Here's Why I Don't Favor Everyone Carrying

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just like the "Free Stuff" give everyone a gun. One of two things will probably happen.

1.) This will become a nation of very polite folks, since everyone has a gun and can shoot you if you are impolite to folks

2.) We will have a bunch of funerals for the first year, before it becomes a polite nation.

JMHO

AJ

There may be a third, but I have not thought of it yet.......
 
biku324 said:
what I said was I am not in favor of everyone carrying and explained why. I never suggested anything more.
Click to expand...

That's a cop out my friend. You can't have it both ways. Yes you explained why. "You are not in favor of everyone carrying " says it all. It's okay for some but not others.

That statement suggests that you want restrictions on people that YOU think shouldn't carry.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I don't care either way. But your statement says much more than you think it does.
 
AJ said:
Just like the "Free Stuff" give everyone a gun. One of two things will probably happen.

1.) This will become a nation of very polite folks, since everyone has a gun and can shoot you if you are impolite to folks

2.) We will have a bunch of funerals for the first year, before it becomes a polite nation.

JMHO

AJ

There may be a third, but I have not thought of it yet.......
Click to expand...

That's how Archie Bunker saw it in the 70's:

Archie Bunker's Editorial on Gun Control - YouTube
 
Never wrote that I did not want people carrying. I just want them trained by someone who is competent, not BillyBob going "Hold my beer and watch this". I guess what I am trying to get at is I would like everyone with a legal gun to be safe with it. I watch our local range officers cringe when they see folks coming on the range with a boxed gun and a shopping bag. Usually these folks don't even know how to load the gun and have to be shown. Now if it is because they can't read or are to stupid to read the owner's manual I do not know.
 
I have been trained many years back that one's mental state and willingness to pull the trigger is the key factor in any gun situation. One must think long and hard at what are the circumstances that will make her/him shoot and go over these often. Out trainer stressed that you can always take back a verbal insult, but never a bullet. Your mind must be properly calibrated long before you pull out the gun.
 
AJ said:
Never wrote that I did not want people carrying. I just want them trained by someone who is competent, not BillyBob going "Hold my beer and watch this". I guess what I am trying to get at is I would like everyone with a legal gun to be safe with it. I watch our local range officers cringe when they see folks coming on the range with a boxed gun and a shopping bag. Usually these folks don't even know how to load the gun and have to be shown. Now if it is because they can't read or are to stupid to read the owner's manual I do not know.
Click to expand...

I agree completely. However who administers and oversees the training mandate? That's the problem.

I used to work part time at a range. Yes you see people that don't ask for help or seek training when they should. But what you may not see are the many people that do.
 
To further this issue, what training is enough? How often? Who decides? Who trains the trainers?

Let's put this in persective. Yes, Combat Arms is trained differently after boot from other MOS/Specialties. But, long-term data from the DoD and prior to that the Dept of the Army and the Dept of the Navy indicated that few of the combat arms servicemen (the data I know is old enough that it was all men) actually fired their weapons in combat. So, even after months of basic training followed by advanced combat (infantry, etc.) training only a small percentage actually fire their weapons when under fire. So, which citizens are going to decide who has enough training and the right mindset to be trusted to exercise their Natural Right to self-defense? Military service isn't sufficient according to the data to determine who would shoot under the right conditions (being fired upon and having your squadmates fired upon seems to meet that criteria IMHO) when even combat arms service members can't be relied upon to fire back. As one old Gunny said to me a LONG time ago, "Son, you won't know until that instant. Anyone who says that they know if they haven't been there is a flat out liar."
 
ruger 22 said:
I have been trained many years back that one's mental state and willingness to pull the trigger is the key factor in any gun situation. One must think long and hard at what are the circumstances that will make her/him shoot and go over these often. Out trainer stressed that you can always take back a verbal insult, but never a bullet. Your mind must be properly calibrated long before you pull out the gun.
Click to expand...

When I was in the Corps we had a thing called "Pistol Regs". This were conditions where the use of deadly force was authorized. There were five of them.

1.) Lawful order.

2.) In self defense.

3.) In defense of others.

4.) In defense of property inherently dangerous to others (armory's, high explosives and the like)

5.) Property involving National Security (nuclear weapons, certain classified secrets)

As a civilian only number 2 & 3 apply. These were drilled in to our heads in an attempt to give us guide lines on when we could use our weapons. Rules for combat are entirely different.
 
This is just like trying to explain why though its legal to open carry in a public place it is not the prudent thing to do. There is a large portion of the public that doesn't care one way or the other about the 2rd. They have no reason to vote against it. Then they remember the commando in the big box store. People grabbed their kids and headed for the door. There is a fine line here, it ain't 1881 no more. Most gun trouble is gang related and what's left is committed by mentally handicapped individuals. How many people are on some type of tranquilizers, depression drugs, or flat out druggies? They are allowed to have a firearm. Their mental state is protected by privacy laws. The only answer is common sense.
 
I don't favor Coca-Cola. I favor water or beer. But if you favor Coca-Cola, it's okay with me.

There is a distinction between not favoring something, and wanting to prohibit or ban it.

(Hmm. Maybe this discussion is what passes for virtue signaling in our community...:))
 
Confrontations aren't always black and white. They progress. If a neighbor threatens me, I don't wait until he starts getting violent to arm myself, or call the police for that matter. Knowing when to pull a firearm and when to use it is often determined on the fly in the midst of fastly changing, emotionally charged, and adrenaline fueled incidents. It's easy to make decisions of what one should, would, could do from the ease of our arm chairs when not emotionally involved. That's why there are so many prosecutions of otherwise good shootings. Too many Monday morning quarterbacks.
 
AJ said:
You just say a lot of things.......... If you want to continue this line of discussion then PM or email me.

AJ
Click to expand...

No, we'll do it right here in front of everybody. You wrote this:

AJ said:
Never wrote that I did not want people carrying. I just want them trained by someone who is competent, not BillyBob going "Hold my beer and watch this". I guess what I am trying to get at is I would like everyone with a legal gun to be safe with it. I watch our local range officers cringe when they see folks coming on the range with a boxed gun and a shopping bag. Usually these folks don't even know how to load the gun and have to be shown. Now if it is because they can't read or are to stupid to read the owner's manual I do not know.
Click to expand...

And then you called Archie Bunker "my hero" for advocating giving everyone boarding an airplane a gun. Which is it?
 
Kanewpadle said:
I agree completely. However who administers and oversees the training mandate? That's the problem.

I used to work part time at a range. Yes you see people that don't ask for help or seek training when they should. But what you may not see are the many people that do.
Click to expand...

Since CCW's are issued by the state it probably that entity providing the guide lines for teaching. The instructors can be state, local or private instructors. Not saying the students have to pass a test, just a certificate of attendance would be sufficient.

I, personally, would feel better if there was a test as it shows some form of competency , just as a Driver's License does.

The bottom line here is safety on both sides of the gun.
 
AJ said:
Since CCW's are issued by the state it probably that entity providing the guide lines for teaching. The instructors can be state, local or private instructors. Not saying the students have to pass a test, just a certificate of attendance would be sufficient.

I, personally, would feel better if there was a test as it shows some form of competency , just as a Driver's License does.

The bottom line here is safety on both sides of the gun.
Click to expand...

Sure, but involving government at any level is bad. I don't trust any of them. Especially around here.

Give em an inch...........
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

afriqueart
I love a happy ending
Replies
1
Views
679
Eagle 477
E
bulletproof-791
Norco bank robbery
Replies
8
Views
5K
pawncop
P

Latest posts

Back
Top