NRA offers solution: Armed guards in every US school

[Ugg]

Originally Posted by DakotaGuy

The only solution you seem to provide is to overturn the 2nd Amendment and have all guns seized. That is your solution correct? Good luck. You better get to working on that.

The real problem is that congress can't ban right wing, groundless, fear-based paranoia. Any suggestions?

[DakotaGuy]

Originally Posted by Ugg

The real problem is that congress can't ban right wing, groundless, fear-based paranoia. Any suggestions?

I'll admit I support the 2nd Amendment and I am a gun owner. Is there anything wrong with that? Just because I might be liberal on some social issues doesn't mean I have to "walk in step" with the entire platform and philosophy.

I'm all for hearing good common sense solutions and I believe many of us who are responsible gun owners have thrown some out, but once again the only thing acceptable to you is a total ban. Since we all know that overturning the 2nd Amendment is a non-starter let's talk about solutions. I have thrown a few out that effect me as a gun owner like being held liable if my gun is not properly secured and it is used in a crime. I have talked about keying guns so you have to have the key to use it. I have talked about limiting magazine size or in the case of a rifle like an AR15 making the magazine either non-removable or only by using a tool. I think I have even talked about requiring registration by serial and closing the gun show loophole.

That's a lot of stuff. The only thing I don't support is banning a weapon because of it's appearance. Fully automatic weapons are already banned and there is nothing about a semi-automatic that can't be made "more cumbersome" to use. I don't even like that idea, but you know if it will help I am all for it.

That's it. I have attempted to give a few suggestions, but you and a few others here don't seem to be open to any of them. You can keep dreaming about getting a total ban, but that isn't going to happen. If something is not going to happen then let's talk about solutions that might help while still allowing American's to exercise their 2nd Amendment right.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by DakotaGuy

I'll admit I support the 2nd Amendment and I am a gun owner. Is there anything wrong with that?

Not at all. I enjoy shooting guns, and I enjoy having personal protection other than reliance on someone else not required to show up and of unknown reliability and speed of response.

[hulugu]

Originally Posted by NickZac

Not at all. I enjoy shooting guns, and I enjoy having personal protection other than reliance on someone else not required to show up and of unknown reliability and speed of response.

That brings up an interesting question. Shouldn't police times be better and more reliable? Are we managing a real problem—poor police response—with another problem: lots of guns?

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by hulugu

That brings up an interesting question. Shouldn't police times be better and more reliable? Are we managing a real problem—poor police response—with another problem: lots of guns?

To be completely honest with you, I think our justice system has quite a few issues. With that said, even if police response is improved, there will always be a period of time between when you call for help and when help actually shows up. In that period of time, a lot can happen. Furthermore, it means relying on someone else of questionable reliability, questionable capability, and questionable safety (police are often the worst offenders of firearm safety, and regularly forget to conceptualize not only the target, but everything behind and around that target at all).

[samiwas]

Originally Posted by DakotaGuy

That's it. I have attempted to give a few suggestions, but you and a few others here don't seem to be open to any of them. You can keep dreaming about getting a total ban, but that isn't going to happen. If something is not going to happen then let's talk about solutions that might help while still allowing American's to exercise their 2nd Amendment right.

I keep wondering how much of the gun culture and obsession in America is due solely to the fact that it is listed as a right, which some people feel they must "exercise".

Originally Posted by NickZac

To be completely honest with you, I think our justice system has quite a few issues. With that said, even if police response is improved, there will always be a period of time between when you call for help and when help actually shows up. In that period of time, a lot can happen. Furthermore, it means relying on someone else of questionable reliability, questionable capability, and questionable safety (police are often the worst offenders of firearm safety, and regularly forget to conceptualize not only the target, but everything behind and around that target at all).

But this brings up another question: do you really trust that many average people with no training at all over even a trained police officer who might not get it right all the time? Do you honestly think that your average American citizen is that good at conceptualizing the area and determining a course of action? If so, you have way-hay-hay more trust in the public than I do. I wouldn't trust a gun in the hands of 90% of the people I meet on a daily basis. And absolutely not in any sort of crisis situation. I would MUCH rather trust a police officer of questionable reliability over your average Joe. Just because you have a gun does not mean you are a great problem solver with high levels of situation-handling experience.

Let's use an example, not gun related: I was at work on a stage one day when one of the other stagehands passed out. Another stagehand, a girl with military medical training went over to start diagnosing what to do. Some other guy, feeling that he was ready for the situation, darted across the stage, pushing people, including the girl who was diagnosing him, out of the way and jumped on top of the guy and started doing heavy CPR on his chest. The trained girl grabbed him and pulled him off asking what the hell he was doing. He basically thought that was what you do...immediately jump on top of someone and start doing CPR. It did not help the situation at all, and could have caused some serious damage to the passed-out individual. Now, trade this situation with a gun: some person who doesn't really get it has a gun in a crisis situation and just starts firing in the direction of the possible assailant. This might seem like extra protection to some, but it seems like a recipe for disaster to me.

I think this is where a lot of the gun debate falls apart. The people so adamantly in favor of arming everyone are those who do have high ability to assess situations and deal with them accordingly. They seem to think that everyone possesses this ability and that giving them a gun will create a safe culture. I say that couldn't be further from the truth. You have people who can barely function making sandwiches at Subway. Is that really the type of person you want brandishing a gun when a domestic dispute breaks out at the straw bin?

[MadeTheSwitch]

Originally Posted by glocke12

So when the NRA suggests putting armed guards in schools, they are crazy...

Not sure if anyone posted this already or not, but Bill Clinton, the hero of the left suggested much the same thing, and he was not chastised for it:

http://times247.com/articles/bill-cl...rds-in-schools

And yet that doesn't address what I posted...namely that you cannot protect a school with one or two guards meaning it would take a hell of a lot of money to adequately protect every school. BILLIONS in fact. Year after year. Now who are you going to get to pay for that? And how is sending our kids into armed fortresses an example of "freedom"?

Originally Posted by thewitt

Banning guns? Just another excuse to try to control the population.

Riiiiight. It's all about controlling you. Where do these paranoid ideas come from? It's about controlling TRAGEDY and CRIME. Not you.

Lets punish criminals who use guns in the commission of a crime. Any crime. Life in prison no parole or death penalty if you even possess a gun during the commission of a felony. No excuses. No exceptions. Gun crime goes down where this is practiced.

Okay...how would any of that have stopped the Newtown shooting from happening? Or the Tucson shooting? Or the movie theatre? Or the mall? Or the Sikh temple? We're not talking robbing a liquor store here. That kind of crime is NOT the topic of this thread. We're talking mass shootings on a wide scale where the shooter is not concerned with the death penalty since they often take their own life right then and there at the crime scene.

[hulugu]

Originally Posted by NickZac

To be completely honest with you, I think our justice system has quite a few issues. With that said, even if police response is improved, there will always be a period of time between when you call for help and when help actually shows up. In that period of time, a lot can happen. Furthermore, it means relying on someone else of questionable reliability, questionable capability, and questionable safety (police are often the worst offenders of firearm safety, and regularly forget to conceptualize not only the target, but everything behind and around that target at all).

And these are fair points, but I have the same questions about most gun owners. How well can they conceptualize their field of fire?

The best gun owner is like the best car driver, they exist, but they're not the average. So, does the law work for the average person? Does the gun?

Originally Posted by MadeTheSwitch

...Okay...how would any of that have stopped the Newtown shooting from happening? Or the Tucson shooting? Or the movie theatre? Or the mall? Or the Sikh temple? We're not talking robbing a liquor store here. That kind of crime is NOT the topic of this thread. We're talking mass shootings on a wide scale where the shooter is not concerned with the death penalty since they often take their own life right then and there at the crime scene.

At best, it's a reactive policy. The crime has already happened and now we're dealing with the aftermath, but what I think everyone wants is to get ahead of the problem.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by hulugu

And these are fair points, but I have the same questions about most gun owners. How well can they conceptualize their field of fire?

The best gun owner is like the best car driver, they exist, but they're not the average. So, does the law work for the average person? Does the gun?

At best, it's a reactive policy. The crime has already happened and now we're dealing with the aftermath, but what I think everyone wants is to get ahead of the problem.

In terms of knowing your target and what is around your target, it is situational awareness that any good defensive pistol class spends a lot of time with. If you know granny is in one room and no one is in another, you have to (or at least should) modify the angle so if the bullet misses or over-penetrates that poor granny didn't just get capped. If you are in a mall with tons of people, or an area where people are behind the intended target, you should either change the angle you are shooting at or just not shoot given risks of collateral damage are too high. I did a tactical pistol class in which we shot for about 20 minutes in a training exercise. After we all dumped a few mags, we were walked onto the range where we could see targets saying FRIENDLY were behind the target of the assailant in which the instructor then said, "you failed to conceptualize and consider the bullet's full trajectory, and now innocent civilians are dead." Then for the rest of that day's session we learned how to assess situations as such and what is and is not appropriate action. IMO that should be incorporated into standardized training.

As far as the law, I've noted (as have others) that stronger education is needed. I've seen responsible ownership and use, and I've seen the exact opposite. I've seen how classes can drill safety protocol into one's head.

[hulugu]

Originally Posted by NickZac

I...I did a tactical pistol class in which we shot for about 20 minutes in a training exercise. After we all dumped a few mags, we were walked onto the range where we could see targets saying FRIENDLY were behind the target of the assailant in which the instructor then said, "you failed to conceptualize and consider the bullet's full trajectory, and now innocent civilians are dead." Then for the rest of that day's session we learned how to assess situations as such and what is and is not appropriate action. IMO that should be incorporated into standardized training...

...As far as the law, I've noted (as have others) that stronger education is needed. I've seen responsible ownership and use, and I've seen the exact opposite. I've seen how classes can drill safety protocol into one's head.

That's a brilliant way to pound home an important lesson. Ultimately, we have to figure out how to standardize training across 50 states with widely divergent requirements. And, we need to figure out how to stop guns from getting into the hands of increasingly erratic people, while protecting privacy and Second Amendment rights.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by hulugu

That's a brilliant way to pound home an important lesson. Ultimately, we have to figure out how to standardize training across 50 states with widely divergent requirements. And, we need to figure out how to stop guns from getting into the hands of increasingly erratic people, while protecting privacy and Second Amendment rights.

I agree. There are some states in which prerequisites are mandated by law (i.e.: no criminal record, actual address, charges against you, mental health, etc.)...however, they lack educational prerequisites.

Diversion is an interesting topic. Some states are known to be the 'suppliers'. Guns are purchased in these areas. These guns usually wind up in other states, and it indicates there are weaknesses within current level of enforcement. This should be (but thus far has not been) a priority area. Why are certain states heavier suppliers and other states not, both without anything to supplement the 4473, not? Theoretically they should be enforcing the same core federal structure. It hasn't really been looked into but it indicates a need for better enforcement of existing laws. The 4473 in and of itself is effective at preventing diversion...so it would seem some states are not using it correctly. This puts legal owners at risk given it will ultimately lead to harsher laws.

[samiwas]

Originally Posted by NickZac

In terms of knowing your target and what is around your target, it is situational awareness that any good defensive pistol class spends a lot of time with. If you know granny is in one room and no one is in another, you have to (or at least should) modify the angle so if the bullet misses or over-penetrates that poor granny didn't just get capped. If you are in a mall with tons of people, or an area where people are behind the intended target, you should either change the angle you are shooting at or just not shoot given risks of collateral damage are too high. I did a tactical pistol class in which we shot for about 20 minutes in a training exercise. After we all dumped a few mags, we were walked onto the range where we could see targets saying FRIENDLY were behind the target of the assailant in which the instructor then said, "you failed to conceptualize and consider the bullet's full trajectory, and now innocent civilians are dead." Then for the rest of that day's session we learned how to assess situations as such and what is and is not appropriate action. IMO that should be incorporated into standardized training.

As far as the law, I've noted (as have others) that stronger education is needed. I've seen responsible ownership and use, and I've seen the exact opposite. I've seen how classes can drill safety protocol into one's head.

The class you went through should be the bare requirement for anyone purchasing a gun. There should also be periodic refresher courses. During these, the skill and competency of each person should be reviewed. Simply going to a class is not enough, in my opinion. It needs to be proven that you actually CAN handle a weapon and adjust according to situations.

If you know granny is in one room and no one is in another, you have to (or at least should) modify the angle so if the bullet misses or over-penetrates that poor granny didn't just get capped. If you are in a mall with tons of people, or an area where people are behind the intended target, you should either change the angle you are shooting at or just not shoot given risks of collateral damage are too high.

This is the part that most concerns me. I just don't see a large percentage of the general public being able to comprehend this type of action, especially at moment's notice in a tense situation.

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by samiwas

This is the part that most concerns me. I just don't see a large percentage of the general public being able to comprehend this type of action, especially at moment's notice in a tense situation.

I totally agree. There have been instances where the police have shot innocent bystanders and how many instances of friendly fire do we have in the military?. And those are people who have gone through training. It's one thing to do it in practice or on a range, but in a real life or death situation....who knows?

[guzhogi]

Originally Posted by Ugg

The real problem is that congress can't ban right wing, groundless, fear-based paranoia. Any suggestions?

I totally agree that groundless, fear-based paranoia is a major problem. And the arrogance many people have of "If I feel even the slightest bit threatened or disrespected by you, I'll shoot you."

I don't think the amount of guns we have is the problem, but rather how quickly we go for them. Guns may be one of the quickest & easiest ways deter threats, but they are far from the only way, and not necessarily the best way. There's martial arts (ie karate, jiu-jitsu, etc.), tasters and various other non-lethal forms of self-defense.

Instead of armed guards, how about psychologists/social workers in every school? That way, people who have problems can talk about them, not shoot people.

The picture I attached really resonates with me. What kind of world do we live in where people get awarded for killing people, but punished for loving someone? Regardless of how you feel about homosexuality, but is killing (even in self-defense) better in your eyes than loving someone? Reminds me of that Futurama meme "I don't want to live on this planet anymore." Which also bothers me. There have been so many posts on other threads and on Facebook where people are like "If you don't like it, leave." That kind of attitude, imo, disgusts me. Why can't we stay and do something productive and change it for the better? And why can't we celebrate & cherish our differences rather than berating you for being different?

Also, so many people see criminals as these evil people who are only out to do harm to other people. I'm not condoning breaking laws, but some criminals aren't totally evil. They just might be really poor and need to steal a loaf of bread to feed their crying baby.

What the world really needs to do is get away from the mindset that we need to use fear to keep people in line, but rather help build ourselves and each other up and act respectfully and responsibly so that we don't need to use guns at all.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by samiwas

The class you went through should be the bare requirement for anyone purchasing a gun. There should also be periodic refresher courses. During these, the skill and competency of each person should be reviewed. Simply going to a class is not enough, in my opinion. It needs to be proven that you actually CAN handle a weapon and adjust according to situations.

This is the part that most concerns me. I just don't see a large percentage of the general public being able to comprehend this type of action, especially at moment's notice in a tense situation.

The class I went through was spectacular. And they did use a grading system in which people who were unable to show safety and shooting competency would not be given a certificate of completion...and in some cases, are forced to leave due to safety violations. They really covered EVERYTHING. I mean from safety of all types of firearms, to shooting both stationary to moving targets while you are stationary and while you are moving, to shooting a single 'enemy' target with surrounding 'friendlies', to stress shooting with people screaming at you and banging objects making stupidly loud noises, to laws on what is and is not justifiable, to how carrying a gun has no place for people caught up with 'being a manly man', to storage options that keep unauthorized users away from guns but how to preserve accessibility in a defensive situation, to how to prevent having to use a firearm, to shooting in a rapid fire succession, to understanding bullet ricochets, to actual shooting exercises with something called 'simunition' (training ammo) allowing 'man-to-man' training exercises to understand how a real-world scenario works. But the biggest aspect was visualizing everything behind a target because one target doesn't mean the bullet stops there. For example, a 9mm can travel in excess of a mile depending on angle and depending on the angle/trajectory, the bullet can be fatal at over a mile away (partly why you never fire a 'warning shot' into the air and in the few cases where one is worthwhile [i.e.: animal attack], you fire into soft ground [with still significant risk]...that's critical information for anyone owning a firearm. They also did a lot with LTL (less-than-lethal) technologies. IMO this is information is stuff everyone should understand who is going to have a gun whether for simple recreational shooting, self defense, hunting, or a combination. There is no doubt in my mind that if every firearm owner had this information that stats on gun violence and 'accidental' (really negligible) deaths would come down dramatically. You would also have far less 'civilian casualties' in shootings. Sadly, many PDs do not do this level of training and that is why you often hear of 'police shooting, 20 shots fired, two struck subject, five civilians injured' in the headlines.

I do believe virtually anyone can learn this when taught by a good instructor. I consider myself of average intelligence...I'm no one special, just a guy who took some classes. Non self-defense firearm death stats can be changed with this kind of knowledge. While some of the above is more tailored to shooting in a self-defense situation, much of it overlaps with safety. As someone who is a firearm owner and a former range instructor, I (like everyone else) am VERY uncomfortable around someone with a firearm who lacks any sort of education. And the clear danger that poses is why my former organization would not sell a firearm to someone without training nor would they let anyone on the range alone without someone acting as a competent instructor. The organization's stats on range safety speaks for itself.

I do not see how mandated education requirements would undermine the Second Amendment and I would absolutely support something as such. As I said, I'm just an average guy. Most formal places where one can shoot at already enforce this rule, so why not make it official? I enjoy the rich recreational shooting history of the US and want others to enjoy it as well...that includes enjoying it safely.

----------

Originally Posted by Moyank24

I totally agree. There have been instances where the police have shot innocent bystanders and how many instances of friendly fire do we have in the military?. And those are people who have gone through training. It's one thing to do it in practice or on a range, but in a real life or death situation....who knows?

Police training is not what many people think it is. Our range was a place police practiced for 'qualifications', which are far lesser than the average person thinks. Sadly, they were the biggest violators of range safety rules. PD-specific training varies wildly, but as a general rule, it is, IMHO, sub par given the potential hazard of a firearm. A modern firearm is not inherently dangerous. Most have multiple built in safety mechanisms to prevent the gun from firing at any time other than when the trigger is pulled (see Glock Safe Action)...the user is the dangerous one. A user without ample firearm training is a hazard to not only everyone around them, but themselves as well.

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by NickZac

Police training is not what many people think it is. Our range was a place police practiced for 'qualifications', which are far lesser than the average person thinks. Sadly, they were the biggest violators of range safety rules. PD-specific training varies wildly, but as a general rule, it is, IMHO, sub par given the potential hazard of a firearm. A modern firearm is not inherently dangerous. Most have multiple built in safety mechanisms to prevent the gun from firing at any time other than when the trigger is pulled (see Glock Safe Action)...the user is the dangerous one. A user without ample firearm training is a hazard to not only everyone around them, but themselves as well.

I understand. But my point is that people who work under stressful conditions daily are misfiring and hitting innocent bystanders, so the idea that someone in defense of their home who has to make a split second decision is going to be able to think about angles and everything else just isn't realistic.

I know the police (and their training) don't get much respect around here, but I think we would both agree that our armed forces are much better trained - And yet, there are still instances (far too many) of friendly fire injuries/deaths.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

I understand. But my point is that people who work under stressful conditions daily are misfiring and hitting innocent bystanders, so the idea that someone in defense of their home who has to make a split second decision is going to be able to think about angles and everything else just isn't realistic.

I know the police (and their training) don't get much respect around here, but I think we would both agree that our armed forces are much better trained - And yet, there are still instances (far too many) of friendly fire injuries/deaths.

I agree armed forces are trained better. However, people can learn successful shooting in such situations. Germany's GSG 9's track record of only having to use firearms in a few situations (in which there was no collateral damage) shows that even in extreme situations, proper judgment can be made.

To add on to another one, proper judgment in a stressful situation is an important component of education. That is, there are many cases where a firearm can be used in successful self defense without ever having to fire a single round. And if this is possible, it arguably makes sense as it means using the least amount of force to obtain the desired outcome. So knowing what to expect prior to it happening has value as well IMO.

[k995]

Originally Posted by NickZac

I agree armed forces are trained better. However, people can learn successful shooting in such situations.

Can is the keyword here. yes given extensive and upheld training most people can do this.

Yet its not feasable for the very vast mayority of the civilian population to actually do this so the argument makes little sense.

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by k995

Can is the keyword here. yes given extensive and upheld training most people can do this.

Yet its not feasable for the very vast mayority of the civilian population to actually do this so the argument makes little sense.

That was exactly my point. The military, who is extremely well trained still have instances of friendly fire in combat - so why would anyone expect that John Smith, who walks into a gun shop and comes out 20 minutes later with a gun, would be able to make the split second decisions he was detailing.

I would wager, especially since there are so many guns in the US, that most gun owners aren't like NickZac.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by NickZac

I agree armed forces are trained better. However, people can learn successful shooting in such situations. Germany's GSG 9's track record of only having to use firearms in a few situations (in which there was no collateral damage) shows that even in extreme situations, proper judgment can be made.

I didn't know what a German GS9 was, so I looked it up ...

GSG 9 der Bundespolizei or Grenzschutzgruppe 9 (Border Protection Group 9) is the elite counter-terrorism and special operations unit of the German Federal Police.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GSG_9

The elite counter-terrorism and special operations unit of the German Federal Police.

Not just "people".

The elite counter-terrorism and special operations unit of the German Federal Police.

[GermanyChris]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

That was exactly my point. The military, who is extremely well trained still have instances of friendly fire in combat - so why would anyone expect that John Smith, who walks into a gun shop and comes out 20 minutes later with a gun, would be able to make the split second decisions he was detailing.

I would wager, especially since there are so many guns in the US, that most gun owners aren't like NickZac.

Originally Posted by citizenzen

I didn't know what a German GS9 was, so I looked it up ...



The elite counter-terrorism and special operations unit of the German Federal Police.

Not just "people".

The elite counter-terrorism and special operations unit of the German Federal Police.

It's possible to overcome without shooting the military and police do it on a regular basis but they are the one the decision makers. They control the situation as best as a situation like this can be controlled. The reverse is true in the self defense role.

People are generally timid when faced with overt aggression, some folks think of the gun as the great equalizer the gun though will not rid you of the timidity. Gun become pointless if you cannot, will not, or are to scared to pull the trigger this applies to both the "bad" and "good" guy.

If I am in you house to hurt you I can assure you that I will not allow you time to even get at your gun even if it's in a night stand right next to your bed. You just won't be able to wake, focus, and grab before I'll be on top of you.

I own gun and will always own them because I enjoy putting hole in paper, shooting clay disks out of the sky and the focus of reloading but I'm not so foolish as to think that a gun will protect my home.

[k995]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

That was exactly my point. The military, who is extremely well trained still have instances of friendly fire in combat - so why would anyone expect that John Smith, who walks into a gun shop and comes out 20 minutes later with a gun, would be able to make the split second decisions he was detailing.

I would wager, especially since there are so many guns in the US, that most gun owners aren't like NickZac.

Let alone if several people are armed with 1 shooter among them, how to differentiate?

Columbine high school had 1 armed guard and 1 police officer present the minute it started and they both were unable to do anything.

[samiwas]

Originally Posted by NickZac

I agree armed forces are trained better. However, people can learn successful shooting in such situations. Germany's GSG 9's track record of only having to use firearms in a few situations (in which there was no collateral damage) shows that even in extreme situations, proper judgment can be made.

Yes, a lot of people CAN learn. My mom is a normal individual yet calls me every time she needs to create a new iTunes playlist because she can't remember how. And every time I lead her through it. Yet every time, she still calls back. Some people just don't pick up on stuff like this, while other people can look at a massive control panel and know exactly what to do without any training. Some people really are just better equipped mentally than others.

Originally Posted by k995

Can is the keyword here. yes given extensive and upheld training most people can do this.

Yet its not feasable for the very vast mayority of the civilian population to actually do this so the argument makes little sense.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by Moyank24

I would wager, especially since there are so many guns in the US, that most gun owners aren't like NickZac.

Fully agreed. In fact, I called out NickZac in another thread as being one of the people on this board who I think takes the access and use of guns in a realistic, serious, and respectful way, much unlike a lot of others who keep crying "freedom!" "protection!" "bad guys!" "tyranny!!".

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

I didn't know what a German GS9 was, so I looked it up ...

The elite counter-terrorism and special operations unit of the German Federal Police.

Not just "people".

The elite counter-terrorism and special operations unit of the German Federal Police.

They are people and their stories and training show not only successful usage of firearms in self defense, but how to AVOID using a firearm. That can benefit other police forces and civilians alike.

----------

Originally Posted by samiwas

Yes, a lot of people CAN learn. My mom is a normal individual yet calls me every time she needs to create a new iTunes playlist because she can't remember how. And every time I lead her through it. Yet every time, she still calls back. Some people just don't pick up on stuff like this, while other people can look at a massive control panel and know exactly what to do without any training. Some people really are just better equipped mentally than others.



Exactly.



Fully agreed. In fact, I called out NickZac in another thread as being one of the people on this board who I think takes the access and use of guns in a realistic, serious, and respectful way, much unlike a lot of others who keep crying "freedom!" "protection!" "bad guys!" "tyranny!!".

I appreciate the kind words from both you y'all I enjoy discussing this on this forum with many people like yourselves here as we can discuss this in a civil fashion and look at it from a variety of perspectives.

There are many gun owners who are sensible, responsible, and concerned about the current level of deaths from gun violence and owner negligence. The problem is that IMO, this, like many other situations, is dominated by a few screaming louder than the majority and a smaller portion of people who are outright reckless and shouldn't be armed even with a banana peel.