Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 14 Dec '15 13:00 / 3 edits
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCI4bUk4vuM

    highlights:
    -after a grueling NRA training course (8 hours of training) and mailing an application for license to carry (to florida for example) one is qualified to carry and use a gun.
    just as a side note, i was required to do about 30 hours of driving just to qualify to have the driving license exam.

    -fbi report reveals just how many good guys with guns stop active shooter events (3% )

    -a minor possibility that when police arrives, they just might shoot the good guy with a gun as well as the bad guys because how could they tell

    -"being a good guy with a gun takes training"
  2. 14 Dec '15 13:23
    Here in Arizona there's no training or license required, you can just carry a gun open or concealed if you're over 21 and not a felon.
    I carry all the time, it's cool to live in Az. .
  3. 14 Dec '15 13:26 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by FishHead111
    Here in Arizona there's no training or license required, you can just carry a gun open or concealed if you're over 21 and not a felon.
    I carry all the time, it's cool to live in Az. .
    were it anyone else, i would point out that maybe you should feel uneasy and i am sorry for you that maybe a nutcase near you is also carrying a weapon.

    but who are we kidding, you ARE the nutcase carrying a weapon and i am sorry for the other arizonians.
  4. 14 Dec '15 13:36
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    were it anyone else, i would point out that maybe you should feel uneasy and i am sorry for you that maybe a nutcase near you is also carrying a weapon.

    but who are we kidding, you ARE the nutcase carrying a weapon and i am sorry for the other arizonians.
    Well, in my defense, I have had firearms training in two branches of the military because I was required to carry a sidearm quite often, as well as a firearm qualification course to get a license in California. I also shot competitively in IPSC for a number of years and I shoot regularly to keep from getting rusty, so it's not like I'm some n00B that just picked up a gun and started carrying it.
    To quote the late Jeff Cooper:
    "Buying a gun and considering yourself armed is like buying a guitar and considering yourself a musician".
  5. 14 Dec '15 13:50
    Originally posted by FishHead111
    Well, in my defense, I have had firearms training in two branches of the military because I was required to carry a sidearm quite often, as well as a firearm qualification course to get a license in California. I also shot competitively in IPSC for a number of years and I shoot regularly to keep from getting rusty, so it's not like I'm some n00B that ju ...[text shortened]... gun and considering yourself armed is like buying a guitar and considering yourself a musician".
    i was implying that the persona you show on this forum is insane and shouldn't be allowed a water pistol not that you are untrained, but let's address that.

    do you believe everyone should have the same training as you do? do you believe people should be allowed to drive any car (including trucks) and just trust they will actually learn how? or should they first prove they can drive it?
  6. 14 Dec '15 14:00
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    i was implying that the persona you show on this forum is insane and shouldn't be allowed a water pistol not that you are untrained, but let's address that.

    do you believe everyone should have the same training as you do? do you believe people should be allowed to drive any car (including trucks) and just trust they will actually learn how? or should they first prove they can drive it?
    1. No, but I agree, some training should be required, not just weapon familiarization but with the legal aspects of the use deadly force.
    2. No.
    3. Yes.
    LOL at being called insane.
  7. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    14 Dec '15 15:04 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by FishHead111
    1. No, but I agree, some training should be required, not just weapon familiarization but with the legal aspects of the use deadly force.
    2. No.
    3. Yes.
    LOL at being called insane.
    What about the part where people get killed ten times over by friends or relatives accidentally than ever get killed in some kind of criminal gun battle? That probably doesn't bother you in the least.

    If you are after the lowest casualty list, everyone carrying should not be on the agenda.

    If nobody carry's then NOBODY will be killed by friends or relatives accidentally by gunfire.

    Of course the counter argument is well then, only criminals will carry.

    But the number killed going down by a factor of ten or more doesn't count as an argument with gun owners. Why is that?

    You did notice that statistic saying only 3% of civilians encountering crims with guns actually succeed in subduing or killing the thug, right?

    So 1000 such encounters. 970 of them, the civilian gets injured or killed. 30 of them succeed in squashing the opposition.

    I guess you like those odds.

    "It won't happen to ME, I am an expert"

    He said just as 3 bad guys pull out AK47's and all he has is a 38 special.
  8. 14 Dec '15 15:49 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    What about the part where people get killed ten times over by friends or relatives accidentally than ever get killed in some kind of criminal gun battle? That probably doesn't bother you in the least.

    If you are after the lowest casualty list, everyone carrying should not be on the agenda.

    If nobody carry's then NOBODY will be killed by friends or rel ...[text shortened]... E, I am an expert"

    He said just as 3 bad guys pull out AK47's and all he has is a 38 special.
    "Get killed times over by friends"
    Don't think so, here's some REAL statistics, not something you just made up:

    http://usconservatives.about.com/od/capitalpunishment/a/Putting-Gun-Death-Statistics-In-Perspective.htm

    http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable15.pdf

    "In 2012, 35.5 percent (92 of 259) of persons killed in a firearm justifiable homicide were known to the shooter,6
    51.4 percent (133) were strangers, and
    in 13.1 percent (34) the relationship was unknown. For the five-year period 2008 through 2012, 32.9 percent (364 of 1,108) of persons killed in a firearm
    justifiable homicide were known to the shooter, 56.0 percent (620) were strangers, and in 11.2 percent (124) the relationship was unknown. [For additional
    information see Table Three: Relationship of Person Killed to Shooter in Justifiable Homicides by Firearm, 2008-2012.]"
  9. 14 Dec '15 16:31 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by FishHead111
    "Get killed times over by friends"
    Don't think so, here's some REAL statistics, not something you just made up:

    http://usconservatives.about.com/od/capitalpunishment/a/Putting-Gun-Death-Statistics-In-Perspective.htm

    http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable15.pdf

    "In 2012, 35.5 percent (92 of 259) of persons killed in a firearm justifiable homicid ...[text shortened]... hree: Relationship of Person Killed to Shooter in Justifiable Homicides by Firearm, 2008-2012.]"
    about the statistic of how many active shooter events end up in a good guy with a gun (man this expression is stupid) subduing the shooter:

    pete blair, director of the ALERRT program, co-author of an FBI report about active shooter events 2000 to 2013:
    3% of active shooter events involved a good guy with a gun successfully disabling the shooter.
  10. 14 Dec '15 16:40
    again from pete blair:
    "[an active shooter event] is a complex situation, you don't want to give people guns and assume they know what they are doing".

    it is the height of ignorance to assume some hours at the shooting range qualifies you to start shooting at the "bad guy" in a mass shooting event.

    that in that panic, you won't miss and hit a bystander. be mistaken for the shooter and shot by the police or a panicked mall cop.


    a question for you people who still think in the "good guy with a gun" mantra.
    suppose that in a mass shooting event, everyone has guns. the shooter starts shooting. the first good guy starts shooting at the bad guy. the second good guy comes into view.
    who does he shoot at? who does that third guy shoot at?

    when you have an entire mall of good guys (idiots) shooting each other, how do you know when the bad guy has been killed? how does the police arriving at the scene know who to subdue?
  11. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    14 Dec '15 16:56 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by FishHead111
    "Get killed times over by friends"
    Don't think so, here's some REAL statistics, not something you just made up:

    http://usconservatives.about.com/od/capitalpunishment/a/Putting-Gun-Death-Statistics-In-Perspective.htm

    http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable15.pdf

    "In 2012, 35.5 percent (92 of 259) of persons killed in a firearm justifiable homicid ...[text shortened]... hree: Relationship of Person Killed to Shooter in Justifiable Homicides by Firearm, 2008-2012.]"
    So how do you explain THIS statistic:

    http://www.humanosphere.org/science/2015/10/visualizing-gun-deaths-comparing-u-s-rest-world/

    See the chart? The one on the left sticking out like a sore thumb?

    Oh wait. That is just some BS from a 'libtard' I think you called them?

    One chart talks about a city in Colombia where the mayor decided to use death statistics to see what is happening with gun deaths and others.

    He found out a large portion of the deaths were from the hands of a drunk.
    Limiting alcohol sales and banning gun use at certain times lowered the death rate 14 percent. There seems to be a connection there with alcohol consumption and gun deaths which makes sense.

    I imagine that would go over in the US like a lead balloon.

    The last paragraph kind of says it all: Congress banned any research on the causes of gun deaths.

    Gee, do you think MAYBE the NRA was involved in that decision? To even STUDY the situation is a no no.
  12. 14 Dec '15 17:39
    Originally posted by FishHead111
    Here in Arizona there's no training or license required, you can just carry a gun open or concealed if you're over 21 and not a felon.
    I carry all the time, it's cool to live in Az. .
    I agree with Arizona law, but because you're allowed to do something doesn't make it the smart thing to do.

    In short, best to get some training, some more training, more and better training than most States require as minimum. Most cops don't get adequate training, or keep up the necessary practice to be competent with firearms.

    Lots of soldiers, veterans of hot wars, aren't currently qualified as experts with handguns.
  13. 14 Dec '15 17:41
    Originally posted by FishHead111
    Well, in my defense, I have had firearms training in two branches of the military because I was required to carry a sidearm quite often, as well as a firearm qualification course to get a license in California. I also shot competitively in IPSC for a number of years and I shoot regularly to keep from getting rusty, so it's not like I'm some n00B that ju ...[text shortened]... gun and considering yourself armed is like buying a guitar and considering yourself a musician".
    "Buying a gun and considering yourself armed is like buying a guitar and considering yourself a musician".

    Good one.
  14. 15 Dec '15 01:24 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by normbenign
    I agree with Arizona law, but because you're allowed to do something doesn't make it the smart thing to do.

    In short, best to get some training, some more training, more and better training than most States require as minimum. Most cops don't get adequate training, or keep up the necessary practice to be competent with firearms.

    Lots of soldiers, veterans of hot wars, aren't currently qualified as experts with handguns.
    "Most cops don't get adequate training, or keep up the necessary practice to be competent with firearms."
    yet they still get better training than scared rednecks buying guns in bulk.

    also the point is to make sure they are better trained, not add more even less trained shooters.

    "Lots of soldiers, veterans of hot wars, aren't currently qualified as experts with
    handguns."
    and?
  15. 15 Dec '15 02:12
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    "Most cops don't get adequate training, or keep up the necessary practice to be competent with firearms."
    yet they still get better training than scared rednecks buying guns in bulk.

    also the point is to make sure they are better trained, not add more even less trained shooters.

    "Lots of soldiers, veterans of hot wars, aren't currently qualified as experts with
    handguns."
    and?
    We have a "natural right" to self defence, and a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. We have a responsibility to use that right responsibly.

    You'd be surprised at how competent many rednecks are. Probably a lot more than most Romanians.