Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Recommended Posts

I have used guns in real firefights. I'm still here to tell the story, the other guy's aren't.

 

Rules by the number

1.There in no such thing as a safe gun.

2. All guns are always loaded unless you know personally that it is not.

3. Never carry a gun unless you intend to use it.

4. Never use it unless you intend to kill someone. 3 rounds, 3 buttons down, in 3 seconds, and it is all over except the paper work.

5. Be prepared for the legal and emotional consequences of using that gun.

 

So before you strap on that firearm be aware of what you are doing.

SEE http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/04/guns-in-the-home-lots-of-risk-ambiguity/

 

All that being said firearms are useful tools and can be great fun to shoot.

Share this post


Link to post

 

 
Can homicide ever be justified?  
Do humans have a right of self-defense?  
Is concealed-carry all right for civilians?  
What does LDS theology say on the matter?

 

Yes

Yes

Yes

You have the right to defend your family.

Share this post


Link to post

I have used guns in real firefights. I'm still here to tell the story, the other guy's aren't.

 

Rules by the number

1.There in no such thing as a safe gun.

2. All guns are always loaded unless you know personally that it is not.

3. Never carry a gun unless you intend to use it.

4. Never use it unless you intend to kill someone. 3 rounds, 3 buttons down, in 3 seconds, and it is all over except the paper work.

5. Be prepared for the legal and emotional consequences of using that gun.

 

So before you strap on that firearm be aware of what you are doing.

SEE http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/04/guns-in-the-home-lots-of-risk-ambiguity/

 

All that being said firearms are useful tools and can be great fun to shoot.

#1 is incorrect - Guns do nothing by themselves.

With a gun:  If you don't do something then nothing happens

Share this post


Link to post

Where is this stated in the Standard Works, or in comments by the Brethren?

nephi/laban would be a precedent for doing what is needful. Also all the Wars in the BoM were in defense of homeland and family. 

Share this post


Link to post

#1 is incorrect - Guns do nothing by themselves.

With a gun:  If you don't do something then nothing happens

 

Tautology. 

Share this post


Link to post

I have used guns in real firefights. I'm still here to tell the story, the other guy's aren't.

 

Rules by the number

1.There in no such thing as a safe gun.

2. All guns are always loaded unless you know personally that it is not.

3. Never carry a gun unless you intend to use it.

4. Never use it unless you intend to kill someone. 3 rounds, 3 buttons down, in 3 seconds, and it is all over except the paper work.

5. Be prepared for the legal and emotional consequences of using that gun.

 

So before you strap on that firearm be aware of what you are doing.

SEE http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/04/guns-in-the-home-lots-of-risk-ambiguity/

 

All that being said firearms are useful tools and can be great fun to shoot.

 

Well, finally something you and I can both agree on completely!

 

And I am very glad that you were the one who walked away.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think it's absurd at all. Firearms are quite simple in concept -- the original point-and-shoot interface. We often joke that certain individuals are confused about which end the bullet comes out of, but the fact is NOBODY is confused on that point.

The interesting thing is that Oregon, to Washington's south, requires training, while Washington does not. Their experiences with licensees are pretty much the same: very little trouble. Training probably makes certain folks, such as yourself, feel better, but I would tend to think that most people seeking a license are already knowledgeable about firearms, making a training course a bit unnecessary.

For instance, when my sons turned 12 I took them out to the local gravel pit and gave them that instruction. Rule 1: All Guns Are Always Loaded. Rule 2: Never Point a Gun at Anything You Are Not Willing to Destroy. Rule 3: Always safe your weapon when not in use but remember Rule 1 and that safeties can fail.

That is nonsense.  We no longer live in a society in which the average man served in the armed forces, and few people actually know anything about firearms (or other weapons for that matter), except what they may have seen on television or in gaming.  Many people who carry firearms are a danger to themselves and to others because of their indomitable ignorance -- such that they tend to shoot themselves or innocent people in emergencies.  Even with training and discipline, friendly fire incidents can still occur.  Only with serious training (and regular refresher training) can we reduce the mistakes per capita.

 

Your rules, while helpful, are simply not adequate.  Turning someone loose with a gun permit without actual training is like turning a vehicle over to a 16-year-old without bothering to adequately train him in its use.

Share this post


Link to post

That is nonsense. We no longer live in a society in which the average man served in the armed forces, and few people actually know anything about firearms (or other weapons for that matter), except what they may have seen on television or in gaming. Many people who carry firearms are a danger to themselves and to others because of their indomitable ignorance -- such that they tend to shoot themselves or innocent people in emergencies. Even with training and discipline, friendly fire incidents can still occur. Only with serious training (and regular refresher training) can we reduce the mistakes per capita.

Do you actually know the "mistakes per capita"? Can you cite a "mistakes per capita" figure for any two states of the union, one which issues carry permits without training in any given recent year, comparing and contrasting with a state that does require training? I'm waiting. I do recall that somebody or other once said that 80% of statistics are made up on the spot. :D Real stats would be appreciated.

The plain fact of the matter is this: those who seek carry permits tend to be among the most responsible citizens in the population. There may be a few outliers, but by and large those who obtain permits (after a criminal background check, by the way) tend to be knowledgeable about firearms anyway. Those who aren't already firearms owners tend not to even think about it. Don't ask me to provide figures on this, because this is based on my observation of the many CCW holders I've known.

And besides my observation, consider that Washington state is by and large a liberal Democrat haven. If there were a significant problem with the actual performance of CCW holders in this state, in respect of your concerns don't you think that the legislature would have quickly instituted required training, if it seemed necessary? Washington has been issuing CCWs without requiring training for many decades (I've tried to dig into the bill history for the code section in question, but the best I can do at this time is to say it appears to go back to 1935). As one of the states with the longest history of concealed carry permit issue, and given the control-freak tendency of any liberal Democrat state in matters of public safety, don't you think it is revealing that this state STILL doesn't require training?

In short, you're hyperventilating over nothing. Or almost nothing.

Your rules, while helpful, are simply not adequate.

They might not be completely adequate, but I'm not making a claim that that is all you need. See TSS's post for a more application restatement and supplement to the rules I stated.

Turning someone loose with a gun permit without actual training is like turning a vehicle over to a 16-year-old without bothering to adequately train him in its use.

NO, it isn't. The vehicle accident rate among pre-18 year olds is high, irrespective of training, if insurance companies' premium rates for such folks is any guide. I mentioned above that I live in Washington state, which is a shall-issue state that doesn't require training. Just south of us is Oregon state, which is a shall-issue state that does require training. I ask: when was the last time a CCW holder in either Washington or Oregon got in a legal shootout that involved bystander-hits? I will tell you that I don't know, but knowing our mainstream media and their biases against firearms, don't you think they would have splatted any such friendly fire incident all over the news, nationwide? Of course they would have, because it would cater to their agenda. But it hasn't happened, so they haven't covered it.

Share this post


Link to post

If the only thing you are going to use a handgun for is plinking at some cans on a weekend , then Stargazer's rules are probably adequate. If , on the other hand you feel the need to have a handgun for self protection, then it is very advisable to take and complete a  rigorous training program which emphasizes shooting under pressure and adrenaline.Many stories have been shown in the media where a cop fires  6 + shots at a criminal and only 1 bullet does any damage , showing that even a trained person can be a poor shot under stress.

Very true.  With proper, intensive training there are agencies which win the gunfights they get into.  Gang members and rifraff are seldom as committed and able as those with rigorous law-enforcement training, although there are some exceptions.

Share this post


Link to post

..............................................................  

..................The vehicle accident rate among pre-18 year olds is high, irrespective of training, if insurance companies' premium rates for such folks is any guide. ........................................................................................................................

Your misinformation and disinformation is key here, both on vehicle risk and firearm risk.   Training is the key to both, but what kind of training?  And for which age group?  After all, we don't allow minors to carry concealed firearms.  Maturity is a big factor.

 

In reducing the huge accident rate of teen drivers, the effective and proven method is graduated licensing, and the part of that policy which is applicable to firearm licensure is to provide beginning drivers or shooters actual experience (same as they do in the military and in law enforcement).  Here in Utah the method (which all states have adopted to some degree) is to provide teens with a learner's permit requiring accompaniment with an adult driver for a certain number of hours.  A hands-on course in firearms for adults seems analogous.  Your notion of just issuing the CCW and hoping for the best is suicidal and irresponsible.

Share this post


Link to post

Your misinformation and disinformation is key here, both on vehicle risk and firearm risk. Training is the key to both, but what kind of training? And for which age group? After all, we don't allow minors to carry concealed firearms. Maturity is a big factor.

In reducing the huge accident rate of teen drivers, the effective and proven method is graduated licensing, and the part of that policy which is applicable to firearm licensure is to provide beginning drivers or shooters actual experience (same as they do in the military and in law enforcement). Here in Utah the method (which all states have adopted to some degree) is to provide teens with a learner's permit requiring accompaniment with an adult driver for a certain number of hours.

Good grief. Did you actually read what I wrote? Mis- AND dis-information in the same post! Wow, I must be killing it.

I said that insurance rates are highest for younger drivers, especially males. They give a discount for having passed driver education courses, but their rates are still higher than for more experienced, and more mature drivers. This is because of the insurance companies' actual experience with accident rates in that group. The younger drivers, regardless of training, tend to have more accidents. I am certainly not arguing against driver training, which is what you seem to be thinking I was doing.

Perhaps I confused you by seeming to equate driving with carring a firearm. I wasn't. I was just saying that training isn't everything when it comes to cars, and you do seem to agree with this. Maturity, as you say, is a big factor.

A hands-on course in firearms for adults seems analogous. Your notion of just issuing the CCW and hoping for the best is suicidal and irresponsible.

MY notion? It's not MY notion. And YOU clearly didn't read what I wrote, because if you had you wouldn't have written this sentence. I probably wrote too much in my last post and you lost patience and just skipped it.

Just in case you missed it, many states, and it might be most "shall-issue" states, do NOT require training. My state is one of those which just issues the CCW and hopes for the best. Washington state has been doing this for probably 50 years or more and the state's experience is that it is NOT suicidal NOR irresponsible. You can add Utah to this. In fact, Utah recognizes CCWs issued by any other state of the Union, regardless of whether that state requires training. Alabama and Connecticut, among others, do not require training. Idaho is kind of squishy on this. Neither Alaska, Arizona nor Vermont require their residents to get CCW permits to carry concealed, let along require training.

I suggest you read what I write before accusing me of spreading mis- and dis-information.

Oh, and better beware, because most "shall-issue" states and some "may-issue" states allow OPEN carry without a permit and without training. Be scared. Be very scared.

Share this post


Link to post

The first time I saw a man in one of the open carry states walking down the street with  what appeared to be a peacemaker strapped to his hip , I thought I had been time transported.

 

  Now here is a man who can handle a pistol. I believe he has passed on now. This is just for fun and not OP related.

I agree that driver training is a good thing and so is basic firearms training. A quick review of accident compilations on youtube will show just how inadequate or non-existent training can impact society.

The kind of training I advocate it not just shoulder checking and how to parallel park, but actual car HANDLING on skid patches and gravel roads and snow and ice conditions. Things which usually takes years of experience and unfortunately some accidents to acquire. Too often we give kids a few hours behind the wheel with dad's help and then turn them loose on society hoping that their quick reflexes and dumb luck will save them.

There are equivalent gun training courses . Would it be smart to have a person as well trained as possible when carrying a loaded weapon? I think so. Just like I think it is smart to have a well trained driver on the road with a 3-4000 lb potentially lethal weapon. I am , however, not holding my breath . Personally I found that driving a motorcycle ( ya I know that ER docs call them donorcycles) was a good way to learn defensive driving .You really learn quickly to watch all traffic because car drivers rarely see you.

Share this post


Link to post

 

. If , on the other hand you feel the need to have a handgun for self protection, then it is very advisable to take and complete a  rigorous training program which emphasizes shooting under pressure and adrenaline.

 

5. Be prepared for the legal and emotional consequences of using that gun.

 

 

Years ago, my dh taught me to shoot when we would go out to the desert... we used to drive cross country often, particularly through miles of rural areas and always had a gun with us... I got to be quite good... he was "expert" from his military days.  I felt comfortable using the gun, and we followed safety rules carefully.

After he passed away, living here on the Oregon Coast, I have to pass through rural areas alone on my way into Portland or Salem, particularly through the Van Duzer Corridor (a dedicated, winding, 10-mile forested area that can be dark and lonely during winter).  So I got my permit to carry concealed...  I felt more secure knowing I had my gun with me, and that I knew how to use it...

I have taken a gun safety class at the local Community College taught by the former chief of police (my former bishop).  Two of the things that he emphasized... never carry a gun unless you're prepared to use it, including killing... and use it only if you feel your life is in danger, and could stand up in court and defend yourself that you absolutely felt your life was in  danger.   I continue to target practice with several others. 

TSS is correct... if you use a gun, particularly if you kill someone, there will almost certainly be legal consequences...  

 

GG  

Share this post


Link to post

Years ago, my dh taught me to shoot when we would go out to the desert... we used to drive cross country often, particularly through miles of rural areas and always had a gun with us... I got to be quite good... he was "expert" from his military days. I felt comfortable using the gun, and we followed safety rules carefully.

After he passed away, living here on the Oregon Coast, I have to pass through rural areas alone on my way into Portland or Salem, particularly through the Van Duzer Corridor (a dedicated, winding, 10-mile forested area that can be dark and lonely during winter). So I got my permit to carry concealed... I felt more secure knowing I had my gun with me, and that I knew how to use it...

I have taken a gun safety class at the local Community College taught by the former chief of police (my former bishop). Two of the things that he emphasized... never carry a gun unless you're prepared to use it, including killing... and use it only if you feel your life is in danger, and could stand up in court and defend yourself that you absolutely felt your life was in danger. I continue to target practice with several others.

TSS is correct... if you use a gun, particularly if you kill someone, there will almost certainly be legal consequences...

GG

Well, my personal regard for you, GG, which was always high, has just jumped up a notch!

TSS is absolutely correct. Even if you are justified in every way, there will always be consequences. One may not be charged with a crime, but if you are forced to kill someone then you will be affected by it for the rest of your life. I know folks who have consciously chosen that they would rather lose their lives than take another's. I respect that choice, although I do not understand it. It also seems to be counter to the Lord's commandments. When He said "Thou shalt not murder" I don't think He meant you couldn't defend yourself with deadly force if it were warranted. Fortunately, the Book of Mormon is quite clear on this subject:

47 And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed. Therefore for this cause were the Nephites contending with the Lamanites, to defend themselves, and their families, and their lands, their country, and their rights, and their religion. (Alma 43:47)

Share this post


Link to post

I am a resident of Nebraska and I have a Utah CCP. Nebraska recognizes Utah's CCP and adds the extra requirement of an 8 hour training class. Utah's CCP is the most recognized CCP's in the country, and deservedly so. One reason is they have a continuous background check once you are in the system your name will go through the background check often, you still have to renew it every five years. There is a law firm that keeps CCP holders up to date on all the laws concerning having a CCP, they also have an app called "Legal Heat" (see here). I go out and "plink" every now and then to keep the rust off. I haven't carried forever because I am in school almost every day (in Nebraska you can't carry in the schools). So all my handguns and rifles are locked up in a very cool safe I have in my living room (if I am robbed, it wont help me, unless the burglar gives me time to open it up). A great book to read and study the issue is; More Guns Less Crime by John R. Lott Jr., here is a review. 

 

I am not for governmental gun control, but I am for being a trained responsible person (IOW no idiots). 

Share this post


Link to post

Associated Press, “Police: Man shoots, kills would-be carjacker outside store,” Yahoo News, May 2, 2015, online at http://news.yahoo.com/police-man-shoots-kills-carjacker-outside-store-004403757.html 

 

--the shooting took place in the parking lot of Macey’s grocery in Orem, Utah, about 200 yds from the Utah Valley Regional Medical Center.

The shooting took place in Orem, but UVRMC is a few miles down the road in Provo (there is a Macey's grocery store across the street from UVRMC, so that's probably where the error came from).

 

Can homicide ever be justified?

Under the law, yes. In LDS doctrine, also yes. See here (emphases added):

 

The Church defines "murder" as the deliberate and unjustified taking of human life. If death is caused by carelessness or by defense of self or others, or if overriding mitigating circumstances prevail (such as deficient mental capacity or state of war), the taking of a human life may be regarded as something other than murder. In making the assessment of a member's guilt or innocence of murder, Church leaders are encouraged to be responsive to inspiration and to submit the facts of the case to the office of the First Presidency for review. In the final analysis, only God, who can discern the thoughts of the heart, can judge whether a particular killing is an unforgivable murder or not.

The Church's concern about murder is both more fundamental and broader than that found in legal definitions. Legal categories of homicide, such as manslaughter or negligent homicide (which typically involve carelessness or mitigating factors), are not necessarily murder, whereas killings involving extremely reckless conduct or "felony murder" may be.

The Church also leaves open the possibility that under some unusual circumstances, standard justifications for killing that would normally relieve the individual from responsibility for murder, such as self-defense or defense of others, may not apply automatically. Wartime military service is considered a mitigating factor, not a justification for indiscriminate killing, thus suggesting that even in warfare one's conduct is measured and weighed by God and is not a matter of license (MFP 6:157-61). Only the Lord has the power to give life or to authorize it to be taken. Both the Bible and the Book of Mormon depict situations in which God has commanded the taking of life to accomplish his purposes. Goliath (1 Sam. 17:46-51), the king of Bashan (Deut. 3:3), and Laban (1 Ne. 4:10-18) were slain by servants of God after having been delivered into their hands by the Lord.

A person convicted of murder by a lawful government may be subject to the death penalty. The Church generally has not objected to capital punishment legally and justly administered. Indeed, scriptural records both ancient and modern condone such punishment (Gen. 9:5-6; Ex. 21:12, 23; 2 Ne. 9:35; Alma 1:13-14; D&C 42:19).

With respect to related offenses, the Church distinguishes abortion from murder but holds it an extremely grave action, not to be done except in extremely limited circumstances that might include incest or rape, perils to the life or health of the mother, or severe birth defects. As far as has currently been revealed, a person may repent and be forgiven for the sin of abortion.

Suicide is regarded as self-murder and a grievous sin if committed by someone in full possession of his or her mental faculties. Because it is possible that a person who takes his or her own life may not be responsible for that action, only God can judge such a matter.

A person who participates in euthanasia-the deliberate, intentional putting to death of a person suffering from incurable conditions or diseases-violates the commandments of God. There is a difference between allowing a terminally ill person to die of natural causes and the initiating of action that causes someone's death. The application or denial of life-support systems must be decided reverently, usually by competent and responsible family members through prayer and the consultation of competent medical authorities. It is not wrong to ask the Lord, if it be his will, to shorten the physical suffering of a person whose afflictions are terminal and irreversible.

The EOM is not authoritative, but it's fairly reliable (and well-sourced).

 

Do humans have a right of self-defense?

Yes. See here, here, here, and here.

 

Is concealed-carry all right for civilians?

That's a matter of personal interpretation, I suppose. Joseph Smith said, "I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves."  I don't think the Church has taken a position on this issue (other than the broad guidelines set forth above), so we're pretty much left to our own preferences on this issue.  Personally, I see nothing wrong with concealed carry.  To the contrary, I find it eminently sensible and healthy to allow law-abiding citizens to arm themselves.  An armed society is a polite society.  

 

What does LDS theology say on the matter?

I don't think we have any revealed doctrine regarding the specific issue of concealed carry.

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post

"An armed society is a polite society".

 

History from Dodge City; to Tombstone; Arizona would disagree.

Share this post


Link to post

"An armed society is a polite society".

 

History from Dodge City; to Tombstone; Arizona would disagree.

An interesting fact on why gun control does not work, is because; then only criminals will have the guns. Just an FYI Dodge City was one of the first cities with gun control. It didn't work there either.

Share this post


Link to post

"An armed society is a polite society".

 

History from Dodge City; to Tombstone; Arizona would disagree.

 

You didn't recognize the quote apparently.  Robert A. Heinlein, from his novel Beyond This Horizon.  The full quote is:

 

 

“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.”

 

Although Heinlein wrote it as part of a novel I believe he was serious about the concept.  But I don't think he was thinking of people carrying concealed, but openly.

 

Now I ask you: would you be impolite or confrontational to a man or woman who was openly carrying a pistol?  You'd be all, "Yes, sir" or "No ma'am", wouldn't you?  I know I would -- even though I am normally quite polite to people, armed or not.  But you see the concept, right?  Although I do not advocate open carry as a habit inside of the city limits, the concept is the same as the open carrying of firearms by police, or the military.  When I was young and before I learned to handle firearms, I used to be afraid of policemen, and I was afraid because of those big guns they had strapped to their belts.  And why do you think they have those big guns strapped to their belts?  Because they look fashionable?  Well, they might be fashionable, but it's primarily because of the intimidation factor.  Otherwise, they could just as well carry the weapons concealed, couldn't they?  But that doesn't fit the psychology.

 

Deterrence is not restricted to nation-states with nuclear arsenals pointed at each other, but it also applies to individuals whom the bad guys are unsure about whether they are armed.  Ask yourself this question: would you, in order to show solidarity with an effort to ban all firearms in a given jurisdiction, think it a good idea to post a sign outside your house which reads: "The owners of this home are proud to declare that they own no firearms." 

 

When I was in Army Basic Training, we had a "fire and maneuver" course.  It involved two trainees maneuvering towards an objective consisting of a stand-up-knock-down target in a fake foxhole.  Each trainee was in his own lane, separated by a berm, and we were supposed to alternately maneuver forwards while the other trainee fired live rounds at the target to "keep its head down".  Move forward several yards while the other guy fired, then go prone and fire while the other guy moved forward.  Finally, when close enough, one or both tosses a training hand grenade towards the fake foxhole.  Well, there I was moving forward, and as I was crossing the creek that crossed the lane I slipped and fell in.  The drill sergeant following us on the central berm had been laughing at and heckling us and giving rude commentary upon our expertise in the exercise -- I guess to add some tension to the proceedings.  When I fell into the creek he started laughing heartily at me and pointing at me in derision.  I was annoyed at falling into the creek, and since my weapon had gotten immersed I took action to make sure any water that might have gotten between the chambered shell and the front of the chamber was released, by pulling back on the charging handle to release it.  At the same time I looked up at the drill sergeant with a very annoyed look on my face.  His laugh cut off in mid-bray, and he ceased making fun of either of us from that point.  I am not sure why he suddenly got polite, but it was possibly because he remembered that while he was not armed, we were not only armed, but locked, loaded, and under some stress.

Share this post


Link to post

 

What?  You have to ask? 

 

The parents, esp. the father is responsible.  Who'd be responsible if the family were living in a multistory apartment building and left the door to the balcony open and the two year old went out and fell three of four stories to his death?  Or left the pool door opened and a child drowned?  Or failed to buckle the child into a proper child seat in the car before the accident?  Or didn't lock the cabinet door where the oven cleaner and rat poison is kept?  Or let his pit bull escape and maul a child?  As to the rifle in the case at bar, and you hoplophobes out there, would you blame the open door?  The balcony?  The seat belt?  The rat poison?  The water in the pool?  Nope, you know exactly who would be to blame: the adult who should made sure the child did not have access to the dangerous items or locations.

Share this post


Link to post

What?  You have to ask? 

 

The parents, esp. the father is responsible.  Who'd be responsible if the family were living in a multistory apartment building and left the door to the balcony open and the two year old went out and fell three of four stories to his death?  Or left the pool door opened and a child drowned?  Or failed to buckle the child into a proper child seat in the car before the accident?  Or didn't lock the cabinet door where the oven cleaner and rat poison is kept?  Or let his pit bull escape and maul a child?  As to the rifle in the case at bar, and you hoplophobes out there, would you blame the open door?  The balcony?  The seat belt?  The rat poison?  The water in the pool?  Nope, you know exactly who would be to blame: the adult who should made sure the child did not have access to the dangerous items or locations.

 

That is exactly my point. To keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them.

SEE post 20.

Share this post


Link to post

I've never argued for the banning of firearms. At least in this country that is neither justifiable nor desirable. What I have consistently argued for is more and better training in their use. Along with keeping them out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them.

This is your quote #20 you referred to. I don't disagree much, but who gets to decide, you, me, the government?

 

How long do they stay out of their hands, until they reach a certain age, are off parole, until they graduate, etc.? For me I do not want it regulated by the government, then, because only criminals would have guns. I guess, I would be okay with when parents think their children are responsible enough to handle a gun would be appropriate. In New York City that might be a long time maybe never, in the South where you learn to hunt before you walk it might be at a very young age. Not a perfect system, but I am okay with it.

 

What is "better" training? If the answer is you can only own a gun if you were trained by the government, (military, police, etc.) then I would disagree.  Is "better" training like new improved training? 

 

I think no matter how trained someone is, accidents are still going to happen. No matter how much training is required, how many rounds are allowed, how large or small a caliber is, how regulated guns become, a criminal is a criminal and will not follow any restrictive laws, and said laws/regulations/statutes/restrictions  only takes guns out of the hands of responsible people. 

 

I never want to read about any gun violence ever again, but given a choice, if my son or daughter is in a school where some psycho wants to start shooting people, I hope and pray someone, even from a state where no training is required, is carrying and puts that criminal down. Better for the evil to be put down than the innocents.

Share this post


Link to post

If all men were angels no government would be necessary. If all men were devils no government would be possible. Since we are neither I suggest that there is a need for government.

 

Who gets to decide is always the question. Here in the US we are the government. From the newest citizen through the President of the US. We decide what our laws are indirectly through our elected representatives.

 

Why do you have to ask the government permission to drive on the public highways? Why do you have to get a license to drive on the public highways? Why does the government require a written and actual driving skill before they issue that license to permit you to drive on the public highways? Would you put just anyone out on the public highways without any training or experience driving that nearly two tonne missile? If not why not? Could it be that to drive safely that nearly two tonne missile requires the skill and judgement that only training and practice can achieve? I would suggest that the same should apply to people wanting to use a firearm.

 

Growing up my family didn't have firearms in our home. Both my parents knew how to use them, and both were in the US Military. But neither one were hunters and middle class suburbia in the 1950's and 60's was pretty safe. I got my training with firearms by the USAF, and the New Mexico Highway Patrol. I know how to use them.

 

I taught all three of my children about firearms. However never allowed any of them to use them until after they we trained by either the US Military or by training as a Peace Officer. All three know how to use them.

 

I never said accidents don't happen. Quite the opposite. Why increase the probability of them happening by putting deadly machines in the hands of those without training and demonstrated skill? Please reread the rules for any firearm.

 

Putting any firearms in schools is a disaster that did happen.

SEE http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/columbine-armed-guards_n_2347096.html

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×