1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Can there be a middle ground on this subject?

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Vector, Jan 20, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Vector

    Vector Active Member

    Oct 2, 2007
    I suspect I will be accused of being a wolf in sheep's clothing by starting this thread, but try to be reasoned with your responses. I am pro gun, just not a fanatic, so try to see the other side of the coin rather than attack the messenger.

    This quote was in response to police acting negligent or even criminal with their firearms.

    Responding to this quote in another recently closed thread, Intrepid Dad wrote;

    It surprises me that many feel there is no middle ground on these issues. Furthermore, while "gun grabbers" will use anything that favors their position to promote their agenda, it does not mean that everything they say is without merit. While I do not purport to say LEO's are more proficient than all regular citizens, I also do not assume that most gun owning citizens train more frequently than LEO's. As a matter of fact, I'd bet on average, LEO's train more on a % basis that the average gun owner. Many departments require range qualification once a year.
    So while many gun owners who are enthusiasts hunt and target shoot often, it is not representative of the large numbers of people who own guns but rarely use them.

    Is that a reasonable statement, or do you feel I am off base?

  2. 2RCO

    2RCO Participating Member

    Aug 15, 2007
    Vector I will be watching this thread. Good luck to ya!
  3. Hardware

    Hardware Active Member

    Apr 10, 2005
    Relative chance of success when using a gun is irrelevant. The right to have the opportunity to use a gun is.

    The question is not whether there can be a middle ground. There is no middle ground. It is a binary solution set. Yes or No. Do I have the right to keep and bear arms or do I not have that right. The Bill of Rights says I do.

    Some people want to "clarify" or "interpret" what the 2nd amendment says. I say that since the Constitution was ratified with the proviso of the Bill of Rights, nullify any one of those ten amendments and there is no Constitution. No Constitution, no United States. No Congress. No President. No Supreme Court. No standing armed forces. No right to taxation. Clarify and interpret that. Any attempt by individuals to enforce a suspension is an illegal act, treason, and if an office holder, abuse of office.

    We have had the Constitution suspended twice. During the Civil War and During World War 2. Both times it was reinstated. Looked at another way it's gone down twice. I don't think it will survive going down for the third time.
  4. Jim K

    Jim K Elder

    Dec 31, 2002
    I don't know if it is a "middle ground" or not, but I have known a fair number of LEOs who couldn't shoot and would have been downright dangerous to anyone in the vicinity had they ever fired their weapons. And I have known ordinary citizens who were well trained and practiced continually with their guns. The police reality is that most officers go to the range for the same reason they take classes in first aid, because they have to. Some officers are "gun people" who like to shoot, and shoot when they can, even at their own expense, but in my experience they are the minority. To most cops, a gun is a tool they carry around because they have to and it might come in handy.

    IMHO, the problem is not so much technical ability but mindset. A police officer who thinks citizens are scum and should be shot down on the slightest excuse is a lot more dangerous if he is a good shot. On the other hand a careful citizen could save his own life or the lives of others.

    To my mind, there is too much macho BS about "how I would get the BG and be a hero" on these sites, often by kids who don't and can't legally own guns. Sorry, folks, Sir Galahad is dead and would probably be indicted for ADW and cruelty to dragons if he were around today.

    As to the gun grabbers, don't forget that most gun control groups have always favored disarmament of police, though they tend to soft-pedal that line at this time. In his book, The Saturday Night Special, sometimes described as "The Bible of the gun control moverment", Robert Sherrill urges disarming police first; he says police are "mentally unbalanced", "morally inferior", "queer about guns", and cowards. At times the Brady bunch and other groups have agreed, even though they play different tunes at different times, depending on what they think will work to gain their agenda.

    Right now, in Virginia, some relatives of the kids killed at VT are pushing for a ban on private handgun sales, even though the VT killer bought his guns through licensed dealers. But the Brady Campaign, which has been pushing for a private sale ban is using those people to push its agenda because it thinks wallowing in blood and tears will achieve its goal. In fact, their "ambulance chasing" is so blatant that many people have come to wonder if they are above creating a massacre just to promote gun control.

  5. islw2863

    islw2863 New Member

    Aug 27, 2006
    Hardware You are exactly right

    Vector Can there be a middle ground on this subject?

    To continue Hardwares argument: Yes of course there is a middle ground, and the only purpose of and inevitable result of this middle ground is to destroy the logical and moral foundation of the right (pick one) being debated.

    You are obviously someone who likes to stir the pot.

    It is obvious what answer you will get to this question in this forum. I don't believe you are sincerely looking for truth or wisdom but just want to start a flame war. Making people angry for your entertainment is not cool and not healthy.
  6. 230RN
    • Contributing Member

    230RN Marines raising the Pisa tower.

    May 27, 2006
    Hardware, may I respectfully offer you a beer if we ever meet?
  7. Lonestar49

    Lonestar49 Senior Member

    Feb 17, 2007
    So. Calif.
    Which messager?


    Ignorance is no excuse to say and be anti gun..

    This would be the same if someone didn't know how to fly planes, and wanted to take away all planes from the Civil air wing thru out the USA..

    A plane crashes due to pilot error, so according to the same thinking process of those who wish to take away all civilian guns, should mean take away all the civil planes..

    But, that hasn't occurred, because most are not effected by what they read about airplane accidents, and they fly (now and then) via the commercial airlines, so they seem to leave what they really don't understand alone, but not so with guns, because if they don't own one, then no one should, because it's the right policy in their small worlds.

    The messenger is fine, but should it not be from one that is educated to own, handle, and fire a weapon, the same as one that is educated to pilot a plane vs those uneducated/ignorant in either area, yet want to take away ones weapons or close more of the airports because they bought, or built, a home next to an airport..?

    Go figure..

  8. Technosavant

    Technosavant Senior Member

    Mar 24, 2005
    St. Louis, MO
    Just because one side says one thing and another side says its exact opposite does not mean that the truth is in the middle. Our society has come to think that is the case, but it is a complete fallacy.

    One group of mathematicians says 2+2=4.
    One group of other people, claiming mathematicians are only protecting their own special interests, says 2+2=2.

    That does not mean that 2+2=3, since 3 is "middle ground."

    Opposition to a truth does not then skew reality so that the truth itself is changed.

    As to direct application to the right to keep and bear arms for the purposes of self defense and freedom from tyranny, how many others of your rights are you willing to accept "middle ground" on? You have freedom of speech so long as you have a recognized media outlet? You have freedom from unreasonable search and seizure so long as you aren't accused of a violent crime? You have the right to vote so long as you can prove you pass a quiz on current issues?

    We wouldn't stand for such things in regards to other rights; those would be seen as full on infringements, not "middle ground." Hardware is correct; you either have a right or you don't. Period.
  9. dracphelan

    dracphelan Active Member

    Oct 15, 2005
    Garland, TX
    The problem is we have tried the middle ground for 74 years. And, the middle ground keeps pushing further and further into our area. Those who believe the Second Amendment is an individual right have had enough of giving ground. It started with "no civilian really needs full auto weapons or silencers." Now, we have areas of this country where it is almost impossible to legally touch a functioning firearm. The anti-gun crowd will not stop until there are no firearms legally in civilian hands. Enough is enough. We are pushing back. :mad:
  10. Baba Louie

    Baba Louie Senior Member

    Dec 26, 2002
    Probably more truthful than not.

    In between the colors black and white lies a modicum of grey. I tend to agree with those wise men who argued for including into the BOR's limitation of Congressional infringement on the subject.

    "He, she or they" may or may not own guns, and/or, should they own them they may not be as proficient as some here, but I am most certainly against only the King's Men having access and/or proficiency.

    While I may believe/think that ownership of a firearm means serious, adequate practice and competant use, not to mention safe handling and storage (let us call this position "White"), and while I personally know good citizens who think that NO ONE other than LEO and Govt Issue employees have any business with arms (call this condition "Black" and the pole opposite of my position on the subject), I'm glad there's a lot of grey in between those two extremes poles. The grey killing ground (or "No Man's Land") of "take an inch at a time by Elected and Appointed Officials" if you will.

    I will never change their minds, nor they, mine. So Vector, you cover the middle "grey" ground, I'll stake out my end of things, wearing a white hat covering your back. Those at the other end of the spectrum... the do-gooder, know-it-alls? Here's hoping they never need face evil unarmed, be it criminal ilk or governmental ner-do-wells.

    Or is this thread only about ownership and proficiency? ;)

    If so, False security will be found on both sides of the "Ownership" coin.
  11. TallPine

    TallPine Mentor

    Dec 26, 2002
    somewhere in the middle of Montana
    There is no middle ground because gun control laws do not work to reduce crime.

    Not to mention constitutional and "god-given" rights.
  12. Citroen

    Citroen Member

    Jul 4, 2007
    Charlotte, NC
    "Hardware" got it right!

    On this subject, and for that matter quite a few subjects it might help to remember - What used to be called right and wrong is now called right and left!

    There is no compromise with evil, surrender is not an option!

    I do agree that some posters appear to be overly macho and it is possible that they are in fact, youngsters, but who cares? There is no middle ground on free speech either!

    The whole idea stems from "political correctness" which is national suicide.

    Charlotte, NV
  13. Dilbert

    Dilbert New Member

    Jan 19, 2008
    There is always a middle, and it's a bad place.

    We, as legal gun owers, are the "middle", or maybe better stated, in the middle. If you are in the middle you are neither leading nor following, and that is a bad thing indeed. To move your position out of the middle there is only one thing you can do.
    Research the candidates.
    Ask questions and get answers, not double talk.
    It's your greatest right.
  14. 1911Tuner

    1911Tuner Moderator Emeritus

    May 22, 2003
    Lexington,North Carolina...or thereabouts
    Playing Devil's Advocate is one of my weaknesses...so I'll add a little something to the "Cop vs Citizen" skill-at-arms debate, just to provide a little food for thought.

    While it's very true that a large percentage of our law enforcement aren't
    "Gunnies" in the sense that they live and breathe for shooting...they do have a lot of good training at their disposal and under their belts before they hit the streets.

    Keep in mind, too...that shooting a lot and training aren't always on equal ground. You can practice until you can literally bust a June Bug at 50 paces...and lose a fight with a hophead holding his Glock sideways at arm's length. You have to be lucky every time he pulls the trigger. He only has to get lucky once. Practice does not make perfect. Perfect practice approaches it.

    Also...About as often as not, when the street cop grabs for his pistol, he's already up to his crack in crocodiles with an adrenalin dump in progress. That makes missing the first shot or two a higher probability than taking one's time and squeezing off an "X". Remember also that these hit/miss statistics are across the board, without much regard to circumstance, except in the officer's report...and it's not likely that's included in the figures. They're not graded on a curve.

    The average citizen's defensive shooting isn't usually on an even footing with the cop's. Joe Citizen's is more likely to be at home, or at least on familiar ground. The chances of a citizen stopping a mall shooting is low compared to his chances of having to arm himself against a home invader or car jacker. The cop could be anywhere, and his attack most often comes without warning. Traffic stops and domestic disputes are among his most dangerous situations. Day-to-day stuff is what kills most cops. The things that he gets complacent with will be his undoing. Joe doesn't hear bumps in the night often enough to get complacent...so his level of alertness is high when he does.

    Finally...Killing situations almost never go down the way that we imagine they will. No matter how well or how often you train...you're still facing a target that has shown the will and the means to kill you...and he is actively working hard to do just that. Shooting wide of the mark is a higher liklihood of hitting it under those circumstances...especially if you're action is essentially a reaction to his. You're behind the curve, and it's hard to catch up. Things like that makes hands tremble and body movements jerky.

    Carry on!
  15. Feanaro

    Feanaro Senior Member

    Mar 29, 2003
    Leeds, AL.
    From a practical perspective, the "middle ground" is dangerous. Slippery slope arguments are said to be logical fallacies but they are a political reality. When we have compromised, the anti's get a better position to enact more gun control, more legislation to make gun ownership a pain in the rump, and maybe a ban on a firearm or three hundred.

    What do we get? Screwed. So even if I didn't think that the issue is basically black and white, I wouldn't favor much a "middle ground."
  16. Vector

    Vector Active Member

    Oct 2, 2007
    Hardware wrote;

    Incorrect! This thread is not about the right to own firearms, regardless of how you try to change it to that subject. I guess it is easier to obfuscate the subject rather than address it.

    islw2863 who has a whopping post count of 1 wrote;

    Well if you want to discuss subject D rather than A, please go do it in some other thread, or start one yourself. He went off on a rant having nothing to do with the original topic.


    Looking for truth or wisdom? LOL, I am looking for rational discussion and/or other posters point of view on the subject.
    If you have read any of my other posts/threads, you will see that I strongly support the 2nd amendment. However I am not a koolaid drinker, and I guess that drives people like yourself crazy. Try getting an informed perspective on things before going on a rant against other posters. You will be better served if you take that approach.

  17. thexrayboy

    thexrayboy Participating Member

    Sep 3, 2006
    northern nevada
    The frequency with which one chooses to excercise a right has no bearing on the validity of that right. Whether I choose to practice with my weapon weekly to insure competence or whether I choose to load the .357 stick it in a nightstand and never touch it again till I hear the sound of breaking glass is
    exactly that...my choice. To even broach the subject that I should not be allowed to excercise my 2A rights unless I can demonstrate uncanny proficiency is BS pure and simple.

    The same argument could be said for those who dropped out of high school not having the same right to free speech as compared to a college graduate who must obviously be better trained and capable in the use of language skills.

    Every argument the antis throw up is a smoke screen. They have zero facts to base their position on. All that leaves them is smoke and mirrors. This is just another one of the smoke screens we see them attempt to use.
  18. wideym

    wideym Active Member

    May 30, 2007
    The middle of the ground is just like standing in the middle of the road, eventually you will get run over. You MIGHT get run over on the left or right side of the road, but you WILL get run over if you are in the middle.
  19. AndyC

    AndyC Senior Member

    Mar 21, 2006
    DFW, TX
    I am puzzled as to why you feel that enthusiasts have to be "representative" of those who are not enthusiasts - what's your point?
  20. Telperion

    Telperion Participating Member

    Mar 23, 2003
    Fair enough, but in his defense you did not define the issue very clearly. In fact, I'm not even sure what the point is: "So while many gun owners who are enthusiasts hunt and target shoot often, it is not representative of the large numbers of people who own guns but rarely use them." Since it is oft-quoted that 40% of American households have a firearm, is it really any surprise that the most enthusiastic and serious shooters are not representative of the larger gun owning population? The same can been said of any other hobby: driving, computers, etc.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page