Gun sales today...pretty amazing...

[Ardy123]

I think most people would rather live in a society where one doesn't feel a need for a firearm...

Fighting fire with fire is often not be the best option unless you are seeking conflict...

Fear begets fear, creating self fulfilling prophecies...

human survival's foundation is interdependence, a web built on trust. Fear poisons that trust.

[Slash27]

I think most people would rather live in a society where one doesn't feel a need for a firearm...

Yet we do live in one. You ever come home and find a meth head sexual predator that's broke in your house on a Saturday morning?

[Ardy123]

Yet we do live in one. You ever come home and find a meth head sexual predator that's broke in your house on a Saturday morning?

Merry Christmas Slash. I hope you are comfortable at your home now with your family and everyone is safe and well. I hear many had a white Christmas, cool! Although I have experienced break-ins, never when I was around thankfully. If I was, despite feeling that my place of security was violated and being enraged with anger, I'd call the cops and leave. Admittedly, I would talk a good game about how I'm going to get that sweetheart and this and that, but Russian roulette with a low life isn't worth risking my life. Once I knew someone who had a break-in where the perpetrator, broke in via the window, drank beer out of the fridge, took a shower and left... (and no I'm not making this up).

[Slash27]

Check my FB, we got a couple inches or more on the ground at the moment. The dog loved it briefly.

I caught the bastard inside but my gun was in the truck. ( who needs to wear you gun at the carwash right?) I retrieved it and stood by at the door until the locals arrived. He was pretty fast though, ran down the stairs and out the back in the time it took me to get 10 feet to my truck. He was stealing meds and guns. Guess it's good I didn't have it on in a way. Might have been a hell of a mess.

[Stellaris]

@widewing - well at least we can agree on something!  

My point is this.  Just as guns don't kill people, guns don't create safety.  A person competent in the use of firearms in combat CAN create security (which in turn can contribute to safety), but the level of training required to be competent in combat is huge.  This is ENTIRELY unrelated to whatever skill someone might have on the range or hunting.  Lethal stress is the limiting factor, and most people don't understand this.  Even the military has only recently come to understand this and has massively changed, and intensified, training in response.  Without the sufficient and CURRENT training, guns subtract safety.  Old guy here in your video illustrates this perfectly.  He's obviously trained and experienced, but not recently, and though he pulls it off his performance is marginal.  His last shot is one-handed, no sight-picture, into the street - this is beyond unacceptable.  It is only because he gets the first shot off against incompetent opponents that this has a positive outcome.  He was brave, but he was also lucky, and luck is not a planning factor.  The irony is, had this gone sour and he'd wound up dead along with a half dozen innocents because he escalated the situation, he'd be even MORE of hero.  Such are the ways of the mainstream media.

So my point is, was, and remains - more guns will not create more safety.  How many hours of kill-house training does the average concealed-carry citizen get in a week?  Zero.  How many will the armed schoolteacher get?  Zero.  How much safety do these guns create?  Less than zero, because there are the inevitable accidents that even trained professionals fall victim to.  I've had to knock on one of my soldier's mom's door because his supposedly professional colleague killed him in-theatre.  I trained them both, so that's where I'm coming from.

To go back to the original question on this thread, I think a big reason so many people want so many guns is that they feel afraid and feel they're buying themselves security.  They feel powerful carrying a gun - but without a level of training simply unavailable to the average citizen, it's a false sense of security.  A false sense of masculinity in a lot of cases too, but that's another discussion.

To go back to where we agree - the problem is certainly violence, not guns.  Since WWII the US has taken an increasingly different path from the rest of the developed world to wind up in a very different place in a lot of areas, including being so much more more violent.  There's a bookshelf to be written to unravel the reasons for that, but the good news is the culture is changing.  I get to the US fairly often, and it's really started to show over the last few years.  I know some on here will shudder at the thought of their country becoming more like Canada or the UK, but we're doing just fine.  Despite what you may have heard on Fox.



Paul

[Infidelz]

@widewing - well at least we can agree on something!  

My point is this.  Just as guns don't kill people, guns don't create safety.  A person competent in the use of firearms in combat CAN create security (which in turn can contribute to safety), but the level of training required to be competent in combat is huge.  This is ENTIRELY unrelated to whatever skill someone might have on the range or hunting.  Lethal stress is the limiting factor, and most people don't understand this.  Even the military has only recently come to understand this and has massively changed, and intensified, training in response.  Without the sufficient and CURRENT training, guns subtract safety.  Old guy here in your video illustrates this perfectly.  He's obviously trained and experienced, but not recently, and though he pulls it off his performance is marginal.  His last shot is one-handed, no sight-picture, into the street - this is beyond unacceptable.  It is only because he gets the first shot off against incompetent opponents that this has a positive outcome.  He was brave, but he was also lucky, and luck is not a planning factor.  The irony is, had this gone sour and he'd wound up dead along with a half dozen innocents because he escalated the situation, he'd be even MORE of hero.  Such are the ways of the mainstream media.

So my point is, was, and remains - more guns will not create more safety.  How many hours of kill-house training does the average concealed-carry citizen get in a week?  Zero.  How many will the armed schoolteacher get?  Zero.  How much safety do these guns create?  Less than zero, because there are the inevitable accidents that even trained professionals fall victim to.  I've had to knock on one of my soldier's mom's door because his supposedly professional colleague killed him in-theatre.  I trained them both, so that's where I'm coming from.

To go back to the original question on this thread, I think a big reason so many people want so many guns is that they feel afraid and feel they're buying themselves security.  They feel powerful carrying a gun - but without a level of training simply unavailable to the average citizen, it's a false sense of security.  A false sense of masculinity in a lot of cases too, but that's another discussion.

To go back to where we agree - the problem is certainly violence, not guns.  Since WWII the US has taken an increasingly different path from the rest of the developed world to wind up in a very different place in a lot of areas, including being so much more more violent.  There's a bookshelf to be written to unravel the reasons for that, but the good news is the culture is changing.  I get to the US fairly often, and it's really started to show over the last few years.  I know some on here will shudder at the thought of their country becoming more like Canada or the UK, but we're doing just fine.  Despite what you may have heard on Fox.



Paul

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/23/School-Obama-s-Daughters-Attend-Has-11-Armed-Guards-Not-Counting-Secret-Service


I guess our leadership doesn't get your point. They and their families are well protected by guns. Who are you or they to say I can't be too? Seems to me they have no more of a right to breath than I do (or maybe you'd care to try and make that argument). So why don't you just shake your head, tsk tsk us, take your talking points and leave us to our guns and we will take care of things here. Thanks for playing.

[Widewing]

I think most people would rather live in a society where one doesn't feel a need for a firearm...

Ardy, I couldn't agree with you more....

I like going to the range because I enjoy shooting for recreation.  However, I'd rather not think about having to defend myself. Ever.

 

[Stellaris]

@Infidelz - The Secret Service are trained to a world-class standard, but I have no problem with you protecting yourself with guns as well.  My point is only that if you aren't training force-on-force with simunition, target discrimination with live rounds, combat assessment, etc. you aren't protecting yourself, you're deluding yourself.  I'm not here to stop you though.  Enjoy!

@ardy + Widewing  Yep!

[mtnman]

Personally, I have a fair number of guns (shotguns, rifles, handguns; pumps, double barrels, semi-autos, levers, revolvers, bolts, and flintlocks), but don't have them to feel safe.  I don't buy them for HS.  

I don't buy them because I'm fearful or because I think I'll ever have a need to defend myself or others.

I just like them.  I like the pastime of shooting; it's one of my favorite ways to play.  I don't golf, drink or bowl; I shoot.

I also hunt.  I don't hunt so that I have a use for my guns though, and I don't own guns so that I can hunt.  Hunting to me sometimes involves a little shooting, but shooting and gun use isn't anywhere near a "top priority", or a "drawing" factor.  It's just a tool.  I hunt to hunt; I just carry a firearm when the type of hunting I'm doing makes it appropriate.

Most of my hunting is with birds or bow though.  So even though I have a handful of firearms that I love to shoot, the majority of the time I hunt I don't carry a firearm.  Most of the time when I do hunt with a firearm I'm hunting with a flintlock rifle, pistol, or musket.  I get one shot generally but shoot a LOT, and have actually reloaded after a miss and still shot the deer I missed...  No clips or magazines on those guns.

I think way too much emphasis is being placed on the "security" aspects of firearms.

My right to own a firearm isn't limited to "need", or defense, or hunting...

[Widewing]

@widewing - well at least we can agree on something!  

My point is this.  Just as guns don't kill people, guns don't create safety.  A person competent in the use of firearms in combat CAN create security (which in turn can contribute to safety), but the level of training required to be competent in combat is huge.  This is ENTIRELY unrelated to whatever skill someone might have on the range or hunting.  Lethal stress is the limiting factor, and most people don't understand this.  Even the military has only recently come to understand this and has massively changed, and intensified, training in response.  Without the sufficient and CURRENT training, guns subtract safety.  Old guy here in your video illustrates this perfectly.  He's obviously trained and experienced, but not recently, and though he pulls it off his performance is marginal.  His last shot is one-handed, no sight-picture, into the street - this is beyond unacceptable.  It is only because he gets the first shot off against incompetent opponents that this has a positive outcome.  He was brave, but he was also lucky, and luck is not a planning factor.  The irony is, had this gone sour and he'd wound up dead along with a half dozen innocents because he escalated the situation, he'd be even MORE of hero.  Such are the ways of the mainstream media.

So my point is, was, and remains - more guns will not create more safety.  How many hours of kill-house training does the average concealed-carry citizen get in a week?  Zero.  How many will the armed schoolteacher get?  Zero.  How much safety do these guns create?  Less than zero, because there are the inevitable accidents that even trained professionals fall victim to.  I've had to knock on one of my soldier's mom's door because his supposedly professional colleague killed him in-theatre.  I trained them both, so that's where I'm coming from.

To go back to the original question on this thread, I think a big reason so many people want so many guns is that they feel afraid and feel they're buying themselves security.  They feel powerful carrying a gun - but without a level of training simply unavailable to the average citizen, it's a false sense of security.  A false sense of masculinity in a lot of cases too, but that's another discussion.

To go back to where we agree - the problem is certainly violence, not guns.  Since WWII the US has taken an increasingly different path from the rest of the developed world to wind up in a very different place in a lot of areas, including being so much more more violent.  There's a bookshelf to be written to unravel the reasons for that, but the good news is the culture is changing.  I get to the US fairly often, and it's really started to show over the last few years.  I know some on here will shudder at the thought of their country becoming more like Canada or the UK, but we're doing just fine.  Despite what you may have heard on Fox.



Pau

Paul, I only wish that I could look at firearms as a fun hobby. I enjoy shooting. I do not enjoy wasting a single brain cell thinking about every situation in a tactical sense. It's a pretty sad commentary on our society that I would have to think about every situation as a tactical exercise.....

[rabbidrabbit]

Paul, I only wish that I could look at firearms as a fun hobby. I enjoy shooting. I do not enjoy wasting a single brain cell thinking about every situation in a tactical sense. It's a pretty sad commentary on our society that I would have to think about every situation as a tactical exercise.....

Same here and for all but the most paranoid in society.  His rationality is taken to an extreme as are his conclusions.  Millions of crimes have been prevented by individuals who have adequate skills when necessary to get job done and move on with their lives.  The vast majority of gun owners happily go though their lives never pulling a trigger in fear or anger.  They have great fun hunting or target shooting with friends and family and appreciate the knowledge that if it ever came down to it.  They would at least have a better chance to defend those friends and families with the firearms they have.  To say that a gun is a liability to your life unless you train with it daily in "kill houses" is a matter of one persons limited perspective instead of a reasoned and objective observance of daily life.

[Shifty]

Same here and for all but the most paranoid in society.  His rationality is taken to an extreme as are his conclusions.  Millions of crimes have been prevented by individuals who have adequate skills when necessary to get job done and move on with their lives.  The vast majority of gun owners happily go though their lives never pulling a trigger in fear or anger.  They have great fun hunting or target shooting with friends and family and appreciate the knowledge that if it ever came down to it.  They would at least have a better chance to defend those friends and families with the firearms they have.  To say that a gun is a liability to your life unless you train with it daily in "kill houses" is a matter of one persons limited perspective instead of a reasoned and objective observance of daily life.

+1

[mtnman]

So my point is, was, and remains - more guns will not create more safety.  

I can agree with that, just as I would say that more guns will not create less safety.

[Infidelz]

@Infidelz - The Secret Service are trained to a world-class standard, but I have no problem with you protecting yourself with guns as well.  My point is only that if you aren't training force-on-force with simunition, target discrimination with live rounds, combat assessment, etc. you aren't protecting yourself, you're deluding yourself.  I'm not here to stop you though.  Enjoy!

@ardy + Widewing  Yep!

 
Even the world class would be at a disadvantage without their weapons.    I am glad you aren't opposed to my embrace of my second amendment rights - seriously,  we also won't be needing your permission to enjoy our liberty.

[Tank-Ace]

@Infidelz - The Secret Service are trained to a world-class standard, but I have no problem with you protecting yourself with guns as well.  My point is only that if you aren't training force-on-force with simunition, target discrimination with live rounds, combat assessment, etc. you aren't protecting yourself, you're deluding yourself.  I'm not here to stop you though.  Enjoy!

Meh..... kinda. Even if you're not sure how to opperate a firearm, having one pointed at him will intimidate most burglars into surrendering