WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH WITH SELF DEFENSE

[webrx]

I think that "Rights" should not be infringed
There should be no requirement to be trained to be able to exercise those rights.

Nobody has to pass the bar exam to be able to exercise their right to an attorney, or take a class to exercise their right to free speech or religion.

If a dozen or so stupid people do something stupid, it does not justify requiring non-stupid people to take training.

Now, I could concede that in order to carry a gun outside your home you have to meet a basic set of criteria - aka be over 18, not be in jail, be a citizen of the USA.

I can also agree that training is good, and you should get some. "SHOULD" being the operative word.

One can cherry pick incidents all day long, to make their point

How many people open carry on a daily basis in how many states and what percent of those result in a problem? (my guess is it is a very low percentage, and I can't recall having seen where anyone is collecting that data)

How many ARs are there in the population and how many of those are used in mass shootings? (Hint 78% were handguns and shotguns were used almost as frequently as rifles)

Here is a good one, how many gun crimes are committed by gang members? (hint it used to be over 50% of non-suicides, now, it is hard to tell - Really? Yeah, I read this in a FBI report a while back - too difficult to tell for sure if there is a gang association or not so it is not usually reported)

What percentage of guns used in a crime were purchased by the person who used them in a crime? (less than 7%)

The constitution is our founding document, and is pretty clear on what are rights. It does not need to be modified, rewritten or re-interpreted, it was intentionally written so common folks could understand it, if it says shall not be infringed, that is what the founding fathers meant.

No mandatory training should ever be required for a us citizen to exercise their rights under the constitution

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States (AKA Federal Government, Congress, Senate, President, etc) by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states (AKA Rights, and powers specifically outlined in the constitution supersede state powers), are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Meaning: The Federal government remains a government of limited and enumerated powers, so that the first question involving an exercise of federal power is not whether it violates someone’s rights, but whether it exceeds the national government’s enumerated powers.

The only question posed by the Tenth Amendment is whether a claimed federal power was actually delegated to the national government by the Constitution, and that question is answered by studying the enumerated powers. That was the understanding of the Supreme Court for nearly two centuries.
.
In layman's terms, on the second amendment specifically, the constitution says shall not be infringed, so, neither the Federal Government nor the states should be allowed to override this.

Is that the way it is right now? NO! Should it be, YES!

d

 

[Kleanbore]

In layman's terms, on the second amendment specifically, the constitution says shall not be infringed,

SCOTUS has said that the carrying of firearms may be "regulated". I do not like that, but that's the way it is.

Every law abiding citizen should be allowed to keep and bear arms. But many are not. I don't like that very much, but that's the way it is

Everyone has a natural right of self preservation, and should be allowed the means to exercise that right. Some are not. I do not like that, but that is the way it is.

Many people who do keep and bear arms have no idea at all about when and how to use them lawfully in self defense. I don't like that, and part of the reason has to do with the risk to my own safety. Part of it has to do with the inevitable negative impact that their serious errors have on the continued right to keep and bear arms. I support the idea of mitigating those risks without criminalizing the carrying of arms.

How many people open carry on a daily basis in how many states and what percent of those result in a problem?

The probabilities as compared the measure of daily carry are extremely low, and the probability in terms of use of force incidents is very low, but the severity of the potential consequences is extremely high. And the cost to mitigate the risk via education and training is minimal.

 

[golden]

WEBRX,

As was pointed out much more recently than two centuries ago, by I believe supreme court judge, Antonin SCALIA when the court overturned the WASHINGTON D.C. gun ban, that decision did not preclude reasonable restrictions. If we do not understand that, then when we do not have a favorable court, we may lose what we have, no matter what you think the founders believed. The court has not invalidated the extreme gun laws of the several states that have them. The court has not ruled the 1968 GUN CONTROL ACT as unconstitutional. The court has not ruled INSTANT CHECKS unconstitutional. They did not rule the bar against those convicted of domestic violence buying a gun as unconstitutional..

So whether you want to scream state rights or constitutional rights, it may just pave the way to our own loss. Hey, how about if we all had to live by New York state rights?

As, for gangs, I do not think that the vast populace of the U.S. gives a damn when gang members kill each other. I know it sounds bad, but I think it is true. On the other hand, when there is a school shooting, the only reason we have ended up with much more restrictive gun laws is that the people proposing them for the most part are anti-gun people and they usually way overreach. If Barack OBAMA could not sell what he called, "reasonable gun control laws" after the SANDY HOOK shooting, it was only because he could not convince the populace that what he was selling was, "reasonable" and would not effect the average person who buys a gun for self defense. If less extreme laws are pushed, especially after a really bad shooting, some of those laws may pass and then pass the court tests.

Jim

 

[Kleanbore]

Jim, to expand, there are places in which citizens may not carry defensive firearms outside of their homes. I don't like that at all, but it is the way it is.

I know attorneys who somehow believe that people may properly use deadly force in defense of property. Should he or his clients try that, they will lend up behind bars for a looong time. And then there are erroneous beliefs about warning shots, shooting at fleeing suspects, citizens' arrests, and on and on.

Such issues can be addressed with little effort.

Some people raise red flags RE: constitutional issues, but those who would receive the education that can keep them prosperous and free do not benefit from that sentiment.

 

[webrx]

As stated while I believe the constitution and bill of rights is the way it “should” be. I also noted it is not that way now. Unfortunately.

 

[DT Guy]

"What are we trying to accomplish with self-defense?"

To survive.


Larry

 

[armoredman]

Some places restrict the right to carry openly or concealed, and that's the way it is...I and refuse to live there.
I have attended Dept firearms training for 20 years now, and I have never seen so many people that are both terrible shots and unsafe gun handlers, and fail such simple tests as a discretionary range. I have actually worn body armor to Dept range when I knew certain staff were to show up. I remember JPFO had a pamphlet once that showed the number of misses in shooting incidents were double for LE as opposed to civilians. Generally speaking before the plandemic, those persons would would go through the effort to carry lawfully tended to be far more interested in properly shooting than those required to qualify on a static square range twice a year.
Also, a note about open carry - we in Arizona have had lawful open carry for over 100 years, CCW since 1992, and Constitutional Carry since 2010. When we went CC, our murder rate dropped 4 years in a row. Even with unrestricted open carry, our murder rate was FAR less than restrictive areas like, say, Chicago. I did a comparison using Phoenix and Chicago with the FBI UCR, and the bare fact is with CC, no permit, license, FOID, mag ban, AWB, waiting periods, or any other wonderful laws, Phoneix, having just over half the population of Chicago, had less than 20% of their murder rate. Just throwing that out there.
As for gun snatches on open carriers - I've been lawfully carrying a sidearm in this state for just under 40 years, and I think I read of ONE gun snatch on a civilian open carrier in this state. Many POLICE snatches, but the very nature of police having to get down in the mud, the blood and the beer with offenders sets the stage for that. Smart armed civilians stay OUT of those areas/situations as best as they can, and since we went CC, I usually only see someone open carrying perhaps once or twice a week.
Last, to address the mandatory training - massive mistake. However, we here in AZ are pushing a bill through the legislature to require firearms safety training in school. Not USING it, but how NOT to get killed while handling one. Step in the right direction. The Arizona Gun Safety Program already in law is an elective class that requires a student to fire at a target on a range to pass, but no high school has opted to use it yet - this would be a little bit more mandatory.
https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/summary/H.HB2448_020122_CAUCUSCOW.pdf
Also, in addressing the right to use deadly force in defense of property, we are clarifying that, too, though I am slightly ambivalent about the whole thing. For your reading pleasure...
https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/summary/S.1650JUD.pdf
Chances for both to pass are not that great, but possible.
And lastly, as DT Guy said, when I am off duty my basic goal is to survive. I plan my activities to avoid bad areas and bad times, when I can, which is usually 99% of the time. I also practice the color code and "head on a swivel".
Just my $.02, worth less than you paid for it.

 

[golden]

armoredman,

Giving gun safety training should be an easy sell, but it is not. In the city next to PARKLAND, FL, where the infamous school shooting took place, many years ago, a city police officer was assigned to create a gun safety program for the local high school. He looked around and found the program created by the NRA. I think it is called EDDY EAGLE, but am not sure. Well, he felt it was the best course and went to the school board with it. They thought it was a good idea until they found it was an NRA program. They went ballistic and killed the whole program for political reasons, nothing to do with safety.
Note: this took place in gun friendly Florida.

I would love to see every child in high school get a gun safety course. We offer driver's ed., but nothing on gun safety.

Jim

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

SCOTUS has said that the carrying of firearms may be "regulated". I do not like that, but that's the way it is.

Every law abiding citizen should be allowed to keep and bear arms. But many are not. I don't like that very much, but that's the way it is

Then the question is, what are you prepared to do about that tyrannical thought process that does NOT adhere to the Constitution? Or are you actually OK with that?

 

[golden]

YOU VOTE!

You support candidates that respect and support your rights.

You donate your time or money or both to support those candidates and elected officials.

You speak with intelligence and listen to other people's point of view. If you respect them, they will respect you and be more willing to listen to your point of view and consider it.

Jim

 

[Kleanbore]

Then the question is, what are you prepared to do about that tyrannical thought process that does NOT adhere to the Constitution?

I presume that you are referring to the Constitutionality of "reasonable restrictions", such as those regarding concealed carry.

That's naive. SCOTUS decides what does and what does not "adhere to the Constitution". The legislature does not, and the Executive Branch does not. That is how it must be.

I don't like some of the restrictions at all, but there is nothing that I can do about it.

 

[webrx]

SCOTUS is supposed to decide based on what is written in the constitution not political party lines that is their charter and why they have a lifetime appointment.

From what I have seen it is Naive to think that politics is not playing a part in many of their decisions.

But I have to honestly say, I don’t know what can be done about that we don’t vote them in and we don’t vote them out. I am gonna have to research that.

d

 

[Jeff White]

Ok this has drifted too far into a political discussion that goes far beyond the scope of this forum.