United States & Gun Control discussion.

[Brill]

From CNN:

THE SHOOTOUT

The chase ended back in San Bernardino, about two miles from Inland Regional. Farook fired at officers from the vehicle while Malik drove, officials said.

The couple fired about 76 rounds total at pursuing officers, police said. Twenty-three officers returned fire with about 380 rounds, police said.

-----------

That's an average of 15 rounds per police officer.

 

[The Hate Ape]

I get that and my comment was in no way intended to be a blanket statement which is why I said that there were exceptions. It extends to the Military as well. Watching the guys/gals on the ship go through their 9mm qualification courses does NOT induce a sense of confidence. I'm sure the same can be said for other branches, LEO, etc... It comes down to the individual.

Confidence in what exactly?

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

Training is the difference.
Police using guns to stop active shooters is possible based on the training they receive.

John Q. who just got a sweet deal on a .50 cal Desert Eagle on gunbroker.com, and has yet to take it to the range, is another story. Obviously, there are plenty of us on this site and others like it who would be an exception to this statement, but we'd be the vast minority.

Old grandma with a grandpas old 38 spc in the night stand that she probably hasn't ever fired, has killed many of perpetrator.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

From CNN:

THE SHOOTOUT

The chase ended back in San Bernardino, about two miles from Inland Regional. Farook fired at officers from the vehicle while Malik drove, officials said.

The couple fired about 76 rounds total at pursuing officers, police said. Twenty-three officers returned fire with about 380 rounds, police said.

-----------

That's an average of 15 rounds per police officer.

An infantry squad getting its kill on will shoot way more than those 23 officers did. I watched two grunts on cordon perimeter swiss cheese a drunks car who didn't stop, I think the both reloaded at least once.

 

[nobodythank you]

Training is the difference.
Police using guns to stop active shooters is possible based on the training they receive.

This is not always an accurate statement. I have seen officers (from very small agencies) with rust on their guns that only pulled their weapons out of the holsters to qualify once every two years. There have been officers from larger agencies that get recycled multiple times during annual qualification because they can't meet the minimum requirements. The Florida standards are not difficult to meet. Not to mention, many officers don't get that much training when looked at the larger picture. As in they only get their 40hours at the academy and then their yearly or once every two year qualification run and that is it. It happens on both ends of the spectrum.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

You really can't broad brush anyone in marksmanship, I've met civilians who make tier one dude look silly, cops and Mil who make the run of the mill look awesome.

You only know what you know. That said, a crack head with a Saturday night special can kill you dead. Train, and train often, someone is always better than you.

 

[SkrewzLoose]

Confidence in what exactly?

Effectively neutralize a threat if an armed conflict were to occur.

 

[SkrewzLoose]

Old grandma with a grandpas old 38 spc in the night stand that she probably hasn't ever fired, has killed many of perpetrator.

Would you say that's the exception or the rule?

 

[Brill]

An infantry squad getting its kill on will shoot way more than those 23 officers did. I watched two grunts on cordon perimeter swiss cheese a drunks car who didn't stop, I think the both reloaded at least once.

You articulated my point perfectly.

 

[The Hate Ape]

Effectively neutralize a threat if an armed conflict were to occur.

The only take-away from a range qualification is that the individual is less likely to shoot themselves or something/someone other than the target.

 

[SkrewzLoose]

The only take-away from a range qualification is that the individual is less likely to shoot themselves or something/someone other than the target.

I think you're making my point for me.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

Would you say that's the exception or the rule?

Not really, several people own guns, who never train with them, who would break every safety rule, who never shoot anyone. There are also several people who kill criminal's every day, who have next to no training at all. I would say, that trained people are the exception to the rule, to be honest.

That said, if I was king for a day, I would require a basic handling/safety cert for anyone wanting to buy a firearm. We do it for hunting, and I think it could be done for buying a gun, I would also want a recent (within the last 12 mths) psychological evaluation.

Again if I was king for a day. But I doubt either one of those would deal with the problems we have.

 

[AWP]

Not really, several people own guns, who never train with them, who would break every safety rule, who never shoot anyone. There are also several people who kill criminal's every day, who have next to no training at all. I would say, that trained people are the exception to the rule, to be honest.

That said, if I was king for a day, I would require a basic handling/safety cert for anyone wanting to buy a firearm. We do it for hunting, and I think it could be done for buying a gun, I would also want a recent (within the last 12 mths) psychological evaluation.

Again if I was king for a day. But I doubt either one of those would deal with the problems we have.

I think the class would be good though I question if it won't be challenged in court. I can see the argument as "You don't have to hunt so making a compulsory class is fine, but owning a gun is a right so you can't put that stipulation in there." Never mind laws about felons and the mentally ill, some clown would challenge a good (IMO) idea. The psych evaluation though, I think is a great idea but should never happen. What are the benchmarks for pass/ fail and what about patient/ client confidentiality? What process do you enact to guard against an anti-gun doctor (back to those benchmarks....which people can lie about). A psych screening is like a PTSD diagnosis: people can lie to skew the results and without a definitive exam like CAT/ PET/ MRI/ whatever which shows a defined pattern of brain activity, you can't trust the results.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

I think the class would be good though I question if it won't be challenged in court. I can see the argument as "You don't have to hunt so making a compulsory class is fine, but owning a gun is a right so you can't put that stipulation in there." Never mind laws about felons and the mentally ill, some clown would challenge a good (IMO) idea. The psych evaluation though, I think is a great idea but should never happen. What are the benchmarks for pass/ fail and what about patient/ client confidentiality? What process do you enact to guard against an anti-gun doctor (back to those benchmarks....which people can lie about). A psych screening is like a PTSD diagnosis: people can lie to skew the results and without a definitive exam like CAT/ PET/ MRI/ whatever which shows a defined pattern of brain activity, you can't trust the results.

Well like I said, if I was king for a day. I once refused to sell a pistol to a guy b/c he kept his finger on the trigger, never cleared it and was pointing it at everything, to include himself. Dude acted like I was the biggest dick when I said give me my pistol back, its not for sale anymore.

I think people selling guns should be smarter about who they are selling to. But because its generally a business, the common sense gets put aside for the dollar, hints my thoughts on a requirement of clean bill of 'mental' health and a safety/handling cert.

 

[The Hate Ape]

I think you're making my point for me.

More like half of it. You discussed of observed range qualifications on ship as disconcerting and question their (the observed mil types) lethality/grit to be in a gunfight.

I feel a qual is just a qual and nothing more than a weapons handling demonstration in a controlled enviornment.

Referencing the grandma & .38 special scenario, one which you acknowledge, my point is that you were not making one with your statement.

 

[SkrewzLoose]

More like half of it. You discussed of observed range qualifications on ship as disconcerting and question their (the observed mil types) lethality/grit to be in a gunfight.

I feel a qual is just a qual and nothing more than a weapons handling demonstration in a controlled enviornment.

Referencing the grandma & .38 special scenario, one which you acknowledge, my point is that you were not making one with your statement.

My response to the grandma/.38 special comment was a question. I wasn't trying to make a point.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

Indoctrination of the next generation.

I don't have a problem with a professor opening a forum of debate on the issue of gun control, or even setting the debate into a group exercise (half the class argues for and half against). But to simply spew your political opinions unchecked to a bunch of young kids, seems to go against the whole educational process for rational thinking and understanding. In essence, instead of teaching your students how to analyze a political problem, learn both sides of the argument and then develop a rational opinion based on well debated information, they are simply being told "this is the issue of your time and you should take this opinion".

No wonder our younger generations are so poorly educated and making crazy statements whenever interviewed by the media. And where is the accountability on the university and its staff? Is this okay? Should a professor use his/her platform to engineer political opinion? Seems very unethical to me...

 

[JBS]

Just another in a long list of instances of Leftist / Liberal Progressive bias in education- not too different from the media.

This is besides the fact that his argument is very shallow and can easily be picked apart.

For instance, Australia's violent crime rate was already in decline, and was plummeting when the measure to confiscate weapons was passed.

 

[policemedic]

Indoctrination of the next generation.

I don't have a problem with a professor opening a forum of debate on the issue of gun control, or even setting the debate into a group exercise (half the class argues for and half against). But to simply spew your political opinions unchecked to a bunch of young kids, seems to go against the whole educational process for rational thinking and understanding. In essence, instead of teaching your students how to analyze a political problem, learn both sides of the argument and then develop a rational opinion based on well debated information, they are simply being told "this is the issue of your time and you should take this opinion".

No wonder our younger generations are so poorly educated and making crazy statements whenever interviewed by the media. And where is the accountability on the university and its staff? Is this okay? Should a professor use his/her platform to engineer political opinion? Seems very unethical to me...

I agree with you with one caveat.

The professor should be opening such a discussion only if it logically relates to their class. If my anatomy and physiology professor had spouted off on gun control I'd have told him where to go and walked out.

On the other hand, if it were a criminology or political science class I would see the relevance.

If I'm paying for a class, I want that class; I'm not paying to listen to someone in a bully pulpit.

 

[Gunz]

...to simply spew your political opinions unchecked to a bunch of young kids, seems to go against the whole educational process...Should a professor use his/her platform to engineer political opinion? Seems very unethical to me...

Unethical it may be, brother, but it's all too common in our universities. I've put two boys through college and our youngest boy is now attending FSU. And all three of them have bitched to me about ultra-leftist professors spewing their opinions. My advice: don't argue, tell them what they want to hear or they will find a way to screw you.