champu

A couple things... 1) Surprise is not in the favor of those being attacked and I agree that if you're one of the first people attacked in a situation like this, your chances aren't good regardless of whether you're armed or not. I dunno... maybe if you never carry anything in your right hand you'd be okay. That said, I think quade's comments are trying to paint this picture where if a couple people come into the office with automatic weapons that everyone is just insta-dead, and that's not the case. The desire to have a firearm in such a situation isn't necessarily about ITGing it up and saving the day. What if you try to run away and get backed into an office, or if you're wounded and try to hide, and the attackers follow you? I really don't think it's that far fetched. 2) You're absolutely right to consider the dangers of owning/carrying a weapon when choosing whether to do so, but as with anything, simply looking at statistics to make your decision is probably selling yourself short. (e.g. if all firearms accidents were as a result of loaded-handgun-juggling, you could do something with that information, and you could own and carry a handgun much more safely than statistics might imply.)

The discussion in sections beyond table 1 in that document reflect what I wrote here some time ago, and more or less make table 1 itself useless.

Because (in large part) the constitution is a liberal document. Well at the time, certainly. What's a good idea or a bad idea in anyone's eyes depends on which traditions you're conserving and which ones you want to be liberated from. Insofar as "liberal" has come to mean "counter-conservative," and in the context of the last couple hundred years in the US, defending the constitution is "conservative." It's healthy to be a mix of both. Liberal enough to accept that not all traditions make sense or are good ideas, and conservative enough to understand you don't fiddle with things for the sake of doing so.

Well, this is why I've previously tried to draw attention to the problem with the phrase, "via the practical application of Conservative philosophy." If you join the military you take an oath to uphold the constitution. I think if you forget the (R) vs. (D) battle and how "conservative" and "liberal" have been so poorly mapped to those letters for a minute, one could argue that fighting to uphold the constitution is very much a conservative philosophy. Why would someone who is liberal agree to fight to protect such an old framework? Is that what regulator meant? Maybe not. He probably just meant "someone who doesn't support the things I don't like about Democrats" Likewise, when funjumper says "conservative" he or she very clearly just means "a collection of stuff I don't like that Republicans espouse" and that makes the claim that nothing positive has ever come of it just a lame no-true-scottsman fallacy.

I don't disagree. I have previously stated that I believe training should be required as part of gun ownership and definitely as part of a concealed (or open) carry. Editted to add: The gun lobby is generally not in favour of any of this though. It makes it a bit more difficult to acquire guns, which is something they could never support. A smart gun for instance could have made a difference in this situation. Smart guns tend to be actively resisted. Having a written test you have to pass (with a freely available/downloadable study guide) along with a practical demonstration that shows you can safely handle the firearm (load, unload, field strip), and making both of those things available at any firearm dealer at the time of purchase is workable and, imo, reasonable for buying a firearm. If this were rolled into a card along with having passed a background check then this would make it easier to ensure all private sales recipients were good to go. I'm skeptical of any mandatory in-classroom training for simply purchasing a firearm. I agree with Anvil that CCW/LTC courses are only going to be as good as the instructors. I haven't taken one but I've heard in some places they might need more balance towards safety logistics (including retention against curious kids) and not just the "how not to break the law while carrying" side of things. I also wouldn't have a problem skipping the watermelon video and just go straight to real aftermath photos like some drivers education courses. It's frankly hard to discuss smart guns and the role they might play in an alternate universe where legislators don't try to mandate them. It says a lot about the people who hold the pens on behalf of those wanting stronger gun control that they pass legislation to mandate things like smart guns and microstamping before they even exist. On its face though, sure, it may have helped in the incident that started this thread.

No, I follow, no apology needed. In this case I went directly to ridiculous. A pretty good rule when reading my posts in this forum is that if they don't sound reasoned and moderate then I either forgot a word in a sentence or I'm joking around. Which reminds me, has anyone told this guy he should never swing his right arm when he walks around? Left arm is fine, but if you swing your right arm as you walk it'll just slow you down if you have to draw on someone on account of your hand being a couple feet away from your gun.

Yes..................and if I remember my scenes correctly he said "are you going to pull those pistols or whistle Dixie?" Then he spit ta-backy. Actually wasn't meant to be a Clint Eastwood reference, but that works too. I just imagine the looks someone would get pushing a shopping cart full of everything they might feasibly carry in their right hand onto a range so they practice dropping it and drawing from their IWB holster. "Hey Ernie, what's new? How's the Mrs?" "She's doing well, thanks for asking. Well, today I got a leaf blower and a surf board. I want to make sure I can drop 'em and get my gun out... Later on I'm gonna modify my bicycle so I can ride one handed and still use both brakes." "Hey Ernie, what if you need to use your right hand to carry a gun? have you thought about what you might do then?" "Good thinking! I should practice dropping a gun so I can draw my gun! Something for next week maybe!"

Three things... 1) Don't give people opinions. Try asking for them instead. 2)

Sure, which is a totally reasonable approach. The writer in your OP says he never (yes, he said never) carries someting in his right hand. That's paranoid. If you lay out intricate steps for doing just about anything in enough detail you can make anything seem incredibly creepy and obsessive. (e.g. "I apply approximately 5 ml of real maple syrup to the leading 1 cm edge. Using the left-side of my fork I tear away the top layer and raise the pancake to my mouth using 40% shoulder and 60% elbow range of motion.") That said, chalk me up as another vote for, "never using your right hand is bizarre." Since he has all that time to review videos and train, he could just practice dropping things prior to drawing. Sacks of shopping, maybe a case of sodas, a passion fruit... Or if he doesn't want to cut back on any other training he could just make use of the time he saves not having to constantly make two trips.

Why would anyone (on this site or otherwise) think a satire piece from a blog like DailyKos is real? Are there a contingent of people here who have defended the actions of police in the original event alluded to in this piece? Also, the notes make the author sound like a complete douche. I'm sure it was a major struggle for him to make a joke based on pushing the mentality of blaming the victim to the absurd. He's a real hero for getting through that for all of us, must have been rough. A real modern artist for the ages, this one.

My point is that by the time you "see it getting out of hand" then you've already violated people's rights. By saying "if you've done nothing wrong..." you're really just saying, "Don't worry, I'm sure I'll be fine..." Also, See my post #19. It's completely healthy to be skeptical of any new tool that gives police probable cause to detain you or to search you or your things.

The reason for the aversion to the "If you've done nothing wrong..." attitude is because the above statements are made under the (often incorrect) assumption that the speaker is immune to any issues that may come up. The phrase "easily and commonly agreed upon by all..." is 200 proof bullshit. What I think you meant to say was "when this negatively affects me me me me MEEEEEEEEE"

The problem with any of these things is the old saying that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Law enforcement finds technology attractive when they determine it makes their job easier to perform, who wouldn't? Only trouble is, this is orthogonal to whether it accurately performs as advertised. Google "Iraqi Police Bomb Detector" if you don't believe me. This all sounds great at first blush, until a the THC breathalyzer hits on anyone who has even been around pot in the last month and the pattern cameras hit on someone really stubborn about parking spaces and now both people are sitting on the side of the road with door panels being taken off their car. Or "sorry buddy, the gunshot detector sent us, so we're tossing your apartment. These things are very accurate, don'cha know." If police had a magic eight-ball where 7/8 possible sides just said "probable cause!" and a judge who would admit it they would be using that thing constantly.

I'm on a redcurrant jam kick right now.

This is sort of like setting a record for most number of nails driven in with a wrench.

Maybe so, but those states amount to only, um, 38% of the total landmass in the US. Why don't you want to protect all children? Strike your colors. I'll strike nothing! What could possibly be safer for children than a landmass devoid of children? no children = no murders by children And no accidents involving children! I think we've found a solution... a final solution, if you will.

Maybe so, but those states amount to only, um, 38% of the total landmass in the US. Why don't you want to protect all children? Strike your colors. I'll strike nothing! What could possibly be safer for children than a landmass devoid of children?

And using ryoder's link and this, the percentage of the US population that lives in states with such laws that at least attempt to make owners secure their firearms aways from minors is about 71% (226.4M/318.9M) That's practically nobody so RMK and TK were almost correct when they wrote... They were only off by 71% People who want more of these types of laws, or maybe a workable law that helps make sure people have had a background check before they make an in-state private party purchase (already required in many states and for all inter-state purchases) listen up, here's what you have to do... Stop electing people that just try to ban every type of rifle, handgun, shotgun, magazine, or place to get ammo that they can get away with. Of course firearm owners and the NRA are going to be pissed and fight you. As Lil Jon so eloquently put it when featured in Damn! by the Youngbloodz... "Don't start no shit it won't be no shit."

I think the at home defense scenario is quite distinct from the defensive carry scenario. Both, if you choose, require a fair amount of training and safety precautions. Like skydiving, there are several ways to get youself or someone you know hurt or killed by having firearms in your house but people are really not inventing new ways, so it's disingenuous to call it a roll of the dice. It's going to vary by locale, but home invaders are usually there for your stuff, not you. But they are breaking into your house, after all, and so they may not be the best at contingency planning. If they encounter you there and panic it's anybody's guess what they'll do. You mention that there are some people who don't care if you have a gun and I would surmise this is a small subset of the people who don't care if you have a baseball bat, particularly if they are bigger than you. Where any intruder that tries to break into my house draws the line in running away is not of interest to me.

Honestly, the guy did get too close for comfort. You can see he actually gets between the van and the officer which is just stupid. He could have done that about 5-6 feet to his left, it still would have been funny*, and I'd have a lot more sympathy for him if they reacted the same way. Plus, for better or for worse, police have a Pavlovian reaction to the "acting cool when spotted" routine that's part of this dare/meme. That said, this is a very classic example of escalation vs. deescalation that gets people worked up. Two sentences into the encounter and the cop has his hand on the guy's chest and they are swearing at him. If the lesson is, "hey, idiot, don't sneak up behind me, don't you realize that looks a lot like you're trying to attack me?" don't revert to a "Don't fuck with cops, we can fuck you up" lesson. I'm sure the video was cut together and the sound faded in and out to make the police look as unprofessional as possible, but it's a stretch to draw a line through the dots and make them look like angels. Side note: crowding around the guy while you have him up against the van, unrestrained, and facing you is unnecessarily intimidating and also very stupid. Doesn't seem like a good idea to play "how many firearms and tasers can we get within arms reach of this guy?" /edited to clarify: * as funny as anyone finds this kind of thing. Most of these people would have been well within their rights to turn around and deck the guy as close as he was getting to them.

It has been quite a terrible thread.

mpohl's words aren't "terroristic" nor are they threats. It's just shock-value ranting. His (or Her? I forget if mpohl's sex has been established and the account has a blank profile) opinion on firearms hasn't changed at all in at least two years and my explanation about personal choices in that thread obviously had no effect. I don't have anything more productive to say to someone who states axiomatically that no one besides military or law enforcement should have any type of firearm.

Am I the only one who spent this entire thread cringing and protectively grasping my joints as I read about injuries?

Did I claim to be perfect? I really don't remember that. I just don't consider profiling people when I have time to consider them as a good thing. I think it's a bad thing. I also eat when I shouldn't, speed sometimes, and do other things wrong. I think it goes with being human. I've even taken out a star or two

Unless you think the killing was lawful. I would ask if you had read any further than that sentence in your link, but let's start with, "Did you read all the way to the end of that sentence from your link?" ...apologizing in advance for being a smart-ass. I generally don't like spiraling conversations into the ground, but have I really not been posting here long enough that I get these kinds of responses from regulars to a post like the one I made above?