Gun Control Debate

[Maria]

Dave,
That's true... although when my husband was fresh off of active duty and only half trained in hand to hand combat- he accidentally threw someone to the ground at a company volleyball game when someone high-fived at him. That was about 25 years ago and why I encouraged him to take up real martial arts training as soon as it was feasible. Accidental misfires of the hand-to-hand kind are NOT ok.

Frelga,
My husband had to go through days of training to get his concealed carry permit, and it was only issued after an extensive background check. I guess I'm assuming other states have the same rules- which is why I would assume competency in one who has to get that sort of authorization.

Of course, I doubt if the background check they did was as extensive as the one he goes through to get certified to teach judo every year. In order to remain registered with the national organization, all instructors have to pass the background check every year. I assume it's to weed out pedophiles.

The concealed carry permit was only initially good for one year, and now that he's renewed, it's good for five. It took a while between turning in the paperwork and issuance of the new permit, so I assume they did another background check.

[tinwë]

I read something recently, I can’t remember where, but it was written as an “open letter to the women in front of me at the grocery store” type of thing explaining why she should not only not be scared that someone was legally carrying a concealed firearm in the line behind her, but she should thank him for making her more safe. He explained, very nicely and rationally, that he was not a threat to her, that he was not going to shoot her or her children, but if someone did threaten them he would be there to protect her.

I really wanted to respond that I would not feel safer knowing this person was behind me, because I do not know them, do not know what kind of training they have had to deal with that type of situation, and most importantly, I do not know how they would respond when the adrenalin rush of an active shooter situation actually hit them. And frankly, neither do they unless they have actually been there. Would they use their weapon to stop the shooter or would they just start popping off caps in every direction, possibly hitting me or another innocent bystander? The fact is the only people I trust with guns in public places are trained law enforcement officers, and even then I have my doubts. Guns do not make me feel safer, period.

My husband had to go through days of training to get his concealed carry permit, and it was only issued after an extensive background check. I guess I'm assuming other states have the same rules- which is why I would assume competency in one who has to get that sort of authorization.

I’m curious to know if your husband felt the training needed for the permit was adequate for someone to respond effectively in an active shooter situation? I know your husband has military experience, which is the kind of training I think one needs for that type of situation, but for a civilian who has had no such experience, do you think the training required for the permit was adequate for that sort of competency?

Here in North Carolina to get such a permit you have to take a 16 hour course which includes demonstrating competency in actually firing a weapon, as well as knowledge of the laws. I think that’s a good thing, certainly a step in the right direction, and in fact I think that ought to be a bare minimum requirement for anyone who wants to own a gun, much less get a concealed-carry permit. But I certainly do not think that it qualifies a person in any way to be s responder to an active shooting situation.

[Lalaith]

I know that LEOs are required (at least at my husband's department) to qualify with their weapons on a quarterly basis (I believe, might be twice a year). That demonstrates proficiency in using the firearm. Additionally, they have yearly training (might be twice a year) in defensive tactics, which includes simulated shooting situations with simulated guns and ammunition.

Do I think the average citizen would qualify as well-trained in shooting a firearm in an emergency situation? No. I don't think that's possible for everyone to achieve anyway. Some people will simply be unable to respond effectively in an emergency situation. I tend to be quite calm in emergencies, but I don't know that I could use a firearm effectively and safely.

[Maria]

tinwë,
He says no, the "class" he took was more about learning the laws about concealed weapons, and the firearms part was proving to the instructor you already knew how to handle and fire the gun safely. A person who had not already learned marksmanship and gun safety would not have passed.

They don't teach people about when it is appropriate to respond with deadly force. They don't get into that at all. They just teach you the laws about when and where you can wear the gun and where you can't, and make sure you know how to use it safely. And to inform police officers that you have one ASAP! Marksmanship and how to draw the gun are things you have to practice on your own time.

So, it isn't as comprehensive as I thought it was. I'm kind of disappointed.

I watched a documentary on disasters once, and they claimed that most people will freeze in an unexpected emergency. Only 10 percent can be expected to act quickly, decisively and correctly to alleviate the emergency. It's just the way people's brains are wired. I wouldn't expect that people toting weapons would be any different. All but about 10% are going to just freeze in shock.

I've been in an emergency situation a couple of times before, and time slowed for me. Apparently. I had all the time in the world to figure out what to do and how to do it. AND do it. Apparently, most people aren't like that. That's just how it is.

[tinwë]

Thank you Maria. That’s what I kind of figured. I haven’t talked to anyone here (in NC) who has taken the course, but I can’t imagine a 16 hr class would be enough training for an emergency situation. I tend to agree with what Frelga said earlier, that anyone who feels the need to carry a weapon in public, and thinks they are capable of defending themselves with it after only 16 hours of training, is inherently dangerous. To everyone, including themselves.

Lali, I wanted to say that I was very encouraged to hear about yours and Freddy’s changing attitudes towards this issue. I remember having this discussion with Freddy on b77 years ago, when I had espoused some of the same ideas that the author of the article you linked to had - namely that we should treat gun safety with at least the same level of concern that we treat automobile safety. I was accused of wanting to take peoples guns away. That has been the rote response from pro-gun advocates towards gun control for so long now that it has taken on the status of religious conviction. I am glad to hear that it is starting to change, at least for some people.

[River]

Maria, I've long suspected that there was someone at the Aurora theater shooting who had a weapon on hand and, when the time came, didn't use it because they froze. There were certainly plenty of people coming forward later lamenting leaving their weapons at home.

In the Umpqua Community College shooting there was an armed bystander who opted not to draw and shoot (yhes, it was a no firearm zone...but he was carrying anyway). He was an Army vet. He calculated he was only going to make things worse. People could get caught in the crossfire and, well, a fired bullet's gotta hit something. Miss your target and it'll land in something or someone else. My point being that responding to these sorts of situations is far more complicated than the wannabe heroes imagine. Even if you're trained, or you're in that 10% that has a natural tendency to act rather than freeze, even then, pulling out a weapon and firing back might not be the best plan.

[Primula Baggins]

He was carrying with the knowledge of the administration, IIRC. The no-firearm zone was pretty porous, so there were probably plenty of others who had not gotten permission.

[Maria]

Even if you're trained, or you're in that 10% that has a natural tendency to act rather than freeze, even then, pulling out a weapon and firing back might not be the best plan.

It constantly amazes me on TV shows- the hail of bullets flying about willy nilly. it's hard to hit something with a pistol compared to a rifle. I can't recall any stats, but I wouldn't want to try it under stress at greater than 20 feet away or so. After those bullets miss the bad guys, they do continue flying until stopped by something or they drop to the ground about half a mile away.

With a rifle, I can hit an inch sized target 300 yards way, consistently. With a pistol, I'd be lucky to hit a 12 inch target 50 feet away. Even if you brace a pistol against something, the round is just naturally more inaccurate due to the short barrel. The rifling in the rifle barrel gets the round spinning as it flies, so it goes in a straighter path. There is rifling in pistol barrels, but less length of barrel to get the bullet spinning well.

If the round isn't spinning when it leaves the barrel, it has a tendency to tumble through the air, imparting unwanted vectors to the flight. That's why muzzleloaders and smoothbore blackpowder weapons aren't restricted to the normal firearms season for hunting deer. They aren't as accurate, and thus much less likely to get a deer so they get extra time to do so.

I don't like pistols. I wouldn't feel confident of hitting what I was aiming at unless I was really close to the target. A shotgun is better for home defense, in my opinion.

[Lalaith]

I prefer shotguns, too, Maria. I feel that I have more accuracy with them. Handguns are truly more difficult to use accurately , imo. (Of course, with the shotgun you have greater leeway anyway because of the scatter pattern of the shot.)

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

I recently read an interesting response to open carry activism, and I'm curious to know how Lali and Maria feel about it (as you are the only two people in this thread who own and use guns, as far as I know).

http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=5826

Philosophy Professor Jack Russell Weinstein suggests: "My proposal is as follows: we should all leave. Immediately. Leave the food on the table in the restaurant. Leave the groceries in the cart, in the aisle. Stop talking or engaging in the exchange. Just leave, unceremoniously, and fast.
But here is the key part: don’t pay. Stopping to pay in the presence of a person with a gun means risking your and your loved ones’ lives; money shouldn’t trump this. It doesn’t matter if you ate the meal. It doesn’t matter if you’ve just received food from the deli counter that can’t be resold. It doesn’t matter if you just got a haircut. Leave. If the business loses money, so be it. They can make the activists pay."

He argues that if you are in fear of your life, you don't stop to pay the bill - but only if you are genuinely in fear of your life, as you would be if there was a fire alarm, or a bomb threat, for example. The foundation of his argument is that the person carrying the gun is unknown to you so you cannot tell character, state of mind or intention, and you are therefore justified in assuming the worst case scenario.

I find that proposal odd. He advocates that if you see someone peacefully, non-aggressively, non-threateningly, bearing arms in a holstered manner without making any indication of causing harm, you should therefore claim you are scared out of your wits and flee the area.

That actually supports what many less terrified people say about the whole gun "control" movement and hoplophobia.

[Primula Baggins]

I disagree. I would do exactly that. Some "good guy" "open carrying" "like a free man" into a business where I am trying to transact something is indistinguishable from a "nut who is going to open fire momentarily."

I am out of there. Absolutely, finally, out of there, probably never to return. Purchases left in cart, transactions left undone. I am out of there.

It's not being terrified. It's being logical. I am not stupid. I have seen what happens.

[Frelga]

Yeah, what exactly would be an "indication of causing harm"?

Meanwhile.

In the past five years, at least six Americans have been shot by dog

Only one person was shot by a cat, but it may have been premeditated..

[tinwë]

Guns don't kill, dogs do? The cat incident does not surprise me in the least.

[yovargas]

"Happened in Florida?"

[axordil]

Too many open carry advocates evidently believe their inner righteousness radiates from them like a saint's nimbus. I've actually heard some use the word "righteous" to describe themselves in conversation, too. I think in basically translates to "I could kill you if I wanted."

[Lalaith]

"Happened in Florida?"

40%!!!


Yeah, the dogs were just being goofy dogs, trying to get all up in their owners' personal spaces. The cat incident? No doubt being a typical cat a**hole and knocking stuff off counters. It just happened to be a gun this time instead of a glass of water.

[Maria]

Wow, I never pictured animals causing accidents with firearms before.
I'm going to have to mention this to my husband. Even though we always keep weapons on "safe" when not in use, I've heard of firearms going off when dropped even when on safe. (That's why I cringe when TV people toss their guns to the ground. )

Animals causing them to get knocked off of something or just plain dropped is a definite possibility.

[Frelga]

My mom's school friend got shot by a boat. He had his hunting rifles propped up as he was pushing the boat into the water. Apparently, the barrel was right against his chest when the gun slipped and went off.

Yes, people owned guns In The Soviet Union (tm) and got killed by them in dumb ways.

[Primula Baggins]

Wow, I thought for sure they would all have been confiscated by the Communist overlords.

[tinwë]

Actually, that's what I was taught have always heard, that America was free because we could own guns and people in the USSR couldn't.