NOT Gun Control

[s3779m]

Originally Posted by NateKirk

I wasn't suggesting that you were suggesting that, I'm talking about current teachers.



That's the thing though. Say we allow teachers the option of carrying in schools. It would have to be mandatory training and very good, extensive training at that for them to be effective should a situation arise. The training (hands on shooting training) would also have to be repeated frequently I believe. We're talking about preparing people to have an effective exchange of lethal force around crowds of emotionally charged, scarred people, without harming any non combatants. That's pretty much a worst case scenario, and I'm sure if one was to ask a SWAT officer they would agree.

My point is that even if those who elected to use the new option of carrying to school decided to go through rigorous, repeated training, I don't think they would be prepared, even if they had the mental discipline to ensure that they stayed practiced.

Personally, were I a teacher I would carry to work to defend myself if need be and those around me. But I would not expect myself or any other non professional to be effective in actually seeking and engaging the killer. Carrying in a school might save the one carrying, but it doesn't make the overall situation any better. And, to repeat something I said earlier:

"Another point is that a productive society cannot be centered around and worry about the preservation of their own lives. Arming schools, proposing that kids be issued body armor, metal detectors, armed guards, increased patrols... All of this skews the center of daily life towards violent conflict which I think is perverted; this isn't a third world country. We carry guns to deal with outlier negative situations when they arise but they're not a solution to the problem, they are a temporary salve to help remedy specific problems. They don't solve an issue, they resolve a conflict. The focus shouldn't be on escalation."



We're both right. Here's a fun tool.

http://verdantlabs.com/politics_of_professions/



That's not something one can count on though. Plans and policy are not made to account for best case scenarios.



By holding law enforcement accountable for following up on concerns, providing them ways to act on concerns (GVRO's,) and better inter agency reporting of disqualifiers for ownership making NICS effective. This would make the current system more effective.

Personally, I would add background checks for all transactions and transfers (UBC,) raising the age to purchase to 21, requiring training and education before ownership, etc, but I already went over what I would add in pages 4,5,6

Wish you could send this to those in charge, right about now they need to be hit with common sense.

[NateKirk]

Wish you could send this to those in charge, right about now they need to be hit with common sense.

Well thanks, hope that isn't sarcasm; I don't seem to have a popular opinion around here the last few days

[s3779m]

Originally Posted by NateKirk

Well thanks, hope that isn't sarcasm; I don't seem to have a popular opinion around here the last few days

Not sarcasm at all, the left can not be in charge of this discussion, we will only get bans and more senseless killings. The right thing to do will not be popular in the lsm but it will be a step in the right direction.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Nate Kirk

That's the thing though. Say we allow teachers the option of carrying in schools. It would have to be mandatory training and very good, extensive training at that for them to be effective should a situation arise. The training (hands on shooting training) would also have to be repeated frequently I believe. What we're talking about is preparing people to have an effective exchange of lethal force around crowds of emotionally charged, scarred people, without harming any non combatants.

A murderer isn't a combatant. He isn't someone who has brought force to bear on an opposing force.

The idea that in order to stop a teenager who is occupied pumping rounds into other children one would need frequent, very good and extensive training is both implausible and implies a special pleading. Many POs don't get extensive, very good, or extensive training, and we still expect them to function effectively in a substantially more adversarial environment.

A firearm is not an extremely complex device; the sense that one can't employ it effectively without special training is disproven regularly by ordinary people with little training.

Originally Posted by Nate Kirk

It's not an all or nothing thing though and a few of the latest posts seem to be devoted to pointing fingers, and discounting people's opinions simply because they have that opinion.

Can you think of a better reason to discount an opinion than the opinion itself?

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Originally Posted by NateKirk

It's not an all or nothing thing though and a few of the latest posts seem to be devoted to pointing fingers, and discounting people's opinions simply because they have that opinion.

Well, I can’t speak for everyove but I’m discounting your opinion because I find it poorly reasoned and not based in fact. I am not even sure what you mean by “discounting people's opinions simply because they have that opinion” as the phrase strikes me as so circuitous as to be meaningless.

To the extent you are obejcting that your ideas are being rejected out of hand, without due consideration. Some of us here have been involved in this debate longer than you’ve been alive. So, while I am sure the ideas seem fresh and new to you, they aren’t new, unknown or unconsidered by me.

However, to the extent you think firearms registration is a good idea - the two biggest roadblocks to it are a Supreme Court that doesn’t take the Second Amendment seriously and gun owner privacy concerns. The people preaching expanded background checks know this, yet they don’t do anything to address those concerns. Why do you think that is?

You are being propagandized pure and simple. We all feel angry and powerless when we see a needless waste of life. Especially when it feels like there is so little we can do as individuals to change it. Because the entire purpose of government in a democratic schema is to do the things we can’t do as individuals, we often look to it and demand it “do something.”

The rationale from the politicians’ side is “Something must be done. This is something. Therefore, this must be done.” The “something” being offered to you by the news media is more expansion of a system already way too dangerous to liberty. For that matter, the NRA’s “arm teachers” is more an appropriation of the same tactic (a pro-gun something to choose) rather than a well-considered solution.

Instead of “Well, this is a horrible idea that isn’t working already; but it kind of addresses the same general need and it is something”, we need actual effective solutions - because gun owners least of all want to see these incidents. We’re just as disgusted as anyone else at the tragedy AND we know we’ll be emotiinally bullied and blamed for things we didn’t do on top of it all.

Surrendering our rights for a solution that is already failing at a lower level and hoping that this magically fixes our problem or at least stops the bullying shows both a poor understanding of logic and bullies.

[NateKirk]

However, to the extent you think firearms registration is a good idea - the two biggest roadblocks to it are a Supreme Court that doesn’t take the Second Amendment seriously and gun owner privacy concerns. The people preaching expanded background checks know this, yet they don’t do anything to address those concerns. Why do you think that is?

I never said registration was a good idea. Please quote me where I ever said anything about registration.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate Kirk
That's the thing though. Say we allow teachers the option of carrying in schools. It would have to be mandatory training and very good, extensive training at that for them to be effective should a situation arise. The training (hands on shooting training) would also have to be repeated frequently I believe. What we're talking about is preparing people to have an effective exchange of lethal force around crowds of emotionally charged, scarred people, without harming any non combatants.

A murderer isn't a combatant. He isn't someone who has brought force to bear on an opposing force.

What does this have to do with anything I said? The label of the killer doesn't matter.

The idea that in order to stop a teenager who is occupied pumping rounds into other children one would need frequent, very good and extensive training is both implausible and implies a special pleading. Many POs don't get extensive, very good, or extensive training, and we still expect them to function effectively in a substantially more adversarial environment.

A firearm is not an extremely complex device; the sense that one can't employ it effectively without special training is disproven regularly by ordinary people with little training.

This is just ridiculous. How many times have we heard it from CPL instructors, the NRA, people on this forum, that to effectively use a firearm for a defensive purpose requires quality training, and copious amounts practice. The idea that you can hand anyone a firearm and expect them to be able to automatically effectively defend themselves against someone determined to kill them is the most hillbilly, good 'ol boy, careless attitude I've ever heard. And besides that it isn't correct. Any shooting instructor, gun shop worker, or CPL instructor can personally attest to the mass ignorance of the public concerning knowledge and use of firearms, and would endorse education and training as the only way to make ones competent enough to defend themselves.

[xandi]

It’s point and shoot when the ranges are close.
Any one can do that

[NateKirk]

It’s point and shoot when the ranges are close.
Any one can do that

*face palm*

This. This is why I think people should be required to undergo better training.

[doofus47]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/23/us/fl...ing/index.html

Waiting outside while teachers ran toward the sound of gunfire and died.

Regardless of crappy pay, it seems teachers care more.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Nate Kirk

That's the thing though. Say we allow teachers the option of carrying in schools. It would have to be mandatory training and very good, extensive training at that for them to be effective should a situation arise. The training (hands on shooting training) would also have to be repeated frequently I believe. What we're talking about is preparing people to have an effective exchange of lethal force around crowds of emotionally charged, scarred people, without harming any non combatants.

What does this have to do with anything I said? The label of the killer doesn't matter.

It has to do with your description of the problem. You can't solve a problem you can't correctly describe. Where you imagine the training that would be useful in facing a combatant, you have ignored the proficiency that can suffice in facing a murderer.

It isn't a mere difference in label. "The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name."

Originally Posted by Nate Kirk

This is just ridiculous. How many times have we heard it from CPL instructors, the NRA, people on this forum, that to effectively use a firearm for a defensive purpose requires quality training, and copious amounts practice.

I've never heard any of them say it, perhaps because it isn't true. It is too easy to demonstrate that copious practice and quality training aren't necessary to effectively use a firearm with a single example of someone with neither who effectively employs a firearm. What was the quality training received by Nikolas Cruz?

That isn't a knock on training and practice, both of which are an asset.

Originally Posted by Nate Kirk

The idea that you can hand anyone a firearm and expect them to be able to automatically effectively defend themselves with it is the most hillbilly, good 'ol boy, careless attitude I've ever heard.

Here you've employed the fallacy of the false choice. There is enormous middle ground between extensive and high quality training and handing someone a firearm without any instruction.

Originally Posted by Nate Kirk

Any shooting instructor, gun shop worker, or CPL instructor can personally attest to the mass ignorance of the public concerning knowledge and use of firearms, and would endorse education and training as the only way to make ones competent enough to defend themselves.

That is incorrect. Since there is no minimum thresh hold of training require for one to defend himself, training can't be the only way to be competent enough to engage in it. Your appeal to authority may rest on a misunderstanding of instruction, or an instructor's exaggeration in the service of emphasis.


Your reaction above illustrates Bartholomew Roberts' observation.

[adamBomb]

This is why I think people should be required to undergo better training.

Its hard to argue with good training. When I got my CCW in NC, you had to take a full day course that included half a day of laws and half a day at the range. Out of the 100 people there, I was 1 of 8 that had brought my own gun to the range part. The rest had to rent because they didn't own one. In fact, most of the people had never even fired one. People are clueless when it comes to guns. The CCW course was not a 'learn to shoot' course but they had to do that for 90% of the participants. I just couldn't believe how many people there were not trained, had never shot a gun, and probably never would again after the course. It was a real wake up call to me. Carrying and/or owning a gun requires a certain level of responsibility and I have no problem with required training, etc. to demonstrate competency.

Waiting outside while teachers ran toward the sound of gunfire and died.

This is just terrible. This only strengthens the argument for gun control folks. The armed guard did nothing but hide.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by AdamBomb

This is just terrible. This only strengthens the argument for gun control folks. The armed guard did nothing but hide.

He was a police officer. It is terrible.

The police presence didn't work (more accurately, it didn't work until other POs arrived later), but disarmed teachers showed a willingness to defend immediately. You conclude that this supports further gun control.

How so?

[NateKirk]

Where you imagine the training that would be useful in facing a combatant, you have ignored the proficiency that can suffice in facing a murderer

Here you are implying that the threshhold for competency in defending oneself is far lower because the perpetrator is a mere "murderer" and not a "combatant." I'll forgo my personal commentary for the sake of politeness.

No competent instructor is going to claim that no instruction or simply an understanding of basic use is going to adequately prepare them to be effective without harming by standers in a worst case scenario like a school shooting.

There is enormous middle ground between extensive and high quality training and handing someone a firearm without any instruction.

Then what is it that you would propose? Because That's how most gun owners are, they either practice on a weekly basis, or they shoot once every few months. And that's discounting the ones who buy it for "protection" leave it in a desk drawer and never practice with it. Thinking of your own range time and that of your friends most people can attest to this.

When I got my CCW in NC, you had to take a full day course that included half a day of laws and half a day at the range. Out of the 100 people there, I was 1 of 8 that had brought my own gun to the range part. The rest had to rent because they didn't own one. In fact, most of the people had never even fired one. People are clueless when it comes to guns. The CCW course was not a 'learn to shoot' course but they had to do that for 90% of the participants. I just couldn't believe how many people there were not trained, had never shot a gun, and probably never would again after the course.

This was my experience as well.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Nate Kirk

Here you are implying that the threshhold for competency in defending oneself is far lower because the perpetrator is a mere "murderer" and not a "combatant." I'll forgo my personal commentary for the sake of politeness.

Your personal commentary is irrelevant to the topic.

Yes, there is a material difference between a man with a rifle killing children in a closed building, and an infantryman in an opposing armed force. Recognizing this should not unsettle you.

Originally Posted by Nate Kirk

No competent instructor is going to claim that no instruction or simply an understanding of basic use is going to adequately prepare them to be effective without harming by standers in a worst case scenario like a school shooting.

The issue isn't what you think an instructor has told you. It is beyond reasonable dispute that even people with modest training and scant practice can effectively employ arms.

Why didn't you answer the question about the extensive practice and high quality training received by Nikolas Cruz? Do you now grasp the factual deficiency of your position?

Originally Posted by Nate Kirk

Then what is it that you would propose.

I am proposing that you think about this more.

Commenting on the law competently takes years training and frequent practice. At least that's what some law school professors told me. You shouldn't do it without high quality and extensive preparation.

Right?

[NateKirk]

Your personal commentary is irrelevant to the topic.

Which is why I didn't mention it.

Yes, there is a material difference between a man with a rifle killing children in a closed building, and an infantryman in an opposing armed force. Recognizing this should not unsettle you.

Of course there is, but you imply that because the situation doesn't involve a military style combatant that only a basic knowledge of firearm use is required to effectively neutralize the situation without hurting any one but the aggressor. As I've stated before, employing lethal force around large crowds of emotionally charged, frightened people is a worst case scenario, and from what I have seen, this is beyond the average hobbyists ability.

The issue isn't what you think an instructor has told you

I know what instructors have told me. Several instructors. Normal CPL training and basic knowledge is not enough if you expect to be able to defend yours and others lives. We've heard this time and again on the forums and from shooting authorities.

Why didn't you answer the question about the extensive practice and high quality training received by Nikolas Cruz?

Well, lets do that. You said:

It is too easy to demonstrate that copious practice and quality training aren't necessary to effectively use a firearm with a single example of someone with neither who effectively employs a firearm. What was the quality training received by Nikolas Cruz?

There is a world of difference between pointing a gun at a herd of people and squeezing a trigger, and precisely using a gun to effectively defend yourself and others, while not killing by standers. If you can't see this then there is no point in debating any longer.

I am proposing that you think about this more

That's an evasion. What is it that you propose?

Commenting on the law competently takes years training and frequent practice. At least that's what some law school professors told me. You shouldn't do it without high quality and extensive preparation.

Right?

Right. The same applies to firearms use.

[rwilson452]

To my way of thinking you need two things to be effective in an active shooter situation in school. Marksmanship and mind set.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Nate Kirk

Which is why I didn't mention it.

If you hadn't mentioned it, we couldn't be discussing it.

Originally Posted by Nate Kirk

Of course there is, but you imply that because the situation doesn't involve a military style combatant that only a basic knowledge of firearm use is required to effectively neutralize the situation without hurting any one but aggressor.

That is incorrect. That you drew an inference that favors your position doesn't mean that I implied it. Basic proficiency may be necessary, yet not sufficient in every situation.

I am gratified that you now recognize the difference between a murderer and a combatant.

Originally Posted by Nate Kirk

As I've stated before, employing lethal force large crowds of emotionally charged, frightened people is a worst case scenario, and from what I have seen, this is beyond the average hobbyists ability.

Is it possible that it would be useful to you to see more before drawing conclusions that would abridge peoples' civil rights?

Originally Posted by Nate Kirk

I know what instructors have told me. Several instructors. Normal CPL training and basic knowledge is not enough if you expect to be able to defend yours and others lives.

So now the authority you offer is "several instructors". Excellent.

Originally Posted by Nate Kirk

Well, lets do that. You said:

There is a world of difference between pointing a gun at a herd of people and squeezing a trigger, and precisely using a gun to effectively defend yourself and others, while not killing by standers.

I agree there there are all sorts of differences in different situations. This is why training to face a combatant may not be necessary in all situations.

Originally Posted by Nate Kirk

That's an evasion. What is it that you propose?

No, it isn't an evasion, and asking the question a second time gets you the answer a second time. I propose that you think about this more.


I believe you ignored my final question because you may recognize the weakness in the standard you've set forth. You don't want people who haven't had "high quality training" to exercise a constitutional right, yet you advocate restricting peoples' rights without any "high quality training" to do so.

I don't actually think you should be prohibited from advocacy on the issue, because to speak on it is your right, training or not. Similarly, I wouldn't limit your right to defend with arms, your right, training or not.

EDIT - I see you came back for the final question, yet may be blind to the irony. I hope the prior paragraph frames it sufficiently.

[Soupah]

All this conversation on arming teachers is pointless...POINTLESS..because it would be a pyrrhic victory. You should all hope it doesn't come to pass.

Nothing would more completely and finally swing the tide of public opinion overwhelmingly against gun owners than dealing with the actual arming of teachers in schools. Even if it prevented mass shootings.

One ND, one accidental or unprovoked fatal shooting, one holstered Sig left in a drawer and found by a student, and we would be worse off than ever.

Teachers generally aren't gun people, just like the general public. It's bad enough forcing safe gun practices on the willing. Best to raise the age limit on firearm purchases (but not the use of) to something reasonable, like 21.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Soupah

All this conversation on arming teachers is pointless...POINTLESS..because it would be a pyrrhic victory. You should all hope it doesn't come to pass.

Nothing would more completely and finally swing the tide of public opinion overwhelmingly against gun owners than dealing with the actual arming of teachers in schools. Even if it prevented mass shootings.

One ND, one accidental or unprovoked fatal shooting, one holstered Sig left in a drawer and found by a student, and we would be worse off than ever.

Teachers generally aren't gun people, just like the general public. It's bad enough forcing safe gun practices on the willing.

What part of that wouldn't apply to police officers?

Who has proposed forcing teachers to arm?

[Soupah]

I guess I meant the risks of "incentivizing" teachers to arm, not forcing. As evidenced in the front page of the New York Times this morning (a paper I encourage all of us to read; know your enemy's arguments and all that).

[K_Mac]

The idea that you can hand anyone a firearm and expect them to be able to automatically effectively defend themselves against someone determined to kill them is the most hillbilly, good 'ol boy, careless attitude I've ever heard.

And that, ladies and gentlemen is the bumper sticker for those who believe guns and yokels are the problem.

As a card carrying good ole boy, I find this argument disingenuous at best. Whether my brethren and I can effectively defend ourselves is not really the issue. The implication though, is that we pose a danger to ourselves and society at large by having guns. I'm not opposed to basic proficiency and safety training for concealed carry permits, but the idea that I be required to pass some sort of psycological or proficiency testing to simply own guns is without question an infringement of my rights.

That the cause of the killing of innocents is ultimately access to guns by law abiding citizens is a straw man that does not address the failure of existing gun control laws. It is not the fault of the tens of millions of Americans who are dismissed as unenlightened rubes because we take our 2A rights and responsibilities seriously.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Originally Posted by NateKirk

I never said registration was a good idea. Please quote me where I ever said anything about registration.

Didn’t we just have this conversation? The current background check system IS registration. It is based on the de-centralized registry established by the 1968 Gun Control Act. You have repeatedly stated you want to add more records to this system and expand it to all private sales.

Let’s look at how that works. You get your wish. I have a rifle. Maybe it is worth a lot now because it has been banned. Heck, maybe they’ll ban mags too and that stack of $8 PMAGs I am sitting on outperforms my 401k. I sell it to RC20 face to face with no background check. RC20 decides to do something criminal with it. Police come to me and I say “sold it before the law changed. Prove otherwise.” They can prove I didn’t do a background check; but can they prove WHEN I didn’t do a background check?

Expanding NICS to all private sales REQUIRES firearms registration or it is a toothless law enforceable only against the criminally stupid. That’s the entire point I’ve been making repeatedly now.

Originally Posted by NateKirk

The idea that you can hand anyone a firearm and expect them to be able to automatically effectively defend themselves against someone determined to kill them is the most hillbilly, good 'ol boy, careless attitude I've ever heard.

People defend themselves every day in this country with zero formal training and many of the people who most need self-defense lack the time and money for such training.

Also, apropos of nothing, what made you associate “hillbilly and good ol’ boy” with “careless attitude” in your mind? Are the hillbillies you know particularly careless? Got a friend who is a “good ol’ boy?”

[NateKirk]

If you hadn't mentioned it, we couldn't be discussing it.

See post 264.

Basic proficiency may be necessary, yet not sufficient in every situation.

I'm happy to see that you've submitted to the point I've made.

s it possible that it would be useful to you to see more before drawing conclusions that would abridge peoples' civil rights?

It would be useful. And others are welcome to offer what they have seen as well. That we would require an assurance of competency and responsibility from authority figures (in this case teachers,) is not an abridgment of rights, it is a job requirement. The general public is still free to be as ignorant as they like.

So now the authority you offer is "several instructors". Excellent

This is a retort, not a rebuttal. Scathing.

No, it isn't an evasion, and asking the question a second time gets you the answer a second time. I propose that you think about this more

One may shout all day at your opponent "I propose you think about this more" but that offers nothing to support your argument. The fact is, that one needs proper training in order to expect to effectively defend themselves and others in any kind of force of force situation.

Your argument up to this point is that a hobbyists skill level, a civilian mindset, and a reliance on the folksy adage "it's better to be lucky than good," is an adequate defense against an irrational killer who has the advantage of choosing the setting and time of conflict, and more than likely possesses superior weapons.

To rebuke this is is to say you believe that no training is necessary to defend yourself, or that you agree that high quality, regular training should be completed if authority figures are to arm themselves in school.

I believe you ignored my final question because you may recognize the weakness in the standard you've set forth. You don't want people who haven't had "high quality training" to exercise a constitutional right, yet you advocate restricting peoples' rights without any "high quality training" to do so.

I see you came back for the final question, yet may be blind to the irony

I think you may have missed it. You basically agreed with me. And funnily enough, your response again does nothing to support your position.

Here's the exchange:

Quote:
Commenting on the law competently takes years training and frequent practice. At least that's what some law school professors told me. You shouldn't do it without high quality and extensive preparation.

Right?

Right. The same applies to firearms use.

You were either insincere in your inference that I am unqualified to discuss legal matters due to my being one of the little people, which would make my statement ironic, or you agree with my point.



This is going in circles. If anyone else is interested in attempting to poke holes in my reasoning they are welcome to do so.

[Prndll]

Commenting on law? Lol

Twitter seems to just about be given the power to make law. The world hinges on what happens on Twitter.

This is getting ridiculous.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Nate Kirk

I think you may have missed it. You basically agreed with me. And funnily enough, your response again does nothing to support your position.

Here's the exchange:

Right. The same applies to firearms use.

You were either insincere in your inference that I am unqualified to discuss legal matters due to my being one of the little people, which would make my statement ironic, or you agree with my point.

Nate, I didn't intend the point to be so subtle that it was elusive.

The implication isn't that you are unqualified to discuss legal matters for your lack of training. The suggestion is that applying your own standard for exercise of a person's right to arm made subject to high quality training would leave you unqualified to safely comment on the implications of abridging peoples' civil rights.

If you understand the irony of your call for training before exercising a right, why are you here commenting on the law? Or is this standard only for other people?