Gun Control III

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
321

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Open question:

If you’re not 100% sure you will be able to put one center mass on a bad guy, do you have a responsibility to NOT carry even if you can legally?

[/quote]

I’m not sure that statement ever applies to anyone in real-life circumstances.

For a non-answer, I’ll start by stating that the NRA instructor should not give you a passing grade if you cannot demonstrate the basic proficiency of hitting a silhouette target at 7 yards with a handgun.

No course certification, no permit (in my state).

For an actual answer, I will say “no”. Marksmanship has little to do with judgement, which I would argue has much more influence of how a hypothetical defensive scenario might play out.

That said, if someone is truly inept with a firearm, they should have the judgement to conclude that carrying one may not be a good decision. If you can’t hold the gun without your hands shaking, or if you are blind, or if you cannot keep your eyes open when pulling the trigger, you should probably reconsider your defensive equipment.

[/quote]

Allow me to clarify:

If you’re not 100% sure you will be able to pull the trigger, because you don’t know if you can take a life, to defend yourself from a bad guy, do you have a moral responsibility to NOT carry even if you can legally?

ie: You have the skill, but don’t know if you have the will.

322

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Open question:

If you’re not 100% sure you will be able to put one center mass on a bad guy, do you have a responsibility to NOT carry even if you can legally?

[/quote]

I’m not sure that statement ever applies to anyone in real-life circumstances.

For a non-answer, I’ll start by stating that the NRA instructor should not give you a passing grade if you cannot demonstrate the basic proficiency of hitting a silhouette target at 7 yards with a handgun.

No course certification, no permit (in my state).

For an actual answer, I will say “no”. Marksmanship has little to do with judgement, which I would argue has much more influence of how a hypothetical defensive scenario might play out.

That said, if someone is truly inept with a firearm, they should have the judgement to conclude that carrying one may not be a good decision. If you can’t hold the gun without your hands shaking, or if you are blind, or if you cannot keep your eyes open when pulling the trigger, you should probably reconsider your defensive equipment.

[/quote]

Allow me to clarify:

If you’re not 100% sure you will be able to pull the trigger, because you don’t know if you can take a life, to defend yourself from a bad guy, do you have a moral responsibility to NOT carry even if you can legally?

ie: You have the skill, but don’t know if you have the will. [/quote]

Pretty subjective question, but I would never steer someone with that mindset towards carrying a handgun.

323

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

Pretty subjective question, [/quote]

That’s what I’m going for. :wink:

I’ve gone over it a million times in my mind. From the safety of not being in the moment I’m convinced I would, if I had to, end the threat. And if the threat dies, that is up to god and on him/her for forcing me to end their advances towards me or mine.

However, I’ve never been in a gun fight, I don’t know what will happen. So I can’t be 100% sure.

[quote]but I would never steer someone with that mindset towards carrying a handgun.

[/quote]

What then? Pepper spray? A knife? Anything?

324

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

Pretty subjective question, [/quote]

That’s what I’m going for. :wink:

I’ve gone over it a million times in my mind. From the safety of not being in the moment I’m convinced I would, if I had to, end the threat. And if the threat dies, that is up to god and on him/her for forcing me to end their advances towards me or mine.

However, I’ve never been in a gun fight, I don’t know what will happen. So I can’t be 100% sure.

[quote]but I would never steer someone with that mindset towards carrying a handgun.

[/quote]

What then? Pepper spray? A knife? Anything?
[/quote]

Cellphone and running shoes, perhaps.

A knife occupies the same place on the spectrum of force as a firearm. Both are deadly force, likely to cause death or great bodily harm. If you aren’t ready to use a gun, you aren’t ready to use a knife either.

Pepper spray is fine, as are taser-type weapons. Both are very unlikely to cause death or great bodily harm.

Plenty of other options on the less-than lethal force spectrum as well.

If this person is serious about defending themselves and equally serious about doing so with less-than-lethal means, I would suggest martial arts. There is no substitute for training.

For suggesting reading, I would HIGHLY recommend purchasing Combat Shooting by Massad Ayoob. He goes into great deal about mindset and the ethical conundrums faced by everyday people making the decision to carry.

Actually, I’ll recommend anything written by Ayoob.

325

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

Pretty subjective question, [/quote]

That’s what I’m going for. :wink:

I’ve gone over it a million times in my mind. From the safety of not being in the moment I’m convinced I would, if I had to, end the threat. And if the threat dies, that is up to god and on him/her for forcing me to end their advances towards me or mine.

However, I’ve never been in a gun fight, I don’t know what will happen. So I can’t be 100% sure.

[quote]but I would never steer someone with that mindset towards carrying a handgun.

[/quote]

What then? Pepper spray? A knife? Anything?
[/quote]

Cellphone and running shoes, perhaps.

A knife occupies the same place on the spectrum of force as a firearm. Both are deadly force, likely to cause death or great bodily harm. If you aren’t ready to use a gun, you aren’t ready to use a knife either.
[/quote]

I will add to this that using a knife means you are in much closer proximity to the threat. If you think you will have a problem shooting a threat, then looking him in the eyes from a distance of a foot or less as you stab him repeatedly will be much, MUCH harder to deal with.

326

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
Taken from: Watervliet, NY Asks Pistol Permit Applicants for Facebook Passwords. Or Not. - The Truth About Guns

"…the Chief said he uses the form to gather the applicantÃ?¢??s Facebook deets during a face-to-face interview. Why make note of the password? Ã?¢??We donÃ?¢??t,Ã?¢?? he insisted. Ã?¢??We ask the applicant to log on to Facebook in front of us.Ã?¢?? So the Chief scrolls through the applicantÃ?¢??s Facebook page searching for . . . ?

�¢??Pages they�¢??re looked at, friends �¢?? anything that reflects on the character of the applicant.�¢?? I pointed out that there�¢??s a big difference [in terms of privacy] between viewing a Facebook page as a friend and viewing it as the owner. The Chief wasn�¢??t bothered by the distinction.

When I pointed out that checking someone�¢??s Facebook page (in front of them no less) was unnecessary, unfair and unconstitutional, the Chief said �¢??I�¢??m just the middleman here�¢?? and �¢??it is what it is.�¢?? He said the information gets sent to a Superior Court judge who makes the final decision. The Facebook search is, in fact, the judiciary�¢??s idea. I mean, requirement.

I asked the Chief what would happen if someone refused to log on to their Facebook account. �¢??I�¢??d just note the fact and send it to the Judges.�¢??"[/quote]

Holy shit! What part of “shall not be infringed” does that not take a piss on?[/quote]

Holy CRAP. How is that allowed???

328

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/10/21/just-guess-what-ferguson-police-found-on-missouri-democrat-who-has-sponsored-several-anti-gun-bills/

329

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/10/21/just-guess-what-ferguson-police-found-on-missouri-democrat-who-has-sponsored-several-anti-gun-bills/
[/quote]

Some people are more equal than others.

331

Bill, killing it as usual.

332

Some good news.

A federal appeals court decided Wednesday that California has no legal right to challenge a ruling that prevents counties from imposing strict requirements on carrying concealed weapons in public.

333

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Some good news.

A federal appeals court decided Wednesday that California has no legal right to challenge a ruling that prevents counties from imposing strict requirements on carrying concealed weapons in public.

[/quote]

My understanding, and I’m not a lawyer, is that while yes this is good news, this is no where near something to get your freedom boner going.

There are a couple more cases pending, and this case basically is in opposition to one earlier. So it might end up in SCOTUS, which will kill “may issue” (please dear lord), may end up in SCOTUS and confirm “may issue” (fuck Christ no), or just stay on CA books as a contradiction further convoluting laws there (welcome to the suck of a non-free state.)

334

I’m surprised no one has brought up Bullalo PD checking/seizing guns of dead people? Need a link?

Commentary?

335
336

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
I’m surprised no one has brought up Bullalo PD checking/seizing guns of dead people? Need a link?

Commentary?[/quote]

It’s NY… We expect nothing less. That state is a lost cause.

337

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
I’m surprised no one has brought up Bullalo PD checking/seizing guns of dead people? Need a link?

Commentary?[/quote]

It’s NY… We expect nothing less. That state is a lost cause. [/quote]

WTF? Does the DMV and DPS have legal standing to check/seize the automobiles of the recently departed?

338

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
I’m surprised no one has brought up Bullalo PD checking/seizing guns of dead people? Need a link?

Commentary?[/quote]

It’s NY… We expect nothing less. That state is a lost cause. [/quote]

WTF? Does the DMV and DPS have legal standing to check/seize the automobiles of the recently departed? [/quote]

NY is a massive clusterfuck right now. Basically the NYC voting demographic is holding the entire state hostage as far as their rights on concerned, and the new found power of local and state police is turning out to be what most predicted: intoxicating, and the local LEO are drunk with power/tyrannical ambitions.

Even if the report turns out to be false/misleading, the fact remains that gun rights are now “gun privileges” in NY, even though the vast majority of the state is more like Montana than NYC.

339

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Bill, killing it as usual. [/quote]

Unfortunately, as wrong as they would be, it would only take 5 liberal supreme court justices to interpret it differently. Part of me wants Cali and New York gun laws to get appealed to the Supreme Court but I am frightened of the result.

340

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Bill, killing it as usual. [/quote]

Unfortunately, as wrong as they would be, it would only take 5 liberal supreme court justices to interpret it differently. Part of me wants Cali and New York gun laws to get appealed to the Supreme Court but I am frightened of the result.[/quote]

Fair enough, but we have Heller & McDonald on our side, and a few states that will blatantly say “fuck you” to the feds on this issue.

We’re winning the war, even though we lost a couple battles (CT, MA, NJ, NY, CA). Even the new gun control passed in MA went from “typical MA removal of rights” to “holy shit, this is only like 55% loss, with 45% gain”. We, gun owners, actually stood up and told them no, that bullshit isn’t happening, and we turned CT & NY style tyranny into typical masshole bullshit, with holes for judicial action written into the law, that favor us, not the government.

You eat an elephant one bite at a time. In certain states that means not losing as bad, and in free states it means winning.