#91630 - 04/19/07 02:18 AM
Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself
[Re: NightHiker]
|
Old Hand
Registered: 03/08/03
Posts: 1019
Loc: East Tennessee near Bristol
|
A lack of which can be quickly removed by a competent instructor. At 16 with a good case of buck fever, I sat looking at what I would have sworn was a deer for 20 minutes (through a scope no less). Granddad teaching me about gun safety and a feeling of something wasn't quite right and not being able to tell what was behind the bushes kept me from putting a big hole in a bunch of leaves.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#91638 - 04/19/07 03:31 AM
Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself
[Re: norad45]
|
Geezer
Registered: 01/21/04
Posts: 5163
Loc: W. WA
|
"I am fortunate that I live in a state where publicly funded colleges are not allowed to ban the carry of firearms by people who are licensed to do so. A fairly recent law, and long overdue IMO."
I've never heard that. Which state is it?
Many people here assume that college kids are always 22 or younger. There are ex-military going to college, and older people, too.
From what I've seen, the military doesn't really change anyone. I've seen guys who were stupid little s**ts before they entered the military, and they were stupid little s**ts when they got out four years later.
Sue
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#91644 - 04/19/07 06:02 AM
Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself
[Re: Susan]
|
Rapscallion
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 02/06/04
Posts: 4020
Loc: Anchorage AK
|
I would think that it depends on what they experience when they are in. Looking at the difference between the newbie soldiers that came into Camp Victory and the ones that were going out on Rat Patrol at 5:00 am, again, you can see what seasoning does to the meat. The game face on a recruit fresh out of boot is a lot different from the countenance on those who've had to kill to defend themselves more than once. The recruit's countenance isn't durable, but the vet's sure looks it. It is not real comfortable to sit amongst them at breakfast time just before a patrol and see what they are going through inside. Last meal for some of them, and they know it.
There are plenty of big s**ts I work with now that were little s**ts back in the day and remained s**ts most of their lives. Sometimes they learn, usually the hard way, and quit being s**ts. Some never do. The point is maturity and respect have to be taught and experienced, and the only thing age does is give you more opportunity to learn. It can be learned at a younger age, provided those who are responsible for teaching it do the job they are supposed to, and don't try and foist off their work onto the public or worse. I don't view a 16 year old who is holding down a job, earning good grades, and participating in appropriate social programs as a kid, nor the 18 year old soldier heading out on patrol. I view the 15 year old on welfare with an infant as a waste and a burden, and the 25 year old with a drug habit and gang tats as a threat. The 35 year old who thinks that the government knows best is an ignorant and insulting kid, or worse.
_________________________
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.
-- Herbert Spencer, English Philosopher (1820-1903)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#91658 - 04/19/07 02:34 PM
Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself
[Re: Susan]
|
Veteran
Registered: 07/01/04
Posts: 1506
|
"I am fortunate that I live in a state where publicly funded colleges are not allowed to ban the carry of firearms by people who are licensed to do so. A fairly recent law, and long overdue IMO."
I've never heard that. Which state is it?
Sue I live in Utah. The University of Utah, the state's largest public school, tried to ban concealed carry by permit holders. In response the legislature passed a law stating that, in effect, only they have the right to make gun laws. The University sued and lost. Now, the only place on campus that you cannot carry is in professor's offices and some dorm rooms, all of which must be posted. That was a bone the legislature threw them to get them to drop all further suits. It's a compromise I can live with. Utah's other large school, BYU, can still ban CCW because they are a private institution. I don't know if they actually do so though.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#91679 - 04/19/07 04:28 PM
Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself
[Re: benjammin]
|
Old Hand
Registered: 04/05/05
Posts: 715
Loc: Phoenix, AZ
|
On the surface, Samhain's arguments seem conclusive. They do not, however follow a logical conclusion.
No one here and I would say with confidence no one in the justice system or pro-gun crowd would ever advocate generally arming the public any more than a reasonable person would advocate wholesale disarmament. I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone of sound mind that would argue that point. Likewise, it is just as ridiculous to assert that because some people are not capable of responsible firearms handling and use, all should be disallowed the privilege.
It is not the age of the attendees, but the mental/psychological state that they possess which would disqualify them as mature, responsible firearms carriers. We happily and enthusiastically arm 18 year olds and have done so for 250 years when it suits our countries needs, without much concern for how they will act with the firearms they are issued once they have been appropriately conditioned. This education used to be something that was practiced by parents with their children up until about 50 years ago. Sad to see that some good ideas wither and die.
It has been my sad fate to have encountered a fair number of young LEOs that I would deem wholly unsuited to the task of protect and serve. Given enough time on the beat, they eventually discover the reality of their duties and either get out or become legitimate peace officers. Some don't learn in time, and become statistics. Putting great faith in one set of humans over another without proofing that they are deserving is inviting folly.
Past about 16 years old, the only relevance age has is the propensity that a given individual has been exposed to the proper experience that would make them suitable for packing heat. There are plenty of 50 year olds out there that will never have what it takes, and hopefully at least have enough knowledge to know this is the case and thus refrain from participating, though there is damned little to prevent them from doing so anyways.
It is, however, wholly irresponsible for any person to reject taking it upon themselves the necessary means of defending their person and property. To abdicate such responsibility to law enforcement is a gross misinterpretation of the purpose of such services and the intentions of our lawmakers. For a parent to not take the time and effort to properly raise their children into responsible, law-abiding, competent adults is reprehensible, and represents probably the single greatest threat to liberty, our social growth, and our domestic stability. Amen brother!
_________________________
Thermo-regulate, hydrate and communicate.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#91981 - 04/22/07 06:32 PM
Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself
[Re: handyman]
|
Addict
Registered: 07/10/03
Posts: 659
Loc: Orygun
|
The VT gunman had run-ins with the school, his peers, his instructors, and the mental health system.
Yet he was able to legally purchase two firearms. It sounds like (then again, this is according to the media) the gunman was given a clean mental health record after review at some point.
I can think back to high school and kids bringing homemade pipe bombs to school. Thankfully they never exploded. Was this in an area plagued by criminals, drugs, and lawlessness? No. This was in a sleepy bedroom community full of tourists on the weekends.
The more I see the more I share the view that there is, and will always be, true evil in the world. It manifests itself in many different ways, but exists nonetheless.
People should be allowed to choose whether or not they wish to carry something to defend themselves; firearm, baseball bat, pepper spray, etc. This expectation of society that you simply dial 9-1-1 like in the movies and the police roll up is ridiculous. By not taking your personal safety into account, no matter what the horrible event, you are rolling the dice. Maybe something happens today, maybe it doesn't.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#91990 - 04/22/07 08:05 PM
Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself
[Re: handyman]
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
I am so glad that in reality I don't have to really think about the issue in this thread. Arming oneself with a firearm because of the fear of personal attack is not something that I even have to even consider living in North East Scotland. Here in the UK we do not even have a general armed police force. To have a generally armed police force in the UK is politically unacceptable. The contrast between the two countries over the issue of gun culture is astounding.
The tragic events at Virginia Tech University have again shown the completely unsolvable conundrum faced by the citizens of the United States of America. A wholesale ban on firearms is completely unacceptable politically and socially. There are just to many vested interests involved. The majority who have contributed to the thread have positively indicated that. The arguments for gun ownership without any real restrictions make perfect logical sense because of the situation the majority of US citizens find themselves in. To be allowed to defend ones self with a firearm because the assailant may also be armed is a reasonable and sensible conclusion. I myself also would have a difficult time trying to defend any idea, which is at odds to that logical conclusion.
In essence the 2nd amendment to the US constitution, the right to keep and bear arms, is now responsible for 20,000 - 30,000 of its own citizens freedoms and rights being fully extinguished every year - they have been killed as a direct consequence of that right. Lets call it the national collateral damage rate for the idea of a US citizen’s personal freedom. This figure is the equivalent of 8-10 9-11 terrorist attacks every year. Rather than trying to have a debate about the proposition put forward in this thread, surely a debate about why there is such a gun culture would be more relevant to solve the overall problem of death through gunshot wounding. I am sorry to say that there is no apparent solution to this issue and that the tragedy at Virginia Tech is ultimately just another little contribution to the overall national collateral damage figure for a US citizen’s personal freedom and liberty.
Edited by bentirran (04/22/07 08:15 PM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#92020 - 04/22/07 10:24 PM
Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself
[Re: OldBaldGuy]
|
Journeyman
Registered: 09/08/05
Posts: 51
Loc: New York City
|
All very good advice!
But this is what I don't get ... even if concealed-carry had been permitted on the VT campus, how many of us truly believe that college kids -- even the grad students -- would have bothered bringing a handgun to 8 AM or 9 AM classes on a Monday morning about 2 weeks before the end of spring semester classes? I've had this argument with my brother, and he kept saying that even if the students hadn't brought firearms with them to class, they could have run out to their dorm rooms to retrieve them. Well, no -- Cho had chained/padlocked the doors to Norris Hall, presumably to keep LEOs out and keep targets in.
Personally, I'm in favor of regulating firearms possession and use at least as stringently as we regulate the right to drive legally -- basic "how to" classes, a test (written and actual/physical), mandatory insurance, etc. -- and that's a minimum threshold, since cars/trucks have a lot of uses other than injuring people/animals. But I've also submitted an affidavit in support of my brother's recent application for a handgun permit in Manhattan, because I feel comfortable with his training and temperament ... though since we're Korean-Americans, I'm thinking his permit application is going to get a lot of extra scrutiny now.
_________________________
-- Helen
"Specialization is for insects." -Robert Heinlein
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#92029 - 04/22/07 11:26 PM
Re: Are you equipped to defend yourself
[Re: NightHiker]
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
So there's no violent crime in the UK? There is violent crime in the UK, but it is at the level where even the majority of the leadership of the police forces throughout the UK will, when asked about whether the general police force in the UK course should be armed, will say No. Most police forces in the UK do have what are called 'armed response teams'. In the highlands and islands of Scotland I don't even think they have even one of these 'armed response teams'. If they do I have not been able to recall if they have ever been deployed. There have been incidents such as the Dunblane massacre in 1996 in central Scotland. This led to the law restricting the ownership of concealed firearms. There are areas within rural Scotland where there is no recorded violent crime let alone violent gun crime what so ever. These areas tend to be areas where everyone knows and relies on each other such as Island communities. But generally if you are going to be murdered in Scotland it will be with a knife and it will be in the inner cities of Glasgow, Edinburgh or Dundee. There is a level of gun crime in the UK and there is also a debate about how to tackle the problem. There have been a number of incidents in London and other English regional cities where the gun crime appears to be linked with young black criminal gangs. In the news media, these gangs have been associated with the so called 'US gun culture' which is prevalent within certain forms of American based music (if one can call it that) called 'Rapping'. In the UK in 2004 there were 70 gun related fatalities mostly in England.
Edited by bentirran (04/22/07 11:31 PM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 registered (M_a_x),
406
Guests and
73
Spiders online. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index
