Previous fence sitters ask you about getting a means of defense after Paris attack?

[FROGO207]

I was always willing take on the task of trying to educate and help them both. BUT also teach them the responsibility that they need to be aware of for both SD and the 2a. First I will steer them to a CCW class and then help them find the specific firearm that that class hopefully helped them decide which type was the best choice for them. I figure if they stay interested for that long they are really serious about things. Or their fear will diminish and they will loose interest.

 

[buck460XVR]

There's truth to this; however it's important not to fall into the trap of assuming that the only positive outcome is a total victory.

In other words, the fact that a single person with a handgun isn't going to stop multiple terrorists armed with rifles doesn't mean that they can't make a positive difference.

It's unlikely that a single person with a handgun will completely thwart an attack like the ones in Paris, but it is also true that a round or two in the right place at the right time might make result in a significant reduction in the level of the carnage. You'd also have to go into it knowing that in most cases you're probably signing your own death warrant by engaging multiple opponents armed with rifles when all you have is a carry pistol.

Still, there are situations where one might choose to stand up and fight rather than hoping to be able to run, or if that's not an option, passively waiting for the bad guys to get around to shooting you or blowing you up.

That was kinda the point of my post John. While I support the right of anyone to own a firearm, I don't necessarily support the right of them to open fire indiscriminately in my direction in a chaotic scenario. I guess I don't have a lot of confidence in those folks that one minute want to deny me the right to CWC a handgun to protect myself and my loved ones from a home invasion or car-jacking, but the next minute want a gun to save themselves against trained combatants crashing a hi-jacked 747 into a crowded football stadium.

We all deserve the right to defend ourselves and those around us. But with that right comes a responsibility, knowledge, skill and preparedness. Most folks now wanting a gun because of their knee-jerk reaction to the Paris tragedy need to know this, just as much as they need to know what gun and ammo to buy. Odds are tho, IMHO, I doubt it will go that far. It will take more than an incident happening half a world away to motivate them. Come the next school shooting they will be back on the other side of the fence again.

 

[geologist]

Maybe liberal thinking is curable.

 

[taliv]

Maybe liberal thinking is curable.

on a long enough time scale, natural selection should take care of it, for sure.

 

[Leanwolf]

FROGO207, nice of you to help your "anti-guns" friends if they want to buy firearms. I think that in addition to some good advice here, YOU make sure to emphasize the Four Rules of Firearms Safety to them. Make sure they understand them and why they are so important.

Way too many people out there who own firearms but haven't the faintest clue how to be safe when handling them.

Good luck.

L.W.

 

[goon]

For the purpose of being prepared to oppose a terrorist attack, it makes some sense to carry. The US is in a relatively unique position in that way. However, the populated areas most likely to be targeted by terrorists also tend to be the most restrictive on gun rights. I highly doubt that an attack in NYC would meet any resistance until the cops got there.

Still, if anyone asked me, I'd try to explain that just jumping right into self-defense and CCW is probably not a good idea. I'd probably start them however I could - maybe a couple rimfire lessons and then help them pick out a shotgun and a mid-sized handgun - then hope for the best. While it's unlikely that a novice shooter with an M&P 9 is going to stop a squad of terrorists with AK's, it's even more unlikely that a novice without one can effectively resist.

 

[Tirod]

The harsh reality is that unless we get about 10% of the population to actually carry at all times, the gun owning public won't have any material affect on preventing terrorism.

First - the attacks are always ambushes. Terrorists don't go parading down the street carrying banners expressing violence against shopkeepers in malls or those watching movies. They sneak in, dressed like us, looking like us, pull out weapons, and start shooting us randomly with no warning. The same with suicide bombers.

Their tactics are based on not being stopped, and they achieve success because of it, based on them. They are looking to increase the political overreaction which will feed into more oppression - justifying their violence.

Being able to coordinate a counter ambush on the spot? You can gun up and be ready to respond (if you aren't cut down in the first volleys of fire,) but the reality is that you could also be shot at by another CCW who mistakes your fashionable half shaved face and athletic lounge clothing as not being middle class suburban white American.

Goes to the millions of self defense gun presentations in America as pointed out by Lott - the typical American perp makes a new decision and exits the scene. A terrorist bent on the gates of his heaven only sees another target of opportunity, and his teammates will focus on you as well.

This is where a .380 with 6 shots isn't all that. More like a SBR with 60 round mag and odds are it will hit the floor with you incapacitated half loaded.

Since we only have about 1-2% if the civilian population actually carrying, with small capacity pistols, it's going to remain an unequal and difficult issue to respond to. You and I aren't going to affect the outcome to any significant degree. It's the other side of the gun coin - where liberals might be waking up to firearms for their own personal defense, the experienced gun carrier realizes how little it will actually help against a gang of coordinated terrorists equipped with full auto AK's and explosives.

Get your head wrapped around it - nobody is going John McClane against a band of BGs in a mall or wherever and defeating them unless you are training for it right now on a near daily basis. So much for your day job.

The correct tactic to exercise when trapped in an ambush is retrograde extraction, never leaving your back turned on the shooters. Get out any way you can, up to and including smashing store windows with furniture, running thru back rooms searching for exits, whatever.

Most of us don't even know how to ferret out where those are in our favorite stores - you might just try to pay attention in the future looking where those panic bar alarm doors are located instead of ignoring them.

If someone comes to you and you are prepared to discuss guns and gun rights, go for it. You can and will help the 2A in America. But don't get into how little it will help in a terrorist attack. That's advanced application - just get them past the daily carry hurdle first. Most CCW still don't, after all, it's not like you will be shot up getting milk for the kids at the grocery store. The odds simply aren't there in most of our lives.

 

[vaupet]

i'm under the impression public opinion on gun ownership is swinging.
People now feel the government is not able to defend it's citizens at all times, so more and more people will try to get the means to defend themselves.
70 years of peace have weakened a lot of europeans, but the times they are changing.

Yesterday at my local gunshop, more people then ever phoned in to ask how to obtain (in a legal way of course) a gun.

most popular: ar15 style semi-auto's and shotguns

shooting club have more members then ever before

 

[CoalTrain49]

I'm truly sorry for the tragic events in Paris. People shouldn't have to live with that kind of evil in their daily lives.

CC and gun ownership has huge responsibilities. I've been asked by friends to teach them the ropes. I've helped a few but I've turned down most of them. The commitment has to be there, it's not just the 30 minutes and $500 that most of them think it is. I usually ask them a few questions up front. How they plan on securing the weapon at home if they have kids, if they plan to get a license to carry and have they made plans to spend some money for training and ammo? I find that many of them think it's like buying a set of tires, put them on and forget about them.

I understand that most people fear something like a terrorist attack and feel vulnerable. This is like the 50's all over again except it isn't a nuclear attack, it's the local Muslim just turned jihadist gunning you down in the market. People spent a lot of time and money in the 50's preparing for a nuclear attack, now they need a plan for a terrorist attack. Personally, I don't think we can effectively arm ourselves to prevent it. My plan is to avoid large crowds and not use public transportation. Of course I will still carry but I won't be thinking it's a deterrent for a jihadist with an AK bent on killing as many people as he can before someone takes him down. I moved out of the city a long time ago and I don't own an AK or an AR so I'm not going to worry about it. Life goes on.

As an added thought. My private gun club has a 3 year waiting list. It will probably have a 4 year waiting list now.

 

[22-rimfire]

I generally of the mind set that you make your own bed and you need to lie in it.

However, I would be more than willing to offer some advice if asked.

Stopping these heavily armed terrorist types is a lot like trying to stop a charging bear.

 

[vito]

I posted a rant on Facebook to my friends and relatives asking what they were doing to protect themselves and their families for when Paris-type attacks happen here in the U.S. I urged them to acquire a firearm, and learn how to use it. I advised them to stop supporting gun control efforts which clearly do nothing to impede the terrorists from obtaining weapons but do achieve the goal of disarming the law abiding public. And I asked them to think about who they vote for: the party concerned with national security or the one obsessed with transgender rights in high school locker rooms.

I was met with a few likes, a few comments in agreement, and several negative comments including that I was wrong for encouraging a violent response, wrong to associate one political party with national security, and wrong to think that gun control was not the answer. I even had one relative who straight forwardly told me that she was supporting Bernie Sanders and that climate change, not terrorism, was the biggest threat facing our country. If 9/11 didn't wake up the American public, and if clearly did not, the Paris attacks will not do so either.

Most will express their solidarity with the French via a few Twitter tweets and think that they are fighting terrorism that way. I fear we are already too far along the path to national and cultural suicide and that the battle is already lost.

 

[230RN]

Get your head wrapped around it - nobody is going John McClane against a band of BGs in a mall or wherever and defeating them unless you are training for it right now on a near daily basis. So much for your day job.

I have a slightly different perspective on that which I've mentioned before.

This is not chest-thumping. I carefully thought about it several years ago when the first mall shooter started firing down on the crowds below the balcony. Given the opportunity to deliver suppressive fire, keeping in mind the usual things about being sure of your target and what lies beyond, I will do so.

Even if it attracts fire to myself. And of course this is all contingent on whether or not return fire will endanger others near to me.

I have no death wish, but on the other hand, I've lived a full life, contributed what I could to society, and my offspring have been successfully launched into the sea of life. Hence my "different perspective" from those of you still raising kids and with half your lives ahead of you.

If my suppressive fire, delivered with my laser-sighted little handgun, can distract the shooter enough to save one younger person who has his whole life before him or her, that's the pro to the pro-versus-con decision-making.

The con is obvious and has been well-considered, as noted.

And all this has not changed because the evil-doers wish to die --even the home-grown balcony shooters and other mass killers wanted to die, and usually commit suicide when deadly-force resistance is offered anyhow.

I have thought this out carefully, and to repeat, this is not thumping of my 76-77 year old chest.

Anyhow, WRT the OP, I will offer informal instruction on firearms in their kitchen or living room, then, depending on their understanding of basic firearms safety and operation, take them to the range and allow them to try different firearms to get an idea of what fits them best. (Starting with an iron-sighted .22 rifle at 10-to-15 yards, of course, and with plenty of ear and eye protection.)

If all goes well, I wll then launch them into the sea of formal instruction and "let" them deal with it from that point on, advising them that you can't beat formal instruction from a qualified instructor.

All as I have done before.

Terry

 

[Red Wind]

^ A fine, commonsense post full of learned wisdom. Thank you, Terry.

 

[The Alaskan]

[/B]

WHAT ???

this obsession with some future gov't, (same goes for " UN takeovers" , etc.) scares me much more than any government.
we will have the government that wins LEGAL ELECTIONS, simple as that.

You can't say that here. The very thought that America is the best place in the world with the best government (albeit not perfect) in the world completely obliterates some people's entire world.

And yes, the level of anti government conspiracy rhetoric among this population is downright frightening. I almost wonder if the odds of a violent, anti-government riot are actually higher than the odds of an Islamic attack.

 

[jerkface11]

I see you have a page from the homeland security playbook. Libertarians are more dangerous than terrorists.

 

[buck460XVR]

Knowledge is power – go educate yourself about the fundamental purpose of the Second Amendment– and then spread the word.

In our time there have been far too many folks who don't like to be reminded of all this. And they try, in their painful way, to pretend that the Second Amendment was put into the Constitution by the Founders merely to allow us a gratifying hobby, to deal with the tyranny of street level criminals, or hunt elk to our hearts' content.

The problem is and always has been, since we have yet to invent a time machine and gone back in time and asked them personally, what the founding fathers really meant within the wording of the 2nd Amendment, it is still all in the interpretation. That is why we have those who think it can be restrictive and those that think there should be no restrictions. In reality, it comes down to the interpretation of the SCOTUS and not the interpretation of random posters on internet gun forums. As it should be, otherwise we may have to use the interpretation from a Soccer Mom's website.

And yes, the level of anti government conspiracy rhetoric among this population is downright frightening.

The solution is simple.......

 

[yokel]

In D.C. v. Heller Justice Antonin Scalia writes that “when able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.” Maj. Op. at 25

Justice Scalia’s majority opinion in Heller revisits that "ideal of a citizens' militia" theme in reviewing efforts by George III's government to disarm American colonists (pg. 21). Discussing the ancient origins of the right, Scalia notes that "the Stuart Kings Charles II and James II succeeded in using select militias loyal to them to suppress political dissidents, in part by disarming their opponents" (pg. 19).

Unfortunately, some alleged Second Amendment advocates are unable or unwilling to acknowledge the fact that there has never been a truly benevolent government. Government is about power, and power is a zero-sum process. We are either leaders or we are led. When the government gains more power, it gains that power at the expense of the people it governs. When we agree to give the government more power, we are surrendering some of our own power. As government gains more power, we lose more and more of our freedom. If we surrender enough power, if we become dependent on the government, the government gains the advantage and we move closer and closer to tyranny and dictatorship. We will either control our government, as our Founding Fathers intended, or our government will control us.

 

[MechAg94]

230RN is exactly correct. If your thinking is that you cannot win, then you have already lost. We have already had mass killers who have been stopped by people whose first reaction was to fight.

 

[sequins]

I think all the folks who think one lone CCWer can't do anything are totally wrong. One armed good guy can and has put an end to attacks immediately and without further loss of life. There is a great web resource I'll try to dig up but which others may have more ready access to which lists out all the times a non-LEO response ended a mass shooting immediately. In many cases the simple act of violently resisting was enough to stop the attack.

The two bad guys in the article I've linked shot a couple cops and then went to walmart, presumably to kill more people. A man with a concealed permit realized what was happening and opened fire. He was ultimately killed in the ensuing confrontation, but he stopped it successfully.

ISIS certainly seems more determined than the classic home-grown psycho mall or school shooter, but really who are they? I hear a lot of news reports of European teenagers running off to join ISIS. We'll see how old and how trained the Paris attackers were in coming days but I'm pretty sure that almost any recreational shooter has more rifle experience than they did. I wouldn't look forward to trading 9mm rounds against 7.62 rounds, or trading rounds period, but it's not like these ISIS guys are Delta Force. An unskilled shooter in my experience will often struggle to hit a paper target at 7 yards, much less a live target bobbing and weaving and shooting back. I think some of the armed citizen doubters might be seriously overestimating the professional military capability of ISIS.

To be clear I don't think everyone is obliged to carry a gun and be willing to sacrifice their life for the greater good of the public. That said there are some people who are, and while many of those folks wear a badge and take care of it for us most of the time, you don't require a badge to act in a time of crisis and save lives. To say that you don't plan to engage in a mass shooting/terrorist scenario is fine. To advise others not to engage is fine. To suggest that an armed citizen "can't make a difference" is not fine, because it has made a difference and will continue to make a difference, and the more people that carry the bigger that difference will be. To say that an armed citizen "can't make a difference" sounds to me like a way of rationalizing why you aren't going to make a difference, because if you believe the myth that no one can make a difference there is no burden to act.

ED: I think I found a repost or reblog, or perhaps the place I found it originally is a reblog, in anycase here is the link I alluded to earlier of mass shooting stopped by citizens: http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2015/05/mass-killings-stopped-by-armed-citizens.html

 

[mnrivrat]

While I applaud you for your desire to help, and I hope your friends are sincere about changing their minds on firearm ownership, the idea that going out and buying a gun is going to save them from a terrorist attack such as the one is Paris is on the same level as the soccer mom thinking that all guns are evil.

Perhaps this is a question you might ask someone who survived the attacks in Paris - A simple question would be would you have wished to have a firearm during this event ? So you don't want anyone armed in that situation becasue they may miss the bad guy and hit you. Particularly if they are not highly trained. I strongly disagree with you.

But with that right comes a responsibility, knowledge, skill and preparedness.

The only things that comes with a right is to not abuse it. Would be nice if all who own firearms take training and are as safe and efficent as possible, but it is not OK in my mind to start putting restrictions of levels of skill, knowledge, and preparedness in order to maintain a right. Does someone who can't read or write not have the right to free speach ?

The problem is and always has been, since we have yet to invent a time machine and gone back in time and asked them personally, what the founding fathers really meant within the wording of the 2nd Amendment, it is still all in the interpretation.

Since we don't have the time machine as you say we use the documents and correspodence of the framers of the constitution to come to the most likely conclusions of the meanings behind what they wrote in the constitution.
A comprehensive study of the 2nd amendment was done by a sub commitee of the justice depart in 1982. Read it. Appaently 4 of the nine justices didn't. The court is becoming more and more political with ea. new appointee. And although the individual right to keep and bear arms was upheld . It should have been 9 to zip if they properly studied and went by the rule of law.
My point is that legaly they determine the law of the land, but that doesn't make them unbiased or right.

So sir, you and I do not share the same views on the right to keep and bear arms . I'm sure you won't loose any sleep over that, but I will sleep better having expressed my opinion.

 

[denton]

The Trolley Square incident happened about 40 miles from here. The shooter, Sulejman Talovic, received a hero's funeral in his hometown in Bosnia, and, apparently, his parents' home is now mortgage free.

Early on, he was engaged by on off-duty Ogden police officer with a 1911, and no spare magazine.

As nearly as I could determine, the presence of just one capable, armed person on the scene greatly changed the dynamic. Talovic was suddenly fully focused on staying out of the way of bullets, not on finding new victims. Talovic killed 5 people before the officer began to engage him, and it's fair to estimate that the officer's actions saved about that many more.

Having a firearm isn't absolute protection, but it does make it more of a fair fight. And that isn't what the BGs are looking for. They want an easy target.

 

[MechAg94]

I am listen to Gun Talk Radio now. Tom Gresham stated the average shot distance on the victims is estimated as 8 inches. I am not sure how they determined that, but just about any weapon can be effective at that distance.

 

[buck460XVR]

So sir, you and I do not share the same views on the right to keep and bear arms.

Really?......from my earlier post.

I support the right of anyone to own a firearm

My point in this thread about interpretation of the 2nd has nuttin to do with my interpretation. Only part of my interpretation I've mentioned is in the above quote. You're telling me you disagree with that?

My point is that legaly they determine the law of the land, but that doesn't make them unbiased or right.

Part of my point too. You expect anyone here to claim their interpretation of the 2nd isn't biased? Interpretation of the law is the law. That's why we have requests for change of venues for Judges, and why Lawyers consider Jury selection so important. All of them swear to be unbiased too. Why are SCOTUS appointments so scrutinized and deemed history changing if there was zero bias amongst the Justices on it? Your statement of the 5-4 decision is proof of how split those "unbiased" interpretations of the 2nd are and precarious our majority is.


But this crap is getting off-topic and I apologize to the OP.

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

Buck: Concerning your earlier argument about suicide bombers and pressure switches. If he releases pressure on the switch when he is ready everyone around him dies. If he is shot before he gets to wherever he has determined that everyone should die everyone around him dies. What is the basis of your argument? That we should allow all suicide bombers to determine where they will die or should they be neutralized at the earliest possible moment? I think maybe you believe in letting the alligator getting their fill of others before they become a threat to us or am I wrong in my perception? I would appreciate an honest answer because the moderators here have already threatened me with suspension due to my observations.

 

[JSH1]

I am listen to Gun Talk Radio now. Tom Gresham stated the average shot distance on the victims is estimated as 8 inches. I am not sure how they determined that, but just about any weapon can be effective at that distance.

That is easy, just make stuff up. No one in the general public as that kind of information and I doubt the French authorities do either.