Guns

[Im_A]

AK-47s???? I thought Fla. pickups came with a shotgun rack and a 'coon dog as standard equipment anyway. I guess they're upgrading the firepower needed for hunting in the backwoods.

Immigration issues I gather is the reason for the change.

 

[CoSteve]

Adrenaline does crazy things to the human body. To say that you can do xyz in given situation is pretty arrogant IMO.

True enough. But to say that you definitely CANNOT do xyz in a given situation is foolish and fatalistic.

How will I react if I wake up and smoke has filled the house and there are flames between me and my children's bedrooms? I don't know. But just because I can't be certain I'll be able to intelligently and effectively use a fire extinguisher doesn't mean I shouldn't have one available.

If my wife appears to be suffering a cardiac arrest and I'm all alone, will I be able to effectively use one of those emergency defibrillator (sp?) devices? I don't know ... but in that situation I'd like to have one available.

If the aircraft I'm on suddenly lurches into a dive and the oxygen masks pop out of the ceiling, will I be able to get one on myself and on my children? Again ... I don't know, but I'm glad it's available.

We don't assume we'll be impotent and unable to take action when we choose what safety equipment to purchase and keep around, and a legally owned firearm is no different, whether kept in the house or on your person. The bottom line is ... it's better to have options than to NOT have options. Because someone coming to do violence to you will have whatever tools they need. The fact that you have a tool for defense will make not one whit of difference if you don't use it, but just might save your life or that of a loved one if you do.

So if you don't own the most potent tool for defense of self and family available ... are you being a responsible adult?

 

[Tehchad]

True enough. But to say that you definitely CANNOT do xyz in a given situation is foolish and fatalistic.

Also true. I feel I should have prefaced my original statement. If you have never been through XYZ, I feel that you should not say whether or not you can do ABC. I don't believe everyone freezes up and I certainly don't believe that everyone reacts in an effective manner.
I've been through a couple of experiences where people's lives hang in the balance and I only know how I did react. That isn't to say that I will react the same way or differently; it's just experience. Though I disagree with much of what Ruck thinks, I do respect his opinion because he's been through (at least I believe) many more of these stressful situations. And I can vouch for the fact that people do not react as they would when they are thinking clearly. I keep hearing that you fight like you train. There is wisdom in those words.

 

[mjmcmillan]

After an earlier run-in on politics, I sometimes don't care to side with MacFall. In this case, I don't get much choice because he's right about one point at least. Depending on police for protection from crime is at best a broken reed. A violent criminal comes into my apartment with mayhem on his mind, and it's a safe bet that calling the police won't do me much good. Sure, the police will come--- and fill out reports, take measurements, draw a chalk outline around my body and so on. They may even arrest my ex-wife and try to pin the dirty deed on her even though she had an airtight alibi and didn't know a thing about it until the police told her I was dead (I've seen enough stories in the paper to know this kind of thing happens with frightful regularity-- it's one reason the Death Penalty is in real trouble in this state) while the guy actually responsible for it stands across the street and laughs until he's hoarse. So, while I may not personally like it, I have to side to some degree with the gun-rights crowd.

At least until the authorities come up with something that actually PREVENTS crime. Without turning every man, woman and child into prisoners in their own homes. Nobody sane wants to live in a police-state, after all.

 

[mjmcmillan]

I suspect the following might be what officers like Ruck have in mind when they say civilians should be unarmed. I suppose in a case like this he may have a point.

Until this fellow is disarmed, I'd advise staying off his lawn. Just in case.

 

[MacFall]

Well... it's his lawn.

 

[Flashlight]

Two day classes that consist of telling the student where the safety is and begging them not to walk about with a round chambered do not teach people how to use firearms as weapons.

A person should always have a round chambered. If I am being attacked and don't have a round chambered I now have to pull out my gun and pull the slide and use two hands to ready my gun. A gun without a chambered round is useless.

 

[Flashlight]

Than why on Earth would cops need to?

If an average citizens doesn't need a gun to defend against criminals, the well-trained and experienced police sure as heck don't.

It is the victims of crime that need the weapons. Not the cops. The police will come take a report or pictures of my swollen face at the hospital. Policing is reactive and Joe Public is on the front lines and needs to be armed.

 

[Tehchad]

I suspect the following might be what officers like Ruck have in mind when they say civilians should be unarmed. I suppose in a case like this he may have a point.

Until this fellow is disarmed, I'd advise staying off his lawn. Just in case.

Is that an MG-42? my gosh! What a cannon!

 

[Blackguard_]

It is the victims of crime that need the weapons. Not the cops. The police will come take a report or pictures of my swollen face at the hospital. Policing is reactive and Joe Public is on the front lines and needs to be armed.

Of course, but if civilians don't need guns, cops don't either. I agree civilians need guns.

 

[CoSteve]

A person should always have a round chambered. If I am being attacked and don't have a round chambered I now have to pull out my gun and pull the slide and use two hands to ready my gun. A gun without a chambered round is useless.

I hate to keep posting on this thread ... but I noticed that as well. Of course any CCW class will teach to you carry with a round in the chamber and proper safeties -- holster, manual safety, gun handling, etc.

Sadly my first CCW class did spend about half first day on very basic gun stuff, but that's because I took the beginner class. Just on my own I took the next more advanced class, and that one involved drawing, moving while shooting, etc.

 

[MacFall]

Another point on the whole training issue:

I don't know how it is where you guys are, but the police around here get lessons from the same private trainers that train the general public. This was instituted after a rash of police weapon mishandlings resulting in injury. Apparently, all that government training wasn't good enough to get officer Gray to follow the most basic of safety procedures and CHECK THE GUN FOR A ROUND before cleaning it. He shot his big toe off.

 

[Ruckhard82]

I've never said civilians should be unarmed. If you want a 12 gauge around the house for protection I think it's a bloody terrific idea. Different situation when someone is trying to break into a home. If a proper weapon, a shotgun, is used it's also a different situation. Shot won't travel through walls and put your neighbors' lives in danger. The nature of a shotgun doesn't require much of the user than to point the weapon in the correct general location and pull the trigger.
This is fundamentally different than civilians hiding guns on their person and going out into public. I've had enough of going the rounds. All I'm going to say further on the issue is that an untrained person in a situation like that will more than likely fail to use his weapon correctly. No one has said a peep about this: but tactically concealing weapons only ensures you can't get to it fast enough should you need it anyway. The type of person that feels safe because of a gun is exactly the kind of person that shouldn't be carrying it.

 

[MacFall]

Nobody is saying people shouldn't be trained. I am saying that I don't want a government monopoly on training.

 

[Blackguard_]

I've never said civilians should be unarmed.

Are you an Open Carry advocate then?

I think it's a bloody terrific idea.

Where do you live?

Different situation when someone is trying to break into a home.

I thought we were supposed to be just frightened children?

Shouldn't we freeze up or spray and pray in panic and just as likely hit other people in the house/the next one as well as the BG in such a situation?

The nature of a shotgun doesn't require much of the user than to point the weapon in the correct general location and pull the trigger.

Do you recommend an autoloading shotgun, since we civvies are probably too panicky to work a slide correctly? Or can we only be trusted with the low ammo capacity of a coach gun/sporting double?

No one has said a peep about this: but tactically concealing weapons only ensures you can't get to it fast enough should you need it anyway.

I don't think anyone has said anything because there is a mountain of evidence to the contrary. It's a PRATT as far as I'm concerned.

This seems to come up a lot in gun control threads and I know it's easy to imagine you would not be able to get a concealed gun out in time, but somehow mere civilians manage to pull concealed guns on badguys regularly. The theory doesn't survive contact with reality.

Nobody is saying people shouldn't be trained. I am saying that I don't want a government monopoly on training.

Agreed, but I would add that reality shows you do not need Academy or military training in order to not be more a danger to yourself/bystanders than the badguy.

Training is good, but the idea you have to be a combat master in order to defend yourself is bad.
The "leave it up to the professionals" attitude crops up a lot. I wonder if it's a cultural thing?

 

[CoSteve]

If a proper weapon, a shotgun, is used it's also a different situation. Shot won't travel through walls and put your neighbors' lives in danger. The nature of a shotgun doesn't require much of the user than to point the weapon in the correct general location and pull the trigger.

You do have to keep in mind your environment when choosing a weapon and ammunition, as the two work together. There are many good choices besides shotguns, and in fact some are better than shotguns even if you live in a confined space like an apartment. Look up frangible ammunition or penetration studies of different types of guns/ammo. Even American air Marshalls carrying firearms on planes choose pistols, but choose frangible ammo.

No one has said a peep about this: but tactically concealing weapons only ensures you can't get to it fast enough should you need it anyway. The type of person that feels safe because of a gun is exactly the kind of person that shouldn't be carrying it.

Tactically concealing a weapon ensures nothing of the kind, else plain clothes detectives and federal agents wouldn't do it. There are many ways to carry a weapon, some faster to access to others, but ALL of them are faster than running back home to get your gun or calling the police and waiting for them to arrive.

What you reference is one of the big anti-gun/anti-ccw straw man arguments, that every encounter with a potential attacker is a "quick draw" situation and you either have to draw and fire on a second's notice or it's all over too quick to respond. This is simply not true. Many violent situations develop over a period of time, they often involve people you know to be a threat so you see them coming, and the gun may empower you to get involved to help out someone else facing a dangerous situation. bottom line is ... a lot of people have had things happen they would have liked to have had a gun available to deal with (read the papers) concealed or not.

The bottom line is ... training for simple self defense is easy, carrying a gun is easy and legal in most of the United States, you do carry it with a round in the chamber, and while it's not a cure-all for every situation ... it's an option and an empowerment, and having options is always better than not having options. And that's the bloody truth mate.

And I'm also curious as to where you hail from ... you use language that sounds non-American, but you claim the viewpoint of a police officer who has experienced people carrying concealed weapons. As far as I know the legal carrying of concealed weapons by civilians is pretty limited in most countries (not all are as dedicated to liberty as we are) besides the US.

When you think about the empowerment of having the option of carrying a weapon if the need arises ... who wouldn't pursue that, even if they didn't want to actually carry a gun on a daily basis? If it's available where they live I would think everyone would want to get their license even if they don't plan on using it.

 

[Im_A]

I've never said civilians should be unarmed. If you want a 12 gauge around the house for protection I think it's a bloody terrific idea. Different situation when someone is trying to break into a home. If a proper weapon, a shotgun, is used it's also a different situation. Shot won't travel through walls and put your neighbors' lives in danger. The nature of a shotgun doesn't require much of the user than to point the weapon in the correct general location and pull the trigger.
This is fundamentally different than civilians hiding guns on their person and going out into public. I've had enough of going the rounds. All I'm going to say further on the issue is that an untrained person in a situation like that will more than likely fail to use his weapon correctly. No one has said a peep about this: but tactically concealing weapons only ensures you can't get to it fast enough should you need it anyway. The type of person that feels safe because of a gun is exactly the kind of person that shouldn't be carrying it.

I agree...especially the bold part.

 

[MacFall]

I agree...especially the bold part.

I take exception to most of what he said, but I DO agree with the part you bolded. A gun doesn't automatically make one safe any more than a table saw automatically makes one a competent cabinet maker, and when it comes to safety, unjustified confidence is dangerous. That's why people need to practice, both in and out of actual training, and keep practicing.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

This thread was a tangent from the beginning.

Why don't we prevent violent crimes from happening in the first place rather than quarreling over how much protection a gun would offer after the fact?

 

[TwistTim]

Sentencing People for a Pre-Crime? have you watched The Minority Report? It doesn't work... even freezing every Pre-Criminal is an unjust punishment... and what crimes are pre-crime worthy? if only "violent" ones, then non-violent rape is ok?
Besides such would be against the law and the spirit of the law of the United States....