Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

A firearm question for you LeftiesFollow

#502 Jan 24 2013 at 4:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
gbaji wrote:
stuff


A trained person responding to a threat is certainly the ideal situation. It's what you'd want, if someone is going to confront a shooter in a school you want them to know what they're doing, have the best chance of success, and minimal change of causing more harm than good. Well for my money at least, if someone is going to be carrying a firearm on a campus they damn well better be trained. The issue is two-fold for me from that point:

1) Are there going to be people in place who are pre-trained to respond quickly with a firearm?

2) If so, who's paying for that training? If not, are we letting untrained people have guns? Or are we hiring security people? Or requiring training perhaps?

I imagine there may be cases where you can find no shortage of properly trained people who are willing to carry a firearm and protect their students, but I doubt that's going to be a universal situation. Which is where my concern lies, which is why I'd wonder if using a military-trained person in an example is the most relevant case. It's not going to be the universal situation, and how we'd address that is more of a concern than whether or not someone properly trained can respond appropriately.

Edited, Jan 24th 2013 2:09pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#503 Jan 24 2013 at 4:16 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
When off duty a member of the military (and the police for that matter) is a civilian legally.
Wow, one statement wrong in two ways. You're only considered "civilian" off duty if you're E4 or below, and even if you want to try to suggest an E4 was commander his training doesn't disappear when he is off duty.


He's not allowed to carry a weapon in a school zone. Stop arguing irrelevant semantics. In this entire thread, the phrase "armed civilian" has been used to mean anyone who is not an on duty member of law enforcement/security legally authorized to carry a weapon in the area in question. You're now going to jump in at the eleventh hour and insist that we use a different meaning? This is doubly bizarre because Joph and I earlier got into the exact opposite argument, with him arguing that the odds of a former marine being on campus and thus capable of successfully confronting and stopping a shooter at school was low. So now you're going to argue that we should discount people who are current for former members of the military because they're not "civilians"?


That's ridiculous and you damn well know it. I'm assuming by your increasingly bizarre and trollish methodology that you've realized I'm right and are now just arguing for the sake of arguing.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#504 Jan 24 2013 at 4:30 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
Stop arguing irrelevant semantics.
I'll tell you what: you stop bringing in things you believe are facts, and I'll stop having to correct them. Deal?
gbaji wrote:
So now you're going to argue that we should discount people who are current for former members of the military because they're not "civilians"?
That's not the argument. For the nth time, your own claims have been that a random civilian would without a doubt save lives if a gun was somewhere on the premises. You went as far as claiming that there were CASES of it happening; Civilians running half a mile to get their guns. When asked for proof, you've fallen woefully short, but instead of saying "oops," and finding another story that might better suit your hypothetical you've decided instead to double down and back pedal as only you can in the hopes that we'd forget your original claims. You crying "irrelevant semantics" is pretty much "well that disproves me so ignore it!"

And I noticed you called me a troll. Much like the Dread Pirate Roberts, I'll admit it with pride. Too bad for you that even with trolling I can still use facts and common sense, whereas you as a contrarian have to go out of your way to insist those very facts and common sense are irrelevant because it's the only way to be on the opposite side of any debate.

Edited, Jan 24th 2013 6:02pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#505 Jan 24 2013 at 5:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Most people who obtain carry permits do have police or military training.

[citation needed]
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#506 Jan 24 2013 at 5:33 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
stuff


A trained person responding to a threat is certainly the ideal situation. It's what you'd want, if someone is going to confront a shooter in a school you want them to know what they're doing, have the best chance of success, and minimal change of causing more harm than good. Well for my money at least, if someone is going to be carrying a firearm on a campus they damn well better be trained.


Most people who obtain carry permits for firearms have some degree of training. It's usually required to get the permit. What I've been arguing all along is to remove the moronic restrictions which prohibit those who already have those permits from carrying their weapons in various areas. Specifically school zones.


Quote:
The issue is two-fold for me from that point:

1) Are there going to be people in place who are pre-trained to respond quickly with a firearm?


Who knows? I'm not talking about mandating anything. I'm talking about removing an existing restriction on firearm carry laws. The point is that right now, even if there are several members of a school faculty with the skills and training to deal with a shooter, they are hindered by the fact that they are required to leave their firearms off campus. We can talk about training people on campus as well, but how about we start by removing the law which currently ensures that even if such a trained person is on campus, they can't have their weapon with them?

Quote:
2) If so, who's paying for that training? If not, are we letting untrained people have guns? Or are we hiring security people? Or requiring training perhaps?


What I'm proposing costs no money at all. There are probably tens of thousands of people who work in schools right now who are sufficiently capable of intervening in a shooting incident who are currently disarmed and thus unable to do so as effectively as they could. This is a free resource which could help protect our children which we are throwing away. I'm just suggesting that we not do that.

Quote:
I imagine there may be cases where you can find no shortage of properly trained people who are willing to carry a firearm and protect their students, but I doubt that's going to be a universal situation.


Sure. But some is better than none, right? We currently have laws which actually prohibit those who do have the training and expertise from being able to effectively act in the event a school shooting occurs. To me that's crazy.


Quote:
Which is where my concern lies, which is why I'd wonder if using a military-trained person in an example is the most relevant case.


It's a case that shows us that had he not had to run so far to get to his gun, maybe more lives could have been saved. Obviously, we can't say exactly what would have happened, nor can we guaranteed outcomes in the future. But we can tilts the odds in favor of saving student lives, and I think that's worth doing given the nearly zero risk and cost this would entail.

Quote:
It's not going to be the universal situation, and how we'd address that is more of a concern than whether or not someone properly trained can respond appropriately.


I'm not sure why you think that. If we waited to do something until it could be done universally, we'd never do anything. Do you wait to install an alarm system in your home until all your neighbors can install them? No. You install yours in your home, and you let your neighbor worry about installing theirs in their home. Similarly, why should a school be forced to wait to be allowed to let their faculty bring weapons to school to help protect their students until there's some federal universal assurance that all schools will be able to do so? That seems strange to me. Just remove the restriction and let the schools decide on their own how to move forward. That seems like a reasonable course of action to me.


That's not to say we can't also pursue other courses, but there's no rational reason not to do this right now.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#507 Jan 24 2013 at 5:41 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,877 posts
Gbaji wrote:
I'm assuming by your increasingly bizarre and trollish methodology that you've realized I'm right and are now just arguing for the sake of arguing.


Hmm there is irony in there I just can't figure out where...
#508 Jan 24 2013 at 5:42 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Most people who obtain carry permits do have police or military training.

Possibly true in blue states. Highly unlikely in red states.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#509 Jan 24 2013 at 5:48 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Educate me... Do you need a concealed license in order to purchase a firearm?
#510 Jan 24 2013 at 5:50 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Most states only require a photo ID, a background check, and to pay the merchant.

Or go to a gunshow and you can skip two of those steps.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#511 Jan 24 2013 at 5:50 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Most people who obtain carry permits do have police or military training.

[citation needed]


Don't have one. May have even made it up. Who knows. There are about 3 million active and reserve members of the military in the US, and about 20 million former/retired military. Add to that about 800k active police officers, plus however many retired officers may exist (presumably not the same high ratio as former military, but I couldn't find any easy numbers). Realize that there are currently about 6 million concealed carry permits in the US.

While we could speculate that there's a huge number of folks who've never been in the military or police or any profession in which they would have carried a weapon and thus received training with them who then on their own decide to go out and get concealed carry permits, but it seems reasonable (if we're speculating) to assume it's more likely that those former groups make up the majority of those who obtain such permits. I'll certainly acknowledge I could be wrong though.

It's still somewhat irrelevant. To obtain a permit you generally do have to take some kind of training. Is it "police or military" training? No. Is it still more than aunt Myrtle picking up her husbands old shotgun for the first time in her life? Yes. And isn't the point here about whether those faculty who might be bringing firearms into school zones would be sufficiently capable of using them safely and effectively? And more to the point, there's nothing preventing each school or district from setting their own rules for this either.

I'm just saying to empower the schools by removing the laws which currently tie their hands.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#512 Jan 24 2013 at 5:53 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Most states only require a photo ID, a background check, and to pay the merchant.

Or go to a gunshow and you can skip two of those steps.


So, is it safe to assume that there is a notable percentage of people who legally bought weapons and illegally conceal them at one point in time?
#513 Jan 24 2013 at 5:55 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Educate me... Do you need a concealed license in order to purchase a firearm?


No. But you do need one in order to carry one concealed on your person. Which is the relevant point here since I'm arguing that concealed carry by civilians (non on-duty police for the stupid) would help reduce the fatality rate from mass shootings (or potential mass shootings).
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#514 Jan 24 2013 at 5:59 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Most states only require a photo ID, a background check, and to pay the merchant.

Or go to a gunshow and you can skip two of those steps.


So, is it safe to assume that there is a notable percentage of people who legally bought weapons and illegally conceal them at one point in time?


Depends on your definition of "notable". I'm sure some small percentage of people might do this. Most will not simply because the penalty for being caught is pretty severe. Two cases where I'd see this happening most would be someone who bought his gun legally and then decides to use it for a crime (he'll conceal it while going to/from the crime scene) and someone who buys a gun for protection and is afraid for his safety, but lives in a state that does not allow concealed carry (or makes it ridiculously difficult to obtain), so decides he's more willing to risk the legal penalties than the danger of not being able to defend himself.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#515 Jan 24 2013 at 6:00 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
clowns (non on-duty police for the stupid)
gbaji wrote:
horses (non on-duty police for the stupid)
gbaji wrote:
ballerinas (non on-duty police for the stupid)
gbaji wrote:
dinosaurs (non on-duty police for the stupid)
I mean, if you're going to use the wrong term you might as well reach for the stars.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#516 Jan 24 2013 at 6:05 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
gbaji wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Educate me... Do you need a concealed license in order to purchase a firearm?


No. But you do need one in order to carry one concealed on your person. Which is the relevant point here since I'm arguing that concealed carry by civilians (non on-duty police for the stupid) would help reduce the fatality rate from mass shootings (or potential mass shootings).


How will it help prevent mass shootings?
#517 Jan 24 2013 at 6:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Most people who obtain carry permits do have police or military training.

[citation needed]

So my dad is military? Huh. Never knew.
#518 Jan 24 2013 at 6:24 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Most people who obtain carry permits do have police or military training.

[citation needed]

So my dad is military? Huh. Never knew.


Being off duty doesn't make you a civilian. I'm not sure how the reserve/guard works though.

Edited, Jan 25th 2013 2:24am by Almalieque
#519 Jan 24 2013 at 6:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Most people who obtain carry permits do have police or military training.

[citation needed]
Don't have one. May have even made it up. Who knows.

I know. You made it up. It may be accurate in a "threw a wild pitch and hit despite yourself" sort of way but you made it up.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#520 Jan 24 2013 at 6:32 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Most people who obtain carry permits do have police or military training.

[citation needed]

So my dad is military? Huh. Never knew.


Most people who obtain carry permits are your dad? How many permits does he need? Smiley: dubious
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#521 Jan 24 2013 at 6:38 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Educate me... Do you need a concealed license in order to purchase a firearm?


No. But you do need one in order to carry one concealed on your person. Which is the relevant point here since I'm arguing that concealed carry by civilians (non on-duty police for the stupid) would help reduce the fatality rate from mass shootings (or potential mass shootings).


How will it help preventreduce the fatality rate from mass shootings (or potential mass shootings)?


Maybe read the previous 9 pages of this thread? And quote me properly.

There are numerous cases of shootings where the shooter clearly intended to kill enough people to qualify as a mass shooting but where a person in the vicinity with a concealed weapon was able to stop the shooter before he succeeded in kill that many people. The AT&T store shooting. The recent Oregon Mall shooting. A couple of church shootings (can't recall the names off the top of my head). The Pearl High School shooting we've been discussing. I linked to a site listing them earlier. There are quite a few.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#522 Jan 24 2013 at 6:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Gbaji's argument for more gun access seems to rely pretty much completely on conjecture. "Well, there's no actual mass shootings that were stopped by a civilian with a gun but all of these COULD have been.... and a teacher COULD have gotten a gun.... and there ABSOLUTELY COULD have been less deaths.... and this COULD have happened... So, in closing, more guns for everyone is obviously the answer!"
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#523 Jan 24 2013 at 7:21 PM Rating: Good
Do you have to prove that you've had gun training to get a conceal and carry permit?
#524 Jan 24 2013 at 7:26 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
In NYC you need, and I quote "A license may be granted to an applicant who is of good moral character, who is over 21 years of age, who has not been convicted of a serious offense, who states if and when he has ever been treated for mental illness, who is not subject to a protective court order and to whom no good cause exists for the denial of the license."
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#525 Jan 24 2013 at 7:29 PM Rating: Good
lolgaxe wrote:
In NYC you need, and I quote "A license may be granted to an applicant who is of good moral character, who is over 21 years of age, who has not been convicted of a serious offense, who states if and when he has ever been treated for mental illness, who is not subject to a protective court order and to whom no good cause exists for the denial of the license."



That kind of sounds like Hawaii. From what I understand, conceal and carry permits are handed out at the sole discretion of the chief of police, and he basically denies everyone.
#526 Jan 24 2013 at 7:34 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Do you have to prove that you've had gun training to get a conceal and carry permit?

Varies wildly by jurisdiction, but in most cases the concealing part doesn't require special training. Some states require training to own. In many states there are broad exemptions. If I recall correctly, in Virginia anyone could conceal if they were traveling from home to work. Wasn't an issue for me as my place of work had guns enough without me freelancing one in from home. Also would have been frowned upon to the tune of 20 years in federal "pound me in the ***" prison.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 211 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (211)