no right to a gun. Only a powerful NRA lobby has given you the ability to get one. After all, they regulate what kind of knife I carry. If it's more than 3" (less in some states) the cops can confiscate it and charge me with a crime. YOU can get an AK-47. I can't even legally carry 4 inch blade. Why? because I don't have the *constitutional* right to carry any sort of knife. And there isn't a knife lobby like the NRA out there, so blade users are out in the cold.

Anyone who says the 2nd amendment gives you the right to a gun is dead wrong. So to answer your question, sure I have the perfect way to do it. Ban gun ownership without intense psychological testing (at the gun buyer's expense). Any strange tendencies, no gun.

Require gun purchasers to take out a large victims insurance policy so that if they do shoot someone at least the medical bills or funeral is paid for. Hell that's not even unfair - I have to take out liability insurance to drive a car. Why should you get to carry a shotgun around without guaranteeing you can pay when you send someone to the hospital with it?

And the 7 day waiting period is crap. If I want to kill you, I'm willing to wait 7 days to do it. Totally useless, especially since it doesn't universally apply. Go buy your gun at a gun show, and it's not hard to find one of those.

Then toughen the criminal laws. Remove the distinction between attempted murder and murder. I don't care if you're too bad of a shot to actually kill your target. You tried to do it, you have the same mindset of an actual murderer, you get the same penalty.

Require bianual gun safety and target training. And I mean TOUGH training that you have to pass 100% or you lose your gun. Even if you are a legitimate gun owner, I don't want your aim to be so piss poor that you miss the criminal and hit the guy near him, and I don't want you forgetting to put the safety on or to unload the gun before you mess with it.

ANY firearms violations and you should lose your guns, and lose your ability to buy guns for at least 3 years. Cheney could go out tomorrow hunting again even though he's already proven he's dangerous with firearms.

No more automatic weapons. No more assault rifles. You do not need an AK47 to kill a deer, even if the deer's really angry.

And while we're at it, this wouldn't be legislated, but I really wanna stop hearing that bullshit the gun lobby puts forth that people need guns so they can fight back if the government tries to oppress you. Number one, it's not gonna work. The army has tanks. The airforce has bombers. And they train every day. They beat entire countries. Japan, Germany, Iraq. . . sort of. And those are countries with more and bigger and better guns than you can get.

Cleetus sitting on his porch with a deer rifle is NOT going to stop the government if they want to oppress you. Plus, if the guns are really for protection from a government that's removing our rights, then why aren't they already shooting, since our government is actively involved in removing our rights as we speak.


so yeah, there's a lot more we could be doing to restrict gun ownership only to those sane enough and responsible enough and proficient enough to use them with a greatly reduced risk to the public.

WillyPete

We have many more morons in cars. It's just that it's easier to hold up a grocery store with a Smith and Wesson than it is a Ford F350

WillyPete

Those are some sound requirements Shakran.
Although good luck lobbying for them.

After all, don't you need to renew a driver license every 5 or ten years?

ratbastid

Fair enough.

Ustwo

This one I don't agree with. If he attacks you won't have time, so you reach first, if he attacks you shoot, if not you don't. Holding the knife and threatening is enough for me. His reactionin that fraction of a second will determine his fate, but by threatening and brandishing a weapon he has already crossed the line from potential threat to likely threat. Might this cause someone to be hurt when there was a chance there wouldn't have been anyone hurt? Yes. But since that chance swings against the aggressor I don't mind.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

dksuddeth

It wasn't a 'rise' so much as it was to point out that there are thousands of guns in the hands of people who either aren't trained with them, use them for criminal purposes, or are negligent with them. Those were the idiots I was referring to. With regards to the chip implant remark, there is NO WAY to control guns on the street. D.C., New York, and Chicago have tried it for decades and it does NOT work. We live in a reactive world, not a proactive world.

I'm tired of proving people wrong on this point. why is it that some people just refuse to acknowedge that the second amendment is about an INDIVIDUAL right, not a collective right? What you need to do shakran is read all the documentation about how the bill of rights was authored, drafted, and ratified. You also need to read the arguments of the founding fathers who put the BoR together, specifically george mason. Every one of these founders specifically states that the right to bear arms is not only an individual right, but a responsibility to a free state.

JOHN F. KENNEDY, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take
arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of
their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."
"By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia,' the 'security' of the nation, and the
right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms,' our founding fathers recognized the
essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the
fears of governmental tyranny, which gave rise to the Second Amendment, will ever
be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important
declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be
ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the
Second Amendment will always be important."

HUBERT HUMPHREY, FORMER U.S. SENATOR AND VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter
how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.... The
right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one
more safeguard against tyranny."

JOHN ADAMS, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
“Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my
limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have
never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I
could not surrender if I would."
"Here, every private person is authorized to arm himself, and on the strength of this
authority, I do not deny the inhabitants had a right to arm themselves at that time, for
their defense, not for offense..."

THOMAS JEFFERSON, AUTHOR OF THE AMERICAN DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or
tenements)."
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the
people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."

PATRICK HENRY, AMERICAN FOUNDING FATHER AND CATALYST FOR THE BILL OF RIGHTS
"The great objective is that every man be armed . . . . Everyone who is able may
have a gun."

SAMUEL ADAMS, MEMBER OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS
"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to
infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the
people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own
arms..."

RICHARD HENRY LEE, MEMBER OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS
“[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people
always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use
them;”

ALEXANDER HAMILTON, AUTHOR OF THE FEDERALIST PAPERS
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly
armed."

ZACHARIAH JOHNSON
"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession
of them."
Tell me again that the second amendment does not give a right to a gun.



Thats why we have a justice system so that when you use your firearm in a criminal manner, you face charges.

I agree, waiting periods are useless and should be done away with.

agreed. gun crimes should do the hardest damn time possible, if not the death penalty. screw this 'crime of passion' crap. if you can't be responsible at ALL times, don't have a gun.

why should the average citizen be required to train or qualify with expectations beyond what our own law enforcement are required to do?

there is a HUGE difference between a hunting accident and clear violations of law with intent to do harm. this isn't even a bad comparison, it just sucks.

I do not need an AK47 to kill a deer, but I will need that AK to fight off armed gangs of thugs or the government, should they decide that the rest of the country needs to be disarmed like they did in new orleans.

Do you realize the political ramifications if our government were to dispense military weaponry against a large portion of the populace? A standing army of 3 million, no matter how well armed, could never fight off a 'militia' of over 100 million. If you wish to stop hearing the argument that we need to be able to fight back against a tyrannical government then you've already submitted yourself as a willing slave instead of an american.

Every person, group, and population has its limits on what it will tolerate. Do a google search on the 'battle of athens' and see how this works.


so yeah, there's a lot more we could be doing to restrict gun ownership only to those sane enough and responsible enough and proficient enough to use them with a greatly reduced risk to the public.[/QUOTE]

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

shakran

Well that's a topic for a whole other thread, but that's stupid too. Of course, it makes sense in the USA since our minimum requirements to drive are so appallingly low that testing is virtually pointless anyway.




Sure there's a way to control some of the guns on the street. We can keep the idiots who buy a gun, don't train with it, and then shoot their child thinking he's a robber from getting a gun. The idea that "if we ban guns only criminals will have guns" is kind of pointless. That's true of ANY law. If we enact speed limits then only rule breakers will get to go fast, so why bother? And so on.


The second amendment does not give a right to a gun. You can put up all the documentation you want for your side of this argument, and I can find an equal amount of documentation on my side. That's the trouble with the 2nd. It's written somewhat ambiguously. It has a qualification in it (the WELL REGULATED militia bit). If the qualification doesn't mean anything then why is it there?

Plus if the 2nd is meant to be interpreted your way, then I don't have the right to bear guns, I have the right to bear ARMS. It doesn't distinguish what KIND of arms. If I want to walk down the street with a samauri sword I should be able to. If I want to patrol my yard with a bazooka, I should be able to. If I want to park a missile battery in my driveway, I should be able to. Why can't I, if the 2nd should be interpreted your way?

You and I are not going to agree on this. I won't move you and you certainly won't move me. Perhaps we can agree on the fact that the 2nd has a LOT of people on both sides of the interpretation.


And the laws simply aren't tough enough.


Well first off LEO's should have to train harder with their guns as well. And to answer your question, because LEO's spend all day every day facing the possibility of using their weapon. This is something they think about a lot. They're trained for it and they're mentally prepared to deal with situations in which the gun might become a factor. The average citizen rarely thinks of getting into a conflict. They're not going to spend a lot of time going over scenarios in which they will have to decide whether or not to pull their gun.

Sure, as far as intent goes. But the end result is the same. Someone still got shot. That hunting accident should never have happened, and if Cheney had been more responsible with his gun, it wouldn't have happened. Maybe if people who had accidents like that because they were not responsible for their weapon had to take a 3 year break from playing with that weapon again, we'd have a greater incentive to learn what the hell you're doing before you pick up that gun.



As I said above, you will not defeat the government. Period.

A tyrannical government that's out to get its people is not concerned about political ramifications. And if you get in their way with your pea shooter, they'll mow you down.

A standing army of 3 million could easilly fight off 100 million. Bombers and cruise missles would easilly let 3 soldiers kill 100 people. You've got your ratio right there.

I'm not a willing slave, but I AM a realist. If the other side has infinitely more sophisticated weapons, and infinitely better training than I do, I am not going to win.

dksuddeth

You have to take in to account two things only, what the definition of 'militia' was back in the late 1700's and The Militia Act of 1792, which made no provision for any type of select militia such as the National Guard.
* U.S. Senate Subcommittee Report (1982). "In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined ‘militia of the United States’ to include almost every free adult male in the United States. These persons were obligated by law to possess a [military-style] firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment. . . . There can be little doubt from this that when the Congress and the people spoke of the a ‘militia,’ they had reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable of bearing arms, and not to any formal group such as what is today called the National Guard."187
* Current Federal Law: 10 U.S.C. Sec. 311. "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and . . . under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States . . . ."


you should be able to, you can't because a bunch of whiney pacifists were alarmed that people could walk down the street with a gun/sword/axe as a weapon out in public. We need to take that right back.

It's a shame we can't agree on what the 2A means, but i'll agree on the last part for sure.

they do more than you think, granted not all of them, maybe not even half of them, but they do.


another agree to disagree thing.



They can't mow everyone down. Hell, they can't even stop a small guerilla force in iraq.

Having been a marine for 6 years, I can tell you that if given the order to kill their fellow citizens, almost half would rebel.

They said the same thing about vietnam.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

shakran

So you're in favor of anyone having any kind of weapon they want? Don't you think that would get a little insane?


Ok so if not even half of them do, then at least 51% of gun owners are running around with a weapon they don't know how to use, that they aren't safe with, and that's therefore likely to get them or others hurt. Why is this a good idea again?

Well. . they COULD if they'd been allowed to do what they do rather than being sent over in numbers too small and with plans to hastilly thrown together.

Good to hear! Then we shouldn't need as many guns should we? After the rebel half and the order following half eliminate much of each other, there won't be much of a military left over to oppress us. Now, let's take a crazy scenario and say that the rebel half is totally wiped out by the other half - the half that would go after us. We're now facing only half the armed forces. But they still have bombs, missiles, tanks, B52's, howitzers. . You name it. I say again there's no way that a lightly armed populace (after allw e don't all have those missile batteries in our driveways) is going to beat a heavilly armed elite fighting force. No way.



So you're relying on the military commanders being total dumbasses? That doesn't sound like a safe survival strategy to me.

dksuddeth

Switzerland has very little 'weapon' control, in fact, I believe its a mandate to carry or at least own a weapon, and they have an extremely low crime rate. Whats insane about that?

Because SOME defense is better than NO defense. YOU alone are responsible for your safety, not the law/police. If YOU fail to properly train yourself with the weapon you are going to use to defend yourself, I say it's darwins law taking effect.



would that be because of political ramifications?



so you say, but you obviously don't have a problem if the government would suddenly decide to completely subjugate us, just so long as people don't have guns, right?



the military commanders weren't allowed to do what they needed because of the politicians. political ramifications were in effect. I still say that there are two main reasons why it's incredibly difficult for citizens to arm themselves.....whiney alarmists who think that the average citizen should not be allowed to defend themselves and a government who is afraid of an armed populace.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

shakran

While I'm not overly familiar with Switzerland's weapon laws, I'd hazard a guess and say that private citizens owning tanks would probably be right out.



The theory of evolution does not cover peope accidentally shot by an idiot that doesn't know how to use his gun.


It would be because W and his warmongers don't know how to run a war, but won't let the people who do know how actually do it.


Not sure where you got that idea. Of course I have a problem with it. But I'm also grounded in reality enough to know that if I'm going up against a tank with a deer rifle, I'm gonna lose.

I think you may be foggy on the definition of ramifications. And actually if you'll read your vietnam war history you'll see that there were plenty of military commanders doing stupid things over there.


What if the populace is afraid of an armed populace? And exactly what percentage of gun owners out there went out and bought their gun so they could be in this "well regulated militia" of yours that never trains or even has meetings?

dksuddeth

tank ownership by the people of switzerland is not even considered because the government is held in proper check by an armed populace.


yet we license teenagers to drive, we only have to renew them every few years, elderly folks who can barely see still drive until their next test several years away. People try to 'apples and oranges' this type of argument but a car is just as deadly as a gun in the wrong hands. More people are killed by automobiles than they are by a accidental handgun discharge. More children are killed by abusive parents/stepparents yearly than they are by accidental discharges.


Ok, I may have to agree with this for the most part, but it is still my contention that political ramifications are also a large part of that.


which is why we, as a civilian population, would never be stupid enough to 'dress ranks' and try to outshoot a tank head on. The term IED comes to mind.

why are people afraid of their neighbors being armed? It USED to be that we knew these people, had block parties, barbecues, 4th of july picnics....isolationism should not infringe upon the rights to defend ones self.
I carry a handgun at home, I know most of my neighbors, not well unfortunately, and even though they may not realize it, should they ever require it, i'll be there helping them defend themselves whether they would do the same for me or not. too bad more people in this country decide to be fearful of their neighbors instead of 'neighborly'.

How many 'militias' were attacked/hounded/arrested/and prosecuted by the clinton administration? These were people who banded together to do exactly as you think that is required by the 2A and yet were villified for that very reason. There is no pleasing a truly anti-gun individual so why should we bother? we'll remain isolated until there comes a truly desperate time for us to band together. All I can do is look at the post katrina gun grab...i'll bet that most of those people wish they would have banded together....what do you think that would have looked like had that 'militia' engaged the national guard following an illegal order?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

jwoody

#EDITED~

If you read it, I'm sorry.

If you didn't, never mind.

__________________
.

shakran

Then I suppose we can say the same here? Carrying a sword isn't considered because the government is held in proper check by an armed populace? Kinda convenient doncha think?

And if you search the right threads in here you'll see that I've always advocated a MUCH tougher driver education, training, and licensing system. I agree with you that it's far too easy to get permission to drive in this country, and far too many people die as a result.


Well hell I can make an IED without having a gun. And since guns are useless against what the military has, why not just make a bunch of bombs if it becomes necessary.

Because the majority of people who own guns aren't interested in getting enough proper training to own them safely. If you carry a gun, safety procedures should be second nature. You should be able to hit the center ring nearly EVERY time. Otherwise you're risking someone else's life for your false sense of security.

that's not relevant. It's not because I don't know them. It's because they aren't proficient enough with something that, if misused, could accidentally kill me.

I can only assume you're referring to Waco with your first question. If so, that was wrong, and the administration, the attorney general, and the ATF have admitted they screwed up bigtime. It should never have happened.

But I do have to point out that, if the Branch Davidians had not been able to get guns, they wouldn't have been raided over their little arsenal.

And it just goes to prove my point again. These guys were armed to the teeth and yet they still all died. Why? Because with modern weaponry, citizens can no longer arm themselves sufficiently to ward off a modern army.

dksuddeth

I'm not following you here. How do you think we have our government in proper check when they've been able to do the things they've done for the last 30 years?

Thank you for at least being consistent. Far too many people are not.

while IED's work great against armor, what about the troops? What about the politicians when we finally corner them?

even police are not required to hit the center ring everytime. All that is required is a certain amount of points and thats it. It's also not a false sense of security. Guns prevent an
estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6,849 every day. “Targeting Guns”, Dr. Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State University, 1997. Also, Less than 1% of all gun homicides involve innocent bystanders. Sherman, Steele, Laufersweiler, Hoffer and Julian, “Stray bullets and ‘mushrooms’”, 1989, Journal of
Quantitative Criminology

If you don't know them, how do you know that they aren't proficient? tell me how thats not relevant? Can you tell me that I'm not proficient? You don't know me so I must not be but it might surprise you that I qualified pistol expert all of my 6 years in the marine corps. None of my neighbors know that I qualified as a marine though, just that I was in the marines. I also think you are making way more of a problem out of 'accidental' gun deaths than you should be about other causes, like vehicle accidents or pool drownings.



actually, waco wasn't what came to mind for me. I was thinking about other states, not just texas, but you could include waco if you like. when you point out that if the branch had been unable to get guns, what you're really pointing out is that we should all be disarmed, defenseless, and subject to government oppression, yet again.

If you'll remember, the DoJ had ALL the media labelling koresh and his followers 'an anti-government pshyco mob bent on destroying the federal government child molesting satan worshipping sacrificial ritual' etc. The propaganda that was disseminated was used by the feds to make sure that the people did NOT rise up. The BATF and DoJ, had the truth been allowed to come out, would have been overwhelmed by mobs of angry citizens. What good does a tank do against 100 rushing angry and armed people?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

WillyPete

Heck, it's not whether you'd need a gun when it came to politicians, it's whether you'd want one at that point. A bullet is too quick.
For that you'd want (In the words of Marsellus) "a couple pipe-hittin' niggers, who'll go to work on homes here with a pair of pliers and a blow torch."

Bill O'Rights

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

shakran

No, actually that was my point exactly. The government's been abusing it's power for (far longer than) the last 30 years. Yet I can't have the weapon of my choice. Why is the NRA so excited about protecting the "rights" of gun owners, but they never say anything when blade users get screwed over? It's because 1) the NRA doesn't give a crap about the right to bear arms. They just want their guns and the 2nd is a convenient argument and 2) the 2nd doesn't give the absolute right to bear arms, it gives the right to bear arms in a well regulated militia, and if the NRA started advocating for being allowed to carry swords around, more people would come out of the woodwork and smack 'em down.



Go look in some of the VA hospitals. You'll notice that IED's do a pretty damn good job at mutilating American troops.

And this is why many people should NOT have guns. Now you're advocating shooting unarmed citizens just because you don't like what they do. How is that defending the rights and principles of this country?



I said NEARLY every time, and the cops have a much tougher target requirement than the average schmuck buying a gun.

and how many crimes are they used to commit? A lot more than that I'd wager.

I'm surprised it's that high since accidental shootings are nearly always classified as manslaughter. Meaningless statistic.

I don't know how proficient they are. That's the problem. If we were required to have excellent and ongoing training in order to carry a gun, then I'd KNOW you were proficient if you were allowed to have a gun.

In this thread, yes. That's because this thread is about guns, not cars or pools. In other threads I've bitched to high heaven about vehicle accident deaths. Don't think I've touched on pool drownings, but I'd probably think of something to say if the thread came up.


No, I'm pointing out that maybe it's not such a good idea to let just anybody build up an arsenal.

I don't recall the child molesting part. Even the Branch Davidians (there are more of them than just Koresh's groups) admit that Koresh had major issues, so the psycho bit isn't too far off. No one accused them of being satanists that I recall.


Um. . .a lot. Pretty hard to get into a tank if the guys inside don't want you there. So the tank can run 'em over / shoot 'em at its leisure.

dksuddeth

NRA stands for National RIFLE Association. If you wish to be able to wear katanas or claymores while walking down the street, lets look for a National Sword Association or something similar. Again, the 'well regulated militia HAS to be defined in terms of the period in which the constitution was written. I've posted that a little earlier. If you read it, you will see that it does indeed refer to individuals having a right to firearms.


Yes, they are effective, but nowhere near as effective as 100 rifles and pistols in close quarters combat.

I advocated no such thing, I was merely hypothesizing a situation in which the people would have to rebel against a tyrannical government. As it stands, if I don't like what MY representative does, I can campaign/vote against them. It's when they remove that opportunity for me to vote them out, thats when we need to look at the possibility of having to shoot them. Please do not try to paint my statements as an advocation of violence against unarmed persons when thats not what they are.


In Texas, the requirements to obtain a concealed weapons license are pretty exacting. While I don't know what the shooting requirements and limits are, you must attend a training class that is at least 10 hours. I will continue to look up that information but I do not believe that the range qualifications are going to be any different for police or citizens.

ask yourself this question.....If criminals are killing people with guns, does it make sense to leave law abiding people defenseless against it? Would you prefer that those 2.5 million crimes are added on to an already high crime rate? How many of those 2.5 million crimes that were prevented may have been murders? would you feel all warm and fuzzy that an extra 500,000 people died but you kept as many guns off the streets as possible?

its meaningless when you switched from homicides to accidental shootings. When I say homicides, I'm referring to justifiable homicides in which a potential victim shot back killing the perpetrator. THAT statistic is not meaningless. Firearm misuse causes only a small number of accidental deaths in the U.S. according to a 2001, Center for Disease Control, WISQARS report.
For example, compared to accidental death from firearms, you are:
• Four times more likely to burn to death or drown
• 17 times more likely to be poisoned
• 19 times more likely to fall
• And 53 times more likely to die in an automobile accident


Explain to me why there is a difference between the law abiding citizen at 7-11 you don't know is carrying a gun and the criminal walking the street that you don't know is carrying a gun?

And to a large extent I would agree with you. I do not like the idea that MS-13 gang members have access to automatic weapons but I sure would like to have one myself, as well as my friends and neighbors to have one, to protect ourselves from MS-13 or the like.


A tank is not like a childproof medicine bottle. It also has NO shot at stopping a huge mob of people coming from all different directions. There are openings that allow the occupants to breathe and air or tear gas to enter. Having been around tanks, I know that there are plenty of weaknesses to exploit.

Your reality has you as a totally controlled subject unable to do anything against the government when in actuality, it's very much the opposite.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

SirLance

I don't know that it's off topic, as the OP deals with guns and deadly force, and you are talking about the approach to the subject.

I am very disciplined in the use of firearms, but then I've had a lot of special training. Any of my children who take up firearms will have a high level of training. It's all about training. When you train, you are prone to make better decisions in short time frames, rather than react out of an emotional state, or freeze up. You act because you've already mapped out and executed your response to a situation and you can apply those principles when faced with this decision.

I would never use deadly force, unless presented with it.

I've long thought that the firearms industry should take a cue from the scuba industry. If you take up scuba, you have to train on the proper use of the equipment, what to do in an emergency, and basic first aid. Then you get what's called a "C" card, and you can go on dive trips, and buy air. With out a "C" card, you can't go on trips, and while you can buy all the gear you want, you can not buy air.

So, why not require a certification program, and without a "C" card, you can not buy ammunition?

__________________
DEMOCRACY is where your vote counts, FEUDALISM is where your count votes.

1010011010

A million Cleeti hiding in the woods taking pot-shots at troop movements will cause a bit of trouble. Especially considering that kevlar body armor is about as effective as a thick sweater against many hunting rounds. There are only so much ballistic ceramic plate available.Probably because "they" are traditionally more in agreement with the Repulican half of the Twoparty. And someone likely enough to see the OMG TERRORZ! schtick as a replacement for the War on Some Drugs as a pretext for the erosion of rights is probably not the type to have a basement arsenal... or the type to break it out and march on Washington unless they start shooting first.

__________________
Simple Machines in Higher Dimensions

dksuddeth

Isn't that what getting the license is all about?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

shakran

the National RIFLE Association, if it's TRULY interested in protecting your interpretation of the 2nd amendment, should be advocating for WEAPONS, and not only GUNS.

And if you want to define the 2nd in terms of the period in which the constitution was written, that's fine with me. You still can't own an AK-47, you can't own a shotgun, you can't own an automatic or semiautomatic hand gun. About all you can own is a musket, a muzzle loading rifle, a few pistols, and an antique canon. Oh, and a blunderbuss. You wanna go that route, that's OK by me.


Why would there be much CQC? Bomb the civilians. Wipe up what's left. You keep assuming that the government isn't gonna want to do that but if it's a truly tyrannical government, it won't care about moral issues like that.

BTW the Iraqis had a crapload of personal arms, and they never overthrew Saddam even when he killed thousands of civilians unjustly. That goes to show that people don't tend to revolt unless things get REALLY bad, and we have NEVER had a successful modern revolution with citizens against a well armed and modernized military. . . At least not without help from somewhere.


It's highly unlikely that Senator Hatch is gonna be running around with a machine gun. If you shoot him you are shooting an unarmed citizen. If you've already managed to defeat the military, the politicians aren't going to kick up much of a fight.


That's nice. What are the requirements to obtain a NON concealed weapons license?


Well let's see. Cheney (I'm using him because it's the most recent example - I'm not trying to launch an attack against the VP) is from Wyoming. He was allowed to use a gun in Texas. I'm guessing he didn't go to any training class. So we already have an issue here where we dont' know who has guns or how competent they are with them.


Terrorists tried to kill us with anthrax. Should we encourage the citizenry to start making their own biological weapons?

All speculation, and therefore not relevant.

No, you talked about homicides involving innocent bystanders. If the innocent bystander gets killed because someone accidentally shoots him, that's manslaughter, not homicide, and it wouldn't count toward your statistic.

Ah. So because there are fewer accidental deaths from firearms than from cars, those deaths are automatically OK. I could echo your lines about feeling warm and fuzzy here, but I won't



Explain to me why you have a problem with requiring people to be well trained before they (legally) get hold of a gun. Again, the argument that if we restrict guns only criminals will have guns has a point, however, it should not be used as an excuse not to pass the law.

After all if we ban software piracy then only criminals will get free software. If we ban embezzlement then only the criminals will get unfairly rich. This argument can be used to oppose ALL laws, but I'm fairly sure you're not interested in descending into anarchy.



You're advocating an arms race amongst a bunch of untrained, panicky civillians. That does NOT sound like a great idea to me.


Given, but it's not like there's only going to be ONE tank in the area. And if the civilians manage to defeat the tanks, then again, the government has bombers at its disposal. Pretty hard for a ground-based civilian with a shotgun to take out a B52 at 40,000 feet.

dksuddeth

nowhere does it define the weapon types, other than to say rifle or pistol, only what the militia is. It also has been interpreted to mean common small arms, like rifles and pistols, just so we don't have to go in to the rocket launcher and nuclear weapons argument.

Whats a government going to do without a populace to rule over? Do you think that things will magically produce themselves?

Until things are REALLY bad? seems I said that in this thread.

In order to control him, are you going to point your finger at him?

Texas is not an open carry state, however, the states that are open carry do require licenses and training, except for alaska and vermont I believe.

Now you've gone the apples and oranges route. You went from handguns to shotguns. There are no required training classes on firearms for hunting except for minors, that i'm aware of.

see above with regards to nuclear weapons

And your assumption of people and their proficiency or their proclivity to shoot random gunfire causing hundreds of accidental deaths is NOT speculation and NOT irrelevant?

why are you refusing to understand this statement of fact?

what warm and fuzzy? You've gone on and on about how dangerous guns are and should be kept out of hands of civilians that aren't trained with them yet I've just shown you that you are 53 times more likely to be killed in a MV accident. Did I say it was OK? No, I simply showed you that there is less of a problem than you make it out to be.


Point out to me where I said that they should not require training. I simply said that the amount of training YOU think they require is ridiculously high. You also didn't explain the difference.

If the government is not going to enforce its current laws, we the people NEED to be able to defend ourselves. Would you not agree?


We could go in to all kinds of scenarios but it's obvious that you are incapable of seeing the ability of armed civilians due to your pessimism. Pessimism is fine, but it can also be defeatist and I think thats where you are already at. You were right, that i'm not going to move you and you certainly aren't going to move me when it comes to what we believe is constitutionally protected. We'll see how it turns out in the end.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

dksuddeth

Bursor, Scott, Toward a Functional Framework for Interpreting the Second Amendment.

It can be done.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

dksuddeth

RAGING AGAINST SELF DEFENSE: A PSYCHIATRIST EXAMINES THE ANTI-GUN MENTALITY

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

shakran

Sorry for not responding earlier. Missed this on the new posts the last time around. . .

those are all great arguments dksuddeth, against the anti-gun lobby. Unfortunately you're directing them at the wrong guy because I am NOT anti gun. I'm sorry if I gave that impression. In fact I own 2 shotguns and a musket (yes, a real musket). I am far from anti gun and I agree with the progun argument that there are just too many guns in the country at this point and getting all of them if we banned them outright would not be possible.

And while I do not favor a ban on guns, that does not mean the constitution necessarilly allows them. For example, there's no ban on sunglasses, even though the constitution does not say we're allowed to have them. Just because the 2nd doesn't mean what YOU want it to mean does not mean we have to ban guns.


What I AM in favor of is much stronger restrictions on who can get a gun and what they have to do to get it. Even if I accepted your premise that the citizenry could defeat a tyrannical government bent on our destruction (I still don't), I'm sure you would agree that not EVERYONE should be included in this "well regulated" "militia" of yours. Give an idiot a gun and he's as likely to shoot you as he is to shoot the enemy.

That's why I advocate restrictions on who can have guns. Obviously no convicted felons, but beyond that, we need to restrict gun ownership to those who have had excellent training and a full psychological evaluation. And yes, I certainly advocate better training than the average cop gets.

http://www.stupidvideos.com/video/ju...tal_Discharge/

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/negligence.html

Just two examples that show cops aren't always as well trained with guns as perhaps they should be. Sorry about the ad in the first, but you can advance the jogbar to the end to skip it.

I dunno about you but I want my neighbor to be a bit better trained than THAT if he's gonna be running around my neighborhood with a gun.

dksuddeth

Not a problem, we all have our things to take care of.

ok, we can certainly do a constitutional discussion in another thread if we like. I feel that I put out enough information in my previous posts to clearly indicate that the 2A is an individual right, but we can work on that later.

I see your point, I do agree with it, always have. I'm not in favor of opening up the ability to carry guns in public for everyone. I do feel that everyone should be able to OWN a gun in their own home though, for defensive purposes. People will use the 'violent felons' card here, but wouldn't this make a stronger case for keeping the murdering bastards locked up for life? my 2 cents.

certainly, no VIOLENT felons should be allowed to carry a gun. We must remember that not all felons are violent criminals, though some may display a tendency to do so, that is what background checks are for. The bad check writer could be a convicted felon but may have no aggressive tendencies at all. In these cases, I think that a full review by the courts (with psych evals etc.) could be used to determine whether or not to license.

great examples of what NOT to do with a gun.

agreed. most states require training classes, could they be more stringent? maybe.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

shakran

But see, that's my whole point. You just agreed that in some cases people shouldn't have guns, in others they shouldn't be allowed to carry them in public, and in still more cases you indicated you're fine wtih state-mandated training classes.

But if we take the 2nd as you wish to interpret it, it doesn't say "keep and bear arms as long as you're not nuts, not a violent ex-con, and have trained very well in how to use 'em."

It's from that standpoint that this absolute argument for the 2nd's interpretation as you want it interpreted that we get into dangerous territory.