ADVERTISEMENT

Question on Gun Rights...

toastedbread

Hall of Famer
Oct 25, 2006
18,174
3,502
113
I believe in the right to self defense and castle laws. However, why is anyone opposed to people needing some sort of psychological testing/questioning prior to being allowed to purchase a gun? We can't stop every nut from getting their hands on a gun, but surely that may make some difference?
 
Me too, a couple of times. Here in the Thomas/Esping household we're heavily armed and prepared to repel boarders, even though we both know lightning is a far greater risk.

Even so, a year or so ago an elderly couple who lived maybe a mile and a half from us were shot and killed in a home invasion by a bunch of teenage goblins who saw a safe in their house and thought they had goodies. Turned out the old dude collected safes.

But I think there's a subtext among the Jack Reacher wannabes, and its an unhealthy one, rooted in dark fantasies. After the Aurora shooting I can't count the number of yahoos who claimed that if they'd been in that darkened, smoke-filled theater with their piece they'd have taken the shooter down easy as pie and saved some lives. Despite the fact that I've had some training and done some practical shooting I checked it out with a couple of friends who were either cops or military. The laughter was enough to make my ears ring.
 
I believe in the right to self defense and castle laws. However, why is anyone opposed to people needing some sort of psychological testing/questioning prior to being allowed to purchase a gun? We can't stop every nut from getting their hands on a gun, but surely that may make some difference?
That's exactly my question too. It's not going to solve all the problems, but it's certainly a start.
 
I believe in the right to self defense and castle laws. However, why is anyone opposed to people needing some sort of psychological testing/questioning prior to being allowed to purchase a gun? We can't stop every nut from getting their hands on a gun, but surely that may make some difference?

That's exactly my question too. It's not going to solve all the problems, but it's certainly a start.

A number of so-called "common sense" gun controls used to have the support of the NRA, because the NRA worked for gun users, and gun users knew that the best way to protect the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens was to put up with a few minor hassles designed to make it harder for the not-so-law-abiding citizen to get his hands on a gun.

Now, the NRA is primarily the mouth piece of gun manufacturers, instead of gun users, and their goal isn't to protect the rights of law-abiding gun owners'. It's to make it as easy as possible to sell more guns.
 
i can only laugh at anyone who thinks you can sell guns, but not to the crazies or the bad guys.

if you sell guns, virtually everyone who wants one gets one, including the crazies and the bad guys.

not to mention the fact that usually sane people sometimes have moments of insanity.

then there's the guy who "if i can't have her, no none can".

and some people are just massive aholes. (got a litmus test for them)?


then there's the almost daily, 4 yr old shoots mommy dead or his 9 yr old brother dead, with daddy's gun he found.

and there's, "i didn't think it was loaded" guy.


BUT HEY, LET'S JUST ALL PRETEND NONE OF THAT IS TRUE.


it's like healthcare, most of the civilized world has figured it out, (which Americans totally ignore), while redneck nation is glued to their AM radio and Fox News, marching in step to their puppeteers, going though life both totally clueless and in total denial.

but hey, let's just keep doing the same thing, expecting a different result.
 
Last edited:
Me too, a couple of times. Here in the Thomas/Esping household we're heavily armed and prepared to repel boarders, even though we both know lightning is a far greater risk.

Even so, a year or so ago an elderly couple who lived maybe a mile and a half from us were shot and killed in a home invasion by a bunch of teenage goblins who saw a safe in their house and thought they had goodies. Turned out the old dude collected safes.

But I think there's a subtext among the Jack Reacher wannabes, and its an unhealthy one, rooted in dark fantasies. After the Aurora shooting I can't count the number of yahoos who claimed that if they'd been in that darkened, smoke-filled theater with their piece they'd have taken the shooter down easy as pie and saved some lives. Despite the fact that I've had some training and done some practical shooting I checked it out with a couple of friends who were either cops or military. The laughter was enough to make my ears ring.
So What? You apparently have chickenshit friends..Who'da thought that?
 
i can only laugh at anyone who thinks you can sell guns, but not to the crazies or the bad guys.

if you sell guns, virtually everyone who wants one gets one, including the crazies and the bad guys.

not to mention the fact that usually sane people sometimes have moments of insanity.

then there's the guy who "if i can't have her, no none can".

and some people are just massive aholes. (got a litmus test for them)?


then there's the almost daily, 4 yr old shoots mommy dead or his 9 yr old brother dead, with daddy's gun he found.

and there's, "i didn't think it was loaded" guy.


BUT HEY, LET'S JUST ALL PRETEND NONE OF THAT IS TRUE.


it's like healthcare, most of the civilized world has figured it out, (which Americans totally ignore), while redneck nation is glued to their AM radio and Fox News, marching in step to their puppeteers, going though life both totally clueless and in total denial.

but hey, let's just keep doing the same thing, expecting a different result.

That's odd, because its your drivel I find pretty funny. You look an awful lot like part of the problem
So What? You apparently have chickenshit friends..Who'da thought that?

Actually what I have is friends who've engaged in small-arms combat in the real world, and understand how it works. I tend to defer to expertise when I find it. How much experience with actually pulling your piece and shooting bad guys are you drawing from?
 
Actually what I have is friends who've engaged in small-arms combat in the real world, and understand how it works. I tend to defer to expertise when I find it. How much experience with actually pulling your piece and shooting bad guys are you drawing from?

I've taken a few pistol self defense classes (civilian). This was outdoor range stuff, with props,surprise scenarios, etc. Probably 24 hours total. What I took away from that was that I'd probably be pretty ineffective if I was suddenly forced to defend myself with a handgun in a stressful situation. It's not like TV.

The best advice the instructor had was...if at all possible, run like hell.
 
I've taken a few pistol self defense classes (civilian). This was outdoor range stuff, with props,surprise scenarios, etc. Probably 24 hours total. What I took away from that was that I'd probably be pretty ineffective if I was suddenly forced to defend myself with a handgun in a stressful situation. It's not like TV.

The best advice the instructor had was...if at all possible, run like hell.
You had a good instructor. I had a similar one. As he, and my friends, pointed out, all the practical shooting in the world, in an environment which is essentially controlled and risk-free, can't prepare one for the overwhelming stress of responding to a legitimately life-threatening situation.

I always recommend that the Jack Reacher wannabes study this incident.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout

They generally come away thinking they'd have done better. :-(
 
I've taken a few pistol self defense classes (civilian). This was outdoor range stuff, with props,surprise scenarios, etc. Probably 24 hours total. What I took away from that was that I'd probably be pretty ineffective if I was suddenly forced to defend myself with a handgun in a stressful situation. It's not like TV.

The best advice the instructor had was...if at all possible, run like hell.

The instructor didn't say "stand your ground"?

Run like hell is pretty good advice. A guidline with a similar principle is even built into police officer standard of care.

I've done the "shoot; don't shoot" exercise several times. I always shot some innocents.
 
The instructor didn't say "stand your ground"?

Run like hell is pretty good advice. A guidline with a similar principle is even built into police officer standard of care.

I've done the "shoot; don't shoot" exercise several times. I always shot some innocents.

Don't forget the key phrase, though: "if at all possible."

Our home defense plan doesn't involve any attempt to flee, on the assumption that by the time we're aware of a problem the bad guys are inside the house or trying hard to get there, and an attempt to flee might run us into them. We've selected one room as our safe room, and our plan is to go there, close the door, hit the panic button on our alarm system, take such cover as exists, announce loudly that we plan to shoot anyone who opens the door, then do so.
 
I've done the "shoot; don't shoot" exercise several times. I always shot some innocents.
I've never done anything like that but I know I would shoot innocents. Even police, who have gone through a lot of training, do it sometimes. There's a lot of stress and the only way I would ever shoot anyone is if they were coming in my house and then I would try to give them a reason to leave before they got it.

My brother was at a hotel one time when someone kick the door and the only thing that stopped it was the safety chain. He grabbed his gun and told the person if he came through the door it would be the last door he ever came through. His wife, in the meantime, was calling the police. The guy ran when my brother told him that.
 
I've never done anything like that but I know I would shoot innocents. Even police, who have gone through a lot of training, do it sometimes. There's a lot of stress and the only way I would ever shoot anyone is if they were coming in my house and then I would try to give them a reason to leave before they got it.

My brother was at a hotel one time when someone kick the door and the only thing that stopped it was the safety chain. He grabbed his gun and told the person if he came through the door it would be the last door he ever came through. His wife, in the meantime, was calling the police. The guy ran when my brother told him that.

In point of fact, N, in the vast majority of jurisdictions the cops don't do a lot of training; they do minimal range time, let alone practical training. Most of them know they're not particularly well-prepared for a life-and-death armed confrontation.
 
Don't forget the key phrase, though: "if at all possible."

Our home defense plan doesn't involve any attempt to flee, on the assumption that by the time we're aware of a problem the bad guys are inside the house or trying hard to get there, and an attempt to flee might run us into them. We've selected one room as our safe room, and our plan is to go there, close the door, hit the panic button on our alarm system, take such cover as exists, announce loudly that we plan to shoot anyone who opens the door, then do so.

Home defense is not the same as stand your ground

The castle doctrine recognizes there is no place to retreat to.

In law enforcement de-escalation is standard training. That involves not increasing the risk of using deadly force, unless a life or death situation is already at hand. Cops should always wait for backup. My first shooting case involved a cop who was former sniper in 'Nam. He upped the risk to himself by acting like Dirty Harry and ended up killing the subject who had a knife. 6-figure settlement.
 
Home defense is not the same as stand your ground

The castle doctrine recognizes there is no place to retreat to.

In law enforcement de-escalation is standard training. That involves not increasing the risk of using deadly force, unless a life or death situation is already at hand. Cops should always wait for backup. My first shooting case involved a cop who was former sniper in 'Nam. He upped the risk to himself by acting like Dirty Harry and ended up killing the subject who had a knife. 6-figure settlement.

Ever the technician, never the thoughtful commentator. God you're a waste of space.
 
a little OT, but something i've noticed for a while, is that i rarely hear of someone being wounded by being shot by a cop.

the cops are making sure if they shoot someone, regardless of reason, it's fatal, and only one side will ever be heard in court.
 
a little OT, but something i've noticed for a while, is that i rarely hear of someone being wounded by being shot by a cop.

the cops are making sure if they shoot someone, regardless of reason, it's fatal, and only one side will ever be heard in court.

I really don't think that's the reason. I'm not a cop and have never attended law enforcement training of any kind. As I said, my limited training has been civilian (though a couple of the instructors were active duty LEOs). But you're taught to shoot center mass, and taught to keep shooting until the threat is down. And since real life isn't a Hollywood production, that may be several rounds. Several rounds center mass tend to be fatal a good percentage of the time.

An aside, another thing my instructors drilled into us was how much you DON'T want to shoot someone. Even if you're not ultimately charged you can expect 5 figures in legal fees, and that's not including the potential for being sued. Shooting even the worst person will change your life, and not in a good way.
 
I really don't think that's the reason. I'm not a cop and have never attended law enforcement training of any kind. As I said, my limited training has been civilian (though a couple of the instructors were active duty LEOs). But you're taught to shoot center mass, and taught to keep shooting until the threat is down. And since real life isn't a Hollywood production, that may be several rounds. Several rounds center mass tend to be fatal a good percentage of the time.

An aside, another thing my instructors drilled into us was how much you DON'T want to shoot someone. Even if you're not ultimately charged you can expect 5 figures in legal fees, and that's not including the potential for being sued. Shooting even the worst person will change your life, and not in a good way.
I think you're on-target here, H: when I went through lethal force training we were taught that the goal is never to kill anyone, which is completely illegitimate. The goal is to stop someone from conducting himself in such a heinous way that use of force likely to result in his death or serious bodily injury is justifiable.

Tactically you're taught to shoot center-mass for the obvious reason; hitting a person-sized target with a handgun at more than 10 or 12 feet isn't easy, and center-mass is the biggest target. You're taught (or at least I was taught) that where lethal force is justifiable double- or triple-taps are also justifiable, since handguns don't have a lot of stopping power, and you're trying to render a target inert before he can inflict death or serious bodily injury on someone.

I taught SWMBO myself, and one of the things I taught her is that in the unlikely and unfortunate event she ever has to pick up a gun and shoot a bad guy, to shoot him until he falls over, then watch for a second or two to see if he needs to be shot again.
 
I believe in the right to self defense and castle laws. However, why is anyone opposed to people needing some sort of psychological testing/questioning prior to being allowed to purchase a gun? We can't stop every nut from getting their hands on a gun, but surely that may make some difference?
The problem here would be the hippa laws. Medical info can't just be given to anyone. Gun owners and anyone else selling guns would have to have access to medical records to some degree. It could only happen if hippa laws were changed. I think there has to be some way for this to happen without infringing on the rights of the patient.
 
The problem here would be the hippa laws. Medical info can't just be given to anyone. Gun owners and anyone else selling guns would have to have access to medical records to some degree. It could only happen if hippa laws were changed. I think there has to be some way for this to happen without infringing on the rights of the patient.
Everybody says this, but I'm not sure why that's so. For example, when I run a credit card it's either accepted or declined. The merchant has no idea why. It could work the same way with gun purchases.
 
That's odd, because its your drivel I find pretty funny. You look an awful lot like part of the problem


Actually what I have is friends who've engaged in small-arms combat in the real world, and understand how it works. I tend to defer to expertise when I find it. How much experience with actually pulling your piece and shooting bad guys are you drawing from?
Military...Vietnam infantry MOS, M-14, M-16, AK-47, SKS, M1908, M-72, M-2,
Civilian..., Tavor 21 in 5.56, CAR15 variants,
How about your personal expertise?
 
Military...Vietnam infantry MOS, M-14, M-16, AK-47, SKS, M1908, M-72, M-2,
Civilian..., Tavor 21 in 5.56, CAR15 variants,
How about your personal expertise?

That's not an answer to the question; just a recitation of the guns you've learned to shoot. My list is longer than that, but like yours has ****-all to do with the question of my preparedness to engage a James Holmes productively in a darkened, smoke-filled movie theater. Try to keep up.
 
That's not an answer to the question; just a recitation of the guns you've learned to shoot. My list is longer than that, but like yours has ****-all to do with the question of my preparedness to engage a James Holmes productively in a darkened, smoke-filled movie theater. Try to keep up.

Sorry Mas-sa-suta.

FakeBuzz thinks being in battle in Viet Nam doesn't count as "small arms combat in the real world."

It takes an intellectual like him to understand how to hold two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accept both of them.
 
Sorry Mas-sa-suta.

FakeBuzz thinks being in battle in Viet Nam doesn't count as "small arms combat in the real world."

It takes an intellectual like him to understand how to hold two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accept both of them.
I would only add,
 
Sorry Mas-sa-suta.

FakeBuzz thinks being in battle in Viet Nam doesn't count as "small arms combat in the real world."

It takes an intellectual like him to understand how to hold two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accept both of them.

But I do, M: you're missing the point, as usual. I will argue that its not the same as dealing with James Holmes in a dark theater filled with bystanders you really shouldn't shoot by accident, but the more important point is that the scholarly literature on war makes clear that the average grunt doesn't do any better at CQB than the average cop; he tends to keep his head down, fire blindly to try to make the other guy keep his head down, and needs hundreds if not thousands of rounds to actually hit anyone he's supposed to hit.

God this is shooting large fish in small barrels.
 
But I do, M: you're missing the point, as usual. I will argue that its not the same as dealing with James Holmes in a dark theater filled with bystanders you really shouldn't shoot by accident, but the more important point is that the scholarly literature on war makes clear that the average grunt doesn't do any better at CQB than the average cop; he tends to keep his head down, fire blindly to try to make the other guy keep his head down, and needs hundreds if not thousands of rounds to actually hit anyone he's supposed to hit.

God this is shooting large fish in small barrels.

You continue to generalize, making bald sweeping statements of what passes as "fact" at your Smart Club, and then back up, back down, rationalize and explain.
Why?
Perhaps you should think more BEFORE you talk - and talk a LOT less.
It isn't good for a fake intellectual's reputation when he's wrong almost all the time, shoots his mouth off, and can't back it up.
 
You continue to generalize, making bald sweeping statements of what passes as "fact" at your Smart Club, and then back up, back down, rationalize and explain.
Why?
Perhaps you should think more BEFORE you talk - and talk a LOT less.
It isn't good for a fake intellectual's reputation when he's wrong almost all the time, shoots his mouth off, and can't back it up.

You'd be the one to know about that.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT