Interesting Gun Control For vs Against

[BeeR]

If you're dying, that means you finally said something worthwhile.

 

giggle giggle

[detlef]

In my experience most licensed shrinks are whack jobs themselves. I can say this as I have about 100 hours of psych classes and know many.

 

None the less, it seems to be a pretty good place to start. Honestly, I really don't think it's the end of the world if some deserving people can't have guns. Perhaps one could go to an appeal process if you feel the diagnosis was unjust, but I'd really rather err on the side of safety here.

 

I don't doubt that plenty of shrinks are nutjobs but "danger to himself and others" doesn't likely get tossed around very often when making reports.

[detlef]

I'm not aware of the incident, but that guy sounds like a total retard. Its a basic gun safety issue. A 12 year-old with any common sense knows that you don't point a gun (even an unloaded one) at something you don't want to destroy.

 

And I'm not sure what you mean by "gun training," but I'd be pretty surprised if most Air Force personnel get anything more than rudimentary pistol instruction. I'm interested to know how much pistol instruction and range time your average Army infantryman gets

 

Here's the thread

 

My point in this is that it is yet another example of the fact that it is rather apparent that people who are too freaking stupid to understand guns are legally getting them.

 

Believe me, I am not saying that guns need to be done away with but I do think ownership should be much more restricted than it is. And yes, I feel the same way about driving.

[Furd]

Here's the thread

 

My point in this is that it is yet another example of the fact that it is rather apparent that people who are too freaking stupid to understand guns are legally getting them.

 

Believe me, I am not saying that guns need to be done away with but I do think ownership should be much more restricted than it is. And yes, I feel the same way about driving.

 

 

 

Well, how can you predict who is going to do something incredibly stupid with a gun? I mean, "don't point a gun at yourself or someone else" is kinda an easy rule to understand. I don't think that you need a gun class to figure it out.

 

Plenty of cops and other people who purportedly understand guns shoot themselves accidently.

[WaterMan]

Just like this genious...

 

http://kontraband.com/show/show.asp?ID=210...02&Keywords=cop

[Furd]

Just like this genious...

 

 

 

[detlef]

Well, how can you predict who is going to do something incredibly stupid with a gun? I mean, "don't point a gun at yourself or someone else" is kinda an easy rule to understand. I don't think that you need a gun class to figure it out.

 

Plenty of cops and other people who purportedly understand guns shoot themselves accidently.

 

I'm not saying that we can avoid this type of thing 100%. It is just a reminder that rather extensive restrictions should be placed on who can legally own these things. That's all. Much like the nut-jobs, just like I really don't care if we go to far and some guy who's only a borderline nut job gets caught in the shuffle and doesn't get a gun, I don't really care if some guy who is only borderline stupid gets denied as well.

 

I don't own a gun and have lived in plenty of scary places and it has never come back to haunt me (knocking on wood). So I know first hand that once can actually survive in this world without one. Less guns is not a bad thing by nature. Less guns in the hands of idiots and psychos is rather undeniably not a bad thing.

[AtomicCEO]

I'm not saying that we can avoid this type of thing 100%. It is just a reminder that rather extensive restrictions should be placed on who can legally own these things. That's all. Much like the nut-jobs, just like I really don't care if we go to far and some guy who's only a borderline nut job gets caught in the shuffle and doesn't get a gun, I don't really care if some guy who is only borderline stupid gets denied as well.

 

 

You also think that the Duke lacrosse players should probably get convicted of rape because someone told you they were jerks.

 

You are not overly generous with your "benefit of the doubt".

[detlef]

You also think that the Duke lacrosse players should probably get convicted of rape because someone told you they were jerks.

 

 

1) I invite you to find one instance of me saying that.

2) I have personal experience with their poor behavior

3) So can I include you among those who wants crazy people to have guns?

[Dr. Sacrebleu]

well mr dorey, i am glad that you are opening up and leading the debate on SOMETHING of interest. Which of course now means I have even less of an understanding of what your rationale is when monitoring these boards.

It's still too soon to talk about Katrina. The war is still too controversial to deal with. elections, and politics as a whole really always degenerates into name calling. Basically any subject that MIGHT be controversial when talked about at a bar, tailgate, or dinner party is out.

But 32 kids have barely been laid to rest, and this is the timeyou chose to bring up gun control debate?

Fine by me. And I hope this is a change in thetailgate policy.

 

or did az just hack into your account ?

[skins]

well mr dorey, i am glad that you are opening up and leading the debate on SOMETHING of interest. Which of course now means I have even less of an understanding of what your rationale is when monitoring these boards.

It's still too soon to talk about Katrina. The war is still too controversial to deal with. elections, and politics as a whole really always degenerates into name calling. Basically any subject that MIGHT be controversial when talked about at a bar, tailgate, or dinner party is out.

But 32 kids have barely been laid to rest, and this is the timeyou chose to bring up gun control debate?

Fine by me. And I hope this is a change in thetailgate policy.

 

or did az just hack into your account ?

 

 

You should be banned.

[budlitebrad]

Just a side note. My alma mater, SUNY Geneseo, just decided to let the campus police carry firearms. Previously, they had to be kept locked in their police cars.

 

 

If I were still a student, I'd feel much safer knowing the cops no longer have to run back to their car for a gun if there were an emergency.

Edited April 22, 2007 by budlitebrad

[Ursa Majoris]

Just a side note. My alma mater, SUNY Geneseo, just decided to let the campus police carry firearms. Previously, they had to be kept locked in their police cars.

 

 

If I were still a student, I'd feel much safer knowing the cops no longer have to run back to their car for a gun if there were an emergency.

What a stupid f'n rule THAT was.

[AtomicCEO]

Just a side note. My alma mater, SUNY Geneseo, just decided to let the campus police carry firearms. Previously, they had to be kept locked in their police cars.

 

 

If I were still a student, I'd feel much safer knowing the cops no longer have to run back to their car for a gun if there were an emergency.

 

I don't know about SUNY in the land of Cream Ale... but at my school, the security guards were a bunch of retarded morons who couldn't hack it as garbage men and prison guards... 4 time losers on the civil service exam, who tried to carve out meaning in their lives by aggressively enforcing borderline noise violations that nobody complained about and keeping drunk kids off the train tracks.

 

But yeah... I'm sure you're a lot safer now that they carry guns. Good luck with that. They are definitely far more likely to take out a mass-murderer than to shoot a student by mistake.

[Furd]

I don't know about SUNY in the land of Cream Ale... but at my school, the security guards were a bunch of retarded morons who couldn't hack it as garbage men and prison guards... 4 time losers on the civil service exam, who tried to carve out meaning in their lives by aggressively enforcing borderline noise violations that nobody complained about and keeping drunk kids off the train tracks.

 

But yeah... I'm sure you're a lot safer now that they carry guns. Good luck with that. They are definitely far more likely to take out a mass-murderer than to shoot a student by mistake.

 

 

One interesting aspect of the gun debate is what appears to be an overwhelming belief that, if the guy carrying the gun is a cop, he is well trained in the use of a pistol. Some are. Some aren't.

 

Different PDs have different requirements for "qualifying" with a hangun. It may be as little as once a year. It typically involves shooting at a stationary target. It typically does not involve tactical training: use of cover, the performance of reloads, shooting on the move, shooting with the weak hand or using a flashlight.

 

You shouldn't confuse qualifying (demonstrating basic proficiency) with training.

 

You're going to have your cops that like to shoot and will shoot often and train seriously. You're going to have your cops that will shoot rarely, perhaps just prior to having to requalify, thereafter holstering their gun for 11.5 months. Most cops are somewhere in between.

 

One thing to consider is that a civilian who purchases his/her own gun, who spends the money and takes the time to fulfill all the requirements in order to obtain a concealed carry permit, is probably going to like to shoot. Which means he or she will shoot, perhaps even taking advanced classes in the tactical use of a pistol.

 

I think that its a mistake to dismiss those that legally carry firearms as gun nuts or whackjobs. Maybe it doen't justify anything, but had one of those students been carrying, he or she may have saved lives.

Edited April 23, 2007 by Furd

[Grits and Shins]

If all the existing gun control laws were obeyed then this would be a non-issue. So how exactly does have MORE non-enforced gun control solve anything?

 

Gun control only makes it more difficult and more expensive for law abiding citizens to own firearms. What good does it do to disarm the law abiding citizen and put them at the mercy of the criminal element who will be fully armed?

[AtomicCEO]

If all the existing gun control laws were obeyed then this would be a non-issue. So how exactly does have MORE non-enforced gun control solve anything?

 

Gun control only makes it more difficult and more expensive for law abiding citizens to own firearms. What good does it do to disarm the law abiding citizen and put them at the mercy of the criminal element who will be fully armed?

 

 

If you want a gun, you can get one. Let's not hop up on that cross just yet, Nuge.

[H8tank]

More recently, just a few miles up the road from Virginia Tech, two law school students ran to fetch their legally owned firearm to stop a madman from slaughtering anybody and everybody he pleased. These brave, average, armed citizens neutralized him pronto.

 

One of these law school students was a cop.

 

What does that have to do with anything? His gun stopped the killing.

[AtomicCEO]

What does that have to do with anything? His gun stopped the killing.

 

 

Yes. This is a great argument for why cops should carry guns. I totally agree with you.

[WaterMan]

I think we should all own atomic bombs. If I'm outlawed from owning one, what's to say some college kid can't get one and kill honest citizens. I'm strapping up.

[Codwagon]

I think we should all own atomic bombs. If I'm outlawed from owning one, what's to say some college kid can't get one and kill honest citizens. I'm strapping up.

 

 

 

I think we should overlegislate gun laws because it has worked so well with drugs.

[Clubfoothead]

The 2nd Amendment is antiquated. We neither have nor need militias that are necessary for our supposedly free state. What I've never understood it the idea of the militias being "well regulated" and the government's restriction infringing the right to bear arms. Seems like a contradiction to me.

 

Antiquated or not, I don't believe in giving up any innumerated rights to the man, including this one, for better or worse.

[Jimmy Neutron]

One interesting aspect of the gun debate is what appears to be an overwhelming belief that, if the guy carrying the gun is a cop, he is well trained in the use of a pistol. Some are. Some aren't.

 

Different PDs have different requirements for "qualifying" with a hangun. It may be as little as once a year. It typically involves shooting at a stationary target. It typically does not involve tactical training: use of cover, the performance of reloads, shooting on the move, shooting with the weak hand or using a flashlight.

 

You shouldn't confuse qualifying (demonstrating basic proficiency) with training.

 

You're going to have your cops that like to shoot and will shoot often and train seriously. You're going to have your cops that will shoot rarely, perhaps just prior to having to requalify, thereafter holstering their gun for 11.5 months. Most cops are somewhere in between.

 

One thing to consider is that a civilian who purchases his/her own gun, who spends the money and takes the time to fulfill all the requirements in order to obtain a concealed carry permit, is probably going to like to shoot. Which means he or she will shoot, perhaps even taking advanced classes in the tactical use of a pistol.

 

I think that its a mistake to dismiss those that legally carry firearms as gun nuts or whackjobs. Maybe it doen't justify anything, but had one of those students been carrying, he or she may have saved lives.

 

 

You are exacty right. I shoot with a number of LEOs and most are not a profficient with their duty weapons as I am with my carry gun. I can remember being beaten in IDPA competition by exactly 1 LEO - a guy from FBI hostage rescue that was good. That dude was a machine and I'll never forget watching him in action. I talked to him after the match and found out that he wasn't just HR, but was a trainer for the program. He shot two to three thousand rounds per week.

 

Like Furd said, most cops only "qualify" once or twice a year. Qualifying usually entails hitting a standard B-27 target (man-shaped paper target) in the 8, 9, 10 rings at close distance with minimal time restraint. Frankly, my 10-year-old son could do it with my .22 pistol. It ain't tough.

 

I am a gun nut and perhaps a whackjob to some, and I'd darn sure engage a nut like Cho trying to hurt innocent folks.

 

Edit to add: Remember a few months back when NY officers pumped a car with 40-something rounds? That's a fine example of cops that don't know how to shoot.

Edited April 23, 2007 by Jimmy Neutron

[Dr. Sacrebleu]

You are exacty right. I shoot with a number of LEOs and most are not a profficient with their duty weapons as I am with my carry gun. I can remember being beaten in IDPA competition by exactly 1 LEO - a guy from FBI hostage rescue that was good. That dude was a machine and I'll never forget watching him in action. I talked to him after the match and found out that he wasn't just HR, but was a trainer for the program. He shot two to three thousand rounds per week.

 

Like Furd said, most cops only "qualify" once or twice a year. Qualifying usually entails hitting a standard B-27 target (man-shaped paper target) in the 8, 9, 10 rings at close distance with minimal time restraint. Frankly, my 10-year-old son could do it with my .22 pistol. It ain't tough.

 

I am a gun nut and perhaps a whackjob to some, and I'd darn sure engage a nut like Cho trying to hurt innocent folks.

 

Edit to add: Remember a few months back when NY officers pumped a car with 40-something rounds? That's a fine example of cops that don't know how to shoot.

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but isn't there a difference between marksmanship and gun use?

I don't know any of your specifics, but it sounds like you are bragging about your skill at shooting. I don't have any way of knowing that you would act apropriately with a handgun from what you are saying. Being able to take out a guy from 100 yards away on the run is impressive, if the guy you shot was actually just trying to catch the 5.19 train, not the killer on the lose, I guess it's a little less impressive...

[Furd]

I'm sorry, but isn't there a difference between marksmanship and gun use?

I don't know any of your specifics, but it sounds like you are bragging about your skill at shooting. I don't have any way of knowing that you would act apropriately with a handgun from what you are saying. Being able to take out a guy from 100 yards away on the run is impressive, if the guy you shot was actually just trying to catch the 5.19 train, not the killer on the lose, I guess it's a little less impressive...

 

 

Well, I think the point was that it seems that most people just assume that a cop is well trained with a gun and can use it proficiently if necessary in a tactical situation such as the Va Tech incident. Marksmanship is a big part of it, as you may hurt a bystander if you miss the target, and poor shot placement may not incapacitate the target.

 

Most cops don't train for such situations. If Neutron is competing in IDPA (International Defensive Pistol Association) events, I'd bet he is more qualified than 99% of LEOs at the use of a pistol in a tactical situation.

 

I'd feel pretty comfortable with a guy like Neutron around.