Obama urges tighter background checks on gun buyers

[knapplc]

If you're posting this as a support for people shooting back at shooters, the fact that the person who returned fire was an off-duty police officer is crucial to that scenario.

 

Weekend/casual shooters with gun permits returning fire in a shootout situation can't be counted on to aim that well, and that's the problem. Instead of bullets flying around from the shooter, now you have bullets flying around from the shooter and 1, 2, 5 or 10 people, and inevitably you're going to have more injuries and deaths.

 

Most people don't have the training,either military or law enforcement, to assist them in assessing the situation, and determining what to do. Even then, with that training, not always are the best decisions made.

 

Exactly. And even if they diagnose the situation, the odds of a casual shooter hitting The Bad Guy are pretty remote.

[walksalone]

If you're posting this as a support for people shooting back at shooters, the fact that the person who returned fire was an off-duty police officer is crucial to that scenario.

 

Weekend/casual shooters with gun permits returning fire in a shootout situation can't be counted on to aim that well, and that's the problem. Instead of bullets flying around from the shooter, now you have bullets flying around from the shooter and 1, 2, 5 or 10 people, and inevitably you're going to have more injuries and deaths.

 

Most people don't have the training,either military or law enforcement, to assist them in assessing the situation, and determining what to do. Even then, with that training, not always are the best decisions made.

 

Exactly. And even if they diagnose the situation, the odds of a casual shooter hitting The Bad Guy are pretty remote.

 

Winner Winner chicken dinner...

 

There are too many people, that think this would have had some sort of miraculous hollywood ending if someone would have been able to shoot the guy, before all the damage was done. If nothing else, it probably would have made things worse, because you've got the guy infront of eveyone firing rounds into the crowd, then somebody returns fire from within the crowd, probably scaring people even more, thinking there's another shooter, and just adding to the chaos.

[BIGREDIOWAN]

Now, back to the subject....................They can try and make guns harder and harder to get by making background checks more in-depth, but that'll only keep the guns out of the law abiding citizens hands. Criminals are still going to get guns, there is nothing they can do to stop that and the sooner they realize that the better. Also, I hear the argument all the time, "I support people having hunting rifles, but not assault rifles like AK-47's or AR-15's." Is there really a difference? I can kill someone with a hunting rifle just as easily as I can with a assault rifle. It works vise versa too................I'm sure I could kill a deer with a AR-15 just as easily as I could with a 30-30.

i just disagree with this. i do agree criminals will always be able to get guns. guns that they use in criminal activity (most likely drugs), but these mass murderers are not part of the criminal class. it is them i would want to slow down and deter until they can get mental help. it is not an issue of background checks, it is an issue of making the possession of these guns illegal so police can arrest them; possession would be the crime in and of itself.

 

also, are you saying that the aurora shooter would have done as much damage with a bolt-action rifle as he did with an automatic assault rifle with an extended magazine?

 

those would be my points in favor of stronger gun control.

 

Are you saying that by only a couple people dying from such an attack that's acceptable? Because it's not to me................I don't care if it's one person or fifty it's a tradgedy regardless and one motivated individual is going to do what they want to if they want to. Sure you can make it illegal to possess these guns, but they'll still find ways to get guns. They most likely would get it through the criminal world even if they had a clean background and you made assault rifles illegal. Where there's a will, there's a way.

[carlfense]

Actually, the supreme authority is the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights specifically limit the authority of the Federal Government.

 

Actually, the Constitution trumps the laws of the land. There's an outfit called the "Supreme Court" that determines if the laws is permissible under the Constitution. For info on it, check this site...http://www.supremecourt.gov/

 

 

Then after you stop that, check out Marbury vs. Madison regarding judicial review.

It's even more incoherent when you throw it all together.

 

You seem to be trying to argue in favor of SkersRules comment about the states holding the majority of power. (This is demonstrably false.)

 

In support of this conclusion you say that the federal government is limited by the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. You throw in a line about judicial review and a link to the Supreme Court. Then you add Marbury vs. Madison . . . realizing (for the first time?) that judicial review is nowhere to be found in the Constitution.

 

So . . . to sum up . . . you're trying to argue that states have the majority of power and that is proven by the fact that the federal government is limited by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights . . . and that enforcement of that limitation was invented in an extraconstitutional case that said that the federal government is the sole and final arbiter of constitutionality?

 

Yeah. Good luck with that.

[rawhide]

I had forgotten about this incident:

 

http://www.huffingto..._n_1450313.html

 

If you're posting this as a support for people shooting back at shooters, the fact that the person who returned fire was an off-duty police officer is crucial to that scenario.

 

Weekend/casual shooters with gun permits returning fire in a shootout situation can't be counted on to aim that well, and that's the problem. Instead of bullets flying around from the shooter, now you have bullets flying around from the shooter and 1, 2, 5 or 10 people, and inevitably you're going to have more injuries and deaths.

 

So unless you are an off duty police officer you are a danger to yourself or others if you are carrying a concealed weapon and attempt to halt a violent crime??

 

Did you see the video of the 71 year old man who shot at an armed suspect in a Florida cybercafe? No collateral damage, Wow. But both suspects were apprehended at a local hospital being treated for gsw's. I don't believe this gentleman was a off duty LEO.

 

Granted, not everyone has the training or wherewithall to accept that challenge. If you apply for and are granted a CCW; it would be irresponsible for anyone to carry a weapon without more training than the basic 8 hour course. Does everyone do the extra training? probably not. That's on them.

 

So if I understand this correctly; it's better to be unarmed and a victim than to carry a weapon and defend yourself.

 

found it:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/surveillance-vid-shows-71-year-old-concealed-carry-holder-opening-fire-on-would-be-robbers/

[sd'sker]

Now, back to the subject....................They can try and make guns harder and harder to get by making background checks more in-depth, but that'll only keep the guns out of the law abiding citizens hands. Criminals are still going to get guns, there is nothing they can do to stop that and the sooner they realize that the better. Also, I hear the argument all the time, "I support people having hunting rifles, but not assault rifles like AK-47's or AR-15's." Is there really a difference? I can kill someone with a hunting rifle just as easily as I can with a assault rifle. It works vise versa too................I'm sure I could kill a deer with a AR-15 just as easily as I could with a 30-30.

i just disagree with this. i do agree criminals will always be able to get guns. guns that they use in criminal activity (most likely drugs), but these mass murderers are not part of the criminal class. it is them i would want to slow down and deter until they can get mental help. it is not an issue of background checks, it is an issue of making the possession of these guns illegal so police can arrest them; possession would be the crime in and of itself.

 

also, are you saying that the aurora shooter would have done as much damage with a bolt-action rifle as he did with an automatic assault rifle with an extended magazine?

 

those would be my points in favor of stronger gun control.

 

Are you saying that by only a couple people dying from such an attack that's acceptable? Because it's not to me................I don't care if it's one person or fifty it's a tradgedy regardless and one motivated individual is going to do what they want to if they want to. Sure you can make it illegal to possess these guns, but they'll still find ways to get guns. They most likely would get it through the criminal world even if they had a clean background and you made assault rifles illegal. Where there's a will, there's a way.

i am offended that you would imply that. just because 'where there's a will, there's a way' i suppose we should just make it as easy as possible for people to get guns. why not just hand them out at kids 13th birthdays? make it like some kind of militaristic bar mitzvah.

[BIGREDIOWAN]

Now, back to the subject....................They can try and make guns harder and harder to get by making background checks more in-depth, but that'll only keep the guns out of the law abiding citizens hands. Criminals are still going to get guns, there is nothing they can do to stop that and the sooner they realize that the better. Also, I hear the argument all the time, "I support people having hunting rifles, but not assault rifles like AK-47's or AR-15's." Is there really a difference? I can kill someone with a hunting rifle just as easily as I can with a assault rifle. It works vise versa too................I'm sure I could kill a deer with a AR-15 just as easily as I could with a 30-30.

i just disagree with this. i do agree criminals will always be able to get guns. guns that they use in criminal activity (most likely drugs), but these mass murderers are not part of the criminal class. it is them i would want to slow down and deter until they can get mental help. it is not an issue of background checks, it is an issue of making the possession of these guns illegal so police can arrest them; possession would be the crime in and of itself.

 

also, are you saying that the aurora shooter would have done as much damage with a bolt-action rifle as he did with an automatic assault rifle with an extended magazine?

 

those would be my points in favor of stronger gun control.

 

Are you saying that by only a couple people dying from such an attack that's acceptable? Because it's not to me................I don't care if it's one person or fifty it's a tradgedy regardless and one motivated individual is going to do what they want to if they want to. Sure you can make it illegal to possess these guns, but they'll still find ways to get guns. They most likely would get it through the criminal world even if they had a clean background and you made assault rifles illegal. Where there's a will, there's a way.

i am offended that you would imply that. just because 'where there's a will, there's a way' i suppose we should just make it as easy as possible for people to get guns. why not just hand them out at kids 13th birthdays? make it like some kind of militaristic bar mitzvah.

Sorry you're offended, but you need to get some thicker skin, but there is no difference between any weapon no matter it's purpose. It can still kill a human if the person behind it wants to do so. The numbers don't matter................and now you're going off the deep end and trying to put words in my mouth with how you continued that paragraph. I never said we should make it easier, I also don't live in a fantasy world and think that by making weapons harder to get that it will solve all of our problems. Or by making them illegal to possess it will somehow prevent situations like you're seeing now. I answered your question and proposed my own............that's why it's a discussion.

[sd'sker]

Now, back to the subject....................They can try and make guns harder and harder to get by making background checks more in-depth, but that'll only keep the guns out of the law abiding citizens hands. Criminals are still going to get guns, there is nothing they can do to stop that and the sooner they realize that the better. Also, I hear the argument all the time, "I support people having hunting rifles, but not assault rifles like AK-47's or AR-15's." Is there really a difference? I can kill someone with a hunting rifle just as easily as I can with a assault rifle. It works vise versa too................I'm sure I could kill a deer with a AR-15 just as easily as I could with a 30-30.

i just disagree with this. i do agree criminals will always be able to get guns. guns that they use in criminal activity (most likely drugs), but these mass murderers are not part of the criminal class. it is them i would want to slow down and deter until they can get mental help. it is not an issue of background checks, it is an issue of making the possession of these guns illegal so police can arrest them; possession would be the crime in and of itself.

 

also, are you saying that the aurora shooter would have done as much damage with a bolt-action rifle as he did with an automatic assault rifle with an extended magazine?

 

those would be my points in favor of stronger gun control.

 

Are you saying that by only a couple people dying from such an attack that's acceptable? Because it's not to me................I don't care if it's one person or fifty it's a tradgedy regardless and one motivated individual is going to do what they want to if they want to. Sure you can make it illegal to possess these guns, but they'll still find ways to get guns. They most likely would get it through the criminal world even if they had a clean background and you made assault rifles illegal. Where there's a will, there's a way.

i am offended that you would imply that. just because 'where there's a will, there's a way' i suppose we should just make it as easy as possible for people to get guns. why not just hand them out at kids 13th birthdays? make it like some kind of militaristic bar mitzvah.

Sorry you're offended, but you need to get some thicker skin, but there is no difference between any weapon no matter it's purpose. It can still kill a human if the person behind it wants to do so. The numbers don't matter................and now you're going off the deep end and trying to put words in my mouth with how you continued that paragraph. I never said we should make it easier, I also don't live in a fantasy world and think that by making weapons harder to get that it will solve all of our problems. Or by making them illegal to possess it will somehow prevent situations like you're seeing now. I answered your question and proposed my own............that's why it's a discussion.

you never answered my question, which was if you think that a bolt action rifle would have done as much damage as the ar-15 did. i did not put words into your mouth any more than you did when you implied that i am ok with a few deaths not too many. in fact i did not put any words in your mouth, and you implied i am ok with a few deaths, but not too many. here is where it gets weird. you say that a couple of people dying in an incident like that is not ok, but you do not live in a fantasy world where making weapons harder to get will solve all of our problems. no one thinks it tighter gun control will solve all our problems, but if there is a chance it will prevent some of these mass murders or even just make it harder, then why not? why is a person's 'right' to own ultra-violent guns greater than a person's right to be safe from such a society where such guns are easily accessible?

[rawhide]

Change the Constitution of the United States; simple solution, take away the 2nd Amendment and the others will follow,,,,possibly

 

A 12ga with 00buckshot or a sabot round is a pretty devastating weapon and as "ultra-violent" as a Armalite-15; and you can change the rounds out and go procure dinner, sames as the Armalite

 

 

This same argument has gone on for 2000 years without any help from the USA and our Constitution

[sd'sker]

Change the Constitution of the United States; simple solution, take away the 2nd Amendment and the others will follow,,,,possibly

 

A 12ga with 00buckshot or a sabot round is a pretty devastating weapon and as "ultra-violent" as a Armalite-15; and you can change the rounds out and go procure dinner, sames as the Armalite

 

 

This same argument has gone on for 2000 years without any help from the USA and our Constitution

your fear of limited the second amendment being a slippery slope to restrictions on other amendments is wrongly placed. first, i think we can differentiate and valuated the different amendments needs and worth. administrations have and they seem to be limiting almost all the other first ten amendments except the second:

Some Constitutional Amendments Are More Equal Than Others

 

The point of this litany? The threat of terrorism since 9/11 has prompted government to dramatically narrow the range of our individual freedoms under the Bill of Rights. But despite the shocking toll of gun violence over the past 11 years, the Second Amendment offers more protection today than it did in September 2001. Surely this contrast, this contradiction, is worthy of being part of the national conversation that is taking place in the wake of the latest mass shooting.

Are Second Amendment rights more precious than Fourth Amendment rights or Fifth Amendment rights? Are they more important than First Amendment rights or Eighth Amendment rights? I'd love the president and Mitt Romney to answer those questions and to explain why the War on Terror seems to have bypassed the Second Amendment even as it has redefined the ways that many other constitutional amendments apply to our lives.

 

i am sure the 12ga buckshot is very violent, but the issue is magazine size, reload rates, and fire rates. with an assault rifle, you can just squeeze the trigger and mow down the room creating a continuous stream of bullets. but i am saying some guns should be banned because of their danger and limited use outside mass murder, you seem to be saying since other guns can be dangerous as well, no guns should be banned.

i am not sure what argument you are referencing that you say as been going on for 2000 year, but weaponry and ballistics have advanced way beyond anyone's imagination since the first tommy gun.

 

finally, gun control and drunk driving have nothing in common other than both being public concerns. people seem much more in favor of taking a hard stance on drunk driving than on gun violence. they seem to have enjoyed some success, as well.

[BIGREDIOWAN]

Depends on the round and it's penetration ability. Will it shoot the same amount of rounds? Obviously not, but later on in a seperate post you talk about fully automatic fire. I don't know how many states that's illegal in specifically, but the average person can't own a fully automatic rifle based on federal laws and most state laws. Obviously that's splitting hairs because even if it's semi-auto they can shoot as fast as they can pull the trigger. My issue is, and you can't seem to understand what I'm saying, is that making tighter gun laws WILL NOT stop these types of events. They will occur, so unless the U.S. citizen is ready to give up ALOT of rights, which I know I'm not, there isn't alot we can do about it. How do I know? I've studied active-shooter events, I am an active-shooter instructor, and all the "experts" agree there isn't much we can do to stop it when someone is motivated to do it. All we can do is react to the situation and stop the killing as soon as possible by neutralizing the bad guy. Check out these events and police response before Columbine and then check out our response now. It's a GIANT **** sandwich and we have to take a bite out of it. There's an argument to be made about the mental health care in our country and how we're going about it.

 

Let's say for the sake of argument we have tighter gun control laws and more in-depth background checks....................Joe Smith passes said background check and based on your proposal is given a limited number of weapons to purchase as it is illegal to possess an AR-15 type assault rifle in the United States now. So Joe Smith purchases a 12-gauge Mossberg 590A1 shotgun with an extended magazine on it for hunting purposes. Holds 7+1 of either 00 Buck, birdshot, Slug, whatever..............Joe Smith furthermore has purchased a Glock 22 .40 which holds 15 +1. Joe Smith goes off the deep end one day, but hasn't shown the ability to do something like this in the past. He decides he's going to go to the mall because he's sick of society and all of their crap. He can kill at a minimum 24 people with the amount of rounds that he has. Now if he's carrying shotgun slugs in that shotgun, those can shoot through a cinder block wall based on my experience as a state firearms instructor and from the ballistic testing that I've been involved in. A human body is NOT a cinder block wall, those rounds can go through one human and into another thus raising the possibility for that body count to go higher. So we accomplished nothing by tighting gun laws by :

 

1. Making the background check more in-depth.

2. Limiting what weapons they can purchase.

3. Limiting what weapons they can possess.

4. These are common weapons with not necessarily "high" magazine capacities.

 

Now I will say that it may deter someone who is on the fence about conducting one of these events if the gun laws were tighter, and I use may VERY loosely. It will not deter someone who is motivated to conduct one of these events.

[sd'sker]

Depends on the round and it's penetration ability. Will it shoot the same amount of rounds? Obviously not, but later on in a seperate post you talk about fully automatic fire. I don't know how many states that's illegal in specifically, but the average person can't own a fully automatic rifle based on federal laws and most state laws. Obviously that's splitting hairs because even if it's semi-auto they can shoot as fast as they can pull the trigger. My issue is, and you can't seem to understand what I'm saying, is that making tighter gun laws WILL NOT stop these types of events. They will occur, so unless the U.S. citizen is ready to give up ALOT of rights, which I know I'm not, there isn't alot we can do about it. How do I know? I've studied active-shooter events, I am an active-shooter instructor, and all the "experts" agree there isn't much we can do to stop it when someone is motivated to do it. All we can do is react to the situation and stop the killing as soon as possible by neutralizing the bad guy. Check out these events and police response before Columbine and then check out our response now. It's a GIANT **** sandwich and we have to take a bite out of it. There's an argument to be made about the mental health care in our country and how we're going about it.

 

Let's say for the sake of argument we have tighter gun control laws and more in-depth background checks....................Joe Smith passes said background check and based on your proposal is given a limited number of weapons to purchase as it is illegal to possess an AR-15 type assault rifle in the United States now. So Joe Smith purchases a 12-gauge Mossberg 590A1 shotgun with an extended magazine on it for hunting purposes. Holds 7+1 of either 00 Buck, birdshot, Slug, whatever..............Joe Smith furthermore has purchased a Glock 22 .40 which holds 15 +1. Joe Smith goes off the deep end one day, but hasn't shown the ability to do something like this in the past. He decides he's going to go to the mall because he's sick of society and all of their crap. He can kill at a minimum 24 people with the amount of rounds that he has. Now if he's carrying shotgun slugs in that shotgun, those can shoot through a cinder block wall based on my experience as a state firearms instructor and from the ballistic testing that I've been involved in. A human body is NOT a cinder block wall, those rounds can go through one human and into another thus raising the possibility for that body count to go higher. So we accomplished nothing by tighting gun laws by :

 

1. Making the background check more in-depth.

2. Limiting what weapons they can purchase.

3. Limiting what weapons they can possess.

4. These are common weapons with not necessarily "high" magazine capacities.

 

Now I will say that it may deter someone who is on the fence about conducting one of these events if the gun laws were tighter, and I use may VERY loosely. It will not deter someone who is motivated to conduct one of these events.

i understand this perfectly well. i am not as dense as you assume and you underestimate my intelligence. i could have claimed that you just seem unable to comprehend my points, but i understand that we are just arguing at each other now out of disagreement, rather than you being incapable of understanding my arguments. again, i just happen to disagree with you; as i have said before, reasonable minds can differ. you believe that no matter what, these tragedies will continue; i believe that if something can be done that might help, it is worth it. you say, loosely, that it may, i think that is worth the chance unless some other solution is determined. what i propose seems to be the least restrictive at the moment. guns for defense and hunting serve a purpose, these other guns do not seem to serve a reasonable purpose for the risks they present.

 

you make compelling arguments and perhaps you are right, but i am not convinced. one reason is because i do not understand the purpose of these guns other than mass murdering and i think these psychopaths are more impulsive than motivated. you have mentioned reforming and strengthening mental health institutions as an avenue to help mitigate these atrocities, i strongly agree with that.

 

p.s. i am pretty barrel chested, buck shot ain't got nothing on me.

[walksalone]

So unless you are an off duty police officer you are a danger to yourself or others if you are carrying a concealed weapon and attempt to halt a violent crime??

 

Did you see the video of the 71 year old man who shot at an armed suspect in a Florida cybercafe? No collateral damage, Wow. But both suspects were apprehended at a local hospital being treated for gsw's. I don't believe this gentleman was a off duty LEO.

 

Granted, not everyone has the training or wherewithall to accept that challenge. If you apply for and are granted a CCW; it would be irresponsible for anyone to carry a weapon without more training than the basic 8 hour course. Does everyone do the extra training? probably not. That's on them.

 

So if I understand this correctly; it's better to be unarmed and a victim than to carry a weapon and defend yourself.

 

found it:

http://www.theblaze....uld-be-robbers/

 

I saw that and the news, and all I could think of was, "go grandpa". My mom has two concealed carry permits, one for her.38 the other for her .357 mag. I'm glad there are provisions to allow concealed carry permits. But that being said, would you feel better if somebody who'd received the appropriate training or joe six pack, was attempting to stop a violent crime with his own concealed gun? I'd have to put my money on the individual who's received that training.

 

Do you think he'd have been that accurate in a crowded theater, in the dark, with people fleeing all around him? I'm going to say probably not.

[BIGREDIOWAN]

Depends on the round and it's penetration ability. Will it shoot the same amount of rounds? Obviously not, but later on in a seperate post you talk about fully automatic fire. I don't know how many states that's illegal in specifically, but the average person can't own a fully automatic rifle based on federal laws and most state laws. Obviously that's splitting hairs because even if it's semi-auto they can shoot as fast as they can pull the trigger. My issue is, and you can't seem to understand what I'm saying, is that making tighter gun laws WILL NOT stop these types of events. They will occur, so unless the U.S. citizen is ready to give up ALOT of rights, which I know I'm not, there isn't alot we can do about it. How do I know? I've studied active-shooter events, I am an active-shooter instructor, and all the "experts" agree there isn't much we can do to stop it when someone is motivated to do it. All we can do is react to the situation and stop the killing as soon as possible by neutralizing the bad guy. Check out these events and police response before Columbine and then check out our response now. It's a GIANT **** sandwich and we have to take a bite out of it. There's an argument to be made about the mental health care in our country and how we're going about it.

 

Let's say for the sake of argument we have tighter gun control laws and more in-depth background checks....................Joe Smith passes said background check and based on your proposal is given a limited number of weapons to purchase as it is illegal to possess an AR-15 type assault rifle in the United States now. So Joe Smith purchases a 12-gauge Mossberg 590A1 shotgun with an extended magazine on it for hunting purposes. Holds 7+1 of either 00 Buck, birdshot, Slug, whatever..............Joe Smith furthermore has purchased a Glock 22 .40 which holds 15 +1. Joe Smith goes off the deep end one day, but hasn't shown the ability to do something like this in the past. He decides he's going to go to the mall because he's sick of society and all of their crap. He can kill at a minimum 24 people with the amount of rounds that he has. Now if he's carrying shotgun slugs in that shotgun, those can shoot through a cinder block wall based on my experience as a state firearms instructor and from the ballistic testing that I've been involved in. A human body is NOT a cinder block wall, those rounds can go through one human and into another thus raising the possibility for that body count to go higher. So we accomplished nothing by tighting gun laws by :

 

1. Making the background check more in-depth.

2. Limiting what weapons they can purchase.

3. Limiting what weapons they can possess.

4. These are common weapons with not necessarily "high" magazine capacities.

 

Now I will say that it may deter someone who is on the fence about conducting one of these events if the gun laws were tighter, and I use may VERY loosely. It will not deter someone who is motivated to conduct one of these events.

i understand this perfectly well. i am not as dense as you assume and you underestimate my intelligence. i could have claimed that you just seem unable to comprehend my points, but i understand that we are just arguing at each other now out of disagreement, rather than you being incapable of understanding my arguments. again, i just happen to disagree with you; as i have said before, reasonable minds can differ. you believe that no matter what, these tragedies will continue; i believe that if something can be done that might help, it is worth it. you say, loosely, that it may, i think that is worth the chance unless some other solution is determined. what i propose seems to be the least restrictive at the moment. guns for defense and hunting serve a purpose, these other guns do not seem to serve a reasonable purpose for the risks they present.

 

you make compelling arguments and perhaps you are right, but i am not convinced. one reason is because i do not understand the purpose of these guns other than mass murdering and i think these psychopaths are more impulsive than motivated. you have mentioned reforming and strengthening mental health institutions as an avenue to help mitigate these atrocities, i strongly agree with that.

 

p.s. i am pretty barrel chested, buck shot ain't got nothing on me.

I completely understand what you're saying and hold no negative thoughts towards you. The problem with the internet is we can't display our facial expressions or show what our tone of the message may be. I'm all for some sort of answer, there are way too many of these things going on and I would love for there to be no further bled shed because of some moron that can't deal with his problems. I think we are probably on the same page more than we think.

[BIGREDIOWAN]

So unless you are an off duty police officer you are a danger to yourself or others if you are carrying a concealed weapon and attempt to halt a violent crime??

 

Did you see the video of the 71 year old man who shot at an armed suspect in a Florida cybercafe? No collateral damage, Wow. But both suspects were apprehended at a local hospital being treated for gsw's. I don't believe this gentleman was a off duty LEO.

 

Granted, not everyone has the training or wherewithall to accept that challenge. If you apply for and are granted a CCW; it would be irresponsible for anyone to carry a weapon without more training than the basic 8 hour course. Does everyone do the extra training? probably not. That's on them.

 

So if I understand this correctly; it's better to be unarmed and a victim than to carry a weapon and defend yourself.

 

found it:

http://www.theblaze....uld-be-robbers/

 

I saw that and the news, and all I could think of was, "go grandpa". My mom has two concealed carry permits, one for her.38 the other for her .357 mag. I'm glad there are provisions to allow concealed carry permits. But that being said, would you feel better if somebody who'd received the appropriate training or joe six pack, was attempting to stop a violent crime with his own concealed gun? I'd have to put my money on the individual who's received that training.

 

Do you think he'd have been that accurate in a crowded theater, in the dark, with people fleeing all around him? I'm going to say probably not.

Just recently the NRA pushed to allow you to get your concealed carry here in Iowa easier than it was before. sd'sker this is where I think you and I are closer on the argument then we know. I'm completely against the idea because you used to have to pass a background check, attend a safety class, then show proficiency with your weapon on the range. Now you have to pass a background check and attend an 8-hour safety class and you've got your permit. You have to show ZERO proficiency with the weapon you are carrying........................that's the dumbest most unsafe thing I've ever heard. My wife can't shoot for ****, but she can get a carry permit without showing proficiency with the weapon. Decisions like those put a sour taste in my mouth. It should be mandatory that you show profiency and you further have to have X number of hours of training with said weapon and continue to show profiency to be allowed to carry it.

 

The average law enforcement officer during an officer involved shooting, if they are a 90% and above shooter, will drop into the low 20%'s and low teens due to the stress of the situation. Now most law enforcement officers don't get as much time on the range as they should and most people think we are out there every week, but we get more training than the average person. So I can see both sides of the argument for is Joe Citizen gonna be a crack shot when the proverbial **** hits the fan? Probably not!