revel wrote:oralloy wrote:revel wrote:The crazy part was not really the key word. I meant it would have been just been a lot worse had a bunch of people with no prior training to just start shooting back with all those other people around. We have professionals trained who know what to do in dangerous situations like that. I don't believe the idea has been thought out too well.
That would seem to be more of an argument for adequate training before a gun is carried, rather than an argument against people carrying a gun at all.
I'd be agreeable with such training requirements. (And in many cases, concealed carry permits already require training.)
It should also be noted that civilian self defense is much different from a police shooting and is generally less complicated. Usually when a civilian shoots in self defense, their attacker is directly in front of them and facing them head on, and they are only shooting the person who is directly attacking them. A police officer might be called on to take offensive action against someone who is attacking a third party, with a much different angle to shoot from.
If someone is intent on causing harm with a lethal weapon all situations are unknowable in advance and all kinds of things can go wrong even in the situation you describe in the last paragraph of your post. A hostage crisis could quickly develop if the attacker starts to panic.
True. Something can always go wrong no mater what is done. But the possibility of something going wrong exists in nearly every situation.
revel wrote:I will go along with the idea of people being able to carry concealed weapons on government property if they are completely trained and their background completely checked out before getting a permit.
I am not sure I understand what you view as "complete" training. I could fully agree or fully disagree with you, depending on the details of this one nuance.
revel wrote:I draw the line at getting permits for any reason for machine gun type weapons as there is no need for them in either a defensive situation or hunting. (I am ignorant on pacific names and types) If a situation develops in which those types of weapons are called for then we should wait for law enforcement.
This is getting more into the freedom issue. If people have the right to have them (which is another discussion in itself) then there doesn't have to be any "need" in order for people to have them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
wandeljw wrote:Enforcement of existing laws or maybe new legislation should be aimed at reducing the easy availability of guns and ammunition.
Unconstitutional.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Setanta wrote:maporsche wrote:I have yet to see a gun control advocate who had a rational, detailed plan for disarming the "criminals," either. Your plan of removing ALL guns is not rational and is not detailed, and worse than all it would not be effective.
I didn't say ALL guns. I specified handguns. Handguns can only have two purpose--target shooting, and you don't need a .44 magnum for that, and killing people, which is the only thing a .44 magnum is good for. As long as people make reference to vague things like disarming "criminals," while claiming that armed "law-abiding citizens" can protect us from crazy shooters, you're not advocating anything practical, either.
Some handguns are also good for hunting. The .44 magnum is one of those handguns.
I am not sure that a .44 magnum is particularly good for anti-personnel use. Something with less recoil for more rapid shooting would seem better suited to that task.
Also, guns designed to kill people have a legitimate place in the hands of civilians, because in some cases (like self defense) lethal force is a legitimate civilian activity.
