Open Carry

[Vagrant0]

Then we're just going to have to agree to disagree completely.

 

Giving a deadly weapon to 11 and 12 year olds and teaching them how to use said weapon? REALLY? I might agree if you were talking about hunting here, but no, you're talking about instruction for defending yourself... from people, and possibly shooting said people. In what f***ed up world are you living in that such a thing is "necessary" let alone prescribed by mandatory instruction? Sorry, but that's just wrong in every sense of the idea. Sorry, but most of what you say lends itself to that whole "insane survivalist" frame of being that is just an insult to reasonable and decent people who happen to own guns. And as you seem resolute in your own little crazy and dangerous beliefs, I'm just wasting my time here. I can only hope that some day you figure this stuff out on your own, and that that day happens before you become a physical danger to others instead of being merely one with irresponsible notions.

[Syco21]

Then we're just going to have to agree to disagree completely.

 

Giving a deadly weapon to 11 and 12 year olds and teaching them how to use said weapon? REALLY? I might agree if you were talking about hunting here, but no, you're talking about instruction for defending yourself... from people, and possibly shooting said people. In what f***ed up world are you living in that such a thing is "necessary" let alone prescribed by mandatory instruction? Sorry, but that's just wrong in every sense of the idea. Sorry, but most of what you say lends itself to that whole "insane survivalist" frame of being that is just an insult to reasonable and decent people who happen to own guns. And as you seem resolute in your own little crazy and dangerous beliefs, I'm just wasting my time here. I can only hope that some day you figure this stuff out on your own, and that that day happens before you become a physical danger to others instead of being merely one with irresponsible notions.

I said teach them how to handle a gun, not how to shoot someone. You know, basic things like "never point it at someone" and "keep your finger off the trigger unless ready to shoot." I wasn't talking about training them for self defense, but rather for safety.

 

You call me crazy, yet 'handle a gun' to you means 'shoot someone in self defense'? :wacko:

 

There are many uses for weapons, self defense and the defense of your family is just one of those uses. My personal favorite happens to be plinking, AKA recreational target shooting.

[WrathOfDeadguy]

Couple different subjects...

 

 

Teaching kids safe gun handling:

 

A little research on the subject also yields the juicy little fact that there exist such things as dummy guns, which are used to great effect by professional firearms trainers. Knowledge sticks best when taught early. As I said about three pages ago, knowledge disarms curiosity. A child who's been taught how to handle guns safely is much less likely to do something stupid with them later when encountering them in the real world for the first time. Hell, you don't even need to teach kids how to shoot to teach them how to be safe. Use dummy guns to teach safe handling, and let the parents decide after that whether they want their kids to learn more... as it should be. Such a course could easily be worked into a phys-ed or health program, and would provide a valuable lesson that could save lives. How is that a bad thing?

 

Self-reliance:

 

The reason why you keep and bear arms is the reason why you learn basic first aid... when something terrible happens, you want to be alive long enough for the professionals to come and help you. There is no system on Earth that is good enough to warrant taking away the individual's right and ability to self defense. Even with modern forensics, the perp has a better than even chance of not being caught at all unless the police show up while the crime is in progress. That's why we have detective bureaus and the FBI- entire agencies dedicated to catching the guys who got away with it. We would not need those things if the system worked, because if the system worked then the bad guys would not get away... and thus fear of consequence would persuade them not to turn to crime in the first place. We do not live in that world. Nobody does.

 

On that insipid comparison between guns and cars that always seems to pop up... I really, really dislike the "car comparison" and here's why:

 

Cars are deeply, profoundly, and fundamentally different from guns. In order to drive a car, your total and complete attention must be on the car at all times. Operating the car requires the absolute commitment of at least one hand and one foot just to keep the vehicle moving and in control. While doing so, you have to constantly be on the lookout for a plethora of other things, not the least of which are traffic signals, pedestrians, and other vehicles. If you spend fifteen minutes or five hours a day in your car, then during that time span driving your car is and ought to be the only thing you are doing. If you need to go to the bathroom, you have to pull over and get out of the car to do it.

 

The laws regarding their use have an immediate and severe connection to your personal safety and that of everyone around you, regardless of your attitude or disposition. Yield signs exist to keep you from colliding with cross-traffic, crosswalks exist to create safe crossing zones so that drivers can clearly see and yield to pedestrians. If you obey the laws, you will never cause an accident (though you cannot predict the actions of other drivers).

 

If you take your hands off the wheel for a few moments to do something else, your car does not magically stop moving... it has just become a half-ton of steel and rubber and ouch barreling down the freeway at 65mph with nobody at the wheel, and it poses a very real and immediate danger to everybody and everything in its immediate vicinity. If you take your eyes off the road, the same thing happens. If you have an accident, even if yours is the only vehicle involved, it becomes a major event which requires the attention of a police car, an ambulance service, the fire department (owing to the fuel), and a tow service, and that's if you didn't wreck in the middle of the road and block up traffic for hours on end, possibly resulting in even more accidents.

 

What does a gun do when you don't pay attention to it? Nothing at all. It does absolutely nothing at all until you grip it in your hand, draw it from its holster, and put your finger on the trigger. Until that point, it is dead weight on your hip. It does not threaten anyone, it does not harm anyone. The only time you need to pay any attention to it at all is when you find yourself threatened by another person. You can carry a gun and make a sandwich, take a phone call, send a text message, and go about your daily life as normal. You can even drive a car, and the presence of the gun will not affect your ability to do so. If you carry for fifteen minutes or for five hours or all day, not once will you have to give it your full and undivided attention except in the exceedingly unlikely and terrible event that you find yourself needing to draw it to defend yourself.

 

The comparison fails not because of what each tool is designed to do, but because of the requirements of using them and the physics of the devices themselves. Your gun will never, ever "just go off" if you forget to put the safety on before you holster it. Your car just might go rolling off on its own and crash into something if you leave the parking brake off. Bottom line, while guns may be designed and intended to kill, their operation and safe use is quite simple compared to driving a motor vehicle. Gun safety can be (and has been) distilled down into four basic rules that, if followed, will prevent you from ever doing something stupid or dangerous with a gun:

 

1. Always assume that every gun is loaded, even if you know it isn't.

 

2. Keep your finger off the trigger unless you are ready to fire.

 

3. Never point the muzzle at anything you are not willing to destroy.

 

4. Always be sure of your target and what is behind it.

 

That's it- that's all. Four rules. You could never have seen a real gun before and as long as you bear those things in mind you could handle it safely. It's no harder than memorizing your telephone number and street address.

 

Last post for this thread, I think... it's getting a little too hot in here.

[Kendo 2]

To quote on of my favorite movies,

 

"It is the hard heart that kills." Gunnery Sergeant Hartman - Full Metal Jacket

 

Murderous intent is just that and if someone is mad enough they will use whatever is at hand to do the deed. A firearm, a car, a spork, whatever.

 

Firearm education is important, IMO. Not the Liberal version of 'All guns are bad and so are gun owners' either. Teaching kids correct firearm safety has a greater potential of reducing accidental shootings. At a very early age I was given a .22 rifle for my birthday. My old man took me outside and we plinked cans all afternoon. He taught me the correct way handle the weapon and that it wasn't a toy but a weapon with a world of responsiblity attached to it. To this day (40 yrs later) I remember those lessons and go through the same drills. I have never accidently pulled the trigger on anything and I've only had to pull a gun on one man in my life and it IS NOT a pleasant feeling.

 

It isn't the weapons that need to be licensed, it's today's dumbass parents that need licensing on them for not raising their kids right or teaching then one ounce of personal accountability.

[Vindekarr]

Education is vital.

 

Any gun can kill, and for that reason it's vital that those who carry them understand the gravity of owning a lethal weapon-of any sort.

 

Both can kill. And for that reason, Im always careful when carrying them to and from the range. You dont fool around with guns, even a .22 can kill a man, but only if it's misused.

 

I think you should be required to sit a licence exam before you are given a gun licence. Restrictions dont save lives, they push things underground and we want them where we can see them.What would save lives would be better education and training, ensuring that guns are treated with the gravity required.

[AliasTheory]

Education is vital.

 

Any gun can kill, and for that reason it's vital that those who carry them understand the gravity of owning a lethal weapon-of any sort.

 

Both can kill. And for that reason, Im always careful when carrying them to and from the range. You dont fool around with guns, even a .22 can kill a man, but only if it's misused.

 

I think you should be required to sit a licence exam before you are given a gun licence. Restrictions dont save lives, they push things underground and we want them where we can see them.What would save lives would be better education and training, ensuring that guns are treated with the gravity required.

 

Totally true. Education is the solution to so many problems of today.

 

Too bad it can only do so much.

[ginnyfizz]

Yes, the education of children vis a vis guns is vital. In rural areas where shooting and legal gun ownership is relatively common, I have seen this in action. I have seen a farmer instruct his son to always carry the gun broken when it is loaded, and preferably that it should not be loaded until just before you shoot whatever vermin you are after because "This isn't a toy, youth" (that's how we talk oop north)"It's a weapon that you can kill or hurt someone with. So I am not going to see you do that, understood?" "Yes Da"

 

I was instructed this way too and to this day I do it.

 

Vermin in this case is defined as either four legged and furry (for example, Charlie Fox) or winged and feathery (pest species of bird such as corvines and pigeons.) Game birds like grouse and pheasant are not pests but they ARE tasty.

[roquefort]

"but it should be noted that when most men were armed, society tended to be more polite.."

 

I see variations of this often stated by pro-gun people, but is there any actual evidence for it? And while I know the original quote was offered as tongue in cheek, nevertheless do we really want to live in a society in which people only say 'please' and 'thank you' because if they don't they'll get their head blown off?

 

Surely the serious problem with guns as tools for personal protection lies in the fact that they have a lethal radius of hundreds of feet -- way beyond any personal safety zone, and a threat to others in, or about to enter, that radius.

 

Vagrant0 offered, IMHO, the most useful and insightful thoughts on this contentious subject :thumbsup:

[Aurielius]

"but it should be noted that when most men were armed, society tended to be more polite.."

 

I see variations of this often stated by pro-gun people, but is there any actual evidence for it? And while I know the original quote was offered as tongue in cheek, nevertheless do we really want to live in a society in which people only say 'please' and 'thank you' because if they don't they'll get their head blown off?

 

Even though you present the caveat that you are aware that my comment was tongue in cheek, you then proceed to treat it as a serious statement of fact. Is the concept of a polite society backed by lethal force is an anathema or that just the exercise of 2nd Amendment rights abhorrent?

 

 

Surely the serious problem with guns as tools for personal protection lies in the fact that they have a lethal radius of hundreds of feet -- way beyond any personal safety zone, and a threat to others in, or about to enter, that radius.

 

With all due respect your knowledge of the effective range of a hand gun is sadly deficient. Effective range of most handguns is between 40-60 meters and spent range between 90-120 meters.

 

Vagrant0 offered, IMHO, the most useful and insightful thoughts on this contentious subject :thumbsup:

 

It seems that most of the anti-gun lobby have never familiarized themselves with what they so vociferously decry, most gun owners are extremely conscious of the practical dangers of what they possess. There is an inherent assumption that all gun carriers are some form of irresponsible cowboy just waiting to discharge their weapon in a crowded area. The fact is that most incidents are in seclusion because that is where the criminal element finds it's most favorable point of assault. With the notable exception of shop keepers that keep a weapon for defense of armed robbery which can and do happen in more urban and populated areas. Proper training of the use and function of weapons is still the most important criteria for safe use, that is what the ant-gun faction should be focusing on not the repeal of constitutional rights. You might actually find support from gun owners if that was your approach, most of us favor responsible ownership.

 

[grannywils]

Aurielius, it is probably pretty well known, or at least surmised by most who know me on Nexus that I do not like guns. However, being a realist I recognize that good, and honest people do own them and handle them responsibly. I think your above post makes total sense, given that set of circumstances.

 

I believe, as I have said before in this thread, that if people feel the need to carry guns, that they should be registered to do so, and as you have pointed out so well, they should be properly trained in the use of the guns in question.

 

I have also pointed out that I recognize that criminals are not going to pay much attention to the laws and the need to register guns, etc. But if those among us who feel the need to carry and own guns are doing so responsibly, maybe the criminal element will have less of a chance of relieving us of our property (including our guns)