Gun Control discussion

[Mother Cocanuts]

4 hours ago, baxus said:

Do you think that regularly going to the range and firing off a few shots is enough of a preparation for you to act calmly and professionally if you "face an immediate threat"?

I don't know how I'd be be able to behave professionally, but yes, I do believe I'd be calm in the face of an immediate threat.

4 hours ago, baxus said:

Do you have some police or military training and experiences that you haven't mentioned?

No.

4 hours ago, baxus said:

Do you have some professional train you?

No. Guns are not that difficult to understand.

4 hours ago, baxus said:

Do you practice simulated situations?

Do you mean that I have a couple of people come over and simulate a robbery or home invasion, and I take shots at them? No. That would be dangerous.

4 hours ago, baxus said:

Hell, I don't know what it would take to get properly trained to use a gun for security or defense.

Learning how to shoot straight. I would learn how to curve my shots, but Morgan Freeman is hard to get in touch with.

4 hours ago, baxus said:

It could just be me, but "regularly firing off a few shots at the range" just does not seem as enough of a preparation.

It's just you. It doesn't have to satisfy your preferences; it need only satisfy mine. It's my gun; it's my welfare.

[baxus]

You are aware saying that learning how to shoot straight is all that's needed to be proficient in using a gun for self-defense makes you sound very naive?

I mean, if it was that easy, it would make every single government the biggest idiots in the world for spending all that money to train their troops when all it takes is a gun range and "regularly firing off a few shots at the range".

And you are either completely disregarding the psychological aspect of actually firing at and possibly killing another human being or you are seeing another person's life as worthless. Since the latter would probably count as some form of psychopathic behavior, I hope it's the former.

[Free Northman Reborn]

3 hours ago, Yukle said:

As a separate cultural issue, why do Americans arm themselves against the possibility of government tyranny? For one thing it's not even close to a fair fight. If Lord Trump decides to eliminate the (majority) of voters who didn't vote for him, guess what? Thousands of predator drones will wipe out neighbourhoods in the space of hours. Your guns will not help you one iota.

The USA has a long history of militarised police who engage in civil forfeiture, a justice system based on plea-bargains rather than fair trials and a privatised prison system that forces elected officials to keep pumping in more prisoners. The USA has imprisoned a quarter of all of the world's prisoners. The super-rich 1% hold 40% of all of your assets and don't have to pay taxes due to loopholes. Your current Emperor, Lord Trump, revels and even boasts of how he dodges taxes saying, "That makes me smart," and he is just the one stupid enough to admit to it. Your government is already tyrannical. Your guns didn't save you.

Your "right" to bear arms was a mistake. Your founding fathers stuffed it up by giving it to you. They made lots of mistakes, either due to outright racism (like the 2/3 compromise), sexism (such as "men" to the exclusion of women) or just oversight (such as the Supreme Court not actually having the authority to declare laws unconstitutional).

They also made excellent foresights, especially the Ninth Amendment, which not nearly enough of you boast about.

I obviously know that the majority of Americans don't really believe the "fight against tyranny" idea... which begs the question - why are you arming yourselves against each other? What was the point of making a single Republic, if you're all at war with your own nation?

In short, your guns are either to fight the government, in which case, you'll lose, or to fight each other in which case... you might as well fragment your Union into hundreds of city-states, as what's the point of a national identity where your own citizens are a literal life-or-death threat - not as part of the transition into a nation-state, but as the finished product and as a fact of life.

If 100 million Americans strongly felt that the government had become tyrannical to the extent of being willing to die to resist it, I'd imagine that their firearms would make them a major force to deal with. Especially if they were spread through the ranks of the military and other institutions too. Besides, the ability to put down an insurgency must be weighed against its cost, and it might well be that at such a point winning an all out war against your own people, involving "Predator drones" and B2 Bombers might not be worth the cost.

The defence against tyranny doesn't work if you number a few thousand. But if you number in the millions, then it becomes a different equation. But we all know this is an extreme scenario, very unlikely to occur in the next few decades or more.

[Rippounet]

13 minutes ago, baxus said:

You are aware saying that learning how to shoot straight is all that's needed to be proficient in using a gun for self-defense makes you sound very naive?

The line "it's my welfare" is a thousand times worse though.
The failure to realize that your having a gun directly or indirectly threatens other people's welfare is both the source of the problem and the reason why it can't be fixed. There is no discussion to be had with anyone who thinks it is all about them. At some point you run into a fundamental opposition between the concept of individual rights versus that of improved collective security.

[Dr. Pepper]

Let's be real.  It's the right who fantasizes about and prepares for a war against a tyrannical government.  Y'all can't even repeal obamacare.  Very unlikely you'll be able to mobilize millions for your imaginary war.  

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

1 hour ago, baxus said:

You are aware saying that learning how to shoot straight is all that's needed to be proficient in using a gun for self-defense makes you sound very naive?

I mean, if it was that easy, it would make every single government the biggest idiots in the world for spending all that money to train their troops when all it takes is a gun range and "regularly firing off a few shots at the range".

And you are either completely disregarding the psychological aspect of actually firing at and possibly killing another human being or you are seeing another person's life as worthless. Since the latter would probably count as some form of psychopathic behavior, I hope it's the former.

I'm ambivalent when it comes to American and their guns, but I'm not sure that is a very fair comparison. As a soldier you are trained to be able to face enemy troops and win, not defend yourself against a home intruder who is most likely some drug addict with little or no weapons training of his own. Not sure how much skill you'd really need to defend yourself effectively against the latter, but it is definitely not the same as facing a battalion of mechanized infantry!

[TrueMetis]

13 minutes ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

I'm ambivalent when it comes to American and their guns, but I'm not sure that is a very fair comparison. As a soldier you are trained to be able to face enemy troops and win, not defend yourself against a home intruder who is most likely some drug addict with little or no weapons training of his own. Not sure how much skill you'd really need to defend yourself effectively against the latter, but it is definitely not the same as when facing a battalion of mechanized infantry or anything like that. 

To a frightened or stressed mind there's not all that much difference.

[Mother Cocanuts]

1 hour ago, baxus said:

You are aware saying that learning how to shoot straight is all that's needed to be proficient in using a gun for self-defense makes you sound very naive?

No. How else would you fire a gun?

1 hour ago, baxus said:

I mean, if it was that easy, it would make every single government the biggest idiots in the world for spending all that money to train their troops when all it takes is a gun range and "regularly firing off a few shots at the range".

I see. You do have a point. Every threat I'll ever face will come from a highly trained martial officer, so it would only makes sense that I be just as highly trained. In all seriousness, let me ask you this: in order to defend yourself in a fist fight, do you need to train in mixed martial arts?

1 hour ago, baxus said:

And you are either completely disregarding the psychological aspect of actually firing at and possibly killing another human being or you are seeing another person's life as worthless. Since the latter would probably count as some form of psychopathic behavior, I hope it's the former.

False dilemma. The psychological component is moot. I don't imagine that its ever manageable dealing with killing someone regardless of how trained you are. The gun is meant to serve my ends, which is to respond to an immediate threat.

[Seli]

40 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

To a frightened or stressed mind there's not all that much difference.

Not to forget sleepy, unsuspecting, unprepared.

[TrueMetis]

21 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

No. How else would you fire a gun?

With a whole lot of training so that you can make the movement without thinking. You have any idea how many guys I've seen forget to switch to semi-auto when they ready their gun? I've only been in the military a year, and the second things get somewhat stressful tons of people forget stuff like that. And that's if the gun's loaded and ready, the amount of time I've seen people take to load (myself included) would get people killed. Shooting on the range means jack shit.

Quote

I see. You do have a point. Every threat I'll ever face will come from a highly trained martial officer, so it would only makes sense that I be just as highly trained. In all seriousness, let me ask you this: in order to defend yourself in a fist fight, do you need to train in mixed martial arts?

Given how many people I've seen knocked the fuck out or seriously injure themselves cause they had no idea what they're doing, I'd say yes. If you've not been trained to fight, don't try. Fuck don't even make a fist, you'll probably break your hand the first time you hit something.

Quote

False dilemma. The psychological component is moot. I don't imagine that its ever manageable dealing with killing someone regardless of how trained you are. The gun is meant to serve my ends, which is to respond to an immediate threat.

This must be the dumbest thing I've ever read, the psychological component is the most important. People freeze up or forget things in moments of stress, they begin to have trouble doing even simple tasks as that stress caused adrenaline to pump. I've had that happen and it's not even remotely as stressful as what I would expect if your attempting to take another humans life.

So how do you deal with that? Train, train, and train some more. Train until your reaction to a stimulus is automatic.

[S John]

4 hours ago, Ran said:

The fantasy of Red Dawn and other such things. That's it, really. And maybe, perversely, the experience of  a decade and more of counterinsurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq showing that standing up to modern military might is entirely possible.

I don't know that the 2nd Amendment was a mistake at that specific point in time, but it certainly is one of a number aspects of the Constitution that has not kept pace with developments that the creators of the Constitution could not even come close to imagining. American democracy is an imperfect model, which is why attempts to replicate it elsewhere have uniformly failed, and why there's a feeling among some scholars that it is in dire straits in the U.S. as well.

It is entirely possible.  I can come up with several reasons why I think guns should be heavily regulated and/or mostly banned, but I'm not really sympathetic to the 'you could never actually stand up to the government' angle.  A bunch of citizens with guns are absolutely not going to go toe to toe with the US military in a pitched battle and win, that's true, but I don't know how you can look at places like Afghanistan or Iraq and say that a comparatively lightly armed organized insurgency could never be an extremely serious problem for any military to overcome, especially in a country as geographically massive as the United States.  An Army can be tied down and outlasted by small arms, low-tech bombs, and guerrilla tactics.  I think the people making that point in favor of the 2A are perhaps a bit dismissive about the massive sacrifice that it would take to have a chance at succeeding, but I don't think it is at all true to say that it is an impossibility either.  

[TrueMetis]

1 minute ago, Seli said:

Not to forget sleepy, unsuspecting, unprepared.

Story time.

4 or so months ago I was doing a field ex. Lots of fun except the rain, we were loaded up with rifles and blanks, doing section attacks and recce's and such. That night we were sleeping, except a few of us on guard duty myself included, and as I'm sitting there in the dark I hear something land a little ways away and the psh of a smoke grenade. Then the staff yell "Gas gas gas" while myself and the others on guard duty managed to get our gas masks on pretty quick. Those asleep not so much. It took 10 or so minutes for everyone to get their shit on. That's most of our flight dead. It's not hard to get a gas mask on, it should take seconds. But when humans get stressed we get stupid. And simple tasks become difficult.

And despite being in a better position than pretty much everyone else, I wasn't immune to this. I was 2IC for this exercise, staff comes up to the IC acting as command on the radio. Calls for us to bug out to a safe point. IC freezes, no idea what to do. He takes too long and it falls to me. I'm not in a good position either, it's dark and I can't wear my glasses in the gas mask. I can see jack shit. Now in retrospect what to do is obvious. Get everyone out of our camp and away from the gas and grab someone to nav us to the safe point. But at the time? My inaction would have gotten everyone who survived the gas attack killed if the enemy had decided to attack. And this was just training, all the stress I felt then would be nothing compared to the real thing.

[Mother Cocanuts]

42 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

With a whole lot of training so that you can make the movement without thinking. You have any idea how many guys I've seen forget to switch to semi-auto when they ready their gun? I've only been in the military a year, and the second things get somewhat stressful tons of people forget stuff like that. And that's if the gun's loaded and ready, the amount of time I've seen people take to load (myself included) would get people killed. Shooting on the range means jack shit.

What does any of this have to do with me? Have you seen me forget to switch from semi-auto when I'm readying my gun? Have you seen me take a long time to load my gun? How many others have you seen do this? Your assessment as it relates to my experience with guns or that of other gun owners means jack shit.

42 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

Given how many people I've seen knocked the fuck out or seriously injure themselves cause they had no idea what they're doing, I'd say yes. If you've not been trained to fight, don't try. Fuck don't even make a fist, you'll probably break your hand the first time you hit something.

And I've seen people with no formal training beat the shit out of people who have had training.

42 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

This must be the dumbest thing I've ever read, the psychological component is the most important. People freeze up or forget things in moments of stress, they begin to have trouble doing even simple tasks as that stress caused adrenaline to pump. I've had that happen and it's not even remotely as stressful as what I would expect if your attempting to take another humans life.

No, this is the dumbest thing ever read. If you've read above, baxus already asked me if I'd be able to remain calm. I'm not you, so stop projecting. Of course, there are people who can forget things in high stress situations without training. And, there are people who can remain perfectly calm in high stress situations. I consider myself to be the latter. But whatever I do lack in "psychological preparedness," I'll take that risk.

42 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

So how do you deal with that? Train, train, and train some more. Train until your reaction to a stimulus is automatic.

My reflexes are fine.

[IamMe90]

4 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

What does any of this have to do with me? Have you seen me forget to switch from semi-auto when I'm readying my gun? Have you seen me take a long time to load my gun? How many others have you seen do this? Your assessment as it relates to my experience with guns or that of other gun owners means jack shit.

And I've seen people with no formal training beat the shit out of people who have had training.

No, this is the dumbest thing ever read. If you've read above, baxus already asked me if I'd be able to remain calm. I'm not you, so stop projecting. Of course, there are people who can forget things in high stress situations without training. And, there are people who can remain perfectly calm in high stress situations. I consider myself to be the latter. But whatever I do lack in "psychological preparedness," I'll take that risk.

My reflexes are fine.

You're so full of shit it's incredible. 

[Mother Cocanuts]

5 minutes ago, IamMe90 said:

You're so full of shit it's incredible. 

Which part?

[Week]

5 minutes ago, IamMe90 said:

You're so full of shit it's incredible. 

A veritable Dan Blizerian wanna-be.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2017/10/03/what-a-macho-gun-packing-instagram-star-did-when-he-was-caught-in-the-las-vegas-shooting/?utm_term=.1c15c4f41a43

[baxus]

 

1 hour ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

I'm ambivalent when it comes to American and their guns, but I'm not sure that is a very fair comparison. As a soldier you are trained to be able to face enemy troops and win, not defend yourself against a home intruder who is most likely some drug addict with little or no weapons training of his own. Not sure how much skill you'd really need to defend yourself effectively against the latter, but it is definitely not the same as facing a battalion of mechanized infantry!

If you scroll through my posts, I never claimed to know what it takes to be sufficiently and properly trained to repel a burglar from breaking and entering.

It's just that I'm amazed how often people go with "I'd shoot him and be done with it" scenario without EVER stopping to consider what it actually takes to do that and that the one getting shot is also a person, drug addict or not.

Truth is, the "drug addict" is most likely after your TV, not your life or your loved ones' lives. And against any "enemy" with some level of skill, most of gun owners are plain old fucked.

1 hour ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

I see. You do have a point. Every threat I'll ever face will come from a highly trained martial officer, so it would only makes sense that I be just as highly trained. In all seriousness, let me ask you this: in order to defend yourself in a fist fight, do you need to train in mixed martial arts?

The point I was trying to make is that you, just like most gun enthusiasts I've had contact with, seem to be talking the talk but not walking the walk, as you Americans would put it.

You all try to present yourself as someone who goes around kicking ass and shooting people who threaten him or his loved ones or property or whatever, would be able to "fight the tyrannical government" and all that stuff, but can't be arsed to find some proper training. Shooting a gun straight is enough, my ass!

1 hour ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

False dilemma. The psychological component is moot. I don't imagine that its ever manageable dealing with killing someone regardless of how trained you are. The gun is meant to serve my ends, which is to respond to an immediate threat.

I'm not talking about dealing with killing someone, I'm talking about ACTUALLY KILLING SOMEONE. Having someone in your sights means nothing unless you pull the trigger and that's not as easy as they try to portrait it in "Die Hard" movies.

53 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

With a whole lot of training so that you can make the movement without thinking. You have any idea how many guys I've seen forget to switch to semi-auto when they ready their gun? I've only been in the military a year, and the second things get somewhat stressful tons of people forget stuff like that. And that's if the gun's loaded and ready, the amount of time I've seen people take to load (myself included) would get people killed. Shooting on the range means jack shit.

Given how many people I've seen knocked the fuck out or seriously injure themselves cause they had no idea what they're doing, I'd say yes. If you've not been trained to fight, don't try. Fuck don't even make a fist, you'll probably break your hand the first time you hit something.

This must be the dumbest thing I've ever read, the psychological component is the most important. People freeze up or forget things in moments of stress, they begin to have trouble doing even simple tasks as that stress caused adrenaline to pump. I've had that happen and it's not even remotely as stressful as what I would expect if your attempting to take another humans life.

So how do you deal with that? Train, train, and train some more. Train until your reaction to a stimulus is automatic.

Finally, a perspective of someone with proper training.  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

19 hours ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

Yep. They just voted for the 20 week abortion ban. They have no problem regulating our uteruses and restricting our constitutional right to a safe abortion, but talk about regulating guns even a little bit and they lose their damned minds.

At least my congressman was forced to resign over his hypocrisy. Good riddance.

Yeah, it’s gross, but at least it will be DOA in the Senate. And the reason why they’re hypocrites on those two issues is simple. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

22 hours ago, Ran said:

For those who've missed it, the NRA has come out in favor of more regulation on devices like bump stocks that permit high rates of fire. (Though they also called for a national right-to-carry law in the same breath, as if a bunch of drunk yahoos shooting at a hotel 500 yards away would have helped anything...)

Almost all the language I’ve seen, both from the NRA and elected Republicans, has a lot more hedging than that, and it’s largely designed to stall the issue until the next major news event happens and the public can collectively forget about the issue. Maybe they’ll do something about pump stocks, but as of now all I’ve seen is people saying they’re “open” to “thinking about” maybe changing the current ATF regulations, while always reminding us that it’s Obama’s fault, and they’re going that route so that they don’t actually have to have any of this on their hands.

[Mother Cocanuts]

15 minutes ago, baxus said:

 

If you scroll through my posts, I never claimed to know what it takes to be sufficiently and properly trained to repel a burglar from breaking and entering.

It's just that I'm amazed how often people go with "I'd shoot him and be done with it" scenario without EVER stopping to consider what it actually takes to do that and that the one getting shot is also a person, drug addict or not.

Truth is, the "drug addict" is most likely after your TV, not your life or your loved ones' lives. And against any "enemy" with some level of skill, most of gun owners are plain old fucked.

No, you never made the claim. But you did claim that going to a firing-range to fire off a few shots didn't seem like enough. So in a way, you are kind of making that claim or at least insinuating it.

Quote

The point I was trying to make is that you, just like most gun enthusiasts I've had contact with, seem to be talking the talk but not walking the walk, as you Americans would put it.

How do you know? What is "walking the walk" as we Americans put it?

Quote

You all try to present yourself as someone who goes around kicking ass and shooting people who threaten him or his loved ones or property or whatever, would be able to "fight the tyrannical government" and all that stuff, but can't be arsed to find some proper training. Shooting a gun straight is enough, my ass!

Hold on. First, you haven't come into contact with every gun enthusiast. Second, I never suggested that I go around kicking ass and shooting people who threaten me or my loved ones. This is a delusion of yours. Go back and read your questions, and then read my responses.

Quote

I'm not talking about dealing with killing someone, I'm talking about ACTUALLY KILLING SOMEONE. Having someone in your sights means nothing unless you pull the trigger and that's not as easy as they try to portrait it in "Die Hard" movies.

I never watched Die Hard. And while I concede that it's not easy to shoot a person, I'm sure that I care more about my welfare than that of the person who poses an immediate threat.