They have the right to do so.
I do believe, however, that a responsible person will train and practice regularly.
Is the right to bear arms outdated.
- Thread starter Pete
- Start date
I do believe, however, that a responsible person will train and practice regularly.
The Founders did not include a "comprehensive training" requirement as a caveat to our right to keep and bear, Nick. Nor did they say we could only 'open carry'...or how many rounds our firearms could hold...nor ANYTHING ELSE beyond the fact that we had the right to keep and bear - period (and I don't use the word "period" here the way Obama does).
What they said was congress shall pass NO LAW infringing...and "comprehensive" govt training classes would do just that. What if the the govt decided to have only ONE federally approved "training" facility and politicians decided it should be located in Alaska? See what I mean?
Last edited:
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Except the shop keeper didn't fire a shot.
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Ahh, so you English chaps have at last found a use for the cricket bat...:laugh:..
Sorry Mark I couldn't resist.
Well I come from a country where only the criminals are armed and the authorities seem to be unable to stop the flow of illegal firearms. I'm afraid your cricket bat would get you shot here mate.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/la...t-customs-checks/story-fni0ffnk-1226747465235
Last edited:
Howard Jones
Supporter
hell no!
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfP6sYzTNfQ]Skin & Guns Teaser 01 - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfP6sYzTNfQ]Skin & Guns Teaser 01 - YouTube[/ame]
Mark, we are indeed fortunate, and even though I moan as much about the police as the next person we need to be reminded how fortunate we are.
"Chief Constable Peter Fahy has said the British model has always relied on the close link between the public and the police, from neighbourhoods upwards. It is this relationship that breeds trust, confidence, and legitimacy. Minimum interference with the citizen and minimum use of force form a vital part of this bedrock. Quite simply, we police with the public's consent. That we are a routinely unarmed service is part of our identity and helps support the closeness and connection with the public.
Looking to colleagues in America, and across the world, it is strikingly obvious that bringing firearms into the policing equation does not solve the problem of violent crime, or protect officers from being injured or killed. When such catastrophic events happen it is so easy and understandable to look for ready solutions
Larry, according to the professionals it would not have made any difference if they did.
20/20 took a group of college students of varying familiarity with guns, and provided them with professional training exceeding the level required by most states for concealed carry permits. Then the producers recorded the students reacting to simulations in which an aggressive, active gunman entered a classroom. In every simulation, the student failed to stop the aggressor and was badly or fatally wounded; in one instance, the student narrowly missed shooting a victim of the assault.
According to the weapons experts 20/20 consulted, only professionals who drill continuously in live shooter situations can hope to succeed in such chaotic situations. Firearms instructor Glen Dorney told host Diane Sawyer, “Even police officers, through extensive training, if you don’t continue with your training, ongoing training, it’s a perishable skill. You’ll lose it.” When Sawyer asked him, “How long before you’re going to lose it, even at your level of training?” Dorney answered, “If you go for a month to two months without training, you lose it.” A Time feature (1/16/13) that looked at how unpredictably even well-trained police respond to crisis situations came to similar conclusions.
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
I would think any level of training in firearm use would be better than none even if one "loses it" after a month or so. I was bought up on a farm and was shooting rabbits and Kangaroos for the cooking pot from about nine years of age. I also spent six years in the military. I think that my level of training even though rusty
Would be better than some thug who bought a weapon in a drug deal.
It is a moot point of course because I am not allowed to arm myself for self defence.
Nick how would you handle a situation where a drugged up person threatened you or your family after breaking into your home?
Would be better than some thug who bought a weapon in a drug deal.
It is a moot point of course because I am not allowed to arm myself for self defence.
Nick how would you handle a situation where a drugged up person threatened you or your family after breaking into your home?
Nick,
20/20 didn't get all of the story. I agree that practice is important and better than none.
Most police are not "highly trained". They are very familiar with their weapons and qualifications consist of mainly "punching paper" at longer distances than actually encountered in the real world. I'm speaking of incidents from bad breath distance to around 15 feet. Only those specialists that undergo proper "street" techniques are "Highly trained", and most of those train (IMO) inadequately or incorrectly. Read SWAT teams, etc. here. We are primarily concerned about self-defense, not squad tactics. The police response time is always much longer than your immediate need. Please look up Rex Applegate or Jim Cirillo and see what they had to say. Sadly, Col. Applegate passed away about 20 years ago, but his contributions have remained valid for the past seventy years. Mr. Cirillo has participated in almost 200 "encounters" on the streets of New York City. He's an "old guy" now too. He got it right!
Sorry to ramble on about this but it is a touchy subject for many of us. While I do not purport that everyone should carry a firearm (there are many that shouldn't), we do have the right to do so. BTW, illegal weapons of all sorts are pouring into the U.K. from Eastern Europe. It is a big problem that is rarely publicized.
That is all.
20/20 didn't get all of the story. I agree that practice is important and better than none.
Most police are not "highly trained". They are very familiar with their weapons and qualifications consist of mainly "punching paper" at longer distances than actually encountered in the real world. I'm speaking of incidents from bad breath distance to around 15 feet. Only those specialists that undergo proper "street" techniques are "Highly trained", and most of those train (IMO) inadequately or incorrectly. Read SWAT teams, etc. here. We are primarily concerned about self-defense, not squad tactics. The police response time is always much longer than your immediate need. Please look up Rex Applegate or Jim Cirillo and see what they had to say. Sadly, Col. Applegate passed away about 20 years ago, but his contributions have remained valid for the past seventy years. Mr. Cirillo has participated in almost 200 "encounters" on the streets of New York City. He's an "old guy" now too. He got it right!
Sorry to ramble on about this but it is a touchy subject for many of us. While I do not purport that everyone should carry a firearm (there are many that shouldn't), we do have the right to do so. BTW, illegal weapons of all sorts are pouring into the U.K. from Eastern Europe. It is a big problem that is rarely publicized.
That is all.
Last edited:
Conclusion from that 20/20 piece: The 2nd Amend should be scrapped immediately and all guns taken away from law abiding citizens 'cause NOBODY but a SWAT team member is qualified to use one in their own defense. Right?
Soooooooo...let's turn that around: How proficient do you think the criminal element would be if they were run thru the same "test"? How much do you think THEY 'drill' every month? How well would they do? 'Kinda equal 'talent level' at work there, wouldn't you say?
But, let's transfer the whole exercise to, say, my own house. Who knows the house better; ME or any given perp/perps who've never been in the place? Who knows exactly where the other guy IS the instant a perp breaks in? Who knows where the available 'cover' is in any given room AND the ones next to it and therefore knows the best 'defense' sites? Who's already formulated a plan to go-where-and-do-what in the event of a home invasion initiated from this-entry-or-that? Who knows ALL the different ways to get to wherever the other guy may be? And since most thugs pull this stunt at night, who's going to know exactly 'how-to-get-where' in the dark.
Now, all the above would be moot should something like this happen when wifey and I are in bed. The upstairs bedrooms are located off a hallway that's closed off by a solid wood, sliding "pocket door" at night. It's secured from the bedroom side. Since the P.D. would already be on the way in the event of a break-in (alarm system), my activity would be limited to simply lying on the floor in the doorway of the master bedroom with my .45's little red dot placed smack in the center of said pocket door. (God help any fool who might manage to pry it open somehow.) Wifey would be on a cell phone with the P.D. (Why a cell phone? The 'land line' might be cut.)
(It should be mentioned that accessing the above hallway IS 'defense plan #1' regardless of the time of day. Whether it can be accessed would depend on where each of us might be at the time of a break-in.)
Anyway, let's just consider this one little question...one I brought up earlier in this thread. Push come to shove, which would you prefer to have in your own hand during a home invasion at your place - phone or a gun? Which one poses the biggest IMMEDIATE THREAT to a perp in his eyes no matter what level of proficiency its holder may or may not possess? Which may just set him to runnin'? Which one has the ability to instantly 'neutralize' a perp regardless - either due to skill or just plain dumb luck?
"...it is strikingly obvious that bringing firearms into the policing equation does not solve the problem of violent crime, or protect officers from being injured or killed. When such catastrophic events happen it is so easy and understandable to look for ready solutions."
What EFFECTIVE non-gun defense option would you offer, exactly????? And bear in mind the perp HAS a gun. ('Difficult tactical problem...isn't it.)
Larry I was curious as to where most of the guns used by criminals came from and found this.frontline: hot guns: "How Criminals Get Guns" | PBS
It does seem that the government could if they really tried cut the gun crime supplies by at least 50% with little effect on the legal honest sales. It just needs a tougher stance on the loopholes
Bob
It does seem that the government could if they really tried cut the gun crime supplies by at least 50% with little effect on the legal honest sales. It just needs a tougher stance on the loopholes
Bob
Larry I have not read anything saying that so it appears to be wrong, and it is your conclusion, there was a conclusion made but it was made by FAIR.
What's FAIR?
FAIR, the national media watch group, has been offering well-documented criticism of media bias and censorship since 1986. We work to invigorate the First Amendment by advocating for greater diversity in the press and by scrutinizing media practices that marginalize public interest, minority and dissenting viewpoints. As an anti-censorship organization, we expose neglected news stories and defend working journalists when they are muzzled. As a progressive group, FAIR believes that structural reform is ultimately needed to break up the dominant media conglomerates, establish independent public broadcasting and promote strong non-profit sources of information
The conclusion was :-
The debate over the wisdom of wholesale arming of citizens for the purpose of self-defense is not a debate between two sides arguing “articles of faith,” and there is no shortage of facts. The verdict has been in for years: Guns, as they are bought and sold and regulated in U.S. society, do far more harm than good. And if we had a media culture where public health actually mattered in discussions of guns, the argument that they are helpful for protection or self-defense would be relegated to the margins.
Pete
It is difficult to say what I would do in your scenario having never faced that situation before.
However, having experienced an unprovoked and unexpected attack, having worked in a nightclub and seeing how talking drunk aggressive unpredictable people down is more effective than being aggressive back, and taking the advice of the UK police. I would do my best to get my family and myself away from the situation as quickly and safely as possible.
Attachments
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Actually Stan is probably the best deterrant you could have. I fully intend to get one or two of his kin when we stop travelling. Great photo as well.
Jim Rosenthal
Supporter
Nick, don't tell your dog, but he's sitting on the wrong side of the car. The steering wheel's on the right side. 
Unless he's just riding shotgun. So to speak.
Unless he's just riding shotgun. So to speak.Nick, don't tell your dog, but he's sitting on the wrong side of the car. The steering wheel's on the right side.
He is from a Scottish dog's home so refers to it correctly as the passenger seat, and I won't let him drive anymore after he gave it the gun the last time he did.
.Evidently you failed to detect the sarcasm...
'Not so sure about that:
"You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." - Adm. Yamamoto
(And, before you quote "FactCheck", Jim C., whether he actually said it or not [and there's no "proof" he didn't. Gen. Douglas M.'s staff says he DID, "Professor" Goldstein says he didn't...simply because HE can't find record of it, evidently], the point made is still valid regardless.)
In any event, history has proven that crooks always have, and always will get whatever weaponry they want - laws or no laws. That said, as long as doing so WILL NOT create more hoops for law-abiding people to jump through, I'm not adverse to seeing crook-enabling "loopholes" closed. But, laws, say, forbiding the sale of, gifting, or bequeathing of a firearm to a friend, heir/family member by law-abiding people (at least one such law has already been proposed) are pure bull pucky.
It wouldn't be a bad idea to enforce 'gun laws' already on the books where crooks are concerned either. How 'bout doing that? How about manditory 10-20-30 year sentences for using a gun (or other deadly weapon) in the commission of a felony crime on top of the sentence handed down for the primary felony crime? How about a manditory death sentence for killing someone while in the commission of such crimes?
'Paper shuffling' never seems to do squat.
(Edit: 'Still would like to 'hear' someone offer an effective defense an 'unarmed' home owner might use against an armed intruder. Anyone? ['Escaping' or 'fleeing' the premisis doesn't really qualify as a "defense" since it likely couldn't be done in time in most cases. "Talking" would seldom - if ever - work with a meth head or any other 'hell-bent' perp, IMO.])
Last edited:
Already did.
