next »

[hawkeye]

Hello all

I am a campus LOE as well as a part time officer at another department. (We are the red headed stepchildren of campus so most of us work 2 or 3 jobs) and wanted to add my 2 cents to some items that have been brought up on this board.

1st  to Jon proctor your post 81 was great and wish more people who own fire arms would take your stance and your precautions

2nd  People use the name Glock like it’s a caliber.  It’s not it’s a company.  Glock pistols come in different calibers from 9mm to 45 ACP to 357 mag.

3rd I think the gun debate is a difference of reality.  Where I am from and work pretty much everyone owns at least a rifle for protection.  Not from humans but from our furry four legged neighbors.  We have coyotes and bobcats running around and they do attack. We found my neighbors dog half eaten 3 weeks ago. Mine and my neighbors reality is that firearms are tools and are only brought out when that tool is needed.  Others have no need for that tool so want to outlaw that tool altogether.

4th Someone brought up the requirements for training for police.  In my state all LOE are required to qualify with all firearms carried (sidearm, shotgun and long gun) twice a year.  We are required to shoot a minim of a 120 round course with half of those rounds on the move.  The other point I would like to mention as far as training is that we are only 1 of 2 full time police forces in our area.  Therefore, we actually have more resources and training then most of the other local police forces.

[livefreeordie2]

Go into one of your classrooms, though, and ask your students by raise of hands.  "How many of you know someone who successfully defended themselves or others from an actual threat because they had a gun?"  Then, "How many of you know someone who had been accidentally injured by a gun?"  My wife did this in a class discussion about gun control.  No one raised their hand for the first question but many raised their hand for the second.  The risk of bodily harm to self or property just doesn't exist to an extent that needing a gun for defense is realistic.  One is far, far more likely to accidently hurt himself or a loved one with a gun than to use, or even need, one to defend himself.

There have in fact been studies done on this.  The numbers vary but the most common figure one sees is about 2 million times a year.  That doesn't mean the weapon is always fired - in fact, in many cases, only the display of a weapon is needed to cause a perpetrator to flee.

I wouldn't, however, wish to get into a numbers battle with you.  It's just silly to do that.  The point is that the US Constitution recognizes people have a right to defend themselves. . .and in fact, made gun ownership second only after freedom of speech and religion.  It does not, however mandate that you own a gun if you do not wish to. . .

[just_dave]

The answer to the "sport shooting" issue (which like any hobby has a right to life) is simple:  Get an airsoft rifle.  

Here in Japan, you can buy an absolutely stunning replica of, for example, an M16 (or AK47 or German Mauser or any of about 50 other classic rifles and handguns) for about $300 -- which, by the way, is a bit more than the going price for a Chinese-made AK47 in the Yemeni gun market I visited.  Anyway, this airsoft rifle is totally cool, exact down to the smallest detail (including working action and a functional grenade launcher and combat flashlight if you choose to add those options).  It's even constructed to weigh the same as the real deal.  This is a serious toy, no doubt about it.

You can limit yourself to target shooting.  Or you can join the bands of soldiers-for-a-day who have a great time running "competition combat" up in the hills.  Honestly, this looks like great fun and even as a staunch "anti-gun nut" I'd get into this in a minute if the gear weren't going to set me back a couple grand (or 10 if you're really serious).  I have "played airsoft" a couple times in the mock urban combat environments and it's a blast.  Sorry for the pun.  But it is.  I love it, and it's a great workout.

Yeah, I know "Gun People" are just going to poo-poo these as "toy guns."  Well, they are.  But so are yours (you, Gun People) if you don't ever plan on killing anyone with one.  The ONLY purpose real guns have is as tools to kill.  Sometimes they are used to kill animals for food (which honestly I don't have any problem with, though I don't want to do it) but most of they time they are used to do what they were originally designed to do:  Kill human beings.  I'll even concede that maybe we do need armies and that those armies need to kill people -- with guns.  But why should a private citizen have and use a real gun any more than he would have (and use) a real tank -- other than that most citizens can't afford a real tank (so they buy a Humvee).  By the way, I bet a tank would be a real hoot to play with in the woods.  So would a shoulder-mounted missle launcher. I can admit that.  The historian (and geek) in me finds the military fascinating.

But there just isn't any rational reason for a non-soldier, non-cop to have an actual working firearm.  If all you want is the sport, get yourself a REAL toy.  Or if you're a collector, a "real gun" that has been permanently "decommisioned."

It sure works here in Japan.  But then I suspect that Americans are far too macho/a to ever accept this solution.

[dark_globe]

One other point--and perhaps dark_globe can weigh in on this too.  Shooting people, as dark_globe points out, is a horrible, horrible experience.  You have to be ready to deal with the immediate consequences of watching someone die--or slowly bleed out because you are a terrible shot.  Cops will tell you that they--again, they are the ones who actually deal, on a daily basis, with the criminals against whom some people claim to be prepared to act as vigilantes--rarely, if ever, pull their weapons, much less use them.  I know cops whose careers span 40 years who have never, ever shot their guns.  Ever.  And they are the professionals.  How can amateurs be more effective than cops?

My dad was a cop for 22 years and never fired his gun outside the range. I as mentioned before, he did impress upon me the horror of watching someone die from a gunshot wound (he did witness that).

I don't read any studies on the subject; I don't really care. I also don't give a damn what the US Constitution says. I only decide things based upon my own experiences and conscience. My experience tells me that there is not enough training provided to give people the proper respect for firearms; handling them is one thing, respecting them is another. My conscience tells me I would not want to live with the consequences of having killed someone with a firearm. Therefore, I protect my home with locked doors, big dogs and a healthy suspicion of strangers.

[anthroid]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html
The second amendment:

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

I wouldn't, however, wish to get into a numbers battle with you.  It's just silly to do that.  The point is that the US Constitution recognizes people have a right to defend themselves. . .and in fact, made gun ownership second only after freedom of speech and religion.  It does not, however mandate that you own a gun if you do not wish to. . .

You can keep repeating this and repeating this and repeating this and you still will not be correct.  The second amendment in the Bill of Rights says that states may form militias, and "the people"--not individuals--may bear arms.  This is in context.  There is not an independent right for individuals to own guns.

Get into that numbers battle, if you can.  It is not "silly" to present actual data rather than complete misquotes of our Bill of Rights.

One other point--and perhaps dark_globe can weigh in on this too.  Shooting people, as dark_globe points out, is a horrible, horrible experience.  You have to be ready to deal with the immediate consequences of watching someone die--or slowly bleed out because you are a terrible shot.  Cops will tell you that they--again, they are the ones who actually deal, on a daily basis, with the criminals against whom some people claim to be prepared to act as vigilantes--rarely, if ever, pull their weapons, much less use them.  I know cops whose careers span 40 years who have never, ever shot their guns.  Ever.  And they are the professionals.  How can amateurs be more effective than cops?

My dad was a cop for 22 years and never fired his gun outside the range. I as mentioned before, he did impress upon me the horror of watching someone die from a gunshot wound (he did witness that).

I don't read any studies on the subject; I don't really care. I also don't give a damn what the US Constitution says. I only decide things based upon my own experiences and conscience. My experience tells me that there is not enough training provided to give people the proper respect for firearms; handling them is one thing, respecting them is another. My conscience tells me I would not want to live with the consequences of having killed someone with a firearm. Therefore, I protect my home with locked doors, big dogs and a healthy suspicion of strangers.

Thanks, dark_globe. 

[jonesey]

The states already have "well-regulated militias." 

They're called "The National Guard."  They've got plenty of guns. 

The idea that the Founding Fathers intended for any yahoo to be able to go down to Bob's Gun Shop and buy a pistol is just flat out fiction.

We don't have a problem modifying the Constitution in other legal areas since 1787 (rights to vote, etc)...why are we still treating firearms law as if it was the 18th Century?

[allbutfoundajob]

You have a pretty skewed version of freedom if you include gun rights.
We are not talking about gun rights here, we are talking about the need to license gun ownership and the need to have training in order to own a firearm.
Why, I ask you , do we require more of people to drive a car than to own a gun?

My version of freedom is skewed because I  think we are freer when we have more freedoms?  And you think your version of freedom, where people are freer when they have fewer freedoms is proper?

We do not require more of people to own a car than to own a gun.  People are free to own and drive cars on private property with no licenses.  It is only when it comes to driving cars on public property that licenses are required. 

[allbutfoundajob]

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed


You can keep repeating this and repeating this and repeating this and you still will not be correct.  The second amendment in the Bill of Rights says that states may form militias, and "the people"--not individuals--may bear arms.  This is in context.  There is not an independent right for individuals to own guns.

 

Let's hypothetically say you are correct, which I do not concede.  But even if your interpretation of the II Amendment was correct, the IX Amendment would still apply.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."


Laws banning guns would still be unConstitutional.

[john_proctor]

Thank you John. I just have one question, why can't your guns be locked up in the same way at the target range or gun club?

Do you want to trust someone else to be safer than you are with your guns for which you are responsible?  Other's might have access to your guns without your knowledge. I wouldn't want to go there...

Plus, it removes any ability to defend one's self in one's home if your guns are locked away and off premises.  They are only fancy toys, then.

I can clarify at least one part of this:

It has nothing to do with trusting someone else to be or not to be as safe as I am.

Most of the clubs that I have seen that offer storage have a single "vault room."  Space is allotted within that room for shooters to store their own, individual gun safes.  

Often, there are specific rules regarding safe specifications and safe storage, as well.

Think of it as a "vault co-op."

My current safe is the one I bought for my Manhattan club.  

Only I have the keys (and the safe, itself, is mongo-heavy and not likely to be stolen in toto).

I kinda liked it since, combining my shotgun and my .22, I've got some $4 grand tied up in their expenses.

[john_proctor]

Plus, it removes any ability to defend one's self in one's home if your guns are locked away and off premises.  They are only fancy toys, then.

That's the core of my point. 

For civilians, untrained in the use of a firearm for self defense, a gun shouldn't ever be used to defend one's home (except, possibly, the in extreme conditions of, say, hordes of Canadians invading our soil and the army being oblitherated or some other post-holocost setting).

People who think that they can, without supervised and regularly reinforced training in martial use of a gun as a weapon, use a gun for self-defense are as deluded and dangerous as those who race down the highway thinking that, because they know how to drive, they can do it like NASCAR pros.

[anthroid]

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed


You can keep repeating this and repeating this and repeating this and you still will not be correct.  The second amendment in the Bill of Rights says that states may form militias, and "the people"--not individuals--may bear arms.  This is in context.  There is not an independent right for individuals to own guns.

 

Let's hypothetically say you are correct, which I do not concede.  But even if your interpretation of the II Amendment was correct, the IX Amendment would still apply.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."


Laws banning guns would still be unConstitutional.

Nope.  Bearing arms is specifically addressed in Amendment II.  Amendment IX addresses those rights not specifically addressed otherwise.  You are wrong.

[john_proctor]

just_dave:

Air rifles are often used for competition target shooting.  Indeed, some of the competition grade air guns can cost well over 2 or 3 grand.

They can't be used for skeet.

Air guns also don't perform with the same demands or degree of difficulty that a rim-fire .22 will require.  Simply, the rim-fire is more demanding.

Finally, the higher quality air rifles (or even relatively modestly priced CO2 rifles) can produce astonishing foot-per-second projectile speeds; they can be deadly dangerous, too.  Indeed, they're often more so, because people underestimate them.

[just_dave]

Plus, it removes any ability to defend one's self in one's home if your guns are locked away and off premises.  They are only fancy toys, then.

As they should be.  Toys.  Get an airsoft.  They are also cool toys...but don't kill.

Just_Dave, whose hobby flying model WWI fighter aircraft satisfies the "Red Baron" in him completely.  

[trabb]

Ok, I have been giving this a lot of thought on my morning walk.  The problem we are having here is one of terminology I think - "pro-gun control" and "anti-gun control" are not helpful in that they do not accurately represent where we are on the issue.  If I may, I will reframe the argument a little bit.

I would identify three basic positions on gun-control:  1)  All citizens should be allowed to carry any firearm they wish, 2) No citizen should be allowed to carry any firearm, or 3) Some citizens should be allowed to bear some firearms.  We could split hairs and say that "some citizens have the right to bear any firearm," but I think for our discussion, that wouldn't be helpful.

Now, I would bet that 99.9% of us fall into category three.  I have always considered myself a supporter of gun control, but I would never, ever say that all guns should always be outlawed.  I suspect that our most vocal defenders of the right to bear arms would never, ever say that all citizens should always have the right to bear any firearm they wish.  Ultimately, anyone who really does fall into category 1 or 2 is past the point of reasonable debate. 

So, where does that leave us.  Here's what I think 99.9% of us agree on: "Some citizens should be allowed to bear some firearms."  To put this another way, I think most of us are in agreement that the second amendment does not always guarantee every citizen the right to carry any firearm that he/she chooses.  We are, I think, at different points on a continuum rather than in opposition.  Now that we have a common starting point, here are what I see as the crucial questions:

• Which citizens should be allowed to carry firearms, and what is the justification for that?
• Which firearms should those citizens identified above be allowed to carry, and why?
• Are there certain conditions that should be met before a citizen can carry a firearm?
• What are the implications of those decisions?

I don't have clear answers in my own head to these questions.  I will say that I have yet to see a compelling case that armed citizens necessarily yields safer citizens; if someone knows of such a study, I'd like to see it.  I am open to the idea that we exchange certain things in order to maintain basic freedoms of U.S. citizens and that the freedom to choose to bear arms is important enough to give up some level of safety.

[just_dave]

Air guns also don't perform with the same demands or degree of difficulty that a rim-fire .22 will require.  Simply, the rim-fire is more demanding.

This argument is only true (and I'm sure it is) because sport shooters have gotten used the power and precision of military tools (or their offshoots).  

Finally, the higher quality air rifles (or even relatively modestly priced CO2 rifles) can produce astonishing foot-per-second projectile speeds; they can be deadly dangerous, too.  Indeed, they're often more so, because people underestimate them.

None of the airsoft rifles for sale in Japan are capable of lethal speed.  Sure, I have heard of guys (always guys) illegally beefing up the action on their "toys" but that's rare.  But yes, you could "shoot your eye out with one" -- or someone else's.

Almost comically my son has a really, really, really cool airsoft replica of the handgun in BioHazard complete with "blow-back."  It has the heft and feel of a real gun for sure.  And he had a great time playing with it (and what's wrong with "playing") in Japan.  But now that he's in the US he can't use the damn thing unless he goes to some specialized range because there's too great a risk he'd be shot (with a real gun, maybe by a cop) if he just played with it around the neighborhood.

The Olympic committee could sure set a nice precedent by switching all shooting competitions over the airsoft guns.

And I'll admit that skeet is probably undoable with airsoft.  But then skeet was invented as a way to practice one's skill at killing birds.  Maybe we could come up with some pretty cool "new shooting events" (a la X-games) if we just forsook the deadly past of guns -- as we, by and large, have with bow and arrow.