This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Discrimination on... gun holders?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
HiVolt
Why do you need more than 5 rounds in self defense?
Have you ever shot at a moving target? Especially in a combat situation where I'm guessing the gun holder isn't as proficient as the military when it comes to shooting I would say they would need more then 5 rounds. (sidenote= I am in the military and work with weapons every time I work and shoot regularly and would find it difficult to neutralize a moving target with only 5 rounds.)
Wait... what? Moving target? This is about personal self-defense for average citizens; it's not about giving the proper amount of ammunition to soldiers in combat situations.
Chances are, if your target is moving at all, he or she will be moving toward you, not zig-zagging like a gazelle, and not moving away. If they're moving away, you probably no longer need to shoot, and should be trying to get away yourself. If they're firing toward you at range and moving, they have as little chance to hit you as you have to hit them. Take cover and call for help while you wait for a decent shot, provided you end up having to take one.
Post by
207044
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Arxroth
I would ask only one thing, why the average joe would need to own and carry a gun ?
And here the average joe refers to american, who works the office during business hours.
Unless there can be pointed out that there is a real reason and/or potential danger to you and you can decrease it dramatically by having a gun I just can't figure any reason to have and own gun even less if person has any inablity to fully control hes mental balance and is known to have sudden ragebursts after arguments.
I have seen it in some reality tv show ads, that when ppl have guns, they seem to think "I am the king of the world and everyone has to bow before me" and very same guy was totally different lookin when in police custody after some incident. What it tells to me is that from that point of view, guns seems to give ppl false impression of power when they got the gun.
I understand that due to american history, there has been times when having a gun was mandonary due to enviroments were so different and traveling could really have dangers along the trip. However that seems to be history for most of the american working people, so I don't see that as a valid reason. So I would not allow people to carry weapons in cities, not even in cars.
Most importantly, I would say that only authorized people should be allowed to carry guns and they would be obligated due to nature of their job to continuously to maintain and improve their marksman skill with their tools of trade.
There has to be other ways than increasing the numbers of guns to increase public security, rather I would collect guns out and give only to those who show and maintain their status that they don't get ego issues when they have a gun.
IF anyone wonders my so different point of view to matter I can tell that I live in Finland and I have standard Finnish military training, so I know my fair share about firearms & stuff. I do not own gun and I have never been in situation where I would have needed gun neither because of other ppl or wild animals.
Weapons have been in highlights in past year also in Finland and yet it is not the weapon that kills the person, it is the other person who has the gun and pulls the trigger.
What culminates here is that what kind of persons can be considered suitable to own guns ? Only those that pass strict tests about mental stability.
PS. I have not included anything about sportmanship or competitive fireams, because those are usually but not always harmless weapons and I don't want to debate about weapons either, because those are not the focus in the opening post.
Post by
HiVolt
Actually theres very different reasons I have seen cop videos where when cop gets shot at or sees gun. They get so shaky due to adrenaline they miss with entire ten round clip from under 10ft away.
If theres multiple people if they see you pull gun they could take cover leaving only a head target. Which most people experience with a gun but no advanced training hit headsize target 1-5 on a gun range in controlled environment no adrenaline. Seems to me like this means people need better training if they're working in a field that might require them to draw and fire a weapon at a hostile target.
How about someone the fact that sometimes with five rounds they dont go down. Just last week a lady saw a man approaching her house with crowbar. She took kids and hid in attic when man entered and went into the attic coming after her and the kids. She shot him 5 times mostly in the head and uper torso with a 357. hollow points the golden standard of stopping power. Before running out of rounds he still was able to make it back to his car and drive half a mile before passing out. Sometimes five just isnt enough if he had been armed with a gun also her choice of a low capacity pistol could have cost her the life of herself and her children. You need to provide a source for this story, because I don't believe it whatsoever. Nobody gets shot in the head with a hollow-point bullet and lives long enough to drive a car a few miles away from the scene, no matter how unstoppable they may be. A hollow-point to the head is an end-all to anything living.
Lastly its also so the people can be the final check and balance. No government has withstood time with out eventually becoming corrupt no longer representing the people. If the people have no power what keeps the government in check. And once things like guns become okay to attack. What stops them from stopping free speech it was on same document citing that speaking out against the government is inciting violence. Or that search and seizure is arbitrary censoring internet to stop leaking of sensitive story's of government action against citizens. The slippery slope is a logical fallacy. There is no guarantee that limiting gun ownership in any way would ever lead to limiting free speech or any other basic human right.
Post by
207044
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Magician22773
You need to provide a source for this story, because I don't believe it whatsoever. Nobody gets shot in the head with a hollow-point bullet and lives long enough to drive a car a few miles away from the scene, no matter how unstoppable they may be. A hollow-point to the head is an end-all to anything living.
source
This story actually has some very conflicting reports. However, the gun in every story I read was a .38, not a .357. (big difference there) I also read one report that the man had injuries to the chest and abdomen, which contradicts the "5 to the face and neck" story.
Seems to me like this means people need better training if they're working in a field that might require them to draw and fire a weapon at a hostile target.
There is no form of "training" that can overcome the human reaction to both having your life at risk, and the realization that you are possibly about to take another human life. The best you can hope for is simple muscle memory to allow you to draw and fire your weapon while under duress. The calm, calculated responses you see in the movies are just that...movies. In real, active shooter situations, up to 80% of shots fired miss, with even the most well "trained" shooters. This is the main reason why personal defense trains you to shoot for center mass (chest and abdomen), because it is the largest target on a human. This is also why most police duty weapons are a 16+1 High Capacity weapon, with a minimum of 3 loaded magazines.
Post by
Arxroth
There is no form of "training" that can overcome the human reaction to both having your life at risk, and the realization that you are possibly about to take another human life. The best you can hope for is simple muscle memory to allow you to draw and fire your weapon while under duress. The calm, calculated responses you see in the movies are just that...movies. In real, active shooter situations, up to 80% of shots fired miss, with even the most well "trained" shooters. This is the main reason why personal defense trains you to shoot for center mass (chest and abdomen), because it is the largest target on a human. This is also why most police duty weapons are a 16+1 High Capacity weapon, with a minimum of 3 loaded magazines.
Yeah and I really don't want to see situation where start the free for all firefight where nobody knows who is enemy and who is friend after everyone has weapon for their personal safety.
Also I think that there is some research about subject, the gun in hands of untrained personel is the most dangerous for everyone around, as they are not used operate gun.
Post by
UnholyDeciever
of guns to increase public security, rather I would collect guns out and give only to those who show and maintain their status that they don't get
ego
issues when they have a gun.
Who's going to find out if the gun holder has a "ego" ?
Also I think that there is some research about subject, the gun in hands of untrained personel is the most dangerous for everyone around, as they are not used operate gun.
If they have the gun the would / should be enrolled in a gun control class on how to use the weapon and how to safely store etc.
Post by
HiVolt
You need to provide a source for this story, because I don't believe it whatsoever. Nobody gets shot in the head with a hollow-point bullet and lives long enough to drive a car a few miles away from the scene, no matter how unstoppable they may be. A hollow-point to the head is an end-all to anything living.
source
This story actually has some very conflicting reports. However, the gun in every story I read was a .38, not a .357. (big difference there) I also read one report that the man had injuries to the chest and abdomen, which contradicts the "5 to the face and neck" story.
Seems to me like this means people need better training if they're working in a field that might require them to draw and fire a weapon at a hostile target.
There is no form of "training" that can overcome the human reaction to both having your life at risk, and the realization that you are possibly about to take another human life. The best you can hope for is simple muscle memory to allow you to draw and fire your weapon while under duress. The calm, calculated responses you see in the movies are just that...movies. In real, active shooter situations, up to 80% of shots fired miss, with even the most well "trained" shooters. This is the main reason why personal defense trains you to shoot for center mass (chest and abdomen), because it is the largest target on a human. This is also why most police duty weapons are a 16+1 High Capacity weapon, with a minimum of 3 loaded magazines.
Based on the mugshot, I'm going to go with chest and abdomen. Even if he'd been treated by medical personnel before the mugshot was taken, he'd still either have scars, stitches, or bandages on his head and/or neck if he'd have actually been shot in that area.
Fair enough. I understand that nothing really prepares someone for being in a firefight. But, again, we're not talking about military-issued or even police-issued weaponry. This is about what private, non-law-enforcement, non-military citizens are allowed to protect themselves with. The article you've given above clearly shows that five shots is enough to stop a resilient attacker at near point-blank range.
pretty much every major genocide in history was around a time period of weapon bans its how germany got so far if it were not for the non proliferation treaty that would have never happened. The worlds biggest gun ban leading to the worlds biggest genocide ever. Then also ongoing problem to the thousands of deaths in Israel which was created as a result of the war. While its not a guarantee that they will do something it opens the door to radically altering the bill of rights. Its like sleeping with your door locked chances are your not going to get robbed raped but why take the risk and leave the door unlocked.
This isn't some radical alteration of the Bill of Rights. There are already laws that limit the right to bear arms. You're not allowed to own a tank. You're not allowed to own any kind of RPG. You're not allowed to own a minigun. You're not allowed to own biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons. Likewise, there are already laws that limit free speech for private citizens. For instance, you can't run into a crowded room and scream, "Fire!" You can be prosecuted for libelous or seditious speech. You can't hold a protest, even a peaceful one, without filling out the required paperwork and getting permission from local authorities. Unlawful protest is definitely a thing, as the massive amount of arrests during the Civil Rights and Occupy movements will provide evidence for.
This argument of the government usurping control over the people through banning weapons is entirely irrational. Nobody has ever said they were going to ban all the guns, or that they would come and take them away from you. All the evidence says it won't happen, so I don't see why anyone is worried about it happening.
Post by
207044
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
HiVolt
Also I dont think its a immediate threat but inch by inch is how you climb the steepest cliff. It may not be in our generation but 40-60 years down the road our grandchildren are going to be facing the problem. And as natural resources and space become larger problem as we use our oil reserves and outgrow the planets capacity. Governments going to be more ready to act brashly and against the majoritys wishes to serve the few.
Okay, I find this argument a bit strange. You're worried about the next generation and the generations after having to deal with this problem? Do you extend that worry to spending, debt, medical care, environmental issues, internet censorship, and the various other problems they might face? Because it seems to me like those issues are at least equally as important as gun control.
Second, I don't think you're very clear on who the majority actually is.
Question: "Do you have a gun in your home?"
Response:
National - Yes: 45% - No: 53%
This polling source
says that gun owners are the minority, and that they have been for over a decade. If you're going on the NRA's vague assessment of, "almost half," of American citizens owning guns, that poll agrees, but it is still a minority. Being that we live in a democratic republic, majority rules.
Personally, I have guns in my home. I used to hunt when I was younger, and my dad still hunts from time to time. All we own are a couple single shot bolt-action rifles, a few pump-action shotguns, and a .22 revolver. The highest ammunition capacity any of them have is one of our shotguns that holds five (I think, it might be seven) shells, and the revolver which has a five-round capacity. I don't see anything wrong with legislation that bans anything above 8 shots per magazine, because I can't fathom ever being in a situation that would require more than that. That is, unless the zombie apocalypse happens, in which case, I will gladly apologize for my grievous error.
But, I don't see a ban on high-capacity magazines leading to banning all guns, even in the next 50 years, unless there is a massive psychological and cultural shift to that effect; in which case, it likely be the majority that makes the decision. We don't know what the social climate of the future will be, so we can't assume that they will take this any further than we're taking it now. This is about the safety of the present, not the improbable tyranny of the future.
Post by
207044
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Magician22773
Do you extend that worry to spending, debt, medical care, environmental issues, internet censorship, and the various other problems they might face? Because it seems to me like those issues are at least equally as important as gun control.
You should ask this same question to the people that actually have control over these issues as well. Since we have not had a budget passed by our congress in more than, what...3-4 years now? They kicked the can down the road a couple months on the majority of the fiscal cliff issues, yet they need to get this weapons ban done NOW!.....Why?
At "BEST", all that they are going to get here is a ban on the sell of new "assault"-type weapons, and a ban on sale, manufacture, and trade of hi-cap magazines. They cannot and will not ever get an actual "ban" on either of these. (by "ban", I mean actually rounding up the millions of existing weapons and magazines, and removing them from the public).
It just will not happen
, even in today's society, and even with the surge they gained from the shootings, the US public, will not stand for the government trying to pass any law that would require them to surrender any form of currently legal firearm.
In reality, their insistence on cramming this ban through via executive order has done only one thing....put hundreds of thousands of more sporting rifles into the system, added millions of more hi-cap magazines and millions of more rounds of ammo into the public. Gun shops around here are selling out of PALLET loads of hi-cap mags and .223 ammo in a matter of hours. People are waiting in lines for shipments of AR weapons to come in, and buying them as soon as they are unboxed.
Being that we live in a democratic republic, majority rules.
Majority rules is a democracy, which is NOT what we are. You are correct, we are a Democratic Republic, meaning we elect representatives by majority rule, and then they cast votes on our behalf.
IF the government were to pass this bill into law via the proper channels....Through both houses of Congress, and the President, and allow it to be deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court, then, while I would not like it, or support it, I would accept it. But passing it via Executive Order, thus bypassing the Balance of Powers of the 3 branches of government, is going to lead to MASSIVE problems.
The crazy thing is, this has the very definitive possibility of being a self-fulfilling prophecy here. The public believe they should be allowed to be armed to an extent to be able to revolt against a tyrannical government, and a tyrannical move by the government over that idea, could very well spark just that, a revolt.
Post by
HiVolt
Do you extend that worry to spending, debt, medical care, environmental issues, internet censorship, and the various other problems they might face? Because it seems to me like those issues are at least equally as important as gun control.
You should ask this same question to the people that actually have control over these issues as well. Since we have not had a budget passed by our congress in more than, what...3-4 years now? They kicked the can down the road a couple months on the majority of the fiscal cliff issues, yet they need to get this weapons ban done NOW!.....Why? I agree. There are much more important issues to be solved, but this is the one that happens to be in vogue at the moment. Why? Probably because of the astounding events of gun violence over the past two years. But, to me at least, there are a number of more pressing problems that I feel need resolved now.
At "BEST", all that they are going to get here is a ban on the sell of new "assault"-type weapons, and a ban on sale, manufacture, and trade of hi-cap magazines. They cannot and will not ever get an actual "ban" on either of these. (by "ban", I mean actually rounding up the millions of existing weapons and magazines, and removing them from the public).
It just will not happen
, even in today's society, and even with the surge they gained from the shootings, the US public, will not stand for the government trying to pass any law that would require them to surrender any form of currently legal firearm. As far as I've been able to tell, nobody has said that people would be required to surrender any form of currently legal firearm. In fact, I'm pretty certain that nobody has ever said that. Like I said earlier in the thread, the idea that the government will come to someone's house to take away their legally-owned firearms is wholly fabricated from irrational paranoia.
In reality, their insistence on cramming this ban through via executive order has done only one thing....put hundreds of thousands of more sporting rifles into the system, added millions of more hi-cap magazines and millions of more rounds of ammo into the public. Gun shops around here are selling out of PALLET loads of hi-cap mags and .223 ammo in a matter of hours. People are waiting in lines for shipments of AR weapons to come in, and buying them as soon as they are unboxed. To me, this shines some light on the climate of thought surrounding this issue. Why are people buying these things? Why do they need them? Nobody needs an AR or a hi-cap magazine to hunt, and they don't need them for personal protection. So... what am I missing here? It honestly seems like some kind of mass hysteria to me.
Being that we live in a democratic republic, majority rules.
Majority rules is a democracy, which is NOT what we are. You are correct, we are a Democratic Republic, meaning we elect representatives by majority rule, and then they cast votes on our behalf. The representatives we elect are elected by majority. After that, my representative's vote becomes my vote. Therefore, majority does rule, even in a governmental system with elected representatives. Do I always like the decisions my reps make? No. But, such is the failing of our dualistic political system. It's, unfortunately, a very limiting system in respect to ideology; but it's also the only system we have to work with.
IF the government were to pass this bill into law via the proper channels....Through both houses of Congress, and the President, and allow it to be deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court, then, while I would not like it, or support it, I would accept it. But passing it via Executive Order, thus bypassing the Balance of Powers of the 3 branches of government, is going to lead to MASSIVE problems. I guess we'll just have to see which route it takes. Unless I'm out of the loop, no Executive Order to that effect has been signd. Maybe it's been threatened, but many things have been threatened many times with little result. Words are empty until they're signed into law.
The crazy thing is, this has the very definitive possibility of being a self-fulfilling prophecy here. The public believe they should be allowed to be armed to an extent to be able to revolt against a tyrannical government, and a tyrannical move by the government over that idea, could very well spark just that, a revolt. This is where the definition of tyranny comes into play. Personally, I don't define the banning of private ownership of assault weapons and hi-cap magazines as tyranny. I don't think that private citizens need those things for any reason. I've laid out why in my previous posts, but I've heard nothing that makes a good argument for why they would need them. I'd certainly love to hear a reasonable explanation, though... preferably one that doesn't involve the improbable events of the unforeseeable future or ridiculously narrow hypothetical situations.
If this were to become a self-fulfilling prophecy, it would happen because those who want to revolt now will finally have an excuse to do it, rather than try to have a law overturned by going through the proper legal channels to have their voices heard. If the Civil War taught us anything, it's that violent revolts in developed nations against perceived tyranny just don't work. If any group were to revolt in this day and age, when the military controls pilot-less robots that can take out a bunker from a mile away, they would be put down almost immediately.
Post by
Squishalot
And if that isn't clear enough, let's use the police as an example. They're
trained and experienced
in the use of firearms.
I think the bolded part says most of it, other than the fact that they're also undergoing constant professional development and training as well, not to mention the fact that they're also heavily monitored. Should we then monitor civilian weapons and weaponholders as closely as we monitor the police, and have civilians file reports every time they discharge a weapon, and limit availability of firearms to only those who are trained and bring their weapons in for regular checks and serial number correlation, and press charges against those whose weapons mysteriously go missing on a regular basis? That sounds like a remarkably good idea.
Post by
Squishalot
And if that isn't clear enough, let's use the police as an example. They're
trained and experienced
in the use of firearms.
I think the bolded part says most of it, other than the fact that they're also undergoing constant professional development and training as well, not to mention the fact that they're also heavily monitored. Should we then monitor civilian weapons and weaponholders as closely as we monitor the police, and have civilians file reports every time they discharge a weapon, and limit availability of firearms to only those who are trained and bring their weapons in for regular checks and serial number correlation, and press charges against those whose weapons mysteriously go missing on a regular basis? That sounds like a remarkably good idea.
If a trained and experienced police officer needs more than 5 rounds in a magazine to do the job effectively, surely Joe Public also needs more than 5 rounds in his magazines to do the job effectively?
If we need to monitor police officers so closely in order to ensure that their weapons are used appropriately, surely we need to monitor Joe Public as equally?
Basically, if you're going to use the police force as a benchmark for comparison, you need to compare ALL of the characteristics, not just cherry-pick the parts that you want.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
Squishalot
And I'm not talking about all the rest of the restrictions associated with police, I'm talking specifically about their weapons monitoring. We don't keep track of police force firearms in order to stop them from entering your house and strip-searching you, unless you think that's a correlated behaviour.
My earlier posts were about the need to have more than 5 rounds in the magazine of a handgun - if a trained police officer needs more than 5 rounds in a magazine to use a gun effectively against criminals, then, surely, less-trained and less-experienced Joe Public ALSO needs more than 5 rounds in a magazine to use a gun effectively against those same criminals.
Why do you think I was addressing the issue of monitoring the police?
I'm trying to drive home the point that the police are given the ability to use high powered and high-capacity magazines on account of the training provided and the monitoring associated with their armaments. I'm suggesting that it would be reasonable to require that ordinary citizens should also be required to be a) trained; and b) monitored in order to use the same weaponry. However, gun lobbies have consistently pushed back on the concept of regular gun monitoring / checks / tracking of weaponry. Why? If such tracking is good enough for the people we're making responsible for the security of the community without making them feel like they're criminals, why isn't it good enough for the rest of the country?
If people were more responsible with their weapons due to a more stringent monitoring system, you could probably take a great deal of weaponry out of the black market, as well as tighten up security and ensure that weapons aren't stolen / misplaced from those who aren't keeping regular track of their firearms.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
207044
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Magician22773
I'm trying to drive home the point that the police are given the ability to use high powered and high-capacity magazines on account of the training provided and the monitoring associated with their armaments.
One of my best friends is a cop, and you could not be more misinformed about the ways, and especially the reasons, their duty weapons are handled.
First off, the ONLY weapons that the officer has that are checked in any way, are their duty weapons, usually 1 sidearm, 1 concealed backup, and 1 rifle or shotgun. Any personal weapons are handled just like any other ordinary citizen, including background checks and laws.
Second, their duty weapons are checked mostly for proper maintenance and cleaning. They are also checks to make sure that an officer only carries his assigned weapons while on duty, so that any evidence in a shooting can be identified.
Third, an officer usually only has to go through a Q-course, at most, 4 times a year. My friend only has to Qual 2 times, 1 day, and 1 night. Each Q-course is only 50 rounds, from different positions, and different shooting styles. Believe me, its not hard.
Now, by comparison, a typical range day for me or many of my club friends might consist of 1000 rounds or more. This is once every month. On any given weekend, we may go through 500 rounds just plinking cans. Not to mention, many of my club buddies play Air-soft. And I an not talking about the clear plastic toys you buy at wal-mart. We all have full metal, exact replica, guns. And they fire a 6mm plastic pellet at up to 600fps. I literally wear a standard issue bulletproof flak-vest when we play, just to reduce the whelps. We have a 5000 sq ft warehouse set up with multiple Close Quarter Combat scenarios. This amounts to another 500-1000 rounds of training....and we play every Saturday.
My point here is, I can assure you, I have more firearms training than 90% of the cops on the street today do. And I know hundreds of people that have 3 times the skills that I do. Yes, many are LEO's, or military, but many more are just common citizens, that enjoy shooting. We really do not even look at what we do as "training"...its a hobby, and that hobby just happens to be firearms.
Post by
Squishalot
Welcome back Magician.
First off, the ONLY weapons that the officer has that are checked in any way, are their duty weapons, usually 1 sidearm, 1 concealed backup, and 1 rifle or shotgun.
I wasn't trying to imply at all that their personal weapons are checked at all. The key point is that there is a continuous log of their assigned weapons, and of the weapons cache for a police station generally.
They are also checks to make sure that an officer only carries his assigned weapons while on duty,
so that any evidence in a shooting can be identified
.
So, to be clear, there is an ability to cross-check a officer's assigned weapons and munitions back to an officer.
you could not be more misinformed about the ways, and especially the reasons, their duty weapons are handled
It's fair to say that we live in different jurisdictions, but you would be kidding yourself if you think that logistics officers don't keep track of who has been assigned what weapons, what's gone missing, what has been used, and how frequently they've been used. You yourself suggested that a lot of weapons enter the black market from legal purchases that have gone 'missing'. If there was a legal requirement to bring your guns in for 'stocktake' (for lack of a better term), I'd be willing to bet that you would find a lot less disappearing into thin air, which is my key point.
Even if it's not a regular 'haul-your-arse-to-the-station' checkup every 3 months, regular random spot checks using analytics to identify high-risk people would uncover a lot of either irresponsible or dishonest owners, neither of which you want owning weapons if they're either supplying a black market, or regularly losing firearms.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.