I know, I know, another gun thread....

[kamik86]

But, the point of the driving comparison is that while daily drivers do get daily PRACTICE, they aren't required to get any TRAINING, nor are they EVER retested on their skills unless they manage to have their license revoked (or allow it to expire).

When I'm behind the wheel of my car, the lives of everyone else on the road are quite literally in my hands. OTOH, if I were a CCW holder & carrier (I'm not), nobody's lives are in my hands until my gun comes out, which probably wouldn't ever happen in my lifetime.

And for the record, I'm not opposed to training & proficiency requirements for CCW. I just find it odd that in a country with 500 accidental firearm deaths annually and 30,000 vehicular deaths annually that people think gun training requirements should be MUCH stricter, while seeming to be perfectly okay with untrained drivers obtaining a lifetime license after a 20 minute test.

Honestly I have said for years I think you should have to redo the driving test every 10 years. Every other time you redo your licence.

This is because in my area there is a pretty huge problem with older people that really can't drive anymore still driving. Someone told me they can't force only the elderly to redo their testing, as that would be age discrimination. So my answer was just to make it every 10 years. Can't claim age discrimination if someone has to do it at 26 just like at 66.

Yes that would mean I would have to relearn to parallel park... but maybe that wouldn't be a bad thing (I have never had to parallel park ever since getting my licence btw)

 

[LisaR]

But, the point of the driving comparison is that while daily drivers do get daily PRACTICE, they aren't required to get any TRAINING, nor are they EVER retested on their skills unless they manage to have their license revoked (or allow it to expire).

When I'm behind the wheel of my car, the lives of everyone else on the road are quite literally in my hands. OTOH, if I were a CCW holder & carrier (I'm not), nobody's lives are in my hands until my gun comes out, which probably wouldn't ever happen in my lifetime.

And for the record, I'm not opposed to training & proficiency requirements for CCW. I just find it odd that in a country with 500 accidental firearm deaths annually and 30,000 vehicular deaths annually that people think gun training requirements should be MUCH stricter, while seeming to be perfectly okay with untrained drivers obtaining a lifetime license after a 20 minute test.

Okay, fair enough. Instead of mandatory training with a firearm, I want them to have mandatory practice. Better?

While there have been a few instances of a driver purposely driving their vehicle into a crowd of people with the sole intention of causing harm, most vehicular injuries and deaths are accidents. They are done without intent. It doesn't make it any better to lose a loved one because a person accidentally drove like an idiot and killed them, but they didn't set out to kill someone. That is the difference for me between a gun and a car. When people are killing people with their car on purpose on a daily basis, I will be just as up in arms about that as I am about guns. As we all know, we can't ban, restrict, test everything. Bleach is harmful, but until people start using bleach every single day to kill others, I'm okay with not having any laws about bleach.

Also, my concern isn't about the 500 accidental firearm deaths you noted. I'm more concerned about the 12,000+ homicides and far more injuries that weren't even remotely accidental.

For the record, I think it is also insane that we don't require on the road testing for drivers every few years.

 

[CPanther95]

Open carry is legal in a majority of states and has been legal since the country was founded. There's no training required, because you don't need a license to carry openly - therefore there is no license to take away. The states that took away the right to open carry were generally Southern states that didn't want minorities to have the right to carry weapons after the civil war.

These guys are trying to make a point that if we don't utilize our rights, we are begging for them to be taken away. There are better ways than to do it than what this guy is doing.

But there are plenty of reports about people that are apparently clueless about the law, or our rights, that call the police because they see a guy with a holstered gun walking around.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

Okay, fair enough. Instead of mandatory training with a firearm, I want them to have mandatory practice. Better?

While there have been a few instances of a driver purposely driving their vehicle into a crowd of people with the sole intention of causing harm, most vehicular injuries and deaths are accidents. They are done without intent. It doesn't make it any better to lose a loved one because a person accidentally drove like an idiot and killed them, but they didn't set out to kill someone. That is the difference for me between a gun and a car. When people are killing people with their car on purpose on a daily basis, I will be just as up in arms about that as I am about guns. As we all know, we can't ban, restrict, test everything. Bleach is harmful, but until people start using bleach every single day to kill others, I'm okay with not having any laws about bleach.

Also, my concern isn't about the 500 accidental firearm deaths you noted. I'm more concerned about the 12,000+ homicides and far more injuries that weren't even remotely accidental.

For the record, I think it is also insane that we don't require on the road testing for drivers every few years.

I think the thing with "training" or "practice" though - be it cars OR guns - is that if there is a reduction in deaths that resulted, it would be the accidental deaths that are reduced.

IMO, reducing the homicide # will have to come some other way.

And again, for the record, I'm not opposed to mandatory training/testing for CCW. And I'd be okay with follow-up testing requirements. Ditto for cars

 

[Squirlz]

Yes, that's the video.

It is impossible to replicate a potential mass shooting. Did anyone ever think a nut job would go into an elementary school and shoot up a bunch of little kids? There isn't one ideal way to replicate it. In this scenario, the trainee with the gun is specifically told they are the only ones with a gun and they will need to use it at some point that day. That is far more warning than anyone got in any of these other shooting situations so it should be an advantage.

As for the masks, those were necessary for protection so I get that, but it doesn't change anything. The assumption is one will be doing their normal thing when a mass shooting occurs. Did the mask get in the way? Maybe. Would it have been anymore of a distraction than sitting in a dark movie theater with a shoot em up movie blaring out of the speakers? Probably not. One doesn't know what they may or may not be doing, wearing, where they'll be sitting, etc if a mass shooting happens.

I didn't think the shirts were tight, but again, most people don't dress for a potential shooting.

As for sitting in the front row, that didn't bother me at all. I don't really care that the trainee was "shot." The point was to give the trainee a clear line to the "bad guy." If the trainee was in the back row, my guess is that would have made the video even more effective because those that did shoot would likely have hit other innocent people in the room.

Like I said the last time this video was trotted out...remember when NBC "proved" the Audi 5000 was defective?

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

Yes, that's the video.

It is impossible to replicate a potential mass shooting. Did anyone ever think a nut job would go into an elementary school and shoot up a bunch of little kids? There isn't one ideal way to replicate it. In this scenario, the trainee with the gun is specifically told they are the only ones with a gun and they will need to use it at some point that day. That is far more warning than anyone got in any of these other shooting situations so it should be an advantage.

As for the masks, those were necessary for protection so I get that, but it doesn't change anything. The assumption is one will be doing their normal thing when a mass shooting occurs. Did the mask get in the way? Maybe. Would it have been anymore of a distraction than sitting in a dark movie theater with a shoot em up movie blaring out of the speakers? Probably not. One doesn't know what they may or may not be doing, wearing, where they'll be sitting, etc if a mass shooting happens.

I didn't think the shirts were tight, but again, most people don't dress for a potential shooting.

As for sitting in the front row, that didn't bother me at all. I don't really care that the trainee was "shot." The point was to give the trainee a clear line to the "bad guy." If the trainee was in the back row, my guess is that would have made the video even more effective because those that did shoot would likely have hit other innocent people in the room.

As to where they were seated. It's crucial because the shooter enters the room knowing full well where the only person with a gun is located. This won't happen in real life.

 

[CPanther95]

Like I said the last time this video was trotted out...remember when NBC "proved" the Audi 5000 was defective?

Those scenarios are staged to achieve a predetermined outcome. The standard shouldn't be centered around whether a lone citizen with a gun can foil a potential mass shooting that have the element of surprise. What people should ask is if you are hiding under a desk during a mass shooting, are your chances greater to survive if you have a weapon available or not. And you don't view it as 2 surprise shooters getting a jump on that single citizen, you consider the outcome if 15 of 30 people in the room were armed - or all 30.

And this notion of "innocent civilians" possibly getting hit by a stray round - DURING A MASS SHOOTING - by a citizen shooting to try and save their own life as a reason nobody should be allowed to have access to a gun is absolute lunacy. If you're in the back row and shooters are walking in the front shooting people in the head one by one - take your best shot - please. Any chance at all is better than no chance.

 

[3Gsandme]

As to where they were seated. It's crucial because the shooter enters the room knowing full well where the only person with a gun is located. This won't happen in real life.

OR it is clear to the shooter who is fumbling for a weapon and they are easier to target.

In the case of this man in Ohio, even if it's LEGAL doesn't mean you should do it. For me, this is one of those situations. There was a recent case in Michigan of a school going into lock down because a father open carried onto campus. Yes, he's ALLOWED to, but should he? Especially because it's school policy (which the police support) that a weapon on campus=lock down. I mean, beyond motives in this case in Ohio, he's allowed to do it, but should he. There's a great quote from an officer in the Michigan case that said "trying to convince him that it's not a good thing -- even though it might be one of his rights, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do,"

For me, that's what this case is. IT's a right, but it's not right.

 

[kamik86]

OR it is clear to the shooter who is fumbling for a weapon and they are easier to target.

In the case of this man in Ohio, even if it's LEGAL doesn't mean you should do it. For me, this is one of those situations. There was a recent case in Michigan of a school going into lock down because a father open carried onto campus. Yes, he's ALLOWED to, but should he? Especially because it's school policy (which the police support) that a weapon on campus=lock down. I mean, beyond motives in this case in Ohio, he's allowed to do it, but should he. There's a great quote from an officer in the Michigan case that said "trying to convince him that it's not a good thing -- even though it might be one of his rights, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do,"

For me, that's what this case is. IT's a right, but it's not right.

I definitely agree that although this guy CAN do this he probably shouldn't. But you can't stop someone from doing something just because they probably shouldn't. The guy is a butthole but that is legal.

 

[3Gsandme]

I definitely agree that although this guy CAN do this he probably shouldn't. But you can't stop someone from doing something just because they probably shouldn't. The guy is a butthole but that is legal.

I understand, but that doesn't make it any better. Honestly, the neighborhood should all get restraining orders against him. Every single person. It's the only way to remove him and if he violates, he's off to jail.

 

[rajak73]

Honestly, the neighborhood should all get restraining orders against him. Every single person

And what are you going to put on the restraining order? "He looks scary" "He's carrying a gun. I know it's legal but I don't like it"

OR it is clear to the shooter who is fumbling for a weapon and they are easier to target.

So you're trying to tell me that the Colorado Theater shooter would have otherwise come into a DARK theater and started watching for who was "fumbling" for a weapon instead of just randomly opening fire like he did?

Added just for the record, do I think he should be carrying the gun? Absolutely not!

 

[rajak73]

She still carries her gun everywhere she goes. And not for nothing, but these two like to drink. I'm not judging them, I like to drink, too. I no longer go out with them, though, because they think it is fine to throw back drinks while having guns strapped on.

Again, I can only address my state, there are places you CANNOT carry, a lot of places. A bar is one, according to law, you CANNOT drink AT ALL, not even a glass of wine in a restaurant if it allows weapons, while you have a weapon concealed on you. Automatic revocation of CC license. I'm going to add, we had a local furniture store that said they would allow CCW permit holders to carry in the store. You should have heard the knee jerk reactions, "People are going to be shooting each other over the couch" "how many people are going be shot over a dryer", etc, know what, there haven't been any shootings over couches or anything else but the store also hasn't been robbed at knifepoint since they allowed CC either, they were robbed twice before.

 

[LisaR]

As to where they were seated. It's crucial because the shooter enters the room knowing full well where the only person with a gun is located. This won't happen in real life.

And again, that's fine if the whole point was to prove that the shooter could take out the one person carrying the gun. That wasn't the point. The point was to show how the trainee responded with advanced knowledge that they would be called upon to use their gun that day. They didn't stop the exercise the second the trainee was hit. It was an exercise in how someone who has had a few hours worth of training, and in a few cases already felt comfortable with a gun, would respond.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

Again, I can only address my state, there are places you CANNOT carry, a lot of places. A bar is one, according to law, you CANNOT drink AT ALL, not even a glass of wine in a restaurant if it allows weapons, while you have a weapon concealed on you. Automatic revocation of CC license. I'm going to add, we had a local furniture store that said they would allow CCW permit holders to carry in the store. You should have heard the knee jerk reactions, "People are going to be shooting each other over the couch" "how many people are going be shot over a dryer", etc, know what, there haven't been any shootings over couches or anything else but the store also hasn't been robbed at knifepoint since they allowed CC either, they were robbed twice before.

In my state, a restaurant that serves alcohol wouldn't be off limits. Being intoxicated while in possession of a firearm however IS a crime.

 

[LisaR]

Again, I can only address my state, there are places you CANNOT carry, a lot of places. A bar is one, according to law, you CANNOT drink AT ALL, not even a glass of wine in a restaurant if it allows weapons, while you have a weapon concealed on you. Automatic revocation of CC license. I'm going to add, we had a local furniture store that said they would allow CCW permit holders to carry in the store. You should have heard the knee jerk reactions, "People are going to be shooting each other over the couch" "how many people are going be shot over a dryer", etc, know what, there haven't been any shootings over couches or anything else but the store also hasn't been robbed at knifepoint since they allowed CC either, they were robbed twice before.

As it should be. Unfortunately, as we well know, people with guns don't always follow the law. I don't mean that statement to be inflammatory. Certainly people without guns don't always follow the law either. I'm simply saying that some people drink while in possession of their firearm and we know this to be true because we have seen the results of this type of thing on the news.

 

[rajak73]

In my state, a restaurant that serves alcohol wouldn't be off limits. Being intoxicated while in possession of a firearm however IS a crime.

The restaurant isn't off limits, just you cannot order alcohol.

 

[rajak73]

As it should be. Unfortunately, as we well know, people with guns don't always follow the law. I don't mean that statement to be inflammatory. Certainly people without guns don't always follow the law either. I'm simply saying that some people drink while in possession of their firearm and we know this to be true because we have seen the results of this type of thing on the news.

And that's what is being said about more laws, how many laws were broke in California in the latest shooting? 4, 5?

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

As it should be. Unfortunately, as we well know, people with guns don't always follow the law. I don't mean that statement to be inflammatory. Certainly people without guns don't always follow the law either. I'm simply saying that some people drink while in possession of their firearm and we know this to be true because we have seen the results of this type of thing on the news.

As you stated yourself. gun owners and non gun owners both break laws, but we're only suppose to punish the gun owners, namely those that are following the law because another gun owner broke the law.

 

[CPanther95]

As it should be. Unfortunately, as we well know, people with guns don't always follow the law. I don't mean that statement to be inflammatory. Certainly people without guns don't always follow the law either. I'm simply saying that some people drink while in possession of their firearm and we know this to be true because we have seen the results of this type of thing on the news.

Using that logic, the more sensible option is to ban alcohol. Alcohol can't provide food or provide self defense. When that doesn't work, then ban guns.

... and when that doesn't work, just ban people.

 

[LisaR]

As you stated yourself. gun owners and non gun owners both break laws, but we're only suppose to punish the gun owners, namely those that are following the law because another gun owner broke the law.

Yep! Sucks, doesn't it? Life simply isn't fair. I have to show ID to buy Sudafed or spray paint. I have to take my shoes off at the airport. I can't take my own bottle of water through security at the airport. I have to go through the most useless security I've ever seen just to enter Disney. Sucks, but rules and laws come about when some people do stupid things. The rest of us have to suffer through them.