October 19, 2010, 03:10 PM | #76 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
|
||
October 19, 2010, 03:48 PM | #77 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
The crowded environment - to make my specific point:
If you argue for concealed carry on campuses, in church, in the mall, as a response to rampages or terrorists - you are postulating a gun fight in a crowded environment. If you want to say that you will not use your gun in such situations and it is only for the isolated single mugger or burglar in your house, then say that. If you have to protect yourself and family at Mumbai like horrors, you are in a crowded environs. If you are at Columbine II, VT II, you are in a crowded environs. Case in point, after the recent "Ak-47" incident at the U. of Texas in Austin, we hear that the campus carry bill may come up again. It's not for the single mugger on a lonely street - now is it? Independent of the state mandated training and the Constitution - if you carry in a crowded place - should you know what's up? Also, the question of blame is a bit of sophistry. Yes, the shooter is responsible. But that does not negate your responsibility to not bozo when you try to use your firearm. You had two choices - don't use the gun. Or use the gun. If you do the latter, you are culpable for not making a reasonable effort to be competent if you risk others. The action of the shooter is irrelevant to your decision to be competent or not.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
October 19, 2010, 03:54 PM | #78 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: March 11, 2000
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 16,002
|
Quote:
|
|
October 19, 2010, 04:01 PM | #79 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
You are on a spelling roll, Tam!!
Glenn
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
October 19, 2010, 04:43 PM | #80 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 20, 2005
Location: Bellevue, WA
Posts: 683
|
Quote:
I carry in public. Muggings don't just happen in alleys with brick wall backstops. I was mugged once in broad daylight in a parking lot - I was fortunate I didn't have to shoot, but you know what my backstop was? A popular gas station/convenience store across the crowded intersection. I have a moral obligation to every single one of those people in those cars, in that store that I will be trained to the best of my ability so that should I have needed to shoot my attacker, I wouldn't have unnecessarily endangered their lives with my incompetence.
__________________
Join the community at GunUp! |
|
October 19, 2010, 04:51 PM | #81 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,780
|
Quote:
Don't carry a gun. This won't keep you from being murdered, violated or robbed. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war. |
|||||
October 19, 2010, 04:52 PM | #82 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 9, 2008
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
Posts: 958
|
Glenn, if you go out of your way to be a "sheepdog" I agree with your point.
But what if, using your carry in school example, someone comes in and starts shooting up the classroom. If you return fire and hit someone who, without your actions would most likely have been shot anyway, are you still being negligent? Morally, legally? That's not a rhetorical question, I'm curious what you think... Quote:
__________________
And it's Killer Angel... as in the book |
|
October 19, 2010, 04:58 PM | #83 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: March 11, 2000
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 16,002
|
Quote:
|
|
October 19, 2010, 05:27 PM | #84 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 20, 2005
Location: Bellevue, WA
Posts: 683
|
Agreed, but that's the legal consequence, I'm actually specifically concerned with the moral consequences. While Joe-Bob may be legally responsible for them, I personally wouldn't want to spend the rest of my life knowing that I killed an innocent bystander. The legal system may say that Joe-Bob's responsible, but I know that he didn't pull that trigger, either.
__________________
Join the community at GunUp! |
October 19, 2010, 05:28 PM | #85 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Depending on circumstances, if someone defending himself made a hash of things and, for example, recklessly contributed to the death of an innocent, he might also have some criminal (and perhaps civil) liability as well. |
|
October 19, 2010, 05:33 PM | #86 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: In a state of flux
Posts: 7,520
|
Quote:
There are real people involved in every tragedy, people who would do anything for a "do over" that life simply won't give them. If you are the sort of person who would act to save the lives of your family members, you owe it to them and to yourself to get as much training as you can afford. Even if you do everything right, things can still go south -- but how would you feel if you knew in your heart that you hadn't done your best for them? pax |
|
October 19, 2010, 05:48 PM | #87 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: March 11, 2000
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 16,002
|
Isn't separating the "legal" from the "moral" one of the whole points of this thread?
|
October 20, 2010, 03:40 AM | #88 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 15, 2008
Location: the object towards which the action of the sea is directed
Posts: 2,123
|
Pax states:
Quote:
I live in Alaska, where no training is required... also no permit is required for either open carry or concealed carry; an arrangement that I agree with. As has been mentioned, no blood running in the streets. If we begin with an agreement in the 2nd Amendment, along with the concept of inalienable rights and living within a Republic, it is ultimately an individual's legal/civil responsibility to be accountable for one's actions. While handing over political power to the government (which now can legislate/regulate or at the minimum attempt to regulate the people, in theory working for the best interests of the people while maintaining the "standards" set forth upon the creation of the government) that government can create "rules" that the individual will be held accountable to; however, ultimately it is still the individual's own moral code and values which will determine their personal belief system. This belief system may or may not include training with a firearm. It may or may not include advanced training with a firearm. An individual may consider the very small chance that he/she may have to actually face an altercation resulting in the use of a firearm in defense of oneself and or loved ones, and decide that the X number of hours and the Y dollars taken in training would be better spent with his/her family. Another individual may consider the same chances, and decide to seek training, spending both time and money away from the family; again believing it to be to the benefit of the family. Which individual is doing the "best for them"? Regardless of social/legal ramifications (which exist) each individual has the opportunity to make his/her own mind up concerning such topics. We all have a limited amount of time, not one of us is guaranteed to be waking up tomorrow, and how we spend it is paramount to any legacy that we may leave behind.
__________________
The lowest paid college major/degree in this country after graduation... Elementary Education. Now, go figure... |
|
October 20, 2010, 05:12 AM | #89 | |
Junior member
Join Date: October 9, 2004
Location: Northeast Alabama
Posts: 2,580
|
Quote:
The average LEO gets what, 40 hrs training in the academy (maybe)? The average cop isn't a gun person and there are countless threads on the lack of quality training in many departments. We all know plain 'civilians' who outshoot average LE officers. I say this as someone who worked part-time at our local range and saw officers barely pass weekly, but holster up and be out there protecting our streets. Any .GOV sponsored training (if not used as a limiter on owning a gun) is going to be sorely lacking. I base this on the track record of the many other programs. It will be geared toward the lowest common denominator being able to pass, not to provide anyone with a realistic amount of defensive training. The very best training I have taken was $400 for a two day course (10 hrs each day). That breaks down to $20 an hour. I don't think paying that for good training is out of line. |
|
October 20, 2010, 07:34 AM | #90 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 6,141
|
And while I'm at it, I'm glad I don't have to take an English proficiency test, being from a place where it isn't spoken all that well.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds. |
October 20, 2010, 07:44 AM | #91 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 11,132
|
Quote:
|
|
October 20, 2010, 08:27 AM | #92 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 22, 2010
Location: MPLS, MN
Posts: 1,214
|
Quote:
__________________
597 VTR, because there's so many cans and so little time! |
|
October 20, 2010, 09:14 AM | #93 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Quote:
I think that I am not negligent if I made a reasonable attempt to be proficient with the instrument I chose to carry and that I acted in a manner with some concern for the outcome. I did not act recklessly. I made a rational risk evaluation and acted. I decided to carry an instrument that can do collateral damage and thus, I need to know how to use it. If I did kill an innocent - I would feel on an emotional level that I was culpable and regret it. Even if rationally, I saved many. Hurting an innocent through positive action, even for a good cause, is seen to be a bad thing on the emotional level. It is the choice I made to carry, that makes me have the responsibility to have proficiency. That's independent of the bad guy, IMHO.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
|
October 20, 2010, 09:15 AM | #94 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 11,132
|
I've taken several of the "entry level" type gun courses. Took a couple of courses so that I could shoot at various private / semi-private ranges. Took a course to get my CCW permit. Not one of them taught me anything about defending myself with a gun, or against someone who happens to be pointing a gun at me. They basically read you their 10 page safety manuel and tell you what the laws, rules, etc. are to keep you from getting arrested / thrown out of the range.
Then, I've trained with folks who are experts at teaching others how to defend themselves and use their concealed weapon in defense of themselves. There's a world of difference between this kind of training and the former I described. In fact, one has absolutely nothing to do with the other. It's like comparing reading your 10-step quick set-up pamphlet that came with your new laptop to learning how to program in HTML. |
October 20, 2010, 12:34 PM | #95 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: In a state of flux
Posts: 7,520
|
AZAK,
From my very first post in this thread: Quote:
I'm just saying that if you choose to carry a deadly weapon without learning how to use it well, and then your action killed one of your own family members in part because you'd been too busy / cheap / proud / in denial to learn the things you really needed to know when the crisis came, all the self justifications in the world wouldn't help you sleep well at night afterwards. pax |
|
October 20, 2010, 12:35 PM | #96 | |
Junior member
Join Date: October 9, 2004
Location: Northeast Alabama
Posts: 2,580
|
Quote:
I did take a very good course that cost me $100 dollars that was 10 hrs long. However, there is the ammo cost (we shot almost 750 round during this time) that will 'disadvantage the poor'. You're not going to learn much with a box of ammo, so besidee volunteers giving their time, someone is going to have to front the rounds to become proficient. Last edited by smince; October 20, 2010 at 12:41 PM. |
|
October 20, 2010, 01:09 PM | #97 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: February 27, 2008
Location: midwest
Posts: 4,209
|
Quote:
It is indeed sad that some would beleve that mandated training be enough on either side of the right to carry. Quote:
I was a pretty good shot long before I ever fired a center fire handgun. A BB gun and a BB trap will go a longer toward marksmanship than excuses.
__________________
rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6 Quote:
Last edited by mavracer; October 20, 2010 at 01:20 PM. |
|||
October 20, 2010, 01:32 PM | #98 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2002
Posts: 442
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
These views are not representative of those held by the US Army, DoD, or US Government. Jeffthebaptist.blogspot.com |
||
October 20, 2010, 01:47 PM | #99 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 15, 2008
Location: the object towards which the action of the sea is directed
Posts: 2,123
|
pax
Quote:
Who makes you judge? You do for yourself. Most are going to agree that training is a good idea for improvement; for most pursuits. However, the "need" for improvement is a personal decision based on individual beliefs and individual values. Just as my first post was addressing in part Tamara's: Quote:
__________________
The lowest paid college major/degree in this country after graduation... Elementary Education. Now, go figure... |
||
October 20, 2010, 01:54 PM | #100 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
While I certainly understand the expense issue - one might point out that if you do shoot and it goes awry, your legal expenses will dwarf $600.
If, to go back to my particular scenario for this discussion, you shoot in trying to stop a rampage shooter, workplace avenger or terrorist and you hurt an innocent - you would contact an attorney immediately. Even if criminally cleared, the civil case might be costly. Would $600 be worth it as a touch of insurance that you may not screw up? Hard choice, isn't it? It does suggest that one doesn't blithely intervene or suggest you would do such. Police commonly pay damages for hurting innocents and they have government resources for their defense. You don't. If you act as a Samaritan but kill some kid, don't expect a hero's attaboy. I do understand the money issue - sigh. I worked some extra thingees so that my gun fun doesn't impact normal household and family needs.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
|
|