How do you feel about guns?

[TimeTraveler]

One the one hand, if that's as complex as you get, it's no wonder you're having a hard time following the discussion. But more to the point, how would owning a gun change the general disregard for people's health inherent in McDonald's or a tobacco company?

I'm not saying it would, I'm saying that no one cares about your health but you, so you have a responsibility to defend your body the best you can. I'm not saying that a gun is the best or only way, but why do you support the restriction of self defense? Why do you want to make people think up more innovative ways? It's not the gun, it's the insecurity.

Okay, two more issues:
It's kind of inherent in the security argument that comes with gun advocacy. What, are you just going to threaten people with a gun?

I never said I support threatening people or pulling guns on people. I'd never pull a gun on someone unless backed into a corner, thats a nightmare situation for me.

Hell, if you're not going to shoot, what does it matter if you have a gun or not?

If you have to shoot, you will, but you likely wont have to pull out a gun. The gun is just something to allow you to restore order, it's not supposed to be used to shoot innocent people. The police don't use guns to run around and shoot people up. The only reason I'm an advocate of guns is because I've seen first hand what happens to communities with gun control, all the thugs get the guns first, and all the citizens become defenseless to the thugs. It's not good for community policing to have gun control, how are communities supposed to keep policing themselves so they don't become a ghetto?

Actually, I'm generally smart enough to know when a scam artist is lying to me. Like you, for instance. I can't actually, truly believe that you're as stupid as your argument makes you out to be. What gives? Would a gun help me at all in handling whatever con game you're playing? I sincerely doubt it.

I'm not an con-artist. I'm not even a gun-advocate. I'm just not anti-gun, or pro-gun control. I dont' think gun control makes me safer, in fact I already know for a fact it does not because I don't live in some crime free neighborhood sheltered from the real world like you do. I'm not in a gated community. There are not enough police officers, and crime is rising where I am, precisely because communities arent involved in policing. I'm not saying everyone in the community should have a gun, I'm not saying hand guns out like candy. I'm saying someone needs to have them, someone has to restore order. The police do it but only when they arrive and only when theres enough money to fund them, who protects you locally? You have no local security. What you advocate is securiy only for those who are rich, and you are saying that people who are poor deserve insecurity. I think thats unfair.

 

[TimeTraveler]

But all-in-all, what I can't get through my head is .....why are you gun control advocates trying to punish the good guys because of the stupid actions of a few demented individuals? Does that make sense to you? Really?

Should we punish all Muslims because of the actions of a few violent individuals? Should we punish all the kids at school for the actions of a few bullies?

Should we take away all of the freedoms because a few people use those freedoms to commit crimes?

Baron Max

I think thats the core of it. Some people believe that self defense is not a right, and is not an inherent freedom. Some people believe you should pay other people to be your body guard and carry your gun.

The problem is, what if you can't afford it?

 

[TimeTraveler]

Common sense gun control: look, we can agree that it would be wrong to ban guns outright. Part of the problem I perceive with the dialogue is that the anti-liberal diatribes tend to ignore those of us who acknowledge on the one hand that guns have a place in society and, to the other, that there are problems deriving from guns or any other lethal power that can be possessed.

And perhaps you don't know anyone who is against common sense gun control, but part of the discussion in this topic you are objecting to comes in response to sweeping statements to the effect that any gun control is wrong.

How should someone like me consider those messages? Their prevalence, perhaps motivated by an "anti-liberal" ferocity, is striking: it is such irrationality--e.g. that even what you and I might be able to agree is "common sense gun control" is wrong--that casts gun owners and advocates in such a morbid light. When a "common sense" gun advocate rushes to the defense of guns in a discussion that involves extreme limits, that common sense gun advocate paints himself in the extreme colors.

Why does a common sense gun advocate get so frustrated by inquiries into the nature and motivation of extreme and irrational rhetoric? Why should a common sense gun advocate make this an issue about general labels like "liberal" when such labeling conveniently casts aside any progress that could be made through more specific, considerate, and rational discussion?

If you want to respond to me, for instance, with generalisms about liberals, the discussion will stalemate at best. As to what's the beef, inasmuch as the existing laws are concerned, a law in one jurisdiction is not necessarily a law in another. If we're seeking a free and secure state, safe from threats by government, other nations, and also our own internal criminals, what we're really seeking is freedom from the effects. Why object to the killer? Because someone is dead. Why object to the accident? Because someone is dead or hurt. Why seek to reduce gun violence? Because someone is dead or hurt. The corrosive effects on our community and collective strength are the problems. Meeting corrosion with corrosion accomplishes nothing positive.

So where do we go from here?

Look, I don't like tabacco, but I don't think we should ban it. I don't like the food sold in stores, but I dont' think we should ban it. So what you are saying is that things should be banned.

 

[Bells]

Do you wear seatbelts when you drive, Bells? Why? I mean, surely you don't plan on running into another car, do you? Or do you plan on someone else running into you? If not, why wear the seatbelts?

Do you carry insurance on your car, Bells? Why?

Baron Max

PS - your little scenarios were pretty funny, but idiotic.

I wear a seatbelt and insure my car because the law states that I must if I wish to not only travel in any car, but if I wish to register and drive my car.

As to my little scenarios. Funny? Yes, but sadly also real in many instances. So how come you and any other gun advocate can never answer exactly how they would use their concealed weapon to defend themselves when walking down those scary mean streets? That's funny also huh? Funny and scary actually.

You want to carry a gun (concealed on your person) to protect yourself, but you can't say how you'd protect yourself with it if someone, for example, jumps you from behind and puts a gun to your head while holding you in a necklock from behind? I mean you think you should have a right to carry a gun to protect yourself, but you cannot say how you'd use it (to keep yourself safe) in any of the scenarios listed above? Kind of says a lot doesn't it? So how exactly will that gun you're carrying protect you from the scenarios listed above? If you cannot answer, then you should not be carrying that gun because you'd not only be a risk to yourself, but to other innocent individuals as well.

 

[Neildo]

You want to carry a gun (concealed on your person) to protect yourself, but you can't say how you'd protect yourself with it if someone, for example, jumps you from behind and puts a gun to your head while holding you in a necklock from behind? I mean you think you should have a right to carry a gun to protect yourself, but you cannot say how you'd use it (to keep yourself safe) in any of the scenarios listed above? Kind of says a lot doesn't it? So how exactly will that gun you're carrying protect you from the scenarios listed above? If you cannot answer, then you should not be carrying that gun because you'd not only be a risk to yourself, but to other innocent individuals as well.

If you want a concealed carry permit, you have to take classes to show you're qualified for it. With it comes training as well. You are trained to be more perceptive overall. Guns are used as a last resort. In most cases, someone who concealed carries will be less likely to be involved in a crime in the first place due to the evading training, but it doesn't mean they'd have less a use to protect themselves when their training fails and they wind up becoming a victim of a crime.

Not only that, but it is against the law under something similar as the good samaritan act to not help another when they see a crime being commited. A person that is not a victim to a crime that has a gun can aid others who have become victim. There are numerous accounts where concealed carry people have chased off or fended off an attack on a poor victim. So owning a gun isn't just about personal safety, but about the safety of everyone.

As for your hypothetical scenarios where you think a person with a gun will be defenseless, yes, if attacked by surprised (which with training the odds of that happening lessens yet still remains), you are defenseless, but that doesn't mean you will be during the whole time. As an example, look at the real life incident that I posted previously to show how a typical scenario would go down if caught by surprise and then having the tides turned in your favor or read the link posted to see other people's accounts of real life encounters and how being armed saved em.

- N

 

[Neildo]

Oh yeah, something I wanted to add in regards to how silly these cosmetic laws are in regards to rifles is this: the grandfather clause.

This is where people don't mind that certain rifles or parts become banned. Why not? The grandfather clause. If a certain part that used to be legal becomes illegal, the whole rifle that had the part becomes grandfathered in for the owner if they choose to register it. That rifle could have previously been restricted to not be an assault rifle due to the regular laws but because that part is now illegal, the whole rifle gets grandfathered in and classified as an assault rifle which means all those people who had that rifle that became banned can now add whatever they want to the rifle to have a completely decked out and legal assault rifle when previously that rifle was restricted. Sure, it stops future sales of that part or rifle, but you still wind up with thousands of those rifles in the hands of law-abiding citizens who the politicians supposedly fear.

Nice catch 22, eh? These cosmetic laws are completely stupid. Thank the liberals for those laws and as usual, they try and do something with good intentions but make things worse because their ideals don't work when it comes to reality but rather only on paper. They make a bunch of regular non-threatening weapons illegal which in turn allowed them to become more powerful -- go figure.

- N

 

[lixluke]

Guns are nothing but specialized tools.

Yes. Not just that. I guess you did not read the first post describing what we mean by guns in this thread?

Okay, so in your world a brain protect you form a drug crazed mugger, rapists, grizzly bears, murderers, ganag bangers, and a host of other ill. In your world there is no hunting, no war, no crime, no police, and apparantly no need to protect yourself. Interesting world. Isn't it call Thorazine?

I never said there was none of these things. I said the brain is a better weapon than the gun. Duh.
I guess you do not know how to read?

 

[Neildo]

I never said there was none of these things. I said the brain is a better weapon than the gun. Duh.

Yes, but a brain doesn't protect you from everything. For the situations in which a brain will protect you, people use it. In the situations where a brain can't protect you, another method is chosen.

Since you seem to agree that brains can't protect you from everything, why do you wish to deny us the right to protect ourselves in the other situations where we're left defenseless with just our brain?

- N

 

[lixluke]

Since you seem to agree that brains can't protect you from everything, why do you

WTF are you smoking?
Are all gun lovers this dense?
When did I EVER "agree that brains can't protect you from everything"?

 

[TimeTraveler]

Yes. Not just that. I guess you did not read the first post describing what we mean by guns in this thread?


I never said there was none of these things. I said the brain is a better weapon than the gun. Duh.
I guess you do not know how to read?

You of all people have no room for comment. Luke, you are the most paranoid person on this forum, believing that the whole world is out to get you, you actually made posts where you claimed that all sorts of government agencies are out to get us.

You are also anti-capitalist, and basically an anarchist, so your comments on guns make little to no sense. How exactly are you going to protect yourself with your brain? Yeah it's possible if you have brains and money, but if you just have brains, it's unlikely.

The reason we have people for gun control is because people fear guns, people want to respond with their emotions like sheep, the reason people fear guns is because bullet proof vests are outlawed.

Let me make a point, if someone has unlimited time, money and brains, they can kill you easily. They can do it with a laser, as lasers are just as easy to make as guns, and lasers are even more deadly. Are we going to have laser control?

Gun control people refuse to take it to the next steap, WEAPONS control, because thats what they must really believe in, and it's impossible to ever enforce weapons control, it's just against human nature to the point where it's unenforceable.

It's nice to think about on paper, but I think we' d have an easier time going communist or living in anarchy than we'd have at trying to make society gunless, I just cannot imagine a time in human history when the species was ever fully disarmed. It's nice to dream about a day where no ones violent, and where none of us need weapons

but we are no where near that point, and it's not because of paranoid people who live in fear of being shot, and it's not because of guns. It's because of how certain people have more aggressive minds than others, and gun control people always seem to avoid the human problems instead to focus on objects. It's almost like with censorship, what does this accomplish? Just removing the words will not remove the thoughts. If someone is thinking about killing you all day and night, removing the words makes them more likely to kill you rather than cuss you out. If someone like this had no access to a gun, they'd just find other even more sophisticated ways to be violent. All this will do is make violence more sophisticated, it will make things worse.

There was a time when people were simple, they faught with their fist, then someone invented the slingshot, knife, the sword, the gun, the bomb, poison, it never ends. It NEVER ends. It wont end because aggression is in people, and yeah there are drugs for it, but we have to recognize that people commit crimes, not objects. People in specific with mental problems, in specific people who are mentally unstable, people who have short tempers and a higher than average level of aggression.

It's not based on gender either. Women are aggressive too, and the only difference is that women are more stealthy. Look, all of you people who are for gun control and against guns, whats your opinion on date rape? If you think people arent violent, why is this type of poisoning so common if our world is so safe? It's so common in fact that you can't accept a free drink from anyone anymore without being suspicious of the bartender and of the person offering it.

Is this rational? It's rational to consider everyone suspect until they prove otherwise. It's rational to be concerned for your safety when you know that there are people who will drug you and rape you, or even poison you to death, or even strangle you, or whatever else. These people exist, and their numbers seem to be increasing every year, and you can call them criminals or whatever, but it's really simple, I'll explain the equation.

Global aggression increases on a scale, and this scale correlates with the increase of global pain, this increase in global pain increases global misery. These increases influence us all, so when the environment becomes more aggressive, it's going to have side effects on everyone living in that environment, and it has nothing to do with guns.

Let's be honest here, America is a more aggressive environment than Europe, it's part of our history, it's part of our culture, and it's this competitive spirit that has kept America on top of the world and made it a super power. America is where it is, not by accident, but because the most aggressive minds and aggressive thinkers in the world were American.

Now, this does not mean all Americans are aggressive, I'm not aggressive, most of us here arent, but some people are, and when a few people become aggressive, it spreads QUICK. You can see this by looking at a moshpit, a football game, or a hooligan riot. It starts with a few guys who start doing aggressive acts of violence, like breaking stuff, then another group of guys join in, and then people see them getting away with it and join in, until you have hundreds and then thousands of people running around destroy stuff and acting aggressive and violent.

If you take away the guns, people will use rocks. If you take away rocks, people will use sticks. IF you take away sticks, people will improvise and use bricks, tire irons, and anything else they can get their hands on because they are in an aggressive MENTAL STATE.

I'm with you, I agree that the world is too violent, and that humans need to settle down, but gun control does not have any influence on violence. I've seen soccer riots in Europe, we saw that France had riots recently, we also see that it's not a matter of access to weapons or not. Aggression is a problem of human nature, as some humans are born with an ability to feel good about destroying stuff.

Maybe you should start by outlawing violent toys marketed to children, and outlawing dolls, because these GI Joe Dolls and Toy Guns have more influence on people than the real guns do. When you allow kids to play with paintball guns, water guns and other gun shaped objects, it trains them to more easily pull the trigger with the real gun.

Problem is this, even if you outlawed the gun, in all forms, all gun images, all violence in video games and toys, it still would not change the nature of certain individuals who are basically born aggressive. So this "hide the guns" approach won't work anymore than telling a kid "don't have sex" as a form of birth control.

Two methods can work, if the child is aggressive, and has a short temper and is generally mentally unstable, focus on THAT. Focus on mental health and you'll lower violence, suicide, and in general lower global aggression, without having to attack the guns, or weapons, as individuals will simply have more self control, and thats what this is all about.

We need to help people who have a short temper to control their temper. We need to help people who are over aggressive to control their aggression, for their own sake, and we need to show them EXACTLY what happens when people don't control their aggression. We need to document all the cases of violence around the world, and teach a highschool class on violence. Then you can show them the ripple effect that a violent act has on entire communities.

This would require PC liberals to actually teach violence education in the same way they want to teach sex education, you have to teach it in a way which is realistic, you have to show the gore, the blood, and all the horrors of violence. I think children should be forced to watch war, and see what it looks like, and see what the world really is, not hidden from it so they can be surprised when they see it as an adult.

These are my opinions, and I know most people wont agree with it, but if violence is a problem, take on the problem of violence and not the tools of violence. Show people what war looks like, show children, and adult, because really people need to see it, they need to see what guns do, and then they, on their own will understand why VIOLENCE is wrong.

So I'm not pro violence, I'm not aggressive, I just think people need to take a look at reality, the real world and stop trying to hide themselves from it by hiding the guns and hiding the violence, I think that only makes the world more violent because no one sees it happenining anymore.

 

[TimeTraveler]

WTF are you smoking?
Are all gun lovers this dense?
When did I EVER "agree that brains can't protect you from everything"?

Are all gun control lovers FOR violence?

Why don't you gun control supporters actually focus on reducing global violence levels? I could support you in doing that, but just removing guns, I cannot see what you hope to accomplish, I don't think it would make ANY difference if violence is still the norm.

And I also admit, that we need to be much tougher on violent crime. Yeah drug dealers are bad, but they arent violent people, or even aggressive people most of the time. You have real stone cold killers out commiting murders, WITH guns, while everyones worried about drug dealers? If drugs were just legalized we would not have ANY of these problems and we would have space to fill our prisons up with the most violent offenders, the offenders that make everyone paranoid and want to carry guns.

 

[TimeTraveler]

Gun control
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6040270.stm

 

[Tiassa]

We don't do it for our happiness, we do it for security.

Happiness and security are quite strongly related. I'll skip the lecture on people who learn for other reasons than to jump through the hoops of acquiring material wealth (and, therefore, security).

How are you going to protect your daughter? with words? I'm not actually a gun advocate, I'm a self defense advocate. How do you protect your daughter? It's your primary job as a mother, so how are you managing to do it? Do you assume that order ALWAYS exist in the world?

Vigilance is my key tool in protection. My prior point about the fact that anyone who is determined to get me can, regardless of how much armament I pack, also applies to my daughter. Barring a "shoot first, find out what's actually happening later" policy, and even in such a case, complete protection is impossible.

As to her mother, the woman considered herself a responsible gun owner; she was one who refused to pay rent or bills in order to go drinking. She justified her drinking by explaining to me, "Maybe I drink so I don't f@cking shoot you."

She lives in a house provided by her daddy, but he took back the gun he'd given her.

Had I a gun, should I have shot her for threatening me?

And no, I don't presume order always exists in the world. Actually, it does, but given the scope of the human brain, that sense of order defies definition. Practically speaking, then, I simply don't worry about it. Living is enough. Death is certain, life is not. (Isn't that a song?) In the end, chasing the illusions of life and justice produces only finite results. For the remainder, it is enough to simply live and figure things out from there.

Look, I don't like tabacco, but I don't think we should ban it. I don't like the food sold in stores, but I dont' think we should ban it. So what you are saying is that things should be banned.

What? Do I even want to know what that means to you, and what you think its relevance is?

Marijuana is illegal, tobacco is legal. That doesn't make sense to me except in terms of greed. As to the food in stores, perhaps we should return the carcinogenic M&Ms to the store shelves?

In the meantime, it's not about banning things. What could possibly give you the idea that this is about banning things? Tilting windmills again?

 

[Bowser]

A gun is empowerment. It gives authority to anyone who holds one in his or her hand. That's why the police carry 'em, that's why the military has 'em and that's why many Americans choose to own them--the concept being that you have a right to protect yourself.

Shoot... Now I want a gun.

 

[TimeTraveler]

Happiness and security are quite strongly related. I'll skip the lecture on people who learn for other reasons than to jump through the hoops of acquiring material wealth (and, therefore, security).



Vigilance is my key tool in protection. My prior point about the fact that anyone who is determined to get me can, regardless of how much armament I pack, also applies to my daughter. Barring a "shoot first, find out what's actually happening later" policy, and even in such a case, complete protection is impossible.

As to her mother, the woman considered herself a responsible gun owner; she was one who refused to pay rent or bills in order to go drinking. She justified her drinking by explaining to me, "Maybe I drink so I don't f@cking shoot you."

She lives in a house provided by her daddy, but he took back the gun he'd given her.

Had I a gun, should I have shot her for threatening me?

And no, I don't presume order always exists in the world. Actually, it does, but given the scope of the human brain, that sense of order defies definition. Practically speaking, then, I simply don't worry about it. Living is enough. Death is certain, life is not. (Isn't that a song?) In the end, chasing the illusions of life and justice produces only finite results. For the remainder, it is enough to simply live and figure things out from there.



What? Do I even want to know what that means to you, and what you think its relevance is?

Marijuana is illegal, tobacco is legal. That doesn't make sense to me except in terms of greed. As to the food in stores, perhaps we should return the carcinogenic M&Ms to the store shelves?

In the meantime, it's not about banning things. What could possibly give you the idea that this is about banning things? Tilting windmills again?

Once again, I never said put the gun into the hands of unstable people. Anyone who is thinking about or having suicidal or homicidal thoughts, should not be able to access a gun. Most of us however, never think about killing our children, or our family members, and if we have these types of problem theres therapy.

 

[TW Scott]

I am always amazed by the people who want to restrict, control, and ban substances and devices that people misuse. I am not referring to carcinogenic food dyes, poisonous sweetners, defect drugs and the such. What I am reffering to, is the way that if someone uses something in an illegal way that certain groups want to ban the item.

For example: Somone murders 17 children with a firearm. Instead of blaming the person they ban the guns.

I mean really, was it the guns fault? No. Would that person have found another way to kill 17 kids? Very likely. Would a more firearm friendly society have preveted such a massacre? Not unfeasable. Would unrestricted access to firearms have made it worse? In all likelihood no. Does the common gun control advocate recognized the validity of those answers? No.

In the end we are left with a whole bunch of people who think a mechanical object is somehow more responsible than the weilder. That in some way this device makes a person more violent. That the average joe should not defend himself. That the absence of a tool will make people less violent. They are resolute in their belief. If you argue against them, somehow you are reduced down to a murdering savage according to them.

 

[Neildo]

I never said there was none of these things. I said the brain is a better weapon than the gun. Duh. - Lix

-----

Yes, but a brain doesn't protect you from everything. For the situations in which a brain will protect you, people use it. In the situations where a brain can't protect you, another method is chosen.

Since you seem to agree that brains can't protect you from everything, why do you wish to deny us the right to protect ourselves in the other situations where we're left defenseless with just our brain? - me

-----

WTF are you smoking?
Are all gun lovers this dense?
When did I EVER "agree that brains can't protect you from everything"? - Lix

If you agree that brains cannot protect you from everything, then what you said is a pretty stupid anti-gun comment to make. Did you just say what you said so you could hear yourself speak because otherwise you made absolutely no point and are just preaching to the choir. Guns aren't used for every encounter. Most encounters are either avoided or ended without even having to draw a firearm. Firearms exist for when "the brain" can't protect you, yet your anti-gun comments want to deny our right to protect ourselves from the moments we cannot talk our way out or avoid a confrontation by leaving the moment we notice trouble.

I stand by what I said:

"Yes, but a brain doesn't protect you from everything. For the situations in which a brain will protect you, people use it. In the situations where a brain can't protect you, another method is chosen.

Since you seem to agree that brains can't protect you from everything, why do you wish to deny us the right to protect ourselves in the other situations where we're left defenseless with just our brain?"

-----

Anyhow, more reading for what either Bells or Tiassa asked in regards to what would happen in a confrontation, here are some experiences and mindsets by others spoken more eloquently than myself where restraint was often involved and no gun brandished since we all supposedly seem to love to draw instantly and kill bad guys at every opportunity.

Any Real Life Encounters? - http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=60164&pp=25

Please Share Your Real Life SHTF Experiences - http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=58903

Have You Ever Had To Use It? - http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=65103&page=2&pp=25

Armed Citizen Achives (magazine column of various people's submitted experiences) - http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/Default.aspx

As to her mother, the woman considered herself a responsible gun owner; she was one who refused to pay rent or bills in order to go drinking. She justified her drinking by explaining to me, "Maybe I drink so I don't f@cking shoot you."

She lives in a house provided by her daddy, but he took back the gun he'd given her.

Had I a gun, should I have shot her for threatening me?

Ah, yes, another liberal using a whacky, extreme, theorhetical example thinking that's how gun-owners are. OMG, some lady said a comment so it means I have the authority to shoot her! That's along the same ridiculous lines of "If I had a gun, I'd use it during road rage" that some of you have spouted!

No wonder why you people are so against guns, because you're the ones that have the paranoid and screwed up mentality. Every single comment you liberals make of what you might do if you had a gun is freakin' scary and makes me glad you're dumb enough not to own a gun and we're the ones that do!

Anyhow, it's amusing that hardly any of you are able to respond to the facts and real life experiences I bring to the table while you all continue to talk out your asses with all your hypothetical, fear-mongering, and assumptious opinions on guns and their owners.

- N

 

[Bells]

If you want a concealed carry permit, you have to take classes to show you're qualified for it. With it comes training as well. You are trained to be more perceptive overall.

Classes? Now when I read this, I assumed it would be held over a couple of weeks for example. An indepth class in gun safety and also, as you've said so yourself, to teach people to become more perceptive. However, not so in South Carolina. Over there, if you want a permit to carry a concealed weapon, you only have to attend a one day course for training.. from Hardware House. Yes that's right. Hardware House.

Now this course is on the NRA website under their Concealed Weapon Permit and Firearm Training - National Rifle Assoation Personal Protection Training for South Carolina.

Qualified residents of South Carolina can obtain a permit to carry a concealed handgun. Hardware House provides the required training in a one day course designed for the new shooter. Some courses may also included the NRA First Steps Pistol Course when available. If you need that course please inquire.

Course Content Includes:

* CWP / NRA Training
* Weapon Safety
* Laws of Self Defense
* Overview of SC Laws
* Gun Safety
* Practical Shooting

Link

Hmm somehow that does not provide me with comfort. Now I've taken self defence classes in the past. They went for 4 weeks, and held twice a week, each class taking up to 3 hours. Now this was just personal self defence.. as in no gun or weapon use.

In Florida, you can pay extra (approximately a couple of hundred dollars extra) for a 2 day course. Wow! Amazing.

In Arizona, it's just an 8 hour class. Although they do have classes teaching how to hold onto your weapon in a fight etc. That's right. In one day you can try to learn how to stop someone from taking your gun away from you. Hmm I wonder how long police officers have to learn and perfect such a skill. Anyone know?

As gun experts know, simply "having" a gun does not make it useful for self-defense.[183] Effective self-defense using a firearm requires, like every other skill in life, an organized plan and practice to implement it. In an article on the use of firearms for home defense, a leading expert summed up his advice as follows: "Train yourself or, better yet, get yourself trained."
Link

I don't know about you, but I don't think the experts here are talking about a 1 day course.

Yes I am comforted now that people are well trained to carry said weapons after a 1 day course. And how do they train? Let me guess, in a shooting range with an instructor giving advice in a calm surrounding. A shooting range with targets that are set and pose no danger to the individuals? Yes I can see how that will aid the potential gun owner in a situation where he/she is jumped by one or more assailants while walking down the street who are armed... and all in a one day course..

Guns are used as a last resort.

Don't you mean they are 'meant' to be used as a last resort? But with the number of accidental deaths and accidental shootings, one has to wonder if it is not looked at by the gun owners as the first resort.

In most cases, someone who concealed carries will be less likely to be involved in a crime in the first place due to the evading training, but it doesn't mean they'd have less a use to protect themselves when their training fails and they wind up becoming a victim of a crime.

This is after a one day training course right? Would this be due to the training possibly between morning tea and lunch perhaps? Maybe between the gun safety lecture and practice round at the shooting range?

If their training fails, they have a loaded weapon on their person, possibly in their hot little hands. Now if someone overpowers an individual with the permit to carry that weapon, and that person after their so called "training" is totally over powered since they, for example, were taken by complete suprise after being attacked from behind, knocked down and had a gun jammed in the side of their head, and they managed to somehow putll out their gun in such a circumstance, how successful do you think they would be? You think the big boofy person(s) lying on top of them in complete control would simply get up, and back off with their hands up in the air? Give me a break Neildo. Unless a person has undergone extensive training (yes, trainig lasting for more than one day) in not only gun control and personal self defence, they'd pretty much be screwed.

Not only that, but it is against the law under something similar as the good samaritan act to not help another when they see a crime being commited. A person that is not a victim to a crime that has a gun can aid others who have become victim. There are numerous accounts where concealed carry people have chased off or fended off an attack on a poor victim. So owning a gun isn't just about personal safety, but about the safety of everyone.

Ermm ya, no offence but if someone has the permit to carry a concealed weapon, it's a pretty safe bet that they would have taken the 1 day course. And no I wouldn't want an individual who was not a professional to aim or point a gun in my general direction if someone is trying to rob me. Call me strange but I'd fear the person who's paranoid enough to feel the need to carry a gun on their person as I would the person robbing me.

As for your hypothetical scenarios where you think a person with a gun will be defenseless, yes, if attacked by surprised (which with training the odds of that happening lessens yet still remains), you are defenseless,

I'd say with a one day's worth of training to get that permit to carry that concealed weapon, it's a pretty safe bet that unless you have undergone other forms of self defence training that does not include weapon use, you would be defenceless.

but that doesn't mean you will be during the whole time.

Oh you mean if you actually manage to wriggle out of the grip of the person holding a gun pressed to your head for example? Uh huh.. right..

As an example, look at the real life incident that I posted previously to show how a typical scenario would go down if caught by surprise and then having the tides turned in your favor or read the link posted to see other people's accounts of real life encounters and how being armed saved em.

Yes. So many pro gun sites are filled with stories of how 'my gun saved my life'.. And yet, those stories are few and far between when one considerss the number of deaths as a result of guns and accidental shootings and how things can and do go wrong.

Yes, but a brain doesn't protect you from everything. For the situations in which a brain will protect you, people use it. In the situations where a brain can't protect you, another method is chosen.

Since you seem to agree that brains can't protect you from everything, why do you wish to deny us the right to protect ourselves in the other situations where we're left defenseless with just our brain?

Now here's a comforting thought. You wouldn't use your brain to protect yourself even if you had a gun? Riigghhtttt.. So you'd shoot first and think about 'it' later? As in you'd react before thinking about what exactly was going on? You see, your brain is your best friend in a dangerous situation. If you don't think your brain can protect you, then you should not be allowed any where near a weapon.

 

[TimeTraveler]

I don't understand it.
Why do you gun controllers insist that we focus on the GUN and not the people? Obviously some people are mentally unstable and should not own a gun, I agree with backround checks, I agree with being careful who you sell guns to, as I don't think everyone is responsible enough to own a firearm, and of those responsible I think certain firearms should be restricted to those among us who are most responsible. I don't think the general public should have access to uzis, but I do think some of us in the general public should have access to uzi's if they are certified and have a saint like criminal history. If someone has no history of violence, no criminal history, and is mentally stable, why do you fear them owning an uzi?

I'm not a fan of uzi's, but seriously, someones going to own them, they exist so they will be owned. Gun control people would rather private sector security forces and groups such as this own uzi's, just not citizens.

This means it's okay if you are say, a huge corporation with enough money to hire your own police force and security force, you can buy any amount of weapons you want, with no backround checks, but if you are a citizen, you can't even buy a pistol, thats how liberals want it.

Tell me, do you liberals trust corporations that much? And if so why?
Or are you all rich enough to just hire your own police force?

The problem with government police forces is this, government services only exist when there are tax dollars and a functioning economy. In situations where there is no government, and people are running around looting and there seems to be lawlessness, there will be no police for you, there will be NOTHING and NO ONE to protect you.

If you are important and you are working for a corporation, you MIGHT have your own personal security, as private security firms do exist. So if you own a business or run your own business and theres chaos, if you can afford it, yes you can pay people with guns to protect you and your property.

So do you actually mean to say that you support private security? I can understand this and support this myself, however, this does mean that only people who have the money to afford their own police force will have security, the rest of you will be out of luck.

This is a website, read it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_security

So, by removing all personal security, all security will be handled by private corporations, as the security industry grows in size, it will be good for profits.

The question is, and will be, WHO do you want to protect you, because someone has to do it. It can be private security, or public security, but someone has to be the police, PERIOD.

So make a decision, do you want to pay a corporation to protect you? or do you want the right to protect yourself?

 

[Bells]

I don't think the general public should have access to uzis, but I do think some of us in the general public should have access to uzi's if they are certified and have a saint like criminal history.

Why in the world would anyone in the general public have the need to own an uzi?

If someone has no history of violence, no criminal history, and is mentally stable, why do you fear them owning an uzi?

Ermm lets see now. Maybe because it's usually those 'saint' like people who lose it and shoot their families or maybe walk into a school, line up some girls and shoot them? Again, why would anyone need an uzi? Are you planning to defend yourself in the warzone called the 'burbs'?

I'm not a fan of uzi's, but seriously, someones going to own them, they exist so they will be owned.

The same could be said with rocket launchers, missiles, tanks, helicopter gunships, nukes.. get where I'm going here?

Gun control people would rather private sector security forces and groups such as this own uzi's, just not citizens.

Call me strange but I'd actually rather the police or armed forces had them. Private sector security forces operating in a war zone, yes. In a homely little suburb? No. As they would have no use for it.

This means it's okay if you are say, a huge corporation with enough money to hire your own police force and security force, you can buy any amount of weapons you want, with no backround checks, but if you are a citizen, you can't even buy a pistol, thats how liberals want it.

I think you'd find that if you put aside the slight paranoia you are displaying (maybe you watched a tad too many action movies?), that the private security forces usually have to have licences and be fully trained to have the weapons that they have.. and I'm not talking about a 1 day training course either. Most of the people working for private security forces that need to arm themselves as such are usually ex armed forces or police personnel who have extensive weapon handling experience, and they are not some schmuck who just walked in off the street for a job.

Tell me, do you liberals trust corporations that much? And if so why?

I don't trust McDonalds, if that's what you're asking. I just think their meat is a tad dodgy. And how exactly do you define a 'liberal'?

Or are you all rich enough to just hire your own police force?

Yes. But why would I want to? And what exactly are you saying? If you can't afford to hire a private police force, you should just become a police force of "one"?

The problem with government police forces is this, government services only exist when there are tax dollars and a functioning economy. In situations where there is no government, and people are running around looting and there seems to be lawlessness, there will be no police for you, there will be NOTHING and NO ONE to protect you.

Do you live in such a situation? Is the US for example in such dire trouble that its police force is functioning in a situation where there is no government and no functioning economy? Hmmm I never knew. Or are you preparing for the possible future? Kind of like when people panicked and started building bomb shelters in their back yards in case the commies dropped nukes isn't it?

Don't you think you're getting a tad carried away? Paranoia creeping in maybe?

If you are important and you are working for a corporation, you MIGHT have your own personal security, as private security firms do exist. So if you own a business or run your own business and theres chaos, if you can afford it, yes you can pay people with guns to protect you and your property.

So do you actually mean to say that you support private security? I can understand this and support this myself, however, this does mean that only people who have the money to afford their own police force will have security, the rest of you will be out of luck.

LOL!!

So, by removing all personal security, all security will be handled by private corporations, as the security industry grows in size, it will be good for profits.

The question is, and will be, WHO do you want to protect you, because someone has to do it. It can be private security, or public security, but someone has to be the police, PERIOD.

So make a decision, do you want to pay a corporation to protect you? or do you want the right to protect yourself?

You sound like a cheesy advert.

The only people who has to be the police, are just that. The police. Not some private rambo who thinks that the world is ending and an invasion is imminent so therefore must be armed to the teeth with uzi's to defend their womenfolk.