Pali Posted December 30, 2012 Report Share Posted December 30, 2012 Yeah that didn't happen. Quite so. Hell, if nothing else, actually hitting a person on the run six times out of six shots with a handgun would be a crazy level of accuracy - not to mention that most people can't keep running with 5 bullets in their back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egreir Posted December 30, 2012 Report Share Posted December 30, 2012 If you can't hit someone who's 5 yards in front of you with 100% accuracy you don't deserve a concealed weapons permit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inscribed Posted December 30, 2012 Report Share Posted December 30, 2012 So, here's a story you won't see on any of the national news networks: http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2012/12/media-quiet-about-san-antonio-theater-shooting-2524596.html http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Two-wounded-in-theater-shooting-4122668.php#ixzz2GOP72zBX On Sunday December 17, 2012, 2 days after the CT shooting, a man went to a restaurant in San Antonio to kill his X-girlfriend. After he shot her, most of the people in the restaurant fled next door to a theater. The gunman followed them and entered the theater so he could shoot more people. He started shooting and people in the theater started running and screaming. It’s like the Aurora, CO theater story plus a restaurant! Now aren’t you wondering why this isn’t a lead story in the national media along with the school shooting? There was an off duty county deputy at the theater. SHE pulled out her gun and shot the man 4 times before he had a chance to kill anyone. So since this story makes the point that the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, the media is treating it like it never happened. There are dozens of these stories for every massacre you see flaunted about on national news networks. The difference is, a story like this doesn't help push political agendas. Gun-free zone = massacre. Gun-endowed zone = local news blurb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egreir Posted December 30, 2012 Report Share Posted December 30, 2012 It made local news. Didn't make national news because there were no mass casualties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted December 30, 2012 Report Share Posted December 30, 2012 There was an off duty county deputy at the theater. SHE pulled out her gun and shot the man 4 times before he had a chance to kill anyone. I'm curious as to where this 4 shots information comes from, as it's not in any of the actual news reports I can find on the event in a bit of short searching. EDIT: Scratch that - found one. Also, an off-duty cop is not representative of non-police CHL holders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inscribed Posted December 30, 2012 Report Share Posted December 30, 2012 Also, an off-duty cop is not representative of non-police CHL holders. Why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mali Posted December 30, 2012 Report Share Posted December 30, 2012 Most cops I've met know close to nothing about firearms. They have to qualify with a single weapon every so often which means bullets on a paper target within a specified diameter. Based on my experience, i'd make a bet that the average CWP holder is more knowledgeable and proficient with a range of weapons than an average LEO officer. The LEO advantage is team dynamics, perceived justification to use force, legal protection from consequences of said force, and feet on the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Forsaken Posted December 30, 2012 Report Share Posted December 30, 2012 Most cops I've met know close to nothing about firearms. They have to qualify with a single weapon every so often which means bullets on a paper target within a specified diameter. Based on my experience, i'd make a bet that the average CWP holder is more knowledgeable and proficient with a range of weapons than an average LEO officer. The LEO advantage is team dynamics, perceived justification to use force, legal protection from consequences of said force, and feet on the ground. What do you mean by 'range of weapons'? For CHL you can qualify with either a revolver, or a semi automatic handgun over .32 caliber. If you qualify with a revolver, you can carry a revolver. If you qualify with a semi-automatic, you can carry either. There's not a (huge) range of weapons you can carry, as they all have to be 'concealed'. The actually 'shooting proficiency' test is almost a joke. I saw a 87 year old woman who couldn't even reload her weapon pass with flying colors. This, is based off of my knowledge as a CHL holder, and the class I took. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted December 30, 2012 Report Share Posted December 30, 2012 Why not? Because police go through training - not just how to fire a weapon, but also how to handle intense situations without losing their cool, and likely they also have prior experience with such situations that helps ground their thoughts and actions while encountering one again. I'd make a similar argument were the person ex- or current military. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are examples of non-cops doing similar things as well... I just think that using a cop doesn't make the point terribly well for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inscribed Posted December 30, 2012 Report Share Posted December 30, 2012 I think a lot of people have an exaggerated view of what kind of training the average cop gets, like Mali pointed out. They are no different than any other civilian. I feel like it's similar to when you're a kid in elementary school, and you think your teacher is a genius who knows everything. Then when you get older, you realize your teacher was really just a regular person and actually kind of an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted December 30, 2012 Report Share Posted December 30, 2012 And I think you have an exaggerated sense of the average person's ability to maintain their cool in a firefight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inscribed Posted December 30, 2012 Report Share Posted December 30, 2012 I didn't say anything about the average person. I just said the average cop is no different than the average citizen. If you don't want the average person to have a gun, why would you feel differently about that same person just because you find out they have a badge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted December 31, 2012 Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 Because that badge comes with training - as I said before, not just in firearms, but in how to react to intense situations. Do you mean to suggest that police training is of no benefit in reacting to violent situations, that the average person with a CHL is equally prepared for them? If not, then using a cop as an example of a gun-carrying citizen stopping a crime is a bad example, because most gun-carrying citizens are not cops or recipients of similar training, at least not to my knowledge. Edit: specifically, it is a bad example for arguing the case in favor of more citizens being armed, when I'm sure there are better ones you could find. That's my only point here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trick Posted December 31, 2012 Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 Pali is right. Its amazing how many citizens feel they can handle X situation until they are put into it. I see it time and time again. This isn't a movie where the bullets will miss you and your great bullet skills allow you to curve the bullet. An average citizen is just that. Average. No special training of ANY kind. A permit is a piece of paper saying you went to a class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egreir Posted December 31, 2012 Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 I'm batman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mali Posted December 31, 2012 Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 What do you mean by 'range of weapons'? For CHL you can qualify with either a revolver, or a semi automatic handgun over .32 caliber. If you qualify with a revolver, you can carry a revolver. If you qualify with a semi-automatic, you can carry either. There's not a (huge) range of weapons you can carry, as they all have to be 'concealed'. The actually 'shooting proficiency' test is almost a joke. I saw a 87 year old woman who couldn't even reload her weapon pass with flying colors. This, is based off of my knowledge as a CHL holder, and the class I took. Everyone I know that is licensed to carry a concealed firearm is involved in the firearms community, has trained in multiple weapons and calibers, and has a thorough understanding of the principles behind use of force. All of them are in it to protect themselves and those around them. This is only my personal experience. The law enforcement officers I have interacted with barely knew how to unload a firearm, had no academic knowledge of law or firearms, and were armed simply to do a job for a very low salary. This is strictly in my personal experience. There is no predicting what will happen in an armed confrontation. I respect that law enforcement officers put their lives on the line during the course of their duty. However, a badge and a uniform does not make you more accurate with a firearm, more courageous in a confrontation, or more beneficent toward those in need. It is assumed that law enforcement officers have mandatory training requirements that would uphold their skills, however those whom seek out similar training on a private basis would have a comparable skillset to draw upon which may exceed basic LEO training. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted December 31, 2012 Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 My personal experience contradicts yours, Mali, on both counts. What your experiences suggest to me is that we need to better train and pay our police. I do fully agree that one could receive equal or better training privately, but as far as I know, few if any states require such for obtaining a CHL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inscribed Posted December 31, 2012 Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 Penn and Teller on gun control. I always enjoy their work. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhXOuuHcjbs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egreir Posted December 31, 2012 Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 I hate arguing about stuff like this because it is just not as simple as any ONE point. Gun control has so many caveats that just cannot be ignored. Do I think the government has the right to control what guns I want? Not at all. Do I think just everyone should be carrying guns? Not at ****ing all. People are ****ing stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inscribed Posted December 31, 2012 Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 I hate arguing about stuff like this because it is just not as simple as any ONE point. I think it is that simple. Does freedom of speech, freedom of religion, or freedom of association have any caveats? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egreir Posted December 31, 2012 Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 Yes, of course they do. When you start infringing my rights and freedoms, there is a problem. All rights come with responsibilities, any right can be abused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted December 31, 2012 Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 I think it is that simple. Does freedom of speech, freedom of religion, or freedom of association have any caveats? Constitutionally, it is the "right to bear arms" that shall not be infringed. How about nuclear arms? Should I be permitted, if I have the resources, to build my own nuclear stockpile? How about artillery, tanks, f-22s, belt-fed machine guns, anti-tank missiles, etc.? I am not being outrageous here - I am quite seriously asking if you draw the line anywhere, and if so, where? Because if you don't draw the line somewhere, I have to classify you as absurd on this issue - and if you do draw the line somewhere, then no, it is not that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inscribed Posted December 31, 2012 Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 What about gun ownership infringes on your rights and freedoms? Rights don't come with responsibilities, otherwise they wouldn't be rights. Rights are things you can do whenever you want, however you want, and no one can say a thing about it. To say they can be abused really depends on how you're defining abuse. If I go murder someone with my rifle, that's not abusing my right to own guns, because murder does not fall under that right. You'll have to provide an example of what you consider. Then I will explain how your example is either not a right, or not abuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egreir Posted December 31, 2012 Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 I have a right to expect safety. Allowing idiots to carry guns infringes on that. If everyone had the same knowledge, experience, respect, and education I do on firearms, I would feel safe. But since they don't, I hate the idea that parked next to me in the parking lot could be some dumbass who didn't check the chamber in his loaded 9mm this morning and his weapon discharges, shooting his son through the cheek, and me in the back as I am getting into my vehicle. Rights DO come with responsibilities. You're wrong about that. All freedoms (i hate the word because freedoms are not real freedoms in society) have limitations, following those limitations are therefore your responsibility and come with said rights. I define abuse by taking a right/freedom and using it for improper reasons that the right/freedom was not created for. i.e. buying a gun just because you think it makes you a badass or buying a gun and not knowing how to safely use/secure it. That -is- abusing your rights. I can relate it to FL if you'd like You have a right to be in the Academy if you are a member (you also have responsibilities associated with this right). Being in the Academy to hide from a PK is abusing that right. edit: And again, don't confuse my disdain for the stupidity of humanity with me being against the right to bear arms. I am completely pro-2nd amendment. I just happen to believe whole heartedly that this country has moved so far away from the days that you had a gun in your hand at age 6, respected it, and knew how to handle it. That is not the case anymore and people who shouldn't have guns are getting them. We are not a well regulated militia anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inscribed Posted December 31, 2012 Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 Constitutionally, it is the "right to bear arms" that shall not be infringed. How about nuclear arms? Should I be permitted, if I have the resources, to build my own nuclear stockpile? How about artillery, tanks, f-22s, belt-fed machine guns, anti-tank missiles, etc.? I am not being outrageous here - I am quite seriously asking if you draw the line anywhere, and if so, where? Because if you don't draw the line somewhere, I have to classify you as absurd on this issue - and if you do draw the line somewhere, then no, it is not that simple. Well, Michael Dorn owns an F-4. If you have the resources to purchase a jet or a tank, and have the personnel to operate and maintain that equipment, then more power to you. The new self-driving scout tanks that the Army is currently testing were developed in a guy's backyard that he built himself. Hell, in colonial times, private citizens could purchase their own ships and were required to outfit them with a certain number of cannons for safety and communication. It may be considered absurd nowadays, but what inherently is immoral or wrong about it? I'd have to give a little more thought to the idea of a private nuclear arsenal, outrageous as it may be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.