Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Rukentuts]

I'm not sure why we would allow individuals to carry firearms for defensive purposes, but not require vigorous training in defensive firearm use. While it is exceedingly rare, it does happen. If someones going to escalate a robbery to a life and death gun fight, I'd like them to know what they're doing.

We linked studies earlier that showed correlation of escalation of situations and armed people. I'd prefer to focus more on defense and let those with all the training handle the situation wherever possible. For example, if someone has a weapon on you demanding your wallet, just give it to them.

[TZucchini]

Take just #1 -- a spontaneous lethal attack comes in the form of a passenger in a vehicle that has been pulled over firing through the rear window. That situation has no realistic bearing on a CCW's lawful carry and self-defense situations, so why bother running that drill for a CCW applicant?

Are you really having this much trouble transposing these elements to civilian use? Can you think of no circumstance where a CCW would come under a spontaneous and lethal attack? George Zimmerman anyone?

[Stormdash]

Are you really having this much trouble transposing these elements to civilian use? Can you think of no circumstance where a CCW would come under a spontaneous and lethal attack? George Zimmerman anyone?

Didn't even read it, did you? There are dozens, if not hundreds, of permutations to the concept of "spontaneous and lethal attack". Many or most of which a CCW won't ever find themselves in unless they are already doing something bizarre and improper or illegal like... pulling someone over. Making a Terry stop. LEOs will obviously train to be ready for spontaneous attack in those scenarios or any number of others, but why should a CCW applicant be put through those paces?

What part of "umbrella categories" skated beyond you? I'd say CCWs have use for information from half or more of those 12 (and get it from their CCW class and/or basic handgun class)... but not for nearly as much information from any of them as LEOs need.

Your transparent and singular interest here is to put draconian training demands on CCWs with no regard to the relevance of that training, in the hopes that the requirement alone would discourage CCWs from bothering. It's not the Enigma code to crack through it.

[TZucchini]

Didn't even read it, did you? There are dozens, if not hundreds, of permutations to the concept of "spontaneous and lethal attack". Many or most of which a CCW won't ever find themselves in unless they are already doing something bizarre and improper or illegal like... pulling someone over. Making a Terry stop. LEOs will obviously train to be ready for spontaneous attack in those scenarios or any number of others, but why should a CCW applicant be put through those paces?

So your argument here is that they don't need the training because they're unlikely to come under spontaneous and lethal attack? This seems like an argument against carrying the firearm in the first place, not against being well trained should such a thing happen.

I'd say CCWs have use for information from half or more of those 12 (and get it from their CCW class and/or basic handgun class)... but not for nearly as much information from any of them as LEOs need.

Oh look. Another guess. How compelling. In my State, to obtain a CCW, you attend an 8 hour class, which you could sleep though, since there is no final test, and fire a gun 12 times, without a requirement on even hitting the target.

Then you can carry a firearm around and fight bad guys! You clearly have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to obtaining a CCW permit.

Your transparent and singular interest here is to put draconian training demands on CCWs with no regard to the relevance of that training, in the hopes that the requirement alone would discourage CCWs from bothering. It's not the Enigma code to crack through it.

If you're curious as to where I stand on an issue, you can ask. Your assumptions border tinfoil hattery.

[petej0]

Are you really having this much trouble transposing these elements to civilian use? Can you think of no circumstance where a CCW would come under a spontaneous and lethal attack? George Zimmerman anyone?

George Zimmerman case is a much different case.

I am going to say this as a gun rights person. Not every encounter requires the use of a firearm. I think people should be required to take firearm training as part of a conceal carry permit. However they should also be required to take basic self defense and self defense tactics as well. Why? Because if they have a weapon, they need to know when escalation of force (displaying/using your weapon) is required and when it could end up getting you killed and how to not have your weapon used against you.

Example: If someone is attempting to hijack your car at gun/knife point, is it worth drawing your firearm to defend yourself? Not in most scenarios, if you feel you can get out of the situation without harm to yourself, it might be better to allow them to take the car and not try to escalate the situation.

Your transparent and singular interest here is to put draconian training demands on CCWs with no regard to the relevance of that training, in the hopes that the requirement alone would discourage CCWs from bothering. It's not the Enigma code to crack through it.

I agree with this as well. HOWEVER, if people are going to be carrying firearms among the public. They must know how and when to use the firearm. Using their firearm to attempt to stop an armed robbery of a convenience store isnt probably going to be a good idea.

[Stormdash]

So your argument here is that they don't need the training because they're unlikely to come under spontaneous and lethal attack? This seems like an argument against carrying the firearm in the first place, not against being well trained should such a thing happen.

No, although since you either can't or won't actually engage what I said I don't know why I keep bothering. I'm saying that if there is some value X where X = all circumstances under which a spontaneous, lethal attack may arise, that only some fraction, some 1/X, are situations in which a CCW could expect them compared to a LEO. I even gave two very specific examples -- CCWs don't pull cars over, and they don't make Terry stops, at least not legally. Just for two quick examples. But those are things LEOs do frequently, so training them on spontaneous attacks from those situations is a productive use of training time, but isn't for a CCW.

See the difference? That "spontaneous, lethal attack" is not a one-size-fits-all topic of firearm safety and training for LE and non-LE purposes alike?

Oh look. Another guess. How compelling. In my State, to obtain a CCW, you attend an 8 hour class, which you could sleep though, since there is no final test, and fire a gun 12 times, without a requirement on even hitting the target.

So what? How well a CCW paid attention to whatever training was required is a question of their own criminal liability later if they improperly carry or use the weapon. As, for that matter, their aim might be.

Then you can carry a firearm around and fight bad guys! You clearly have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to obtaining a CCW permit.

Very revealing into this uneducated, infantile cartoon image you have a concealed carry and self-defense in general CCWs are not "on patrol", they aren't out looking for the bad guys to get into gunfights with. They have the means to defend themselves if trouble finds them. That is not only the purpose but also the limit of their legal permission for carry and use of the firearm outside the home.

If you're curious as to where I stand on an issue, you can ask. Your assumptions border tinfoil hattery.

Seeing through your nonsense does not require a tinfoil hat. You are more than comfortable with any and every obstacle to gun ownership and gun carry that can be placed in front of the citizen and can rationalize any justification for it -- hence this completely inane idea that being issued a CCW permit should require ≅ training as law enforcement. So as to inconvenience and discourage citizens from doing it.

[lockedout]

A CCW should be difficult to obtain. But those that do obtain one, should be well trained.

Why should it be? It's either Concealed or open carry. Why make one harder then the other what's the logic here?

[Tinykong]

Why should it be? It's either Concealed or open carry. Why make one harder then the other what's the logic here?

They want to know where the guns are, who has them and how they are being stored or carried so they can feel safe.

[Mayhem]

Man, if what we currently have is "one step" above unregulated and unrestricted, I'm scared to find out what PRE-911's arbitrary regulations and restrictions would be. Hell, in my state, I can't even get a CCW unless I've already been victimized and have substantial police reports documenting the crime.

that´s the other side of the ridiculous spectrum, if you have reasons for ccw that should be enough (job or private)

- - - Updated - - -

Why should it be? It's either Concealed or open carry. Why make one harder then the other what's the logic here?

the answer is probably in the difference in why you want to carry open or concealed

[TZucchini]

No, although since you either can't or won't actually engage what I said I don't know why I keep bothering. I'm saying that if there is some value X where X = all circumstances under which a spontaneous, lethal attack may arise, that only some fraction, some 1/X, are situations in which a CCW could expect them compared to a LEO. I even gave two very specific examples -- CCWs don't pull cars over, and they don't make Terry stops, at least not legally. Just for two quick examples. But those are things LEOs do frequently, so training them on spontaneous attacks from those situations is a productive use of training time, but isn't for a CCW.

We should probably tell all those former police officers giving civilians private lessons in tactical firearm training that it isn't a productive use of time.

Back in reality, no matter how rare the occurrence, if you choose to carry a deadly weapon in public, and if you choose to respond to threats with deadly force, you should be trained like other individuals that also use their weapon in defense of their life. It's a very simple concept. You can attempt to break it down into very specific situations and say "See look! It a bad idea." The general areas of training should be similar. I'm not asking for CCW holders to go through police academy. I'm asking that their trained and tested sufficiently.

- - - Updated - - -

They want to know where the guns are, who has them and how they are being stored or carried so they can feel safe.

That's not true. I only feel safe when I bring a firearm with me everywhere I go.

[Stormdash]

We should probably tell all those former police officers giving civilians private lessons in tactical firearm training that it isn't a productive use of time.

If they are teaching them what to expect when pulling someone over on the highway or making a Terry stop, then yes, yes we should. Thankfully, most former police officers are not so batshit stupid as to think that CCW permit applicants need to be trained on any and all scenarios a LEO might encounter performing LE duties. What tactical training they give is undoubtedly the much more narrow set of circumstances a CCW might encounter in which they could be surprised and need to use their gun, and therefore is not the kind of thing that would ever require more than one or two classes of a few hours each.

For scale, here in Florida, most of your local gun ranges or other training centers will offer a CCW class, and may also offer a "basic handgun" class that goes into more detail. My local has "defensive handgun" classes which are much more tactical in nature, and if you do all of these classes, you A) have still not had more than a total of 20 hours of class and B) have obviously not come close to the depth of training or the variety of scenarios for which LEOs train.

All of which shines a light on how inane your asspull of a "common sense" requirement really is -- training a CCW applicant to something approximate to what LEOs get trained on is gratuitous and unnecessary for them to be safe and responsible concealed carry holders. Would really be impressed if you could actually produce law enforcement professionals who would tell you otherwise. But, then, I think you also thought that bullshit op-ed was well-referenced a while back.

Back in reality, no matter how rare the occurrence, if you choose to carry a deadly weapon in public, and if you choose to respond to threats with deadly force, you should be trained like other individuals that also use their weapon in defense of their life. It's a very simple concept. You can attempt to break it down into very specific situations and say "See look! It a bad idea." The general areas of training should be similar. I'm not asking for CCW holders to go through police academy. I'm asking that their trained and tested sufficiently.

No, you're asking that they be trained excessively and for situations in which they almost certainly would have to already be breaking the law to even find themselves in, and you're sticking to your typical ridiculous broad generalities to make it sound like that is what "sufficiency" looks like for a civilian.

And all of this, by the way, without us having to take a step back and realize that there is only so much you can require of a CCW applicant in states where carry is a matter of legal right, not merely state license (and 2A jurisprudence is trending that way as well -- I don't think "may issue" will survive direct constitutional challenge in the post-Heller & McDonald world).

[TZucchini]

If they are teaching them what to expect when pulling someone over on the highway or making a Terry stop, then yes, yes we should.

No one is calling for CCW's to receive training on terry stops, or what to expect when pulling someone over. This is a strawman that you created.

This is really, really simple. CCW's carry firearms for the purpose of self defense. I'm simply asking that, if they find themselves in a position to defend a life through fatal means, they be properly trained.

Thankfully, most former police officers are not so batshit stupid as to think that CCW permit applicants need to be trained on any and all scenarios a LEO might encounter performing LE duties.

Oh look. There's that strawman again. No one's claiming they need to be trained on "any and all scenarios." Their firearm training should be relevant to defense of life situations. You know, the exact reason their carrying concealed to being with.

[Tinykong]

That's not true. I only feel safe when I bring a firearm with me everywhere I go.

If I lived in a high crime area, I would absolutely feel this way.

Which is why I don't live in a high crime area.

[Eroginous]

I'm fervently opposed to unrestricted, unregulated ownership.

In that case, we can stop the discussion and end this thread right now. There is no unrestricted or unregulated firearm ownership in America.

I'm fervently opposed to the American firearm culture.

No, what you're opposed to is people being able to reasonably own/carry firearms. You want there to be so much red tape that it's nearly impossible for the average person to own one.

I believe that firearms are a detriment, in their current state.

That's a pretty ignorant statement to make.

[PhaelixWW]

And according to this article, it's a good idea for individuals to obtain a CCW permit, even though it's not required. I think they make some good points.

Apparently, you completely ignored me when I said:

For the record, though, I don't have a problem with requiring a permit for CCW, provided that it's potentially available to every non-prohibited person (shall-issue).

...even though you quoted the same post immediately following.

So when you assumed that: "any shooting death in Arizona, Wyoming, Arkansas, Alaska, and Vermont, because those states don't issue CCW permits, so the "study" decides that all gun owners are CCW." ...you were wrong.

Not really, no. The only thing wrong about that statement is that I should have said "require" instead of "issue". And it's telling that you decided to cut out the "can basically include" from the beginning of that sentence. Possibly because you knew, but didn't want to admit, that "can include" is different from "does include", which is what you're implying I mean by omitting those 3 words.

The only individual they appear to have done that for is Jared Loughner, who bought his firearms legally even though there was plenty of evidence of mental health issues. If Arizona had mental health checks, that shooting might have been prevented.

Nope, Loughner wasn't the only one they added on spurious justification. And bending the rules once, let alone more than once, shows that they're willing to bend the rules whenever, just to pad their numbers. It's selective reporting, which is biased, shameful, and not worth the pixels it's written with. IE, bogus.

It's also worth it to note that this study starts in 2007, and the Constitutional Carry in Arizona started in 2010.

Furthermore, the two States that do not issue CCW permits, Alaska and Vermont, are not included in the study. Wyoming is also not included.

It's not that they're "not included", it's just that there are no "vignettes" (ie, news clippings) from those states. Maybe those constitutional carry states are just safer?

I mean, this isn't even a study, it's just a collection of news clippings with some biased interpretation of the facts. It's like a MotherJones article, and we all know how faulty their gun control reporting has been.

And it's also worth noting that this "study" covers 7.5 years. So... 662 people killed by CCW-holders in 7.5 years? That's an average of 88 per year. And shit, that includes suicides. So you're talking about a rate of ~0.79 compared to the national average of 10.3.

Yeah, those CCW-holders sure are violent.

- - - Updated - - -

Of all the topics at the academy, the greatest amount of time is spent on firearm skills.

Sitting in a classroom learning about stocks, receivers, etc. is not a firearm "skill". Yet it is definitely included in the firearms training time at the academy.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not fervently opposed to ownership. I'm fervently opposed to unrestricted, unregulated ownership.

Congratulations. You have your wish. Ownership is not unrestricted or unregulated.

I'm fervently opposed to the American firearm culture. If you can't understand the difference, I can't help you.

Which culture you've already shown that you believe to be defined as... anything you don't like. I'm opposed to things I don't like, too. Common ground!

If you don't think people carrying firearms for defensive purposes should be highly trained, then that's your opinion. I happen to believe otherwise.

The difference is that LEO's are being asked, as their job, to go into situations that might necessitate a firearm and tactical firearm training. CCW-holders are not, yet they may find themselves in one of said situations, regardless. In the end, though, their actions will be judged by the local police and DA, and if found to be in violation of the law, by a judge or a jury of their peers.

So it's not like they're being given a gun and told to go have some fun. They have to abide by all the same rules the rest of us do.

TL;DR. (Gun + Authority) necessitates different training than (Gun + Culpability).

- - - Updated - - -

Plus, I kinda like rubbernecking at how little the big names in gun control on MMO-C and elsewhere appear to actually know about guns.

Heh. If you want a good read, you should check out some of the posts FusedMass made ITT before he/she got perma-banned.

- - - Updated - - -

But if you're going to open fire on a suspect in a crowded shopping mall, you should be highly trained and prepared for what might happen next.

As a CCW-holder, you have the option to not fire on a suspect in a crowded shopping mall. If you choose to do so, then you're held accountable for what happens next. It's not the same frame of reference at all.

[Mayhem]

As a CCW-holder, you have the option to not fire on a suspect in a crowded shopping mall. If you choose to do so, then you're held accountable for what happens next. It's not the same frame of reference at all.

it´s probably the wording but, you have the option to NOT fire? and if you choose to NOT fire, then you´re held accountable? soo you have the obligation to fire? what?

[PhaelixWW]

it´s probably the wording but, you have the option to NOT fire? and if you choose to NOT fire, then you´re held accountable? soo you have the obligation to fire? what?

By "do so" I meant choosing to fire instead of opting not to. Sorry if it wasn't clear.

[Mayhem]

By "do so" I meant choosing to fire instead of opting not to. Sorry if it wasn't clear.

thought so, it just reads very weird

[lockedout]

Another fine example of "extensive training".

[Rukentuts]

I mean, this isn't even a study, it's just a collection of news clippings with some biased interpretation of the facts. It's like a MotherJones article, and we all know how faulty their gun control reporting has been.

Yeah, linking Lott twice really means you have no ground to bash Mother Jones, or anyone else, anymore.