Discussion: The Second Amendment III

[Kable24]

Actually with good defensive ammunition. the .223 / 5.56 doesn't penetrate as much as common handgun calibers. I personally usually go with hollowpoints and have been messing around with some Hornady V-Max ammo - doesn't make the deepest wound channel but doesn't over-penetrate at all. I live in an apartment, so I tend to worry quite a bit about over-penetration.

I personally prefer buckshot, but birdshot would probably get the job done as well. Either are better than nothing though

I live in an apartment as well and I wouldn't want a stray round going through my neighbors walls if my apartment was being burglarized. I did some research and bird shot seems to be the safest of all home defense choices.
Like the saying goes, "I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it."
"When seconds counts the police are minutes away."
I have to laugh when people just think help will be there in an instant. I believe we are responsible for ourselves and our own safety. I don't live in fear. I'm just not going to be a victim if someone decides to hurt me or someone I care about.

 

[Grievous]

Here's a thought. What about training? What I mean is, right now, as far as I know, you don't need to complete any kind of training course in order to own a gun. Given how dangerous a gun is, shouldn't we require everyone to complete some sort of training course? Something that would teach them proper handling, firing, safety, and securing of their weapon? Something along the same lines of what the military and police forces put their recruits through. Let's face it, an untrained person with a gun is pretty much an accident waiting to happen. I would even be all for putting them through something intense, giving them a taste of what it would be like to actually have to shoot someone. I think this would greatly reduce the number of accidental shootings and deaths.

You hear people all the time talking about how they were raised to understand and respect guns. Of course that would lead to them becoming responsible gun owners. Yet, after one of these shooting, people panic and rush out to buy a gun. Did they even bother to learn how to use it properly? I'd doubt it. They buy it so they feel safe. Then it gives them a false sense of security. Now you have a scared, untrained person with a lethal weapon. That doesn't really inspire my confidence.

What do you guys think? Should proper training be part of the purchase process?

I'm sure someone would say that all that training do was enable people to be better killers. There are no easy answers in a debate like this.

 

[Phallic]

Here's a thought. What about training? What I mean is, right now, as far as I know, you don't need to complete any kind of training course in order to own a gun. Given how dangerous a gun is, shouldn't we require everyone to complete some sort of training course? Something that would teach them proper handling, firing, safety, and securing of their weapon? Something along the same lines of what the military and police forces put their recruits through. Let's face it, an untrained person with a gun is pretty much an accident waiting to happen. I would even be all for putting them through something intense, giving them a taste of what it would be like to actually have to shoot someone. I think this would greatly reduce the number of accidental shootings and deaths.

You hear people all the time talking about how they were raised to understand and respect guns. Of course that would lead to them becoming responsible gun owners. Yet, after one of these shooting, people panic and rush out to buy a gun. Did they even bother to learn how to use it properly? I'd doubt it. They buy it so they feel safe. Then it gives them a false sense of security. Now you have a scared, untrained person with a lethal weapon. That doesn't really inspire my confidence.

What do you guys think? Should proper training be part of the purchase process?

Training is required to carry a firearm in every state but 4. The course I took had both live-fire training as well as a 6 hour lecture on relevant laws, primarily on legal situations vs illegal situations to use deadly force (it's relatively straight forward). I can understand a requirement for that if a person desires to carry a weapon legally. I'm not so sure about as a requirement just to own one. Similarly, you don't need a driver's license to buy a car, but you do need one to drive one onto public streets. Gun accidents are way down on the list of accidental deaths - behind swimming pools and food poisoning.

Most of the people panic buying are people who already own guns with a few new gun owners sprinkled in. I don't know if I'd say that I panic bought given I already owned my AR15 prior to the Connecticut shooting, but I did buy several 30 round mags afterwards.

Here's an idea that I've heard thrown around. How about tax incentives to purchasing gun safes as well as taking training courses?

What you're suggesting here is at least more reasonable than some people who just want an outright ban and I can respect that.

 

[Phallic]

I don't think guns should be banned either, but I do think we do need to do something. Same with mental health problems which ar, IMO, a larger problem. I keep seeing the argument made that the amount of deaths from guns is so small that it's not worth bothering over, yet apparently important enough to suggest arming every school in the US. To me, one death is too many, let alone the national average of 87 gun related deaths a day.

Guns always seem so untouchable, in any form. You can allow the gov to spy on it's own ppl with the patriot act. Carpet bomb other countries. Try and limit free speech, and mediums protected therein (art, games, movies, TV). Limit religion, sexuality, and so on. However, touch guns? "Over our dead bodies!" It's odd how hard that freedom is fought over the others, even over the tiniest of concessions. Same oddity with teachers. They can be arrested for spanking a child, but it's encouraged they pack heat.

I see nothing wrong with a balanced approach. Limiting sales of guns over a certain ammo clip size, and make checking the mentally stablity of gun owners a part of the conversation. It doesn't have to be "ban guns", or "arm everyone". We shouldn't force responsible gun owners to give their guns up, just as they shouldn't force us to pick one up. However we have to quit kicking the ball down the road, keeping gun related topics as a can't touch issue, and act like everythings fine as is. It's not just guns either, people can, and have used bombs, knives, ect. as well. That however doesn't mean because people can use other weapons that it excuses guns from the issue at hand.

Legal gun owners already aren't to blame for these types of tragedies considering more than 99% of all legal gun owners will never commit a violent crime with their firearms. They aren't the one's forcing anyone to own a gun. If anybody is, it's the scumbags out there who buy them illegally to begin with.

I don't think it's that guns are untouchable, but rather many of the gun control proposals have already been tried and are in effect in several states (California, Chicago, Washington DC, New York etc.) with very few results. The reason for this is because an overwhelming majority of crimes are committed by people who have no regard for the law - the types who wouldn't be too happy to volunteer for fingerprinting or pay the higher prices, which is required to legally purchase a gun. While you may prevent the < 1% of legal gun owners who commit an offense (over-generalization given this implies he couldn't just use a knife or some other means), is punishing the remaining > 99% of gun owners who are law abiding really the answer here? There will always be people who abuse their freedom, and those people deserve to be punished.

Your analogy with teachers isn't exactly fair. Spanking a child is inflicting physical harm. Simply having a holstered, concealed firearm does nothing to harm anyone.

The magazine capacity limitations sound good on paper, but in practice they do very little. There have been numerous studies on this particular topic, including one done by Virginia Tech, that concluded that the same amount of damage would have been done had the shooters used a 10 round magazine or even a revolver with speed-strips. After 10 minutes of practice in a mirror, virtually anybody can reload a firearm in a matter of seconds - hardly enough time for people cowering to rush the shooter. Remember that Jared Loughner's Glock jammed, due to the generally less reliable 33 round magazine that he used, which is why people were able to stop him.

If one could provide convincing evidence that a magazine capacity limit would significantly reduce the number of deaths, then I would be first in line to advocate for this. We have plenty of historical examples to draw from, and none have clearly shown this to be true.

It could just be the libertarian in me, but I am very wary of giving up individual liberties unless the case is compelling. For myself and a huge number of people in this country, that just isn't so. As it stands here, if all current gun laws were enforced perfectly, no violent criminals would have guns. On the gun issue, focus on better enforcement makes more sense to me.

 

[Hotwire]

Training is required to carry a firearm in every state but 4. The course I took had both live-fire training as well as a 6 hour lecture on relevant laws, primarily on legal situations vs illegal situations to use deadly force (it's relatively straight forward). I can understand a requirement for that if a person desires to carry a weapon legally. I'm not so sure about as a requirement just to own one. Similarly, you don't need a driver's license to buy a car, but you do need one to drive one onto public streets. Gun accidents are way down on the list of accidental deaths - behind swimming pools and food poisoning.

Most of the people panic buying are people who already own guns with a few new gun owners sprinkled in. I don't know if I'd say that I panic bought given I already owned my AR15 prior to the Connecticut shooting, but I did buy several 30 round mags afterwards.

Here's an idea that I've heard thrown around. How about tax incentives to purchasing gun safes as well as taking training courses?

What you're suggesting here is at least more reasonable than some people who just want an outright ban and I can respect that.

The training I'm suggesting wouldn't just be using the gun. It would be proper gun safety. Things that I was taught in army basic training. Things cops are taught. Then go into the laws that dictate how you can use the gun. When lethal force is allowed, things like that. Move into how to properly secure your guns. Things of that nature. Maybe even maintenance. I think we can all agree that an gun that is not properly maintained can be a danger to the person firing it.

Also, since guns are registered, as cars are, perhaps they should be subjected to inspections, registration renewal, and insurance? Just like cars. Keep in mind, I'm for complete gun registration. A federal data base of every gun serial number out there. As well as a better method of stamping a serial number into a gun to prevent it from being removed.

 

[Phallic]

The training I'm suggesting wouldn't just be using the gun. It would be proper gun safety. Things that I was taught in army basic training. Things cops are taught. Then go into the laws that dictate how you can use the gun. When lethal force is allowed, things like that. Move into how to properly secure your guns. Things of that nature. Maybe even maintenance. I think we can all agree that an gun that is not properly maintained can be a danger to the person firing it.

Also, since guns are registered, as cars are, perhaps they should be subjected to inspections, registration renewal, and insurance? Just like cars. Keep in mind, I'm for complete gun registration. A federal data base of every gun serial number out there. As well as a better method of stamping a serial number into a gun to prevent it from being removed.

Gun safety classes should definitely be encouraged, perhaps even by the government through tax incentives etc. It's something worth looking into. I'm wary on making it a requirement, but it is worth thinking about.

With the exception of a handful of states, guns for the most part are not registered.

From my understanding, the argument against registration is that it has historically led to a confiscation of all firearms. While doing so in the USA would likely result in armed insurrection, something nobody wants, and is very unlikely to occur, many people would rather the government not know who owns the guns.

I don't necessarily believe that is the case, just relating what some believe. What does worry me about registration, however, are cases similar to what has happened in various parts of the country with media outlets publishing all the addresses of gun owners in states where such registration does exist. There are privacy issues at play with that.

I'm sure you can imagine why this presents both a public safety problem as well as the safety of the gun owners themselves.

 

[Hotwire]

Your analogy with teachers isn't exactly fair. Spanking a child is inflicting physical harm. Simply having a holstered, concealed firearm does nothing to harm anyone.

http://news.yahoo.com/man-accidentally-shoots-self-buttocks-gun-falls-pocket-082826134.html

In that story, the person with the gun was the one who got shot. Now, just imagine it that had happened in a room of 4-5 year-olds? This is probably my biggest concern with letting teachers carry a concealed weapon.

 

[Hotwire]

With the exception of a handful of states, guns for the most part are not registered.

From my understanding, the argument against registration is that it has historically led to a confiscation of all firearms. While doing so in the USA would likely result in armed insurrection, something nobody wants, many people would rather the government not know who owns the guns.

I don't necessarily believe that is the case, just relating what some believe. What does worry me about registration, however, are cases similar to what has happened in various parts of the country with media outlets publishing all the addresses of gun owners in states where such registration does exist.

I'm sure you can imagine why this presents both a public safety problem as well as the safety of the gun owners themselves.

True. However, by registering every serial number and matching it to a licensed owner, any serial number that falls into a pool that are not matched to an owner is easily labeled an illegal firearm, then flagged in the database. Any cops come across it, the person with it goes to federal prison for 15-20 years with no parole. No exceptions. I think if you started locking people up for that length of time for simply possessing an illegal firearm, you'd see criminals starting to shy away from them.

 

[Phallic]

http://news.yahoo.com/man-accidentally-shoots-self-buttocks-gun-falls-pocket-082826134.html

In that story, the person with the gun was the one who got shot. Now, just imagine it that had happened in a room of 4-5 year-olds? This is probably my biggest concern with letting teachers carry a concealed weapon.

We can all agree that this man was a moron and should not be carrying a dangerous weapon of any kind.

That said, these incidents don't in any way reflect CCW holders at all.

Reminds me of the DEA agent who shot himself in the foot. This was actually in a room full of kids. Even trained federal agents have times when they prove themselves to be quite incompetent on the gun safety front.

What can you say, some people are morons.

I would hazard a guess, based on the precedent CCW holders have of being overwhelmingly law abiding and responsible, that these cases would be exceedingly rare. Here in Oregon, CCW holders are allowed to carry concealed onto school property. Aside from a shooting a while back in Springfield (and this was done by a student), we haven't had any issues with that.

If necessary, have teachers who wish to carry to take additional courses on that. I don't personally find that necessary given that, as I said, we haven't had any problems at all with CCW holders in schools. I believe California, suprisingly, is another state that allows CCW holders to carry into schools. No problems there with legal CCW holders either.

 

[Hotwire]

We can all agree that this man was a moron and should not be carrying a dangerous weapon of any kind.

That said, these incidents don't in any way reflect CCW holders at all.

Reminds me of the DEA agent who shot himself in the foot. This was actually in a room full of kids.

What can you say, some people are morons.

I would hazard a guess, based on the precedent CCW holders have of being overwhelmingly law abiding and responsible, that these cases would be exceedingly rare. Here in Oregon, CCW holders are allowed to carry concealed onto school property. Aside from a shooting a while back in Springfield (and this was done by a student), we haven't had any issues with that.

I'll put it this way, I would not want either of my daughters in a class room where the teacher had gun on them. Look up some stories on unstable teachers going nuts on their students. Are they rare? Sure. Do they represent all teachers? Not at all. Does the idea of one of them having a gun on them when they go nuts scare the s*** out of me? F*** yes, it does!

Also, think of what arming a teacher is asking them to do. It's asking them to take on a role of soldier/policeman/security guard. There are people who train their entire career in those fields who, when the s*** hits the fan, they are unable to react to it. Now, some are suggesting adding that role to a teacher's already stressful job and expect that they would be able to handle it? I think it's incredibly unreasonable. You want armed security in schools, at least hire a professional. Improve the chances they'll be prepared for and able to respond to a situation.

 

[Phallic]

I'll put it this way, I would not want either of my daughters in a class room where the teacher had gun on them. Look up some stories on unstable teachers going nuts on their students. Are they rare? Sure. Do they represent all teachers? Not at all. Does the idea of one of them having a gun on them when they go nuts scare the s*** out of me? F*** yes, it does!

Also, think of what arming a teacher is asking them to do. It's asking them to take on a role of soldier/policeman/security guard. There are people who train their entire career in those fields who, when the s*** hits the fan, they are unable to react to it. Now, some are suggesting adding that role to a teacher's already stressful job and expect that they would be able to handle it? I think it's incredibly unreasonable. You want armed security in schools, at least hire a professional. Improve the chances they'll be prepared for and able to respond to a situation.

Arming teachers isn't necessarily the only solution, just one potential one. Hiring professional security is fine, so long as the district can afford it. I don't think all teachers should be armed, and certainly none should be forced to. I'm sure there are many who would be willing to assume the additional responsibility.

I can understand your fear. I suppose the question to ask is: Is the alternative better? Would you rather take the risk of having nobody there to defend your children should a scumbag P.O.S. decide to shoot up the place?

Not trying to disparage you - you may feel that it is worth the risk. And that's your right as a father. Just something to think about.

 

[cherokeesam]

As the father of a ten-year old, I can honestly say I wouldn't feel safe at all with any of my son's teachers packing heat. The vast majority of teachers are lefty "peace, love and understanding" types anyway --- at least, that's the stereotype, and I see far more teachers fitting that profile than not --- and would absolutely quit their jobs if they were asked/told to bring guns into the classroom.

Armed resource officers in elementary schools would be the best solution for frontline defense, imho. The vast majority of middle schools and high schools already have them; it's just that nobody thought they were needed in elementary schools, until December 2012.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Are people really saying armed guards should be posted at every school just in case a madman shows up with a gun and goes on a random killing spree?

What if someone shoots up a daycare or a nursing home? Are they going to get armed guards too?

 

[cherokeesam]

Are people really saying armed guards should be posted at every school just in case a madman shows up with a gun and goes on a random killing spree?

What if someone shoots up a daycare or a nursing home? Are they going to get armed guards too?

Again: armed guards are already there at middle schools and high schools. Along with metal detectors, locker searches, and other police-state necessities. Like it or no, they've been there for years. Newtown is just the first widely publicized incident that shows we probably want/need to extend that armed guard coverage to elementary schools (and yes, day care) as well.

 

[Hotwire]

...and other police-state necessities.

That's a scary statement.

 

[Belvedere]

Perhaps it's because I live in a country with some of the most restrictive gun legislation on the planet, but I cannot stress how abhorrent I find the idea of having to arm educators. Especially in elementary schools.

With each gun we hastily push into the hands of our teachers and public servants in response to these mass-shootings, we lay the foundation for future ones. I can understand why it might to appeal to some, it surely is a stirring piece of populist rhetoric, but those guns could just as easily be turned upon the children as they could be would-be attackers.

 

[Fading]

I'll put it this way, I would not want either of my daughters in a class room where the teacher had gun on them. Look up some stories on unstable teachers going nuts on their students. Are they rare? Sure. Do they represent all teachers? Not at all. Does the idea of one of them having a gun on them when they go nuts scare the s*** out of me? F*** yes, it does!

Also, think of what arming a teacher is asking them to do. It's asking them to take on a role of soldier/policeman/security guard. There are people who train their entire career in those fields who, when the s*** hits the fan, they are unable to react to it. Now, some are suggesting adding that role to a teacher's already stressful job and expect that they would be able to handle it? I think it's incredibly unreasonable. You want armed security in schools, at least hire a professional. Improve the chances they'll be prepared for and able to respond to a situation.

Agreed. You also have take the element of surprise into account. This isn't a home where you hear the intruder kicking your door in, and have time to prepare. We're talking students of the school, or a young man walking through a large building. These acts often have been atleast somewhat planned, by ppl not only unafraid to die, but planning on it. Maybe even wearing Khevlar.

Personally, I'd rather we figure out a solution that stops these situations before they start. However, if we do arm our schools, I'd rather it be someone who has guard duty as their sole job. An attacker could easily waltz into a classroom, weapon drawn, and shoot the teacher before he/she even knows whats going on. I'd rather we not train our teachers to be gun slingers on constant alert first, and educators second.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Again: armed guards are already there at middle schools and high schools. Along with metal detectors, locker searches, and other police-state necessities. Like it or no, they've been there for years. Newtown is just the first widely publicized incident that shows we probably want/need to extend that armed guard coverage to elementary schools (and yes, day care) as well.

Have you been to a high school? If you have, you'd probably notice that it's quite different than an elementary school. Drugs, violence, sex, etc. The police aren't there solely to make sure no one shows up to shoot the place up.

And the irony is that not too long ago we were questioning for the need of cops at high schools. I still question the need for them at middle schools.

 

[Grievous]

If teachers were allowed to pack heat on the job what would keep people in other forms of work wanting the same treatment? If teachers get guns then you might as well arm everyone that works in a public enviroment. I would hate the thought that anywhere I go I have worry if the person I'm doing business with doesn't snap or whatever the case might be and deciede to pull a gun on me.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Perhaps it's because I live in a country with some of the most restrictive gun legislation on the planet, but I cannot stress how abhorrent I find the idea of having to arm educators. Especially in elementary schools.

No sane, sensible person is making that argument.

 

[Hotwire]

If teachers were allowed to pack heat on the job what would keep people in other forms of work wanting the same treatment? If teachers get guns then you might as well arm everyone that works in a public enviroment. I would hate the thought that anywhere I go I have worry if the person I'm doing business with doesn't snap or whatever the case might be and deciede to pull a gun on me.

This makes a fair point. If you had everyone armed, you're pretty much sitting on a powder keg just waiting for it to blow. "A person is smart. People are dumb panicky animals and you know it." One of my all time favorite movie quotes. I would not want those panicky people being armed. Panicky people would tend to be a bit trigger happy.

 

[Phallic]

This makes a fair point. If you had everyone armed, you're pretty much sitting on a powder keg just waiting for it to blow. "A person is smart. People are dumb panicky animals and you know it." One of my all time favorite movie quotes. I would not want those panicky people being armed. Panicky people would tend to be a bit trigger happy.

Many of them are already armed. If what you say is true, then CCW holders would be shooting people left and right.

 

[Victarion]

This makes a fair point. If you had everyone armed, you're pretty much sitting on a powder keg just waiting for it to blow. "A person is smart. People are dumb panicky animals and you know it." One of my all time favorite movie quotes. I would not want those panicky people being armed. Panicky people would tend to be a bit trigger happy.

The majority of the shootings that people hear about are school related. It doesn't make any sense to arm people who aren't teachers/school security staff.

 

[Hotwire]

Many of them are already armed. If what you say is true, then CCW holders would be shooting people left and right.

From a 2010 article I found, somewhere north of 6 million people have a CCW permit. Not even 2% of the population. Add to it that they're a bit more spread out. Would you honestly feel safe with all of them in one place if the s*** hit the fan? Think about it. Remember the shooting that happened outside the Empire State building? The cops opened fire on the suspect and they hit 9 bystanders. These are trained professionals. People who are put through extensive training. People put through repeated training and qualifications. And they hit 9 bystanders. Now, let's face it, your average CCW holder has probably not gone through anything that extensive or consistent. How well do you think they would handle an actual shoot out?

 

[cherokeesam]

If teachers were allowed to pack heat on the job what would keep people in other forms of work wanting the same treatment? If teachers get guns then you might as well arm everyone that works in a public enviroment. I would hate the thought that anywhere I go I have worry if the person I'm doing business with doesn't snap or whatever the case might be and deciede to pull a gun on me.

Scenario 1: person pulls a gun on you, for whatever reason, legally or illegally, whatever. You have a gun, too, and are able to defend yourself. Maybe you live, maybe you die; just depends on who's the quicker shot.

Scenario 2: person pulls a gun on you, for whatever reason, legally or illegally, whatever. You don't have a gun on you. R.I.P. you.

In all seriousness: Which scenario sounds better to you?