AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by mheisig

First rule of firearms safety: Be sure of your target.

2. All guns are always loaded.

3. Never let your muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.

4. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target and you have made a conscious decision to fire.

Learn and live by those four rules and above isn't a problem.

Sounds great. I'd love to see that in action in the dark by someone who has never fired their gun at a human before. I'm sure it will work out fine.

Look, I'm not saying that nobody should have guns. I'm just saying that going to the firing range a few times a month and memorizing a checklist can't possibly prepare the average person for the stress of this type of situation. It's unrealistic to think that adrenaline and fear are going to allow you to get it right 100% of the time.

[DynamiteRave]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

Sounds great. I'd love to see that in action in the dark by someone who has never fired their gun at a human before. I'm sure it will work out fine.

Look, I'm not saying that nobody should have guns. I'm just saying that going to the firing range a few times a month and memorizing a checklist can't possibly prepare the average person for the stress of this type of situation. It's unrealistic to think that adrenaline and fear are going to allow you to get it right 100% of the time.

I'm prone to agree with that. I mean if its dark and its someone you can't see, and you've got fight or flight kicking in. I mean, I think instincts are going to take over. I think only experienced people with guns or cops could keep their fight or flight rush under control and make a rational decision in such a tense situation. Knowing me, if someone came in who I wasn't expecting I'd just mess them up and not think twice. Hence, why I'll never own a gun. I'll stick with an alarm system. Maybe a tazer. lol

[mheisig]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

Sounds great. I'd love to see that in action in the dark by someone who has never fired their gun at a human before. I'm sure it will work out fine.

Look, I'm not saying that nobody should have guns. I'm just saying that going to the firing range a few times a month and memorizing a checklist can't possibly prepare the average person for the stress of this type of situation. It's unrealistic to think that adrenaline and fear are going to allow you to get it right 100% of the time.

It works all the time with people who seek out the necessary training. I fail to see what's so hard to grasp about that for most people.

An old adage in the military and law enforcement goes, "You will fight like you train."

So, yes, run out to the local gun show, buy yourself "a nine," toss it in the nightstand having barely familiarized yourself with it and yeah, expect disastrous results.

Being proficient with a firearm, and by proficient I mean reasonably accurate, reasonably fast, with the ability to reload and be familiar enough to operate under stress and pressure and in low light environments, is really is not as complicated as it sounds. People who are ignorant about guns generally seem to assume it's an incredibly complex process better left to "professionals."

People roaming down the interstate yacking on the cellphone while propelling a 4,000+ pound vehicle at speeds in excess of 70mph is what scares the crap out of me. Driving a car is equally, if not more dangerous and complicated than operating a firearm. How many people can skillfully control a skidding or sliding vehicle? How many know how to handle a vehicle at high speeds, in slides, or over slippery surfaces? Very few, but I don't hear anyone complaining about that. What is it about guns that really gets people going?

I'm not saying, and have never said, that every last walking moron should be armed to the teeth. Training is necessary, but it's not that unreasonable.

People routinely spend $80,000+ for a four or more year college education that purportedly prepares them for the real world, not to mention graduate school. We'll spend $30,000 on a car and pay attention to all the safety features. We'll have our 16 year old kids take drivers ed and log the necessary driving training time before getting a license.

Why is it when it comes to the protection and safety of yourself and your family from evil people, do we just take it for granted, leave it to chance, or just assume we'll figure it out when we have to?

$1,000 will get you a perfectly decent handgun and 2-3 days of training on how to operate it safely and use it in a tactical or home-defense environment. $2,000 will get you an excellent handgun and 5 days of training from former and current military and law enforcement professionals who actually HAVE had to shoot at a person before. Your "average Joe" spends twice that on a TV so he can sit back and eat Cheetos and be entertained every night. You wouldn't spend the same to properly protect yourself and your family?

[EternalEnigma21]

Originally Posted by mheisig

It works all the time with people who seek out the necessary training. I fail to see what's so hard to grasp about that for most people.

An old adage in the military and law enforcement goes, "You will fight like you train."

So, yes, run out to the local gun show, buy yourself "a nine," toss it in the nightstand having barely familiarized yourself with it and yeah, expect disastrous results.

Being proficient with a firearm, and by proficient I mean reasonably accurate, reasonably fast, with the ability to reload and be familiar enough to operate under stress and pressure and in low light environments, is really is not as complicated as it sounds. People who are ignorant about guns generally seem to assume it's an incredibly complex process better left to "professionals."

People roaming down the interstate yacking on the cellphone while propelling a 4,000+ pound vehicle at speeds in excess of 70mph is what scares the crap out of me. Driving a car is equally, if not more dangerous and complicated and operating a firearm. How many people can skillfully control a skidding or sliding vehicle? How many know how to handle a vehicle at high speeds, in slides, or over slippery surfaces? Very few, but I don't hear anyone complaining about that. What is it about guns that really gets people going?

I'm not saying, and have never said, that every last walking moron should be armed to the teeth. Training is necessary, but it's not that unreasonable.

People routinely spend $80,000+ for a four or more year college education that purportedly prepares them for the real world, not to mention graduate school. We'll spend $30,000 on a car and pay attention to all the safety features. We'll have our 16 year old kids take drivers ed and log the necessary driving training time before getting a license.

Why is it when it comes to the protection and safety of yourself and your family from evil people, do we just take it for granted, leave it to chance, or just assume we'll figure it out when we have to?

$1,000 will get you a perfectly decent handgun and 2-3 days of training on how to operate it safely and use it in a tactical or home-defense environment. Your "average Joe" spends three times that on a TV.

And there are plenty of classes available for little to no money, that are actually very very informative. Most are taught by ex or current law enforcement and military personell. I was a little embarrassed when I took my first home defense class at Shooter's Paradise in Woodbridge, but I learned so much I made my wife go, and I've taken other classes since. I wish the classes and an extensive screening process were mandatory as part of your first firearm purchase.

[mheisig]

Originally Posted by canthetuna

And there are plenty of classes available for little to no money, that are actually very very informative. Most are taught by ex or current law enforcement and military personell. I was a little embarrassed when I took my first home defense class at Shooter's Paradise in Woodbridge, but I learned so much I made my wife go, and I've taken other classes since. I wish the classes and an extensive screening process were mandatory as part of your first firearm purchase.

Very true - many of the basic classes are free or cost what amounts to pocket change.

I try to look at the whole situation from every possible angle, but I simply fail to see why people are so averse to the issue. There are many objection, most of which you hear over and over, and I simply don't think anyone of them hold much water.

I'm not going to try to force anyone to do anything they don't want. If someone just wants to say "Listen, I just don't want to own a gun, that's all there is to it," I can live with that. Personal choices.

It does bother me that there is apparently a substantial amount of ignorance and irrational fear, and I do my best to educate those who are willing to listen. I've trained several people to shoot, two women in particular who were extremely opposed to guns of any sort. They both enjoyed the initial training and now shoot regularly simply because they enjoy it as a hobby.

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by mheisig

It works all the time with people who seek out the necessary training. I fail to see what's so hard to grasp about that for most people.

An old adage in the military and law enforcement goes, "You will fight like you train."

So, yes, run out to the local gun show, buy yourself "a nine," toss it in the nightstand having barely familiarized yourself with it and yeah, expect disastrous results.

Being proficient with a firearm, and by proficient I mean reasonably accurate, reasonably fast, with the ability to reload and be familiar enough to operate under stress and pressure and in low light environments, is really is not as complicated as it sounds. People who are ignorant about guns generally seem to assume it's an incredibly complex process better left to "professionals."

And I fail to see what is so hard to grasp about "unintended consequences". First, I disagree about how far training can take you. Comparing a gun owner to a police officer is a far stretch. Second, even if it was enough, you assume way too much about what the average person who has a gun will do to educate and train themselves.

The unintended consequences outweigh the benefits in my house. God bless America, because you are free to choose differently. I believe that gun control needs to be smarter, not harder, but the current state just isn't cutting it.

[mheisig]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

And I fail to see what is so hard to grasp about "unintended consequences". First, I disagree about how far training can take you. Comparing a gun owner to a police officer is a far stretch. Second, even if it was enough, you assume way too much about what the average person who has a gun will do to educate and train themselves.

The unintended consequences outweigh the benefits in my house. God bless America, because you are free to choose differently. I believe that gun control needs to be smarter, not harder, but the current state just isn't cutting it.

Like I said, I certainly respect your decision and none of this is an attempt to argue anyone into doing something they don't want to do.

I agree it's possible (not necessary) that there are unintended consequences to owning a firearm.

Can you tell me how that differs substantially from the possible unintended consequences of driving? Or flying? Or having cleaning fluids in a house full of kids? Or having a gas stove? Or having matches? Or walking down the street? You've got the risk of danger and harm to you and your loved ones all around you, all day long, why is a gun so much different?

With respect to comparing a police officer and a gunowner, I staunchly disagree, and feel I'm pretty well qualified to speak on the subject having been a civilian gun owner and a police officer at one time.

As discomforting as this is to many of you, the VAST majority of police officers are absolutely NOT expert marksmen or even close. They are moderately competent, some far worse. I had 80 hours of firearms training in the police academy, which is about 3-5 times what the state required minimum is in most states. In other words I got 80 hours, and most departments get a LOT less. Of that 80 hours, 1/3 was probably spent milling around wasting time and waiting for your turn to shoot.

I can unequivocally state, after being trained in a highly respected law enforcement academy, and having seen hundreds of other officers shoot, that I know more civilians who are better shots than police officers.

The perception that officers have some incredible level of skill with firearms is preposterous and likely perpetuated by ignorant people or the departments themselves.

A 5-day course at a place like Gunsite or Blackwater or any of a dozen schools throughout the country will leave your "average Joe" as prepared or better prepared than the vast majority of officers I encountered, and I'd stake my reputation and a large sum of cash on that.

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by mheisig

Like I said, I certainly respect your decision and none of this is an attempt to argue anyone into doing something they don't want to do.

Likewise, thanks.

Originally Posted by mheisig

I agree it's possible (not necessary) that there are unintended consequences to owning a firearm.

Laws affect all people, so you can't look at a specific situation to prove the rule. Across the entire population, there is a 100% certainty that there are unintended consequences to owning a firearm.

Originally Posted by mheisig

Can you tell me how that differs substantially from the possible unintended consequences of driving? Or flying? Or having cleaning fluids in a house full of kids? Or having a gas stove? Or having matches? Or walking down the street? You've got the risk of danger and harm to you and your loved ones all around you, all day long, why is a gun so much different?

That's a strawman argument, but it seems to come up often, so allow me to debunk it. The natural use of any of those other items is non-injurious to anyone. The natural use of a gun (and by use I mean firing it) is injurious.

Originally Posted by mheisig

With respect to comparing a police officer and a gunowner, I staunchly disagree, and feel I'm pretty well qualified to speak on the subject having been a civilian gun owner and a police officer at one time.

As discomforting as this is to many of you, the VAST majority of police officers are absolutely NOT expert marksmen or even close. They are moderately competent, some far worse. I had 80 hours of firearms training in the police academy, which is about 3-5 times what the state required minimum is in most states. In other words I got 80 hours, and most departments get a LOT less. Of that 80 hours, 1/3 was probably spent milling around wasting time and waiting for your turn to shoot.

I can unequivocally state, after being trained in a highly respected law enforcement academy, and having seen hundreds of other officers shoot, that I know more civilians who are better shots than police officers.

The perception that officers have some incredible level of skill with firearms is preposterous and likely perpetuated by ignorant people or the departments themselves.

A 5-day course at a place like Gunsite or Blackwater or any of a dozen schools throughout the country will leave your "average Joe" as prepared or better prepared than the vast majority of officers I encountered, and I'd stake my reputation and a large sum of cash on that.

First, I still don't agree that "training taking over" is going to get you through this situation 100% of the time in the manner you intended (I found this interesting article that appears to support neither of our positions, or both - I can't tell). The risks just aren't worth it in my house.

Second, the flaw with the "gun safety by training" arguments in this thread is that they focus on the top 10-20% (and I am being extremely generous with that guestimate) of the gun-owning population. Given the amount of training that you have gone through and your background, I have no reason to doubt that you are a better marksman than the average police officer. I would venture to guess that the gun-owners with which you associate are like-minded in their view of the importance of vigorous training.

However, this argument ignores the fact that the vast majority of people who own guns do not take the time to get the training that you describe. If this training were made mandatory, then I might be a little more comfortable with the idea.

[dmek25]

jsarno, why i admire you for your belief in your second amendment rights, im with darksets. guns are made for one reason, and one reason only. killing. the old wild wild west mentality amuses me. the constitution needs amended so people that need guns have them( military, police) and those who don't, have alot harder access to them. and enforcing the gun laws we have on the books right now. no need for new laws, just use the existing ones

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by dmek25

jsarno, why i admire you for your belief in your second amendment rights, im with darksets. guns are made for one reason, and one reason only. killing. the old wild wild west mentality amuses me. the constitution needs amended so people that need guns have them( military, police) and those who don't, have alot harder access to them. and enforcing the gun laws we have on the books right now. no need for new laws, just use the existing ones

Well, I do respect your opinion, but I slightly disagree as to why there are guns. There are people shot all the time that don't die, therefore they are not intended solely for killing people. In fact, many thefts / break ins have been prevented just because a gun was present.
I understand there are ramifications for the use of guns, but I also understand that nothing protects you better.

I do firmly agree with the 2nd amendment, however, if the country could guarentee that gun laws would keep guns out of the hands of evil people, then I'd listen more intently and reserve the right to change my mind. We all know that will never happen, so all gun laws do is hurt the honest people, which makes them pretty damn useless. This is something that pro gun law people miss regularly. All gun laws will do is cause more harm because people won't be able to protect themselves, and the evil people will have easy access to them. For that fact alone, the argument about gun laws becomes moot.
There is a reason we as americans have the right to have fire arms, this country was founded on it. You don't go outside and take a sledge hammer to the foundation of your house do you? So why take one to what made America great?

I am curious as to what you meant by, "no need for new laws, just use the existing ones." The existing laws allow everyone to own a gun. So what laws are you speaking of?

[dmek25]

[quote=jsarno;399676]Well, I do respect your opinion, but I slightly disagree as to why there are guns. There are people shot all the time that don't die, therefore they are not intended solely for killing people. In fact, many thefts / break ins have been prevented just because a gun was present.
I understand there are ramifications for the use of guns, but I also understand that nothing protects you better.

I do firmly agree with the 2nd amendment, however, if the country could guarentee that gun laws would keep guns out of the hands of evil people, then I'd listen more intently and reserve the right to change my mind. We all know that will never happen, so all gun laws do is hurt the honest people, which makes them pretty damn useless. This is something that pro gun law people miss regularly. All gun laws will do is cause more harm because people won't be able to protect themselves, and the evil people will have easy access to them. For that fact alone, the argument about gun laws becomes moot.
There is a reason we as americans have the right to have fire arms, this country was founded on it. You don't go outside and take a sledge hammer to the foundation of your house do you? So why take one to what made America great?

I am curious as to what you meant by, "no need for new laws, just use the existing ones." The existing laws allow everyone to own a gun. So what laws are you speaking of?[/quote]
the laws on the books, as far as when someone uses a gun to commit a crime. or the minimum sentence laws that require, in most cases, a minimum of 5 years in any crime committed with a gun. too much plea bargaining. and not enough of the stiffer sentencing

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by dmek25

the laws on the books, as far as when someone uses a gun to commit a crime. or the minimum sentence laws that require, in most cases, a minimum of 5 years in any crime committed with a gun. too much plea bargaining. and not enough of the stiffer sentencing

I agree with you on that 100%. I've been preaching stiffer sentences for years, problem is, the jails and prisons are already full, and no one wants a prison near their home.

[jsarno]

FYI- I heard somewhere that there are more stabbings in the country than fire arm issues. (unsure how true that is, but it's easy to see how that could be true) So if we're so willing to take guns out of the equation for honest people, then why do we continue to make knives...something that can be bought at any grocery store without age limits?
Fear is often the reason to discuss gun laws, fear should never be in the equation.

[dmek25]

and do you understand what the word " amendment " means? it takes something like the constitution, which is over 200 years old, and makes it adapt to today's way of life. back when it was written, everyone needed a gun. that doesn't apply to today's world( in my opinion)

[DynamiteRave]

Originally Posted by dmek25

and do you understand what the word " amendment " means? it takes something like the constitution, which is over 200 years old, and makes it adapt to today's way of life. back when it was written, everyone needed a gun. that doesn't apply to today's world( in my opinion)

Which is why I don't advocate widespread lax gun laws too much. If everyone had a gun, the world would be even more wrecked than it is now. Ex-cons coming out of jail getting guns because they couldn't be restricted. I mean people would be even more prone to breaking in if they had a gun. Its a 50/50 chance then and for some guys, thats more than enough.

There's even a problem now with gang members joining the military, then coming out with military tactics and using high powered guns against the police who have decent training but not enough to go up against a guy with military battle skills.

I don't mind people having guns but the laws need to be a little more restrictive or tightened up a little.