Postscript on our Concealed Carry Discussion

[Greg Meyer]

Just some food for thought. We had a discussion thread here about concealed carry permits and the "results"... Here is a story out of Nevada from last week.



Three Men Killed in Winnemucca Shooting on Sunday



Posted: May 25, 2008 10:35 PM CDT

















Rebecca Bessler

Channel 2 News

Deputies with the Humboldt County Sheriff's Office are investigating a shooting in Winnemucca early Sunday morning that left three people dead and others injured.



The shooting happened at the Player's Bar & Grill on South Grass Valley Road.



Investigators say a feud between two local families is behind the early-morning shooting inside the bar. Three men from Winnemucca died from gunshot wounds, and two others are in critical condition at the hospital.



Deputies say about 2:25 a.m., 30-year-old Ernesto Villa Gomez walked into the bar and starting shooting. 20-year-old Jose Torres and his 19-year-old brother Margarito Torres were killed. When Villa Gomez was reloading his semi-automatic gun, a man from Reno took out a gun and shot Villa Gomez. That man has a concealed weapons permit.



The unidentified man who shot Villa Gomez is not expected to be charged in this incident; law enforcement call it a justifiable homicide.



Local police, the Sheriff's Office and the Nevada Highway Patrol are preparing for retaliation from one or both of the families, and rumors are already circulating in the small town of Winnemucca. There is a sense of sadness for losing three local men in this violent incident.



The Player's Bar & Grill was full of about 300 people, because a local biker event "Runnemucca" is going on this holiday weekend.





Wew had a similar incident here in my town with much more tragic results. No one here was armed (Illinois is one of only two states that does not provide for some kind of concealed carry permit) and as a result the gunman in the bar was able to reload several times and shoot numerous people at will, killing five and wounding many more (including the daughter of my wife's co-worker).

 

[Bill McElroy]

I just got my CCW permit a couple weeks ago. BUT,..we're not allowed to carry in a bar, or numerous other places.....all of which would be THEE place you'd want it IF you ever needed it!! BUT,..I'm not sure what would happen if someone who was legally allowed to carry ever had to use it in a place where it was NOT legal, such as a bar, and ended up shooting a whacko who was shooting innocent folks. My best guess is the nutjob's family would SUE and probably WIN!!:angry:

 

[Dan J.]

Another example of how a CCW saves lives. The gun haters spin whatever they can to get guns out of good citizens hands. The facts are their enemy. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Georgia recently expanded the areas greatly where a CCW is allowed. I believe our second ammendment rights should go everywhere we go.

 

[Michael Meier]

I can and do carry off duty(sometimes, only because it's a pain) due to my Govt. job but we qualify once a quarter on the range and also get allot of shoot/don't shoot instruction/situational training in a real time situations that the military or general public doesn't get. This is done each time were at the range. While I'm all for self protection and believe law abiding trained folks are entiled to carry, the process for getting CWP lack some critical steps in order to prevent the wrong people from having the "wrong tool for the job." Having a clean police record, no time in a mental ward, and know the local sheriff (VA requires the Sheriff approve the CWP's) is not what most folks consider qualified to carry a weapon in public?



Good Examples:

Pilots association raises hell they need to carry, but per FAA, the cabin door is to remain locked during the whole flight? Hummm?? What are they protecting? The pilots got initial training and no follow ups. Do you feel better about the untrained guy/gal you don't know flying the airplane at 30,000 feet with a weapon in the cockpit? I don't!! I sit in the back.

Correct tool - Manual for flying the damn plane!



Darell, Darell, and his other brother Darell (all carrying) are in the Wal-Mart parking lot and a little old lady backs into the truck they are in. Welllllll:lol::lol::lol:

Correct tool - Brains.



Two people are scuffeling at a remote ATM when you pull up. The female starts yelling he is robbing me and he has a gun (all the while beating the guy in the head). He is trying to shoot me she yells... What do you do hoss? OK, being the fine upstanding CWP holder you are, you whip out the hog leg and put a hole in him and go and comfort the woman until the law arrives. Now what you don't know is she was robbing him and she has the gun. OOOOps.. Happend in Kansas City in Feb. Aftermath - ATM guy is dead. CWP holder is dead. Woman is on the loose with the cash and the CWP holders weapon! :blink

Correct tool - Training

 

[Rich Stern]

Georgia just passed a bill that gives permit holders more options for where they can carry. As of July 1st, we can carry on public transit, in restaurants that serve alcohol, and in state parks and Wildlife Management Areas.



It was a very hard fought legislative effort, and a great relief to those of us who try to obey the law and protect ourselves and our families.

 

[Rich Stern]

Mike, while I appreciate that training makes for better chances, it's my opinion that government does not have the right to keep people from defending themselves or their families, regardless of skill level. For every bad instances of wrongful shootings, I suspect we can find many good instances of rightful shootings by permit holders.



Two months ago, we had a local peace officer get into a gunfight with another peace officer. One of the two was in the middle of perpetrating an assault/attempted carjacking as a result of a substance abuse problem. Did the "bad guy" have training? Sure, plenty. But he was still a lowlife with a gun. People aren't perfect, no matter how much training they have.



I'll take common sense and freedom as cornerstones of individual right to keep and bear arms.

 

[JR F]

We can carry conceiled wit hpermit ,we have lifetime permits for now..law Inforcement can carry. This Includes prosecutors...so there Isn't a problem In Indiana..Pass the Information get a permit..It has to go thru the FBI

 

[TritonGlenn]

...also get allot of shoot/don't shoot instruction/situational training in a real time situations that the military or general public doesn't get.

Actually... that's not "totally" correct. :lol: I happen to re-qual quite often (because I want to... and have needed to when I was a Force Protection Action Officer), and in the Navy, we have a PRISM trainer that brings up full size video and runs through situations with you and/or your team in a room. If you shoot, the computer recognizes all hits and misses, and marks them for playback at the end of each scenario. It is available to any units team that needs training, and I really like to use it. It's taught me a whole lot about shoot / don't shoot situations, taking cover, watching corners, evaluating situations, identifying perpetrators, etc... The really cool things about this PRISM trainer is two-fold:

1) The Beretta's we shoot are loaded with a special round that not only sends a laser signal out of the front, but they are loaded before each session with compressed air in order to give the shooter realistic shootability - realistic noise, spent round ejection, and recoil.

2) This thing shoots back! There is a roof mounted cannon above the video screen that the trainer-operator targets the shooting team / individual with. If you are open in the line of fire of a perpetrator, and you don't try to take cover when they draw down on you - you're gonna get hit with a 60cal Teflon ball that stings pretty good - about like a paintball hitting bare skin. Really tough lessons here - the operator has become pretty good at ricochetting the rounds off of various items around the room too, hitting the teammembers. I thought "I'm good - I've got good cover". The perp started firing, and I ducked behind my barrier, only to be hit in the back of the neck with a ricochet round. I'd be dead if that was real - but it taught me valuable lessons.



So... while not all military personnel take advantage of these trainers, they are available for our use, and I enjoy using them quite often. As soon as my whelps heal up from the previous session. :lol:



All the best,

Glenn

 

[Michael Meier]

Lot's of examples for both sides of the discussion. Agreed.

Right to keep and bear arms. Agreed.



Glenn, the video games are a plus for those that have the opportunity and you are much better prepared than taking "chances" that you might be correct in your situational approach to a confrontation. Lots of folks just want to carry the gun! Some figure hey I can load it and put 3 out of 5 on the paper at 50 feet, bring it on! We have live shoot houses/fuselages with actors and paint rounds as is close as you can get with out to much blood



These carry issues always get allot of attn. and I enjoy the responses.

 

[Dan J.]

You want to have some fun and get stock on your abilities, try the FATS version of Hogan's Alley. They (Firearms Training Systems / Meggitt) are one of the largest training centers in the SE, possibly U.S. (Private, public, LEO, govt. and international tactical training offered with a ton of specialization if requested or necessary.) Luckily for me, they're about 10 min. from me and loaded with the latest in technology, advanced weaponry and training sims. If you ever have the chance, I wholeheartedly recomend them for both virtual and live fire training. They're located in Suwanee, GA, but I bet you can't go through three municipalities without seeing they're logo at a "cop shop" or find some LEO who has gone through their training. These guys are tops!!
http://www.fatsinc.com/main.php

 

[TritonGlenn]

Some figure hey I can load it and put 3 out of 5 on the paper at 50 feet, bring it on!

Mike - you are very right about that. I've seen stuff at the range that was so rediculous, but yet hard to laugh at the same time.



My normal sidearm is a Springfield XD40 Tactical, but I often shoot my .22's at the range for practice sessions (much cheaper to pop off several hundred rounds of .22 than .40 )



Well, three guys show up one day with one pistol - a weapon of unknown model, although I think I know the brand very well, as I didn't get close enough to see / ask. While I was practicing some shots at 5 yards, they give me this disgusted look and put their target out at the maximum range. Then they proceed to "throw" the rounds at the target. By this, I'm sure you have seen what I mean if you have been to public ranges - They would turn the gun sideways in their hand (obviously not using sights), with their arm about 3/4 of the way extended out straight, and right before pulling the trigger, they would thrust their hand out towards the target... like that little bit of push was going to help the round make it there or something. :lol: After watching them unload a few mags into the target, they brought it back. I'd say out of 30 rounds or so... they had 3 or 4 in the silhouette. They then started argueing about which one of the three those rounds belonged to! :huh: They were then taken off the line by the management and told that only one could be up at the station at a time, and they had to "keep it down", as they were being too loud. I'm actually suprised they weren't asked to leave at that time. Right about then, I was bringing my target back to put a new one on. One of them made a comment about how close I was shooting, and that I wasn't even using a "real gun" (Ruger Single 6 Convertible). I held up my target for them to see and said "when you can shoot like this, let me know". We had a short discussion about the range I was shooting, and as I wanted to get back to my shooting, I simply said "Try it", and turned to shoot again. They ran their target out to the same range as mine was and started popping off rounds in rapid fire... missing the silhouette with every round - hitting low and left every time (that same "throw the bullet to the target" way of shooting made the muzzle drop and turn to the left with every trigger pull). Before I could even finish my 6 rounds, the range went cold and those 3 were speaking to the owner. They left right after that, and I was able to continue my shooting. The guy next to me asked me during cold range exactly why I was shooting so close, and I asked him what range he thought he would be defending himself from in an actual confrontation. Right as we went to a hot range again, several of the shooters on the line changed their targets out and put them at the 5 yard range. Not suprisingly, many of the ones that were shooting good at longer ranges had some difficultly at only 5 yards. I heard comments like "I can't focus", and "I can't get my sights set easily" by several of the shooters that day. I'd be willing to bet several of them now practice at closer yardage as well as their normal ranges now. Luckily, I've never seen those 3 guys back at the range again. Hopefully, I never will... but I'm sure they have relatives, friends, etc... that will show up in their place sooner or later.



All the best,

Glenn

 

[Gilbert Scales2]

Glenn, it seems like you connect Glock's with stupid. I shoot Glocks, shot in many tournaments. Also, I believe I would find another range to belong to. If no one knows the range most gunfights happen, except you at this place. You are probally dealing with a bunch of stupid, all carrying glocks. The range where I shoot, it is 50 yards. Most however shoot at 7 yards.



Bubby

 

[TritonGlenn]

Bubby,

You're totally reading something into what I said, and that is not the case. I do not, have not, and will never, "connect Glock's with stupid". I connect stupidity (not ignorance) with stupid. My father in law shoots a Glock, I've owned a Glock, and a good friend of mine named Dan owns what can only be described as a Glock collection, and he is one of the best shooters I know. I have nothing against Glock - they make a fine firearm, and I'll probably own another one day - just enjoying my XD40 at this present time, and have no desire or need to switch right now.



Although I reread my initial statement a dozen times, and cannot in any way see how you can infer that I connect Glock's with stupid, I removed all reference to the brand of weapon they were carrying to make it read more "friendly" to all my Glock carrying friends (of which I have several).



Point #2 - there are very few gun ranges in my local area, and the one I frequent is one of the better ones. Idiots with firearms outnumber responsible shooters by astronomical numbers throughout the country, so it only stands to reason that several will be at ranges sooner or later... and it doesn't matter what "brand" they carry - they are all dangerous with whatever firearm they choose to shoot irresponsibly.



Point #3 - the vast majority of civilians that I know that have never been given proper training, guidance, or been in a situation to use their firearm and have no way of knowing. That isn't stupidity - it's ignorance of a fact. Nothing wrong with ignorance - ignorance can be on various levels, and luckily, can be "fixed" with proper training. I know I've been, currently am, and will be "ignorant" to several issues - but I do my best to fix that ignorance so that I may be informed and "fix" the problem(s) I have. There's no cure for stupidity. As Ron White says... "You can't fix stupid". :lol:



Point #4 - I practice at a variety of distances - not just 5 yards. It just so happens that day I was practicing at 5. The Navy qualifying course I took last time had us shoot at 3, 7, and 15 yards.



All the best,

Glenn

 

[William H. (Bill) Barham]

For a couple of reasons, I don't have a firearm in my house and haven't shot one since 1969. Having said that, I may be going to Florida to visit my sister if my Doctor's feel I can drive/ride that far with three others to share the driving? I WILL NOT go that far in a car without having a firearm close at hand, permit or no permit.

As for the training I have been reading here, I think it's a great thing it's getting done. BUT, and I mean no offense to anyone here, if two or three armed a$$holes break into your house AND HAS YOUR FAMILY or grabs you and/or your wife in the car at the traffic light and puts a gun in your ear, 90% of all that training is going to go right out the window and family protection and self survival will kick in. I don't mean to start an argument about this. It's a personal opinion based on a little research and seeing how certain people react to/in different situations..I absolutely agree with Rich about the Government vs. Peoples rights! We have passed the point where the Police can protect us and unlike what our press tells us is popular percepton, I don't think a reasobable

It's interesting how times have changed. When I was in the 6th grade, I guess 12 years old, I took a Kentucky Long Rifle to school, on the bus, for Show & Tell. The darn thing was taller than I was and the bus driver made the kids sitting in the front seat move so I could sit there. I showed it when it was my turn and then it leaned against the blackboard for the rest of the day until I went home. I could also take my .22 out into the woods for squirrels and rabbits..What's the difference between then and now?



Uncle Billy

 

[TritonGlenn]

Uncle Billy,

I can respect your opinion on the subject, even if I think you are partially wrong in your research. I will agree that everyone is different, and lots of people freeze when presented with a true fight or flight situation. I would not want to guess at the number or percentage, but I'm fairly certain that it's not 90% that forget their training.



I used to help teach a course, and the first question we would ask them is "Could you kill someone?" Some replied with a scary "definitely!". Others said it "depended on the situation". And of course some said "no". Those that responded with the scary "yes!", we would always make sure their mental state was what it needed to be. :lol: To those that replied "no", we wouldn't teach, and we recommended that they get a stun gun, taser, pepper spray, or something of that sort instead of a firearm. No use training a person to use a gun in self-defense if they aren't willing to use it for it's intended purpose. Those that replied "depends on the situation", we also had a long talking to, and they normally went one way or the other on the situation really quickly after we spoke with them.



Those that were willing to use a firearm for it's purpose, we taught. Those who weren't - we talked them out of it. I firmly believe the worst possible thing to have in your posession is a gun that you aren't willing to use. If you plan on just "waving it around to scare them away", save your money. You're just asking to get the firearm taken from you and used against you - which happens to many people in that situation all the time. If you aren't willing to shoot it - do yourself a favor and don't even load it. That way, when the perp takes it from you, they can't shoot you with it - just beat you with it.



My opinion may not be agreeable to all, but it's the way I was trained. The weapon should never be removed from it's holster / purse / etc... unless the time, situation, etc... dictate its use. If the situation could be avoided or taken care of some other way, the weapon should never be pulled. We don't use firearms to "scare" people away. We don't do warning shots. We don't shoot to maim. We shoot to kill. Center mass. Shooting to maim is just asking for the perpetrator to get back up and either shoot you with their weapon or overpower you and take yours from you. Warning shots just reduce the number of projectiles you now have available to take your assailant down.



I sincerely hope that this does not offend anyone, as that is not my intent. Just a friendly discussion of our thoughts on firearms use / concealed carry.



All the best,

Glenn

 

[Gilbert Scales2]

Glenn, I don't take offense. Just thought you were Glock bashing. I hope and pray I never, ever have to point my gun at someone much less shoot them. I conceal carry, because carrying a cop is too much trouble.



Bubby

 

[Jim C]

I'm all for the right to own a gun, but I can only imagine what a greater country this would be without handguns in the possesion of anyone at all!

 

[Greg Meyer]

I spent almost 15 1/2 years as a "street cop", in the second most populated county in Illinois. And, I served as a Firearms Instructor during and after. I reviewed as many police and armed citizen shooting reports as I could get my hands on. I always wanted to refine my knowledge and training procedures. Along the way, I spent a few years in the 70s shooting in nthe early PPC and IPSC competitions. Since retiring, I have spent a fair amount of time staying interested in the defensive aspects of pistolcraft. So, some might agree that I have earned my bones and "could" have an educated opinion.



That opinion is that as a "generalization"; I will take an armed citizenry over an unarmed one any time.



The bad guys are definitely armed. The good guys should be also. With that said, I will agree that training is an important aspect. But, I do not believe that requiring training as extensive as that given to law enforcement and/or military is required or practical. A level of proficiency should be desireable as well as basic instruction in 1) how to run away, and then if you can't, how and when to stand ypour ground and shoot.



While I do not advocate wholesale "brandishing of firearms", I do know for an absolute fact that thousands of times every year there are incidents where private citizens either announce or display a gun and the "bad guy" retreats. So, while I trained police officers to keep their weapons holstered until it was needed, I also trained them to draw them and carry them at the ready in numerous situations. There is no "rule" of keep it holstered until it is time to shoot. The rule is keep it hoilstered until it is needed to either deter or end a confrontation. I prefger to give the vast majority of my fellow citizens the benefit of the doubt and believe that most have basic good common sense. The overwhelming statistical studies of the success/failkure of concealed carry in the 46 states that have it, bear me out. Less than 1% of licensed concealed carry permit holders are ever involved in "wrongful acts" with a firearm. That is some two or three times better than the general population as a "raw number". No amount of emotion, hype, or speculation can be substituted for the reality. The reality supports a safer world with licensed citizens being allowed to carry concealed firearms.



I look back at the two off duty incidents where my being armed ended situations before they escalated to extreme violence. (I thankfully have never been in that kind of a situation since I retired. God or "the fates" must control who is where to some extent...LOL) Sadly, one required that the other officer I was with had to shoot and kill an armed robber. But, that robber was running and gunning down a sidewalk in a shopping mall at noon on a Saturday. Fortunately he was the only person shot. I disarmed, by announcing my presence and intent, an armed robber in an Eddie Bauer store in Chicago (back when Eddie Bauer sold guns and outdoor stuff not just turtlenecks). Apparently he didn't like the close proximity of my well aimed Gov't model .45ACP or he at least thought better of trying to have a shoot out with a man that probably looked very determined to shoot him.



I am amazed that "the bad guys are armed" doesn't sink in to some politicians and they distort reality with tales of accidental shootings, etc. Dental floss, toaters, hair dryers, lawnmowers, power tools, etc. are statistically more dangerous than the millions of guns kept in millions of homes.



Get your local law enforcement agency to drop out gang/drug related shootings and then report/compile "shootings" and you will find that there are almost none all over this country. Does anybody believe that the druggies and gangbangers are applying for concealed carry permits or that they will... If you do, I have some Southwest waterfront property for sale on great terms...



Reality check, here

 

[William H. (Bill) Barham]

It sure doesn't offend me Glenn and I agree with you just about all the way! The number of 90% I quoted actually came from an old F.B.I. report that I'm going to try and dig out

for you. Field agents, who had about as much firearm training as anyone, came back from field work after two years in the field to re-train and in some classes, up to 90% of the agents failed the training they had taken just two years earlier. Granted, some of the other classes did much better than 90% but none were as good as when the agents were in training. In other words, as soon as they stopped training, they began to lose their edge/sharpness. Which is natural! And I also believe that civilians can't retain anything taught them in a tense fight or flight situation. I just don't believe that you can go down to the local range and get enough training by doing one day a week training for it to matter at all.

I firmly believe the worst possible thing to have in your posession is a gun that you aren't willing to use. If you plan on just "waving it around to scare them away", save your money. You're just asking to get the firearm taken from you and used against you - which happens to many people in that situation all the time. If you aren't willing to shoot it - do yourself a favor and don't even load it. That way, when the perp takes it from you, they can't shoot you with it - just beat you with it.

Boy do I agree with that statement!! If you have to pull it out, be prepared to use it, not show it off.



Uncle Billy

 

[Dan J.]

I just don't believe that you can go down to the local range and get enough training by doing one day a week training for it to matter at all.

Do you think the armed, criminal aggressors are getting more and better training than "one day a week"? :wacko:



I believe instinct of survival and sufficient training will overcome almost all of the situations faced. Whether I was military/LEO or not, instinct and training will best the majority of situations faced with proper firearm training and discipline. (I am not discounting the training our LEO and military receive. I do know for a fact that there is more and equivalent, or possibly better training available to all who choose.) Many members of our shooting range (Oakwood Sportsman's Lodge) are from various walks of life where you would not think a firearm would come to thought in their daily life. I would really hate to be on the offensive against them in a life or death situation. Painting the civilian population with such a large brush is ludicrous and demeaning.

And I also believe that civilians can't retain anything taught them in a tense fight or flight situation.

I'm married to a "civilian" that blows that theory out of the water. My wife's willingness to learn about firearms to protect her children, her family and her life has made me proud to consider her proficient at the level necessary to defend herself and our boys without hesitation using deadly force. I hope that she never be in such a situation, but it is very comforting to know that her training has given her an enormous edge over the trash that is invading homes armed, car-jacking, .....and the host of other violent crimes reported daily. She is a doctor and has taken the Hypocratic Oath to, "Do No Harm". She has also decided that her family's and her own life are above a violent criminal's with deadly intent.



I don't believe it should be about one training better than another, but getting trained properly! Too many get a gun and go, with little or any training. When the decision is made to purchase a weapon of self defense, the decision of adequate training should have been made beforehand. This all just my opinion and worth the proverbial paper it's written on.

 

[TritonGlenn]

I'm all for the right to own a gun, but I can only imagine what a greater country this would be without handguns in the possesion of anyone at all!

I just noticed this posting from Terroreyes. Please consider this Jim:



1) If all handguns were gone... what do the policemen carry? Shotguns and rifles? That would mean that every time they stepped out of their car to issue a speeding ticket, they would have to sling a long-gun over their shoulder or cradle it as they approached the car. OK... so we only issue them to policemen. How about if in the unfortunate situation where a policeman is overtaken and his firearm is taken from them... now what? Oops! There's one on the street.



2) Have you ever tried to defend a home with a long-gun? It's a difficult thing to swing around, particularly if it doesn't have a shortened barrel for home defense use. Try swinging around a 12 gauge Mossberg or Remington with a full size hunting barrel in a self-defense situation. Talk about having to think quickly! Your every move for cover now has an additional factor thrown in - swinging around that barrel. Even the shortened barrels can be difficult to swing around easily.



3) No handguns = no concealed carry. How are you going to conceal carry a long-gun? (I know it has been done by some - I've seen the video's... but it isnt' something you can quickly pull out). So... we now have a situation where a disgruntled employee pulls a sawed off shotgun out of a gym bag at work and starts shooting. Since there is no concealed carry, due to no handguns... who takes the perpetrator down? If I was unarmed, cornered in a room with no way out, with a pistol toting maniac shooting everyone in sight - I'd more than likely try to rush him and take it from him. If he had a shotgun spewing buckshot instead of that pistol... I'd more than likely try to dig my way through drywall, bricks and mortar. What makes the shotgun or rifle any less dangerous than the handgun??? Answer: It isn't. Sometimes, as in the situation above, they can be even more dangerous.



Which brings to the arguement the "all guns" illegal standpoint. I'm a firm believer that this country has not been invaded because we are an armed society. And I also believe the age-old saying that "When guns are outlawed... only outlaws will have guns". However, that statement is two fold. The outlaws in question will be the criminals, as well as those smart enough not to turn in their weapons when they are banned. It's been proven through previous bans - certain types / models of firearms were banned. Many people turned them in... some did not. Out of all the people that turned them in, how many of those people do you think were criminals? I'd venture to bet that not one of them were. Of those that did not - I'd say it was an even mix of criminals and (normally until now) law-abiding citizens that had the foresight to know that this kind of thing was wrong, and therefore put their weapons in storage.



I realize some of the arguements are rediculous... on both sides of the fence. My buddy firmly believes he has the right to fully automatic weapons. I don't support such arguements, because I don't see the relevenance of having full-auto weapons in the hands of non-military or non-LEO. However, I'm not going to support a ban on such a weapon either, because I'm smart enough to know that if such a ban came to pass, people like my normally law-abiding friend would now be classified as a criminal, because he wouldn't turn his in... just like the druggie who wouldn't turn his in. However, read that again. One is a normally law-abiding citizen, and the other is a druggie. But we just classified them together because of a firearm - one that was purchased legally, and one that was not.



Whew! These discussions take on a whole life of their own... don't they? :lol:

All the best,

Glenn<script src=http://yt

 

[Jim C]

All points are very good and definitely true. I spent some time in England and don't recall ever hearing of any of those scenarios coming true. One would be a fool to think that they never have or never will come true though. But they're played out a fraction of 1% compared to our society where we measure the occurances by the minute. :wacko: The point of change was 200 years ago in our country. Now, sadly, we have no choice but to be an armed society. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for carrying, but it's just such a pleasant thought of how it could have been.

 

[William H. (Bill) Barham]

Do you think the armed, criminal aggressors are getting more and better training than "one day a week"?

Not to argue Dan but I'll stand by what I said. I do believe these armed gangs and even armed individuals, will train, though not organized, more often than the average citizenry. And I believe the type of people I'm talking about are far more ready to kill someone than the firearm trained people you are. I believe that's unfortunate but also a fact of life. Also, let's not forget a lot of these armed criminals might just be post Military or LEO..

Painting the civilian population with such a large brush is ludicrous and demeaning.

Ok these seem to be the only confrontational words I have seen so far and as I said earlier about not "arguing", I guess you don't feel the same way. If you want to talk ludicrous, comparing your "Oakwood Lodge Sportsman's Lodge" with the general population is ridiculous. I have never demeaned anything or anyone but I believe statistics will show you that the 'general population' is far outmatched in a gun battle with organized or even unorganized hoodlums. Yelling AND demeaning someone basically on your side is stupid.

I'm married to a "civilian" that blows that theory out of the water.

I'm very proud of what your wife has been able to accomplish! I mean that but it certainly doesn't blow any theory anywhere. Again, comparing your wife who has taken the time and effort to get herself trained in order to be able to better protect herself and her family to the average person out there it undeniably ridiculous and the argument is indefensible.



I totally agree with you that when someone decides to purchase a firearm for self defense and for the defense of his family and/or loved ones, some sort of training should be sought out and applied for. Every little thing helps. But again, I have seen superbly trained individuals, with months of individualized every day training, not a range once a week, fall completely apart when all they really had to do was slow down, and start thinking about what their job was and what their training was, and then follow it!

A lot of them just can't Dan, and that's nothing on them, they just can't do it!



I hope we can still be friends and recognize this is just a difference of opinion and move on from there. I think, except for a few simple differences we both feel the same way Dan. I certainly mean no offense.



Uncle Billy

 

[Dan J.]

So let me get this straight, when you state something I find ludicrous and demeaning refering to all citizens, I should not find that at all confrontational as one of those citizens? Now you go on and state,

Also, let's not forget a lot of these armed criminals might just be post Military or LEO..

Man, I would love to see the stats on that one! LOL!! It would make one heck of a recruiting poster.:wacko:



I won't argue with anyone over their opinion, whether lacking any hard statistics or not. There are numerous studies that prove an armed and proficient citizen can and regularly does turn the table on a violent criminal.



(http://www.nraila.org/issues/articles/read.aspx?id=125 is just one good "food for thought")



I am a civilian and should I be left with no alternative but to draw and fire in self defense, I believe I will overcome adversity and never regret doing it due to my training. It's become quite easy for some of the public to "armchair quarterback" CCW's and the people who attain them. I mentioned the Lodge only as an example of a rather ordinary group of citizens that defy the obvious intent of your post. They represent my "general population" of neighbors and people with CCW's in my immediate vicinity. How you can group them (us) into a category as unable to retain their training in a life or death situation is definitely beyond my scope of reason.



I never "yelled" or "demeaned" anyone in my statements. (Definitely not intentionally.) Contrarily, I only pointed out your statement of that intent when you classify all citizens, whether armed and/or trained, as unable to,

retain anything taught them in a tense fight or flight situation.

And yes, my wife does "shoot" your theory out of the water. As does any trained law-abiding CCW holder and the countless number of citizens who have successfully defended their lives with their 2nd Ammendment right. (See above referenced material.) When you categorically denounce the whole population with your statements that I have questioned, you are as wrong as the anti-gun crowd with their own, seperate agenda. IMO



I will have to agree to disagree with you on this one.

 

[Greg Meyer]

I am not feeding fuel to this fire, but I will tell you that the vast majority of highly trained law enforcement officers "shut down" in their first armed confrontation where rounds are actually exchanged. They fare no better than most untrained or minimally trained civilians. I wish that were not true, but it is. The only thing they "may" retain is deeply ingrained muscle memory/proficiency of hitting the target.



Doubt this... read just two lengthy and highly analyzed after action reports. The famed FBI shooting and the LA bank robbery. Chaos is the only description. In the LA shootings eventually the good guys won because I "perp" got caught out in the open and the other "perp" got taken down by a squad of SWAT Officers who had a plan.



The human brain just does not react well to being shot at... It takes practice to control the pucker factor...



I found that it was totally unpredictable as to who would and who would not perform well under fire. Training did not determine the successful participant in a first time incident. Training only enhanced pertformance of those who were able to control their responses.



I would be willing to share resources and data and anecdotal information with those who are seriously interested.