NOT Gun Control

[adamBomb]

This is why I think people should be required to undergo better training.

Its hard to argue with good training. When I got my CCW in NC, you had to take a full day course that included half a day of laws and half a day at the range. Out of the 100 people there, I was 1 of 8 that had brought my own gun to the range part. The rest had to rent because they didn't own one. In fact, most of the people had never even fired one. People are clueless when it comes to guns. The CCW course was not a 'learn to shoot' course but they had to do that for 90% of the participants. I just couldn't believe how many people there were not trained, had never shot a gun, and probably never would again after the course. It was a real wake up call to me. Carrying and/or owning a gun requires a certain level of responsibility and I have no problem with required training, etc. to demonstrate competency.

Waiting outside while teachers ran toward the sound of gunfire and died.

This is just terrible. This only strengthens the argument for gun control folks. The armed guard did nothing but hide.

 

[zukiphile]

Waiting outside while teachers ran toward the sound of gunfire and died.

This is just terrible. This only strengthens the argument for gun control folks. The armed guard did nothing but hide.

He was a police officer. It is terrible.

The police presence didn't work (more accurately, it didn't work until other POs arrived later), but disarmed teachers showed a willingness to defend immediately. You conclude that this supports further gun control.

How so?

 

[NateKirk]

Where you imagine the training that would be useful in facing a combatant, you have ignored the proficiency that can suffice in facing a murderer

Here you are implying that the threshhold for competency in defending oneself is far lower because the perpetrator is a mere "murderer" and not a "combatant." I'll forgo my personal commentary for the sake of politeness.

No competent instructor is going to claim that no instruction or simply an understanding of basic use is going to adequately prepare them to be effective without harming by standers in a worst case scenario like a school shooting.

There is enormous middle ground between extensive and high quality training and handing someone a firearm without any instruction.

Then what is it that you would propose? Because That's how most gun owners are, they either practice on a weekly basis, or they shoot once every few months. And that's discounting the ones who buy it for "protection" leave it in a desk drawer and never practice with it. Thinking of your own range time and that of your friends most people can attest to this.

When I got my CCW in NC, you had to take a full day course that included half a day of laws and half a day at the range. Out of the 100 people there, I was 1 of 8 that had brought my own gun to the range part. The rest had to rent because they didn't own one. In fact, most of the people had never even fired one. People are clueless when it comes to guns. The CCW course was not a 'learn to shoot' course but they had to do that for 90% of the participants. I just couldn't believe how many people there were not trained, had never shot a gun, and probably never would again after the course.

This was my experience as well.

 

[zukiphile]

Where you imagine the training that would be useful in facing a combatant, you have ignored the proficiency that can suffice in facing a murderer

Here you are implying that the threshhold for competency in defending oneself is far lower because the perpetrator is a mere "murderer" and not a "combatant." I'll forgo my personal commentary for the sake of politeness.

Your personal commentary is irrelevant to the topic.

Yes, there is a material difference between a man with a rifle killing children in a closed building, and an infantryman in an opposing armed force. Recognizing this should not unsettle you.

No competent instructor is going to claim that no instruction or simply an understanding of basic use is going to adequately prepare them to be effective without harming by standers in a worst case scenario like a school shooting.

The issue isn't what you think an instructor has told you. It is beyond reasonable dispute that even people with modest training and scant practice can effectively employ arms.

Why didn't you answer the question about the extensive practice and high quality training received by Nikolas Cruz? Do you now grasp the factual deficiency of your position?

There is enormous middle ground between extensive and high quality training and handing someone a firearm without any instruction.

Then what is it that you would propose.

I am proposing that you think about this more.

Commenting on the law competently takes years training and frequent practice. At least that's what some law school professors told me. You shouldn't do it without high quality and extensive preparation.

Right?

 

[NateKirk]

Your personal commentary is irrelevant to the topic.

Which is why I didn't mention it.

Yes, there is a material difference between a man with a rifle killing children in a closed building, and an infantryman in an opposing armed force. Recognizing this should not unsettle you.

Of course there is, but you imply that because the situation doesn't involve a military style combatant that only a basic knowledge of firearm use is required to effectively neutralize the situation without hurting any one but the aggressor. As I've stated before, employing lethal force around large crowds of emotionally charged, frightened people is a worst case scenario, and from what I have seen, this is beyond the average hobbyists ability.

The issue isn't what you think an instructor has told you

I know what instructors have told me. Several instructors. Normal CPL training and basic knowledge is not enough if you expect to be able to defend yours and others lives. We've heard this time and again on the forums and from shooting authorities.

Why didn't you answer the question about the extensive practice and high quality training received by Nikolas Cruz?

Well, lets do that. You said:

It is too easy to demonstrate that copious practice and quality training aren't necessary to effectively use a firearm with a single example of someone with neither who effectively employs a firearm. What was the quality training received by Nikolas Cruz?

There is a world of difference between pointing a gun at a herd of people and squeezing a trigger, and precisely using a gun to effectively defend yourself and others, while not killing by standers. If you can't see this then there is no point in debating any longer.

I am proposing that you think about this more

That's an evasion. What is it that you propose?

Commenting on the law competently takes years training and frequent practice. At least that's what some law school professors told me. You shouldn't do it without high quality and extensive preparation.

Right?

Right. The same applies to firearms use.

 

[rwilson452]

To my way of thinking you need two things to be effective in an active shooter situation in school. Marksmanship and mind set.

 

[zukiphile]

Your personal commentary is irrelevant to the topic.

Which is why I didn't mention it.

If you hadn't mentioned it, we couldn't be discussing it.

Yes, there is a material difference between a man with a rifle killing children in a closed building, and an infantryman in an opposing armed force. Recognizing this should not unsettle you.

Of course there is, but you imply that because the situation doesn't involve a military style combatant that only a basic knowledge of firearm use is required to effectively neutralize the situation without hurting any one but aggressor.

That is incorrect. That you drew an inference that favors your position doesn't mean that I implied it. Basic proficiency may be necessary, yet not sufficient in every situation.

I am gratified that you now recognize the difference between a murderer and a combatant.

As I've stated before, employing lethal force large crowds of emotionally charged, frightened people is a worst case scenario, and from what I have seen, this is beyond the average hobbyists ability.

Is it possible that it would be useful to you to see more before drawing conclusions that would abridge peoples' civil rights?

I know what instructors have told me. Several instructors. Normal CPL training and basic knowledge is not enough if you expect to be able to defend yours and others lives.

So now the authority you offer is "several instructors". Excellent.

Why didn't you answer the question about the extensive practice and high quality training received by Nikolas Cruz?

Well, lets do that. You said:

It is too easy to demonstrate that copious practice and quality training aren't necessary to effectively use a firearm with a single example of someone with neither who effectively employs a firearm. What was the quality training received by Nikolas Cruz?

There is a world of difference between pointing a gun at a herd of people and squeezing a trigger, and precisely using a gun to effectively defend yourself and others, while not killing by standers.

I agree there there are all sorts of differences in different situations. This is why training to face a combatant may not be necessary in all situations.

I am proposing that you think about this more

That's an evasion. What is it that you propose?

No, it isn't an evasion, and asking the question a second time gets you the answer a second time. I propose that you think about this more.


I believe you ignored my final question because you may recognize the weakness in the standard you've set forth. You don't want people who haven't had "high quality training" to exercise a constitutional right, yet you advocate restricting peoples' rights without any "high quality training" to do so.

I don't actually think you should be prohibited from advocacy on the issue, because to speak on it is your right, training or not. Similarly, I wouldn't limit your right to defend with arms, your right, training or not.

EDIT - I see you came back for the final question, yet may be blind to the irony. I hope the prior paragraph frames it sufficiently.

 

[Soupah]

All this conversation on arming teachers is pointless...POINTLESS..because it would be a pyrrhic victory. You should all hope it doesn't come to pass.

Nothing would more completely and finally swing the tide of public opinion overwhelmingly against gun owners than dealing with the actual arming of teachers in schools. Even if it prevented mass shootings.

One ND, one accidental or unprovoked fatal shooting, one holstered Sig left in a drawer and found by a student, and we would be worse off than ever.

Teachers generally aren't gun people, just like the general public. It's bad enough forcing safe gun practices on the willing. Best to raise the age limit on firearm purchases (but not the use of) to something reasonable, like 21.

 

[zukiphile]

All this conversation on arming teachers is pointless...POINTLESS..because it would be a pyrrhic victory. You should all hope it doesn't come to pass.

Nothing would more completely and finally swing the tide of public opinion overwhelmingly against gun owners than dealing with the actual arming of teachers in schools. Even if it prevented mass shootings.

One ND, one accidental or unprovoked fatal shooting, one holstered Sig left in a drawer and found by a student, and we would be worse off than ever.

Teachers generally aren't gun people, just like the general public. It's bad enough forcing safe gun practices on the willing.

What part of that wouldn't apply to police officers?

Who has proposed forcing teachers to arm?

 

[Soupah]

I guess I meant the risks of "incentivizing" teachers to arm, not forcing. As evidenced in the front page of the New York Times this morning (a paper I encourage all of us to read; know your enemy's arguments and all that).

 

[K_Mac]

The idea that you can hand anyone a firearm and expect them to be able to automatically effectively defend themselves against someone determined to kill them is the most hillbilly, good 'ol boy, careless attitude I've ever heard.

And that, ladies and gentlemen is the bumper sticker for those who believe guns and yokels are the problem.

As a card carrying good ole boy, I find this argument disingenuous at best. Whether my brethren and I can effectively defend ourselves is not really the issue. The implication though, is that we pose a danger to ourselves and society at large by having guns. I'm not opposed to basic proficiency and safety training for concealed carry permits, but the idea that I be required to pass some sort of psycological or proficiency testing to simply own guns is without question an infringement of my rights.

That the cause of the killing of innocents is ultimately access to guns by law abiding citizens is a straw man that does not address the failure of existing gun control laws. It is not the fault of the tens of millions of Americans who are dismissed as unenlightened rubes because we take our 2A rights and responsibilities seriously.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I never said registration was a good idea. Please quote me where I ever said anything about registration.

Didn’t we just have this conversation? The current background check system IS registration. It is based on the de-centralized registry established by the 1968 Gun Control Act. You have repeatedly stated you want to add more records to this system and expand it to all private sales.

Let’s look at how that works. You get your wish. I have a rifle. Maybe it is worth a lot now because it has been banned. Heck, maybe they’ll ban mags too and that stack of $8 PMAGs I am sitting on outperforms my 401k. I sell it to RC20 face to face with no background check. RC20 decides to do something criminal with it. Police come to me and I say “sold it before the law changed. Prove otherwise.” They can prove I didn’t do a background check; but can they prove WHEN I didn’t do a background check?

Expanding NICS to all private sales REQUIRES firearms registration or it is a toothless law enforceable only against the criminally stupid. That’s the entire point I’ve been making repeatedly now.

The idea that you can hand anyone a firearm and expect them to be able to automatically effectively defend themselves against someone determined to kill them is the most hillbilly, good 'ol boy, careless attitude I've ever heard.

People defend themselves every day in this country with zero formal training and many of the people who most need self-defense lack the time and money for such training.

Also, apropos of nothing, what made you associate “hillbilly and good ol’ boy” with “careless attitude” in your mind? Are the hillbillies you know particularly careless? Got a friend who is a “good ol’ boy?”

 

[NateKirk]

If you hadn't mentioned it, we couldn't be discussing it.

See post 264.

Basic proficiency may be necessary, yet not sufficient in every situation.

I'm happy to see that you've submitted to the point I've made.

s it possible that it would be useful to you to see more before drawing conclusions that would abridge peoples' civil rights?

It would be useful. And others are welcome to offer what they have seen as well. That we would require an assurance of competency and responsibility from authority figures (in this case teachers,) is not an abridgment of rights, it is a job requirement. The general public is still free to be as ignorant as they like.

So now the authority you offer is "several instructors". Excellent

This is a retort, not a rebuttal. Scathing.

No, it isn't an evasion, and asking the question a second time gets you the answer a second time. I propose that you think about this more

One may shout all day at your opponent "I propose you think about this more" but that offers nothing to support your argument. The fact is, that one needs proper training in order to expect to effectively defend themselves and others in any kind of force of force situation.

Your argument up to this point is that a hobbyists skill level, a civilian mindset, and a reliance on the folksy adage "it's better to be lucky than good," is an adequate defense against an irrational killer who has the advantage of choosing the setting and time of conflict, and more than likely possesses superior weapons.

To rebuke this is is to say you believe that no training is necessary to defend yourself, or that you agree that high quality, regular training should be completed if authority figures are to arm themselves in school.

I believe you ignored my final question because you may recognize the weakness in the standard you've set forth. You don't want people who haven't had "high quality training" to exercise a constitutional right, yet you advocate restricting peoples' rights without any "high quality training" to do so.

I see you came back for the final question, yet may be blind to the irony

I think you may have missed it. You basically agreed with me. And funnily enough, your response again does nothing to support your position.

Here's the exchange:

Quote:
Commenting on the law competently takes years training and frequent practice. At least that's what some law school professors told me. You shouldn't do it without high quality and extensive preparation.

Right?

Right. The same applies to firearms use.

You were either insincere in your inference that I am unqualified to discuss legal matters due to my being one of the little people, which would make my statement ironic, or you agree with my point.



This is going in circles. If anyone else is interested in attempting to poke holes in my reasoning they are welcome to do so.

 

[Prndll]

Commenting on law? Lol

Twitter seems to just about be given the power to make law. The world hinges on what happens on Twitter.

This is getting ridiculous.

 

[zukiphile]

I believe you ignored my final question because you may recognize the weakness in the standard you've set forth. You don't want people who haven't had "high quality training" to exercise a constitutional right, yet you advocate restricting peoples' rights without any "high quality training" to do so.

I see you came back for the final question, yet may be blind to the irony

I think you may have missed it. You basically agreed with me. And funnily enough, your response again does nothing to support your position.

Here's the exchange:

Commenting on the law competently takes years training and frequent practice. At least that's what some law school professors told me. You shouldn't do it without high quality and extensive preparation.

Right?

Right. The same applies to firearms use.

You were either insincere in your inference that I am unqualified to discuss legal matters due to my being one of the little people, which would make my statement ironic, or you agree with my point.

Nate, I didn't intend the point to be so subtle that it was elusive.

The implication isn't that you are unqualified to discuss legal matters for your lack of training. The suggestion is that applying your own standard for exercise of a person's right to arm made subject to high quality training would leave you unqualified to safely comment on the implications of abridging peoples' civil rights.

If you understand the irony of your call for training before exercising a right, why are you here commenting on the law? Or is this standard only for other people?

 

[adamBomb]

You conclude that this supports further gun control.

How so?

Its already being touted as proof that a good guy with a gun isn't always a solution to stop a bad guy with a gun. Its just adding fuel to a fire.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/23/politics/lapierre-nra-analysis/index.html

 

[zukiphile]

You conclude that this supports further gun control.

How so?

Its already being touted as proof that a good guy with a gun isn't always a solution to stop a bad guy with a gun. Its just adding fuel to a fire.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/23/polit...sis/index.html

Wayne Lapierre isn't my favorite advocate, but he didn't say that a good guy with a gun always stops a bad guy with a gun. There is also considerable doubt that this PO was a good guy, at least at that specific moment.


Are you impressed by unarmed teachers who are shot while protecting students from a murderer? I am. It seems similar to the frame of mind that had some passengers move against the 9/11 hijackers rather than have their airplane hit another building. Scott Beigel was one of those teachers last week.

Would it have made last week any worse if Scott Beigel had been armed?

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Being a retired educator, there is interesting discussion of whether teachers will be required to 'take a bullet' for their students. Should that be in their training? I can't give you a link as it is restricted to paid membership. There may be other places for that discussion.

So do you expect your grade school teacher to take the bullet? If Ms. FirstGrade or Coach Feetball saw what was happening and decided to jump out the window and leave the kids to their fate - is that ok? Is the suicide charge required?

The problem with good guy with a gun or whatever, is that people speak and respond to slogans. They want 0,1 decision rules - and that is not happening.

 

[5whiskey]

Natekirk said:
One may shout all day at your opponent "I propose you think about this more" but that offers nothing to support your argument. The fact is, that one needs proper training in order to expect to effectively defend themselves and others in any kind of force of force situation.

Your argument up to this point is that a hobbyists skill level, a civilian mindset, and a reliance on the folksy adage "it's better to be lucky than good," is an adequate defense against an irrational killer who has the advantage of choosing the setting and time of conflict, and more than likely possesses superior weapons.

To rebuke this is is to say you believe that no training is necessary to defend yourself, or that you agree that high quality, regular training should be completed if authority figures are to arm themselves in school.

Zuke has already explained it, but I will second that I immediately understood what he referred to. Freedom of speech to discuss matters of policy that will affect the civil rights of EVERY American is unregulated. No training is required to exercise said right. Not only that, but wars can literally be started with words. People are often killed because of words. The old adage "The pen is mightier than the sword" still rings true today. Which is why I cringe at some of the God-awful stuff I see passing as "thought-provoking" on social media.

So if no training is required of you to comment on public policy, which is your first amendment right, why would you impose training requirements on everyone's right to possess a firearm?

The idea that you can hand anyone a firearm and expect them to be able to automatically effectively defend themselves against someone determined to kill them is the most hillbilly, good 'ol boy, careless attitude I've ever heard.

I've seen first hand relatively un-trained individuals successfully defend themselves with a firearm. I've likely been carrying a gun as a course of one of my careers for nearly twenty years now.

Your argument up to this point is that a hobbyists skill level, a civilian mindset, and a reliance on the folksy adage "it's better to be lucky than good," is an adequate defense against an irrational killer who has the advantage of choosing the setting and time of conflict, and more than likely possesses superior weapons.

There are literally hundreds of thousands of cases, every year, where someone defends themselves (justifiably) with a firearm. Frequently it only takes the display of said firearm. And yes, you assume that armed criminals train frequently with firearms and proficient in it's use. I assure you the overwhelming vast majority are not and will scamper away at the first sign of armed resistance.

To rebuke this is is to say you believe that no training is necessary to defend yourself, or that you agree that high quality, regular training should be completed if authority figures are to arm themselves in school.

Now you are being disingenuous. There is no direct connection between a man who chooses to carry a handgun for personal/family protection, which is the purpose of the CCH permitting process, and a trained individual guarding a school. No one here (at least I hope) wants people who have merely completed a one day CCH course to be the armed protection of an entire school.

This. This is why I think people should be required to undergo better training.

Training for what? Guarding a school? Absolutely. Carrying concealed? I agree. Merely owning a firearm? Nope.

 

[zukiphile]

Being a retired educator, there is interesting discussion of whether teachers will be required to 'take a bullet' for their students. Should that be in their training? I can't give you a link as it is restricted to paid membership. There may be other places for that discussion.

So do you expect your grade school teacher to take the bullet? If Ms. FirstGrade or Coach Feetball saw what was happening and decided to jump out the window and leave the kids to their fate - is that ok? Is the suicide charge required?

I don't think it's a job duty of a teacher to protect his students from deadly attack even at the cost of his own life, but it is worth noting the frequency with which this appears to happen.

The problem with good guy with a gun or whatever, is that people speak and respond to slogans. They want 0,1 decision rules - and that is not happening.

On the contrary, it seems to happen often. The decision between action and inaction has a binary quality. The now former PO or SRO appears to have chosen relative inaction.

That an armed good guy will have advantages he lacks if disarmed should be uncontroversial. Does anyone really dispute it?

EDIT - Glenn, got it. I misunderstood.