im an anti w/ questions

Status
Not open for further replies.
Welcome, Chris

Re: your concern about "untrained" gun owners: in addition the the point others made that almost all gun owners have had training, just not gov't certified training, I would add that there are, what, two guns for every man, woman and child in America according to some researchers. If ownership without official training were a real risk, our streets should be awash in blood. Yet the gun death rate overall, which includes deliberate killing as well as accidents and suicides, is consistently equal to or lower than automobile deaths....almost all of which are accidents.

I think your unease springs from the image projected by the media and the gun-control groups, that the mere presence of a gun means someone is going to get shot. It just isn't that way, and to clarify the picture you really should have someone you trust take you shooting. Even if you remain unconvinced after that, your opinion will at least be an informed one, which is sadly a rarity among gun control advocates.

I would add that most people naturally regard a gun with more respect and caution than an automobile, although you can only kill one person at a time with a gun while in a moment of carelessness or anger you can kill a whole bus-full with a car.
 
I support required training for any and all people that own guns in the USA. In other words, making training required for acquisition of a gun license - just like getting a drivers license. Show your license, prove that you're trained, and buy a gun (or ammo). Thereby legitimizing guns and showing that they can indeed be used and owned in a responsible manner.
Click to expand...
Chris,

Mandatory training for CCW permits appears to be a solution in search of a real-life problem.

Washington, where I live, has no training requirement. Oregon has very similar demographics to Washington and the carry laws are roughly parallel, except that Oregon does have a training requirement.

Permits in Washington cost around $60 when all the fees and charges are added up. Permits in Oregon cost about the same, plus at least another $30 to $40 above that for training, for a total of around $100.

There is no statistical difference between the states as far as handgun safety among CCW holders. None.

If mandatory training made that big of a difference, we would see a difference in the accidental shooting rates between OR and WA, and a difference in the number of CCW holders who use their guns illegitimately or illegally. That difference is simply not there.

I think it goes to show that there's no need for a training requirement. The requirement seems only to serve as an one more extra barrier between common people and their ability to legally protect themselves. It is a financial barrier to poor folks, and a legal hassle for richer folks. And it doesn't seem to make much difference in the long run.

As you said, folks who take self defense seriously usually get training, anyway.

pax

You have the right to remain helpless. Should you choose to waive this right, anything you do may be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an assailant. If you cannot find one for yourself, the court will release one for you. -- Steve Munden, quoted by Jeff Cooper in his commentaries
 
I agree with the sentiments previously expressed, (ie: informal vs informal training, rubber stamps, and barriers to participation)

An additional thought:


To be certain, tragedy CAN occur, but its scope is limited.

The ACTUAL danger posed by an untrained person, absent malicious intent is actually quite limited, when you think about it, and is NOTHING compared to the danger presented by a malicious person intent on wreaking havoc, regardless of their level of training.

The 4 interlocking rules are pretty much everything anyone needs to know with respect to not being a public menace.

As for competence, well, that takes some effort, butmost people who are responsible enough to arm themselves also take the time to become competent with their arms.
 
However, I am a supporter of a ban on selling guns to untrained and irresponsible people.
Click to expand...
Oddly enough bannng guns for "untrained and irresponsible people" would end up disarming our police forces first :p


Too many people equate a slip of paper from the government (ie "certified" training) with actual knowledge ... and all too often that lack of paper is seen as a lack of knowledge. An interesting analogy is the licensure of Florists in Louisiana ... read this article HERE to see what happens when the government steps in to decide who is "qualified" to put flowers in a vase.

Frankly, the best way to end up with more people "trained and responsible" with firearms is to remove the restrictions on firearms ownership ... thus increasing the number of people who own guns. This increase in gun ownership will cause an increase in the need for shooting facilities and training.

Let the free market do its job and get government out of its way.

Plus, guns are not Rocket Science ... obey 4 rules a 5 year old can understand and you're safe.
 
"Sir, I'd like to have sex with somebody". "Here, fill out these forms, we'll do the background check and if you are "Not dissaproved" after the mandatory seven day waiting period, you may have sex once this month, assuming you've completed the state sponsored mandatory training. If you wish to have sex again, you may complete this process again after thirty days. You may have sex only once in a thirty day period"(Note the abundance of sarcasm here as all of this mirrors Maryland's handgun laws)
Click to expand...
I don't really see that as sarcastic at all.

It is as wrong applied to guns as it is to sex.

And I am not not aware of any constitutional amendment that states:
"Procreation being necessary to the security of future generations, the right of the people to have sexual relations shall not be infringed."
 
Are there any ideas on this thread that deserve their own threads?

I am sure there are some very important ideas on this thread, but you have to read abou 280 posts to find them all.

Maybe some of these need to branch out on their own?

hillbilly
 
Let's put this whole, "no training" B.S. to rest. Do people get training for nail guns? Chainsaws? Butane torches? The fact is, there are MILLIONS of guns in the U.S. yet guns are involved in less accidents than a great number of other consumer products. A majority of the misuses of firearms are INTENTIONAL. Mostly perpetrated by criminals who don't care one whit about you, me or anyone else. The fact is, anyone with half a brain knows how not to misuse a gun to the point where someone gets injured or killed. If that were not the case, we should have millions of injuries and deaths every year from firearms. We do not.

In the end, anyone who feels threatened or fearful because somewhere down the street some unknown and untrained someone might have a gun, has fallen for the lie that there are a bunch of armed, macho, over-testosteroned knuckleheads everywhere, waiting to do something stupid with their evil guns. And if they just believe this, then the problem is not with guns or gunowners but these people who feels this borderline phobia. And they call us paranoid.

I can't help with those kinds of issues. A psychiatrist may be better qualified.
 
Are there any ideas on this thread that deserve their own threads?
Click to expand...

I'd like to see a moderator split this thread from where Chris posted and start it fresh.

Real long threads tend to get redundant and drift a ways from the begining and are harder to follow
 
Chris B welcome to THR!

I was born and raised with firearms in the home. We chose to take responsibilty for ourselves. We didn't have 911 to call , we were dependent upon ourselves and like-minded neighbors.

I was taught about stoves and cooking/fire hazards, I was taught how to handle knives safely and how to sharpen. I was taught how to cross a street, ride a bike, drive a car. All these require education if you will.

It was what we did, it was how one raised kids, one just passed the education along to their kids.

I drove a neighbor in their car to a doctor when an emergency occcured, I was underage, had no license. I was educated enough in driving and being responsible to this

I was also the eldest child, I used a firearm to defend myself and younger sibs when during the riots the front door was bashed in. I stopped an immediate action, "I was in fear of my life and those of sibs" . Again I was a kid, we had no carry permits back then, I was educated in the safe and proper use of a firearm.

The reality is bad things happen to good people. It does not matter if a "law" states something is "wrong" or "illegal". Some people are just wired wrong, we call them criminals.

The Reality is if a "law" states that I cannot carry a firearm into an area I am denied my right to defend myself,or to take responsibility for myself.

Since the criminal is wired wrong anyway, he will not obey this "law", and use it against me, and I'm easy prey.

I do not believe in any form of gun control - period ! I grew up in time where firearms were a part growing up and life lessons. We may not of had modern training facilites and curriculi to follow - we did learn to shoot and practiced a bunch.

We have had a shift of attitudes in regard to personal responsibilty, I disagree with this. We didn't have 911, if a fire should happen we and neighbors pitched in while the operator contacted the fire dept through a party line.

I assure you banning matches will not stop arson, it will just make it darn difficult to light a stove, fireplace, etc. I do not fear persons whom carry matches,or lighters. There is not a special license required, no special classes or training to own and carry matches.

People whom take responsibilty for themselves are taught and continue to seek education , be it matches, cars,or firearms.

I personally prefer to even the playing field by carrying concealed, and will continue to do so.

I had BGs break into my home once , they had stolen firearms from elsewhere and had intent to do me harm, and were wating for me to come home. Now the fact a number of laws "state" this is wrong, it was done. They could have easily broken in and grabbed a frying pan to do harm to me, maybe just wanted to set a fire and burn my place down.

Bad things happen to good people. I prefer to take prudent steps in the event the BGs didn't get the latest memo that something was "wrong", "bad",or "illegal".
 
However, I am a supporter of a ban on selling guns to untrained and irresponsible people.
Click to expand...

Hi Chris, welcome to The High Road.

I for one, agree with you.

I too would like to see required training, including responsible defensive use of firearms with an emphasis on NOT shooting innocent bystandars. With a certin level of marksmanship *under pressure* required to pass.
Similar to what special police forces (eg. SWAT)

The only problem, and please pay close attention here, is that I cannot sanction our government's involvement in such a licenceing scheme, because of the simple conflict of intrests

The writers of the constitution saw the same potential (and historical record of that kind of conflict of intrest, and specifically put guns off-limits. Shal not be infringed. Don't touch it.


Now, you may ask "ok, yeah, like they'd really go corrupt and give licences only to their buddies, cronies, and big campain donors.

I would then submit the CCW, the licence required (in the state of California) to carry a hidden (concealed) weapon on your person.

Well, what should be a fair and equatible situation, state your need for a concealed firearm, take 16 hours of training, and get a permit, has turned into a HORRIBLY corrupt abonomation of government, where rich hollywood actors with a history of violence are granted permits, and legimitate citizens who don't donate 100grand/year to the Sherrif's dept, are denied the right to protect themselves.

That is why we must not allow the governmnet this level of control.
 
Chris,

You have a valid point regarding training.

Here's the problem: at present, there is a strong movement afoot within government to restrict gun rights, and the US Supreme Court isn't helping by choosing to stay silent. The last time the Supremes said anything was Miller (1939) and that case was so badly crafted it's been deliberately abused by lower courts (see also http://www.guncite.com/journals/dencite.html).

Why is this important?

Because with the gov't currently out to restrict our rights, we can't trust training and shooting qualification tests not to get abused the same way "literacy tests" were used to disenfranchise minority voters for literally generations. Or how extensive testing in electronics and morse code was (and to some extent still is) used to restrict access to serious radio communications gear. (We can debate the pros/cons of ham licences some other time, the point is that IS what's happening.)

Now, where "street carry" of personal defensive handguns is concerned, I have long said that the most critical aspect of such training isn't on gun handling, it's on "legal use of deadly force" issues customized to each state (yes, there are differences among them, some of which are MAJOR). Such training should also include the horrendous legal, financial and criminal results of screwing that up!!!

To me, the best way to deliver about 2 to 4 hours worth of that is for each police/sheriff's office to set up "ride-alongs" with experienced cops, who would discuss these legal issues one-on-one while cruising around town. (Little known fact: lethal force laws for cops and "just plain folks" are actually 99% the same...in some states 100%.)

Why do it this way?

1) It's free - for all parties concerned. Police do ride-alongs all the time, you can sign up for one yourself any time you want. Making a slight change to the discussion topic would be no big deal.

2) It's damned effective.

3) It would foster closer ties between legally armed non-cops and law enforcement, without blurring the line between the two. (Legally packing heat does NOT turn you into a cop and the distinction must remain clear. But the difference isn't mainly in "deadly force law", it's more about how cops "seek out trouble" while non-cops who do likewise are literally crazy.)

4) It can be done weekends, evenings or whatever schedule doesn't screw up the trainee's life.

5) Finally, over the course of 4 hours of close interaction, if a guy really is "5150" (police code for nutcase), that'll be rather obvious. In which case there are (or at least should be) legal methods for changing the person's status with regards guns via a more formal checkout.
 
HI james and welcome to the highroad let me start out by saying while I don't agree with your views I do understand them. Now I own/carry guns I've been into guns since I was 12 when my mom bought us bb guns and eventually me and my brother moved up to a .22 rifle and then bigger service caliber weapons.

As to your first question of "a need" for any particular type of gun? All I can say is you could ask the same of a corvette "why do you need a car that goes that fast?" Well I can go over 100mph anyday of the week in my lincoln towncar and its still more then fast enough to kill me and whoever I hit or get my license revoked but its not "a sports car desgined to go really fast" see my reasoning here?

I don't know if anyone else here has brought this up to you but have you ever lost a loved one to a firearm? I have,a very close and dear friend to me when I was 14 she was shot and killed. Now I could have blamed "the gun" But as much as i was hurting from her death I knew I could've just as easily lost her in a car wreck should I push to ban cars? (I know you said nothing of banning guns in your post and I'am not implying you want guns banned just giving an example.) I can't sit here and decsribe in words how much her death has affected my life I loved her with all my heart,she was one of my best friends and I still feel her loss everyday some 11 years later. The point iam getting at here she could have just as easily been killed with a steak knife guns don't kill,people kill and they were doing it long before guns came along.

James please try think of it like this: a scaple in the hands of sugeon saves lives, that same scaple in the hands of say a jeffery dahmer can cause horrible things.

I was almost robbed not to long ago and had I not had my gun on me I may not be here to type this now,I simply drew my gun from under my sweater and as soon as the 3 guys trying to rob me saw it they where gone ofcourse I called the police and reported it to them. But its a known fact the display of a weapon by the intended victim stops things in thair track almost all the time w/o a shot being fired. James its no coincidence that states like Florida with ccw laws have lower crime rates than say massachusetts where carry permits are only given if the police deem you have "a need" for a ccw permit. I hope this helps and that you stick around here we're a nice bunch and welcome all here even if they don't share ouw views entirly.
 
Killer ... I'm sure if I had (made) the time ... I could do it ..... main prob is keeping the HTML type of tabulated formatting ..... tho the content could be assembled PDF ... as a series of text sections.

Hard to keep this format tho ... perhaps a ''save as'' ... ''web page complete ''.
 
Someone running Mac OSX could just print each page ... selecting "save as PDF" instead of sending it to their printer. Then the pdfs could be assembled in Acrobat (the full version, not the reader).
 
Combat-wombat,

The person that bumped this thread is new to this forum and is also in favor of control. There is a reason this thread has become active again.


David
 
The "need" for guns? Hmmmm.
What about the need for alcoholic beverages?
They kill (...the careless use of them...) kills more people per year than guns (either accidentally or intentionally.)
To follow your logic, then, beer, wine, whiskey,... it should all be banned.
(A huge percentage of violent crime directly involves alcohol.)
I don't drink at all...but I'm not out to ban booze.
Is there a move out to ban booze? Nope, just a huge push on accountability and responsibility.
Statistically, you are much, much more likely to die at the hands of a doctor making a mistke than you are a firearm. Yet it would be silly to ban doctors.
More children die per years playing sports than are killed by guns, yet there is no push to ban sports.
With all the dozens of other things out there randmonly killing MORE people, why is it that guns (and gun owners) are singled out?:confused:
 
Busdriver,

because they don't understand us. The concept of a man taking his safety into his own hand and fighting back even against overwhelming odds is totally alien to them.

And most humans fear what they don't understand.

Yes, it's fear. Gun control advocates are not evil minions of a sadistic overlord or something (even if it's fun to think of them that way). While they think of themselves as decent people who would never hurt their fellow citizen they somehow assume that the same fellow citizen is kept from running amok only because he he is unarmed. It's that simple... they're sh****ng their pants while thinking of us.


Regards,

Trooper


BTW, what ammo should I use against resurrected undead zombie threads?
 
Wow, I agree

Hi James,
I agree with you....I hate guns and what they can do....more precisely I resent having to have a gun for self and home defense.
I am American of Chinese descent...my grandfather was proud to try to be American when he came over to the United States as part of the security force for Sun Yat Sen after fighting the Communist takeover of China. He told all of us the need to defend our rights as Americans...even if we had to lay down our lives for our home. He knows what it is like to lose his freedom.
My grandmother lost more than 50% of her family due to the Communist ruling China.
Ever been to China, James? Traveled to other countries where the folks' right to choose is decided for them by the government? Please think on that.
My uncles fought in WW2. Another uncle was in Korea. I was in Vietnam in the First Cav....I resented the heck out of having to carry a rifle, but the VC and NVA kept trying to take something precious away from me...my buds in my unit's lives and my life. After my time in country, I never wanted to touch a weapon again in my life.
Lesson learned? When your life is threatened you learn how much you really want to keep yourself alive. Of course, when someone is dedicated to killing you....would you be able to defend yourself?
Since I wasn't willing to pick up a rifle or handgun to defend myself against domestic enemies I learned martial arts instead I still feel life is precious, even a BG's life. I learned it quite well because there were people in this country thought I and my family would be easy prey in some of the neighborhoods that we lived in so I learned to defend myself throughout my life (I am 56 now). One of the things my grandfather taught us is that in the United States we have the constitutional right to the pursuit of happiness but we must at times fiercely defend those rights from those domestic folks that wished to deprive their fellow Americans of their livelihoods and thus their lives.
Lessons learned?
More often in the cases where I had to use martial arts to defend myself, I was always faced with multiple attackers and always they carried weapons of sorts. Often, but for the hand of God, I should have lost my life or various valuable parts of my body. Each time made me practice more. I still did not get a handgun.
Have kids, James? Are you married? They are precious to us are they not? What if their lives were threatened? What if someone tries to forcibly abduct your daughter while threatening you with a handgun.
I don't care how good I am in the martial arts......I have never been faster than a bullet. How about faster than a whole bunch of bullets?
Witness the Watts riots, witness the East L.A. riots, witness the L.A. riots...fellow citizens were deprived of their lives or injured so badly that they cannot work, or their businesses destroyed so their life's savings were lost and thus their livelihood. That's too many folks to handle with martial arts by oneself, even with my family around....except in the movies.
I was in L.A. each time one of those social disturbances happened... I was close enough to smell the fires and see the police cars zooming around trying to prevent it from spreading.
Depending on the police to defend you? They don't call it the thin Blue line for nothing. How much time does it take for several folks intent on depriving you or your family of your life from killing you? No matter how generous you can be with time....the police cannot get there fast enough.
On a more personal note....three guys decided to rob me, my wife, and my mother in law one day...at least until for some reason, one of the BG's lifted his .38 snubby and cocked his gun at my head....in all indicators....he could take my life on purpose or by accident. I was defended myself well until one of the three knocked on the car window and said if I didn't quit being Jackie Chan, he would shoot my wife and my mother in law who was sitting in the car.
I had already gotten away from them....but I had to return back to that situation to prevent retaliation on their part. They retaliated on me by beating me up and threatening to shoot me for defending myself.
Shortly after that I went to purchase a handgun. Why learn to be an efficient killer? Remember? Life is precious, is it not? I do not wish to accidentally shoot an innocent person because I wasn't proficient in the use of a weapon of choice.
Besides that, remember my statement about even the BG's life is precious to me?
A gun is a tool. albeit a weapon. You as a responsible and moral human being, must choose when you are forced to use that weapon, at the same time you can choose not to use the deadly force of that weapon, but you can prevent either the BG from taking your life or your family's life at the same time by not using it...keep him alive thus prevent the killing tool from "killing" but saving lives at the same time.
I have used my gun in at least five instances since that time, but never the "killing" part yet...if you notice the majority of our posters here have not used their weapons to "kill" someone unless forced to but there are some who have used a gun to save lives.
Aaarghhhh, my apologies to you and the other readers....I am not as eloquent as the other writers and I have beaten around the bush....but I so wish that you could understand why we are so passionate about the right to defend ourselves against all manner of attempts to deprive us of our freedom to live our lives....please...give us some feedback...you have given some thoughtful concepts and we would like to hear your feedback.
Thank you for putting up with this deluge.
I wish to thank all the members for their reasons ...they have given me an even deeper reason for RKBA and the people behind it.
 
LASur5r ....... may I personally welcome you. :)

Any eloquence lacking in your post was well made up for by a very well presented personal analysis ..... a lot of points that could serve well for many to read.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
Unbelievable conversation w/ an anti at work.....
Replies
23
Views
2K
HankB
H
J
  • Locked
TacticalGunForum.com Invitation
Replies
18
Views
1K
js
J
C
  • Locked
anti-firearm friend
2
Replies
33
Views
1K
Zundfolge
Zundfolge
D
  • Locked
Ok, I'm lit up, but.....
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
Mike Irwin
M
S
  • Locked
new here, amazing Gaza footage inside.
Replies
1
Views
422
Jorg Nysgerrig
J
Back
Top