Gun possession. yes or no?

[Sauce]

Originally Posted by 48Laws

Considering the demographics of this forum and the daily topics, you would think someone like me who clearly has a more broader view of these issues is getting "owned". Simple view points always attract the simple minded because they are way too lazy to understand topics in their entirety. They rather fight tooth and nail based on what they think is true because that's what they've always believed. They have absolutely no room for a broader perspective. If you criticize something about gun ownership in this nation, you're totally against guns. Oh, MY LORD!!!! There's not a subject matter this kid can "own" me on. Who you kiddin'?

By the way, the US Constitution is a living, breathing document and must be adapted to our times.

What is with all the goddam arrogance? Your argument is to put me down- "Simple view points always attract the simple minded because they are way too lazy to understand" and put yourself on a pedestal- "Considering the demographics of this forum and the daily topics, you would think someone like me who clearly has a more broader view of these issues is getting "owned"". You legitimately did not make a single factual point anywhere in there. Also, you say I'm assuming things when that is quite clearly what you have been doing. Ie: our ages, intelligence, affiliation, etc.

[CollinsE90]

Originally Posted by 48Laws

What a genius. Wouldn't that only be accomplished through gun control, ya know the topic at hand? Geez

The topic at hand is "Gun Possession," you may want to read the title of the thread.

How is everyone getting punished? You see, this is the typical uninformed gun-nut response. Have your rights personally ever been interrupted illegally by a gov't? Have your legally acquired firearms ever been confiscated without provocation? Can you NOT purchased a firearm in 2012? So, please show me how "everyone" is getting this so called punishment? Basically, your entire position is fear-mongering. It's based off the fallacy that the gov't will take all of your guns based on the idea that if we talk about the issues surrounding gun violence in this nation, that automatically means, "weez gonna take yer gunz..."

There you go putting words in my mouth. I didn't say I'm worried about the government taking my guns--that's you only having that as your reasoning for me being wrong. Don't put me in a class with that. I said you can't punish legal gun owners because of criminals. E.G. Limit what we can buy, own, or shoot.

Keep reaching.

[immiketoo]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

I agree with the sentiment of this statement.

Do you know of a way to ensure that is the case, that only the people who can be counted on to use a gun correctly in a crazy situation are allowed to take the gun out of the house with them?

It seems to me, the system as it is now does not have any way to enforce this idea.

A repeating theme of some comments is not "if only a trained, experienced LEO or military personnel was there", but the more generic "if only 1 more person in that theatre was carrying, then fewer would be killed".

That's the point I am trying to make. Those two kinds of people are NOT interchangable. One is an asset (but in short supply), and one is a liability (but in generous supply).

ps: dont knock the batman leotard till you've tried it !

LOL! I will reserve judgement on the unitard until I have had some experience with it

The way to ensure that only those who have adequate training and have successfully passed MY minimum requirements be allowed to have a CCW permit. Anyone can own, the standard is much higher for carry. I COMPLETELY agree that the current standards are far too low to make me comfortable for the majority of CCW folks. I am not trying to be offensive in any way, but look at it like racing licenses. No pro wants to be on the track with the amateurs. Licenses are tiered, and so should be CCW permits.

I am being slightly facetious about meeting MY standard, but there are a handful of like-minded people that I trust to go to war. So, if you don't meet my standard, keep practicing.

If I were in charge, CCW would take months to get. Like maybe 200 hours of training which would include basic marksmanship, tactical training, combat firearm drills, scenario based training, judgement, a thorough understanding of 4th Amendment law, local and state laws for the state of the CCW and extensive testing prior to issue, to include a comprehensive psychological test.

Lastly, you'd have to pass the ME test. If I think your an asshat, you fail. Am I being an arrogant prick? Some might say yes, but the reality is that at the end of the course, you would have skills and abilities far beyond that of Joe average, and you'd be confident enough to know when and how to use them.

How's that?

[KingOfJericho]

Were the same people currently advocating stiffer gun control laws lobbying for more stringent controls on fertilizer sales after the OKC bombing?


If this has already been brought up, forgive me for not reading the previous 157 posts...

[48Laws]

Originally Posted by MP0WER

http://m3post.com/forums/showpost.ph...&postcount=101


Did you just say that hypothetical questions aren't answerable? Really?

Where was my hypothetical?

I too have walked around for some time and a good portion of that time i was armed. Not always with a firearm, but i'll call a pocket knife armed. What is the relevance of this statement? What is the best case scenario for the people in that theater? What was the best case scenario for the 10th, 11th, or 12th person who died in this incident? The best case scenario was for that kid to enter that theater to watch the movie rather than kill as many random people as he could. I would argue that at least some of the families of the departed would opt for a CCW holder to attempt to end the needless shooting. What happens at that point is all speculation but just like a ripple in a lake that would have altered the gunman's course by some measure.

If you feel the need to walk around in our free society armed, then perhaps you need to change your location, occupation, or mindset. Perhaps all three. If you been in this thread for some time now, I do recall stating that there are inherent risks we all accept with guns in society. Remember, Holmes' guns were all legal. How does one prepare for that? After the fact, everyone always wants to say what they'd do had he opened fire but, that's all Hollywood BS. The best case scenario would obviously be to not walk around paranoid and armed thinking you're going to play hero and save the day. What are the odds of that? That's like assuming a doctor will be on every flight in the event someone has a heart attack. Odds? Give me a break.

It's quite simple as far as questions go. If you were unarmed and someone was armed and intent on killing you for a family member and no trained professional were available would you mind if an armed citizen interjected on your behalf?

I always enjoy these ideal scenarios. Isn't an armed citizen also trying to kill me? Oh, I see, your argument isn't about guns or ccw, but rather more about how do I wish to neutralize the aggressor, right? Because, If my life is in the balance, I don't see how adding more guns in the situation increases my odds of survival. As if, the CCW is a better shot. Yes, I'd rather have a trained professional, and not another armed citizen busting off shots.

Also, just because we're not all professionals doesn't mean we're all untrained trigger happy yahoos.

I'm pretty sure I can perform a routine teeth cleaning too, if you let me But, I'd rather have a trained professional do that too.

I can't speak for others, but the only way i'm interjecting on someone else's behalf would be because that person was in imminent danger of loosing their life. I won't pull a gun on someone beating the hell out of you. I'd just try and help stop that from happening. Unless you'd rather me go find a trained professional.

I seriously doubt anyone could beat the hell out of me that wasn't armed and I seriously doubt I'd need your help. Seriously.

That is in fact the theory, that's why the word likely is used in that sentence.

In other words, You have no measurable data or observations to come to a conclusion. You can't gather much from that.

This doesn't make sense to me, no need to clarify. I'm beginning to think you've missed my point.

OSHA and the rules governing CCW laws are two entirely different things although you think the commonality is the time required to safely train for either. They are completely unrelated.

Clearly most people would rather have this be the ideal situation. But when one isn't available the only person left making life-altering decisions is the murdering criminal. Not a good spot to be in.....

I agree.

[solefald]

What amazes me about this gun control debate is that overwhelming majority of anti-gun people do not know a single thing about guns and most of them have never even held one in their hand.

And now Catholic Church has to step in, and declare Gun Control to be a RELIGIOUS ISSUE! That is the stupidest thing i've ever heard.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-ja...b_1692993.html

[48Laws]

Originally Posted by Sauce

What is with all the goddam arrogance? Your argument is to put me down- "Simple view points always attract the simple minded because they are way too lazy to understand" and put yourself on a pedestal- "Considering the demographics of this forum and the daily topics, you would think someone like me who clearly has a more broader view of these issues is getting "owned"". You legitimately did not make a single factual point anywhere in there. Also, you say I'm assuming things when that is quite clearly what you have been doing. Ie: our ages, intelligence, affiliation, etc.

Because it's so annoying when you think you're discussion a hot-topic with adults then someone chimes in like we're playing freakin' HALO and says some dumb sh!t like, "Dude, you're getting owned, yadda yadda...". What purpose does that serve. You want to be taken seriously with that crap?

[Mr Tonka]

I'm glad you're piping up Mike. I'm beside myself reading some of these posts. Not only have most not been in these situations before but none have even thought about it!! Does someone really think that it would be difficult to acquire the target in that situation? And the body armor... this isn't COD MWIII and from the images i saw this kid was not wearing head to toe kit. And people think that a kill shot is needed to end things. ANY hit on this kid would have altered the outcome. No one likes being shot at. Foot, leg, arm, hand, even in the armor. If he had real resolve like the NHSO perps it would have at the very least focused his field of fire on the CCW person allowing some more people to escape.

The atmosphere of the theater, as dark and panicked as it was can also be used to your advantage. Even if your position sucked at the onset of shooting, the dark chaos gives you opportunity to get into a better offense position. The obscured vision this kid had due to his gasmask would have helped you move as well. Dark, smoky, muzzle flashes, gasmask... his vision was certainly limited to some degree.

[48Laws]

Originally Posted by solefald

What amazes me about this gun control debate is that overwhelming majority of anti-gun people do not know a single thing about guns and most of them have never even held one in their hand.

And now Catholic Church has to step in, and declare Gun Control to be a RELIGIOUS ISSUE! That is the stupidest thing i've ever heard.

That couldn't be furthest from the truth. And to think just because people are willing to open a dialog about gun control, or simply gun violence, that they are anti-guns, is laughable.

Signed- Former 03 active duty grunt, USMC, Marksmanship Coach etc. etc.

[UncleWede]

I'm not giving this guy the satisfaction of looking into his life, but I do have one question: Just how many PS3 games that involved guns did he have? I think if we could correlate PS3 shooting games with gun ownership, some of the graphs at the beginning may look different.

P.S. former NRA member, owner of more than 1 gun, don't play PS3 games.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by immiketoo

LOL! I will reserve judgement on the unitard until I have had some experience with it

The way to ensure that only those who have adequate training and have successfully passed MY minimum requirements be allowed to have a CCW permit. Anyone can own, the standard is much higher for carry. I COMPLETELY agree that the current standards are far too low to make me comfortable for the majority of CCW folks. I am not trying to be offensive in any way, but look at it like racing licenses. No pro wants to be on the track with the amateurs. Licenses are tiered, and so should be CCW permits.

I am being slightly facetious about meeting MY standard, but there are a handful of like-minded people that I trust to go to war. So, if you don't meet my standard, keep practicing.

If I were in charge, CCW would take months to get. Like maybe 200 hours of training which would include basic marksmanship, tactical training, combat firearm drills, scenario based training, judgement, a thorough understanding of 4th Amendment law, local and state laws for the state of the CCW and extensive testing prior to issue, to include a comprehensive psychological test.

Lastly, you'd have to pass the ME test. If I think your an asshat, you fail. Am I being an arrogant prick? Some might say yes, but the reality is that at the end of the course, you would have skills and abilities far beyond that of Joe average, and you'd be confident enough to know when and how to use them.

How's that?

I'm on board and will be first in line!

Originally Posted by 48Laws

Where was my hypothetical?



If you feel the need to walk around in our free society armed, then perhaps you need to change your location, occupation, or mindset. Perhaps all three. If you been in this thread for some time now, I do recall stating that there are inherent risks we all accept with guns in society. Remember, Holmes' guns were all legal. How does one prepare for that? After the fact, everyone always wants to say what they'd do had he opened fire but, that's all Hollywood BS. The best case scenario would obviously be to not walk around paranoid and armed thinking you're going to play hero and save the day. What are the odds of that? That's like assuming a doctor will be on every flight in the event someone has a heart attack. Odds? Give me a break.

I always enjoy these ideal scenarios. Isn't an armed citizen also trying to kill me? Oh, I see, your argument isn't about guns or ccw, but rather more about how do I wish to neutralize the aggressor, right? Because, If my life is in the balance, I don't see how adding more guns in the situation increases my odds of survival. As if, the CCW is a better shot. Yes, I'd rather have a trained professional, and not another armed citizen busting off shots.

I'm pretty sure I can perform a routine teeth cleaning too, if you let me But, I'd rather have a trained professional do that too.

I seriously doubt anyone could beat the hell out of me that wasn't armed and I seriously doubt I'd need your help. Seriously.

In other words, You have no measurable data or observations to come to a conclusion. You can't gather much from that.

OSHA and the rules governing CCW laws are two entirely different things although you think the commonality is the time required to safely train for either. They are completely unrelated.

I agree.

Apparently i have offended you in some way, for that i apologize. I hope that my apology will temper your condescending elitist attitude towards me. I even went so far as to add a note letting you know that i was in no way attacking you. I was responding to your posts in order to see things from your perspective and possibly have you see them from my perspective. I am now content without having seen things from your perspective.

To the bolded quote.... I am pleased to see that your arrogance extends outside of the interweb. It makes me feel a little better, as if you're arrogant and condescending towards all people; not just me.

[solefald]

Originally Posted by 48Laws

That couldn't be furthest from the truth. And to think just because people are willing to open a dialog about gun control, or simply gun violence, that they are anti-guns, is laughable.

Signed- Former 03 active duty grunt, USMC, Marksmanship Coach etc. etc.

Did I say "everyone"? No. I said "overwhelming majority". And that includes a bunch of my friends, who are convinced that one day I will kill someone just because I own firearms.

[solefald]

Originally Posted by UncleWede

I'm not giving this guy the satisfaction of looking into his life, but I do have one question: Just how many PS3 games that involved guns did he have? I think if we could correlate PS3 shooting games with gun ownership, some of the graphs at the beginning may look different.

P.S. former NRA member, owner of more than 1 gun, don't play PS3 games.

I read an article earlier this morning that said he was an avid WoW player. BAN WORLD OF WAR CRAFT NOW!!!!1111 /s

[48Laws]

Originally Posted by MP0WER

I'm on board and will be first in line!


Apparently i have offended you in some way, for that i apologize. I hope that my apology will temper your condescending elitist attitude towards me. I even went so far as to add a note letting you know that i was in no way attacking you. I was responding to your posts in order to see things from your perspective and possibly have you see them from my perspective. I am now content without having seen things from your perspective.

No. You didn't offend me. That's kind of hard to accomplish through a computer screen. Your insecurity in this discussion is not my doing. Maybe if your replies had more content and less fluff, I wouldn't feel the need to respond in such a way. The problem here is, some choose to draw a line in the sand and demonize opposing views. I understand that a happy-medium can be reached. Some feel they must beat their opinion into others until they submit. That's not a healthy dialog.

To the bolded quote.... I am pleased to see that your arrogance extends outside of the interweb. It makes me feel a little better, as if you're arrogant and condescending towards all people; not just me.

So, you're saying that if I had a cowardly demeanor, you'd feel better about yourself?

[48Laws]

Originally Posted by solefald

Did I say "everyone"? No. I said "overwhelming majority". And that includes a bunch of my friends, who are convinced that one day I will kill someone just because I own firearms.

It's impossible for you to quantify any of that statement. Your friends aren't present here so that point is moot. You assume those that have opposing views in this one single thread represent a larger population, which isn't even true. This topic is far broader than you give credit.

[.b0link]

Originally Posted by 48Laws

That couldn't be furthest from the truth. And to think just because people are willing to open a dialog about gun control, or simply gun violence, that they are anti-guns, is laughable.

Signed- Former 03 active duty grunt, USMC, Marksmanship Coach etc. etc.

03 active duty grunt????

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by MP0WER

The atmosphere of the theater, as dark and panicked as it was can also be used to your advantage. Even if your position sucked at the onset of shooting, the dark chaos gives you opportunity to get into a better offense position. The obscured vision this kid had due to his gasmask would have helped you move as well. Dark, smoky, muzzle flashes, gasmask... his vision was certainly limited to some degree.

Yes, but, in the absence of properly trained people, what percentage of CCW holders do you think could maintain calm peace of mind to pull that off in this instance (I'm talking average people, not those who have passed Mike's theoretical course). If dark, smoky, bright muzzle flashes would impair accuracy in the bad guy, how could they not impair accuracy for the hero CCW holder also ?

As it is today, I'm not sure if I was in that theater, that I'd want a half-dozen ill-trained (yet well meaning) CCW holders shooting at the gunman in the dark crowded theater. If I was anywhere behind the bad guy, I'd be more likely to be hit by friendly fire. Acquiring the target and hitting the target are 2 different things.

I'm not saying more laws would stop it from starting in the first place; think of Breivik in Norway. Gun control laws there are FAR more stringent than those in Colorado, but he was determined enough to get what he needed regardless. Never underestimate a crazy person who has the time and means to get what he wants.

If you cant stop it from starting (and sadly, as Norway has proven, I'm not sure you can), and no cop is present when it does start, then how can you stop a bad situation from getting worse ? I'm not sure that handing out guns to everyone who can pass a basic police check is the way to get there.

[48Laws]

Originally Posted by .b0link

03 active duty grunt????

MOS = O3
Grunt= infantry

WTF is so difficult about that?

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by 48Laws

No. You didn't offend me. That's kind of hard to accomplish through a computer screen. Your insecurity in this discussion is not my doing. Maybe if your replies had more content and less fluff, I wouldn't feel the need to respond in such a way. The problem here is, some choose to draw a line in the sand and demonize opposing views. I understand that a happy-medium can be reached. Some feel they must beat their opinion into others until they submit. That's not a healthy dialog.




So, you're saying that if I had a cowardly demeanor, you'd feel better about yourself?

My insecurity in this discussion was made up via your imagination. At one point i was interested in your views on the subject. Mainly because i don't recall you ever coming out against owning firearms or even law abiding concealed weapon carriers. But i quickly learned you are more interested in trying to make yourself look good or something of the sort. My fluffy replies are simply my opinions. I have not attempted to beat my opinion into anyone. Everyone is free to express their opinion as am i free to express mine. I may rebut somethings that can be argued as fact, but my opinion is mine and doesn't have to be the same as yours. But you seem more interested in giving your opinion of other members rather than your opinion on the subject.

And no, your condescending demeanor only makes feel badly for you. And for the people who's judgment is so poor or their self esteem so low that they concede to be a part of your life. Because anyone who speaks to perfect strangers they way you do without being provoked must be a nightmare to spend time with in the real world. In here, i'm lucky enough to have the ability add you to an ignore list.

[48Laws]

Originally Posted by MP0WER

The atmosphere of the theater, as dark and panicked as it was can also be used to your advantage. Even if your position sucked at the onset of shooting, the dark chaos gives you opportunity to get into a better offense position. The obscured vision this kid had due to his gasmask would have helped you move as well. Dark, smoky, muzzle flashes, gasmask... his vision was certainly limited to some degree.

Hahaha! This is just too funny. I missed this. A dark theater with dozens of civilians and an unknown number of gunmen is even the most challenging environment to the most seasoned Direct Action unit but, jimbo with a .40 cal can handle it.

[.b0link]

Originally Posted by 48Laws

MOS = O3
Grunt= infantry

WTF is so difficult about that?

Wtf is so difficult about that is that I don't sit down memorizing USMC mos codes. I see o3 I think captain, which obviously doesn't jibe with grunt.

Signed, MM1(sw), USN, with a tour kicking doors in Iraq, and another guarding our guests down in GTMO.....

[Chrisruf911]

Just a few points I would like to bring up. There really should be a required tactical course administered with each ccdw permit. It would really be a benefit to those who carry. I hold a Kentucky ccdw and it does take several months from start to finish. You have to fully understand the self defense laws and pass a shooting test. The permit is not limited to firearms and includes automatic knives and other things. If you've had anything questionable such as misdemeanor assaults or Dui's you will be revoked. IIRC there are something like 7 background checks you have to pass in order to get the permit. Im not sure how thorough other states are but I have been told Indiana has a simple process that doesn't have the background checks like Ky does. It is kind of scary to think about. I would hope other states who give out the permits or licenses would have a very investigative check on all applicants. I feel safer with my pistol on my side. I keep one in the chamber and a full magazine in a Galco holster.