A Question.

[francois60]

If only 120 to 160 people a year die due to accidents with firearms, then that's pretty clear evidence that training is not the problem at all. So hopefully gun controllers will quit it with the "you need a license to drive" talking point.

 

[Crimefree]

If only 120 to 160 people a year die due to accidents with firearms, then that's pretty clear evidence that training is not the problem at all. So hopefully gun controllers will quit it with the "you need a license to drive" talking point.

Gun control advocates never compare apples with apples. That would show the lie of what they promote. Instead they just keep on comparing apples with oranges and good lord we fall for it. So I guess we are at fault for not pointing this out any time gun control and its sock puppet advocates makes such false statements.

That may also explain why gun control makes so much progress. No opposition.

 

[ChrisL]

They don't and will not. So it is irrelevant to police being above the law. You are still missing my point. The police should not be above the law or the people. The people should have the same rights as any law enforcement officer who is still a civilian and a citizen.

How in the hell am I missing the point? I answered your question. The people should NOT have the same rights as a law enforcement officer because MOST OF THE TIME they DO NOT have the same training. Got it? I don't see how you can say I'm not understanding you. :roll:

Just to clarify the Military is under the UCMJ, not the Constitution. They follow a different set of laws and rules while in the military and are subject to the UCMJ. Why they are not to be used as police.

I didn't mention the military in my post, so I don't know what this has to do with your question.

“A government afraid of its citizens is a Democracy. Citizens afraid of government is tyranny!” - Thomas Jefferson

“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed- unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” - James Madison

[/QUOTE]

No **** sherlock. I'm telling you why, not that I agree with it necessarily.

 

[Blue_State]

How in the hell am I missing the point? I answered your question. The people should NOT have the same rights as a law enforcement officer because MOST OF THE TIME they DO NOT have the same training. Got it? I don't see how you can say I'm not understanding you. :roll:

A lot of the time they have less.

Here is a older gentleman, protecting many innocent civilians. He does a great job clearing lanes and securing the building.
71 year old Man Stops Armed Robbery - YouTube

Here are NYC cops. You would think they would have better training. I would argue poor training is clear.
NYC Police State: Police Shoot Into Crowd of People- Times Square (RAW VIDEO) - YouTube

 

[ChrisL]

A lot of the time they have less.

Here is a older gentleman, protecting many innocent civilians. He does a great job clearing lanes and securing the building.
71 year old Man Stops Armed Robbery - YouTube

Here are NYC cops. You would think they would have better training. I would argue poor training is clear.
NYC Police State: Police Shoot Into Crowd of People- Times Square (RAW VIDEO) - YouTube

Perhaps, but a question was asked, and that is the answer to the question. Your video certainly doesn't prove otherwise.

 

[Blue_State]

Perhaps, but a question was asked, and that is the answer to the question. Your video certainly doesn't prove otherwise.

I was responding to this misconception:

The people should NOT have the same rights as a law enforcement officer because MOST OF THE TIME they DO NOT have the same training.

 

[ChrisL]

I was responding to this misconception:

And that is true. MOST civilians are not trained to the extent of police officers when it comes to small arms. Your video did not disprove that point.

 

[Blue_State]

And that is true. MOST civilians are not trained to the extent of police officers when it comes to small arms. Your video did not disprove that point.

Then there is the argument that more private gun ownership will lead to more accidents because the average citizen isn’t sufficiently trained to use a weapon defensively. While gun accidents do occur, the Cato study indicates that they are the most overstated risks. There were 535 accidental firearms deaths in 2006 within a population of almost 300 million people. Although every lost life is tragic, the proportion is not particularly startling.

On the other hand, Newsweek has reported that law-abiding American citizens using guns in self-defense during 2003 shot and killed two and one-half times as many criminals as police did, and with fewer than one-fifth as many incidents as police where an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal (2% versus 11%).

Disarming the Myths Promoted By the Gun Control Lobby - Forbes

Also, there are a few more issues at play. Officers have to go to work and carry a weapon. It doesn't matter if they had a fight with their wife that morning, or that their car broke down. No matter how bad a day they are having, they have to strap on that firearm. A civilian does not and a well trained civilian knows when to leave their firearm at home.

 

[ChrisL]

Disarming the Myths Promoted By the Gun Control Lobby - Forbes

Also, there are a few more issues at play. Officers have to go to work and carry a weapon. It doesn't matter if they had a fight with their wife that morning, or that their car broke down. No matter how bad a day they are having, they have to strap on that firearm. A civilian does not and a well trained civilian knows when to leave their firearm at home.

Let me tell you a story about a neighbor I used to have, this man was 45 years old and was lighting off fireworks and hit his daughter in the face with a bottle rocket. Another time when he was "playing" with fireworks, he threw a whole block of firecrackers into a bon fire, you can imagine how things progressed from there. Another time, he gave his 9-year-old son a blow torch to make a snow fort. Another time, he was encouraging his son to do flips into the pool, and when I mentioned to him that his son had gum in his mouth, he said, oh that's okay, I can get it out if he chokes. :roll:

So when someone asks if I think "regular" civilians should have the same weapons as the police, such a grenade launcher and other such specialty weaponry, I have to say a big fat NO. And I am a big time supporter of the second amendment, but a LOT of people are most certainly lacking in not only training but common sense in general.

 

[Black Dog]

How in the hell am I missing the point? I answered your question. The people should NOT have the same rights as a law enforcement officer because MOST OF THE TIME they DO NOT have the same training. Got it? I don't see how you can say I'm not understanding you. :roll:

Nope you still missed it. AGAIN my point is...The police should not be above the law or the people. The people should have the same rights as any law enforcement officer who is still a civilian and a citizen. Has nothing to do with training as I have pointed out and given an example 3 times now?

Now do you get it?

I didn't mention the military in my post, so I don't know what this has to do with your question.

Was cairlifying there is a difference.

No **** sherlock. I'm telling you why, not that I agree with it necessarily.

My name is not "sherlock" and I was agreeing. Not my fault you are having trouble understanding a point I have made several times now.

Reading is fundamental.

 

[ChrisL]

Nope you still missed it. AGAIN my point is...The police should not be above the law or the people. The people should have the same rights as any law enforcement officer who is still a civilian and a citizen. Has nothing to do with training as I have pointed out and given an example 3 times now?

Now do you get it?

I didn't miss anything. I told you only if the people have an equivalent or higher level of training should they be able to access the same weaponry as police. It has EVERYTHING to do with training. That was MY answer to your question. Get it now?

Was cairlifying there is a difference.

Okay, still doesn't have anything to do with your question or my answer though.

My name is not "sherlock" and I was agreeing. Not my fault you are having trouble understanding a point I have made several times now.

Reading is fundamental.

Yes it is, and comprehension is imperative. :roll: You asked what I thought, and now you are arguing about it, telling me it has nothing to do with training, well THAT was a part of my answer.

 

[Krystov]

Can you show that training makes any difference at all and serves some useful purpose to society. I shall not argue that personal safety and defence ability is improved by personal stuff has nothing to do with society. What does this training, money and impediments for CITIZENS do for society?

For starters, reduces collateral damage in the event a civilian would need to us his or her firearm.

 

[Black Dog]

Let me tell you a story about a neighbor I used to have, this man was 45 years old and was lighting off fireworks and hit his daughter in the face with a bottle rocket. Another time when he was "playing" with fireworks, he threw a whole block of firecrackers into a bon fire, you can imagine how things progressed from there. Another time, he gave his 9-year-old son a blow torch to make a snow fort. Another time, he was encouraging his son to do flips into the pool, and when I mentioned to him that his son had gum in his mouth, he said, oh that's okay, I can get it out if he chokes. :roll:

So when someone asks if I think "regular" civilians should have the same weapons as the police, such a grenade launcher and other such specialty weaponry, I have to say a big fat NO. And I am a big time supporter of the second amendment, but a LOT of people are most certainly lacking in not only training but common sense in general.

So you support the 2nd Amendment until someone ruins it for everyone? So because stupid and irresponsible people exist, everyone should be penalized? I have bad news for you... Stupid and irresponsible people will always be with us. The people should not be penalized for the actions of the few.

 

[Krystov]

As a gun owner, I believe it is your responsibility to seek training. However, it should not be federally mandated. State rights dictate they have the ability to add that feature to their laws. I don't see it as a necessarily bad thing.

More people are killed by car accidents each year than by homicide, and you're mandated by the state to have some driving training. The quality of that training is one thing, stupidity of those behind the wheel is another, but I don't see a problem with requiring training that demands the responsibility owning a firearm does.

 

[Blue_State]

Let me tell you a story about a neighbor I used to have, this man was 45 years old and was lighting off fireworks and hit his daughter in the face with a bottle rocket. Another time when he was "playing" with fireworks, he threw a whole block of firecrackers into a bon fire, you can imagine how things progressed from there. Another time, he gave his 9-year-old son a blow torch to make a snow fort. Another time, he was encouraging his son to do flips into the pool, and when I mentioned to him that his son had gum in his mouth, he said, oh that's okay, I can get it out if he chokes. :roll:

So when someone asks if I think "regular" civilians should have the same weapons as the police, such a grenade launcher and other such specialty weaponry, I have to say a big fat NO. And I am a big time supporter of the second amendment, but a LOT of people are most certainly lacking in not only training but common sense in general.

So its not training, it is common sense then?

 

[Blue_State]

More people are killed by car accidents each year than by homicide, and you're mandated by the state to have some driving training. The quality of that training is one thing, stupidity of those behind the wheel is another, but I don't see a problem with requiring training that demands the responsibility owning a firearm does.

I absolutely agree. I believe it is a state thing, not a federal mandate.

 

[Krystov]

This is one of the questions that comes up for me when it comes to psychiatric background checks. Where is the line drawn when it comes to denying a person with psychological/emotional issues their rights?

I pressed this point exactly in another thread. I have mild depression and take anti-depressants. I am by no means a threat to myself or others though, but how does the guy doing the background check who sees anti-depressants as a medication I take decide whether or not I should be allowed to own a firearm? Despite the fact that I already own one and have a CCW permit. The line on that must be made painstakingly clear before I would sign off on it.

 

[ChrisL]

So its not training, it is common sense then?

With training, comes common sense I would think. When you understand your weapon and how it operates and understand how it can be dangerous when not handled correctly, then you have some knowledge. I'm not comfortable with Joe Blow down the street having a grenade launcher after he's drank a 6-pack and decides to let his son play with it.

I would agree with the idea as long as extensive training is involved with special licensing for those people who are knowledgeable.

 

[Black Dog]

I didn't miss anything. I told you only if the people have an equivalent or higher level of training should they be able to access the same weaponry as police. It has EVERYTHING to do with training. That was MY answer to your question. Get it now?

Again that is what I asked, it was NOT THE POINT I WAS MAKING. Now do YOU get it? Or do I need to spell it out? :doh Everytime I try to explain why that is not going to happen or work you avoid answering and go back to training which as I have explained means nothing.

Okay, still doesn't have anything to do with your question or my answer though.

Actually it does. I am however tired of explaining things to you.

Yes it is, and comprehension is imperative. :roll: You asked what I thought, and now you are arguing about it, telling me it has nothing to do with training, well THAT was a part of my answer.

And yet again you are not addressing what I am referring to overall. You are addressing one section and ignoring my point.

 

[ChrisL]

So you support the 2nd Amendment until someone ruins it for everyone? So because stupid and irresponsible people exist, everyone should be penalized? I have bad news for you... Stupid and irresponsible people will always be with us. The people should not be penalized for the actions of the few.

I think there are more than a FEW stupid irresponsible people.

 

[Black Dog]

With training, comes common sense I would think. When you understand your weapon and how it operates and understand how it can be dangerous when not handled correctly, then you have some knowledge. I'm not comfortable with Joe Blow down the street having a grenade launcher after he's drank a 6-pack and decides to let his son play with it.

And how would training stop Joe Blow? No training teaches you proper handling etc. It does not give you common sense.

I would agree with the idea as long as extensive training is involved with special licensing for those people who are knowledgeable.

For the exorcise of a right?

 

[ChrisL]

Again that is what I asked, it was NOT THE POINT I WAS MAKING. Now do YOU get it? Or do I need to spell it out? :doh Everytime I try to explain why that is not going to happen or work you avoid answering and go back to training which as I have explained means nothing.

Oh jeez, excuse me, I thought you asked ME a question. I didn't realize that you just wanted to make everyone listen to YOUR ideas and not state their own. You have not explained anything. You asked if I thought citizens should be able to have the same weaponry as police, and I said no and explained why I thought that way.

Actually it does. I am however tired of explaining things to you.

Unfortunately, you have YET to explain anything, just doing a lot of blathering.

And yet again you are not addressing what I am referring to overall. You are addressing one section and ignoring my point.

Your point is that you think regular old civilians should be able to own equivalent firearms as police, you say that some are trained as well if not better than police. MY point is that MORE people are not as well trained as police in general.

 

[Black Dog]

I think there are more than a FEW stupid irresponsible people.

Does not matter. Rights are rights and they are not taken away because of someone being irresponsible.

 

[ChrisL]

And how would training stop Joe Blow? No training teaches you proper handling etc. It does not give you common sense.

Of course it does. That's just silly. The more you know about something, the more common sense you develop about such an issue. You aren't BORN with common sense you know.

For the exorcise of a right?

You know to "exorcise" a right would be to get rid of it entirely? I think you meant to say "exercise" a right.

 

[ChrisL]

Does not matter. Rights are rights and they are not taken away because of someone being irresponsible.

I never said anyone's rights should be taken away. I said special licensing requirements for those who wish to be armed as the police.