AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?

2- no one randomly shoots in the dark when they see a shadow. A confirmation is needed first.

This would fall under the rule, "know your target and what is beyond it"

This would fall under the rule, "know your target and what is beyond it"

I absolutely agree.

I edited my previous comment because there are those idiots out there.
But would you jump behind the wheel of a car when you're 12, not knowing how to drive and expect to have spectacular results? Just like anything you do in your life, it takes practice and understanding.

I've been a gun owner for well over a decade. I am an excellent shot. The gun has never gone off on it's own, nor has it been pulled against someone that it wasn't intended to pull on. You need to respect the gun...if you don't, then trouble happens.

jsarno, why i admire you for your belief in your second amendment rights, im with darksets. guns are made for one reason, and one reason only. killing. the old wild wild west mentality amuses me. the constitution needs amended so people that need guns have them( military, police) and those who don't, have alot harder access to them. and enforcing the gun laws we have on the books right now. no need for new laws, just use the existing ones

Like I said, I certainly respect your decision and none of this is an attempt to argue anyone into doing something they don't want to do.
Likewise, thanks.

I agree it's possible (not necessary) that there are unintended consequences to owning a firearm.
Laws affect all people, so you can't look at a specific situation to prove the rule. Across the entire population, there is a 100% certainty that there are unintended consequences to owning a firearm.


Can you tell me how that differs substantially from the possible unintended consequences of driving? Or flying? Or having cleaning fluids in a house full of kids? Or having a gas stove? Or having matches? Or walking down the street? You've got the risk of danger and harm to you and your loved ones all around you, all day long, why is a gun so much different?
That's a strawman argument, but it seems to come up often, so allow me to debunk it. The natural use of any of those other items is non-injurious to anyone. The natural use of a gun (and by use I mean firing it) is injurious.

With respect to comparing a police officer and a gunowner, I staunchly disagree, and feel I'm pretty well qualified to speak on the subject having been a civilian gun owner and a police officer at one time.

As discomforting as this is to many of you, the VAST majority of police officers are absolutely NOT expert marksmen or even close. They are moderately competent, some far worse. I had 80 hours of firearms training in the police academy, which is about 3-5 times what the state required minimum is in most states. In other words I got 80 hours, and most departments get a LOT less. Of that 80 hours, 1/3 was probably spent milling around wasting time and waiting for your turn to shoot.

I can unequivocally state, after being trained in a highly respected law enforcement academy, and having seen hundreds of other officers shoot, that I know more civilians who are better shots than police officers.

The perception that officers have some incredible level of skill with firearms is preposterous and likely perpetuated by ignorant people or the departments themselves.

A 5-day course at a place like Gunsite or Blackwater or any of a dozen schools throughout the country will leave your "average Joe" as prepared or better prepared than the vast majority of officers I encountered, and I'd stake my reputation and a large sum of cash on that.

First, I still don't agree that "training taking over" is going to get you through this situation 100% of the time in the manner you intended (I found this interesting article (http://www.policeone.com/writers/columnists/SteveWalton/articles/122284/) that appears to support neither of our positions, or both - I can't tell). The risks just aren't worth it in my house.

Second, the flaw with the "gun safety by training" arguments in this thread is that they focus on the top 10-20% (and I am being extremely generous with that guestimate) of the gun-owning population. Given the amount of training that you have gone through and your background, I have no reason to doubt that you are a better marksman than the average police officer. I would venture to guess that the gun-owners with which you associate are like-minded in their view of the importance of vigorous training.

However, this argument ignores the fact that the vast majority of people who own guns do not take the time to get the training that you describe. If this training were made mandatory, then I might be a little more comfortable with the idea.

Likewise, thanks.


Laws affect all people, so you can't look at a specific situation to prove the rule. Across the entire population, there is a 100% certainty that there are unintended consequences to owning a firearm.



That's a strawman argument, but it seems to come up often, so allow me to debunk it. The natural use of any of those other items is non-injurious to anyone. The natural use of a gun (and by use I mean firing it) is injurious.



First, I still don't agree that "training taking over" is going to get you through this situation 100% of the time in the manner you intended (I found this interesting article (http://www.policeone.com/writers/columnists/SteveWalton/articles/122284/) that appears to support neither of our positions, or both - I can't tell). The risks just aren't worth it in my house.

Second, the flaw with the "gun safety by training" arguments in this thread is that they focus on the top 10-20% (and I am being extremely generous with that guestimate) of the gun-owning population. Given the amount of training that you have gone through and your background, I have no reason to doubt that you are a better marksman than the average police officer. I would venture to guess that the gun-owners with which you associate are like-minded in their view of the importance of vigorous training.

However, this argument ignores the fact that the vast majority of people who own guns do not take the time to get the training that you describe. If this training were made mandatory, then I might be a little more comfortable with the idea.

I think this discussion boils down to a few basic philosophies.

1) Should the government be restricting access to something (anything really) that CAN be used irresponsibliy even though with proper training it WOULD be used properly.
2) It sounds cliche but the old saying that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is pretty central to the argument here.

I think a lot of people would rather the government remove the ability of irresponisble people causing harm to others at the expense of the responsible. Others would rather not. I guess it is a fundamental difference of opinion. Neither side is probably right or wrong totally.

Laws affect all people, so you can't look at a specific situation to prove the rule. Across the entire population, there is a 100% certainty that there are unintended consequences to owning a firearm.


I wasn't really speaking about any of this with respect to nationwide laws, but with respect to an individual's personal choices. If we are discussing legislation, then we also can't look at the specific situation of an untrained person accidentally shooting their own son any more than we can look at a trained individual accurately shooting a intruder.


That's a strawman argument, but it seems to come up often, so allow me to debunk it. The natural use of any of those other items is non-injurious to anyone. The natural use of a gun (and by use I mean firing it) is injurious.


Good point about the natural use of a firearm. I fail to see how that debunks anything however. That natural purpose IS injurious, I'd argue deadly (if it functions as it should.) What's wrong with that? If an intruder breaks into my home with the intent of harming my family, you are absolutely correct that I will not hesitate to end their life.

Going with your argument, if the natural use of a car is transportation, will it make you feel better that its natural use isn't injurious when some idiot on the road loses control and hits you and your family head-on? Will you say, "Well, at least it wasn't intended for injury, that makes me feel better."

The intended use of a firearm is injury or death, just as it should be. Employed properly, this results in the protection of the innocent against the evil. Employed negligently it can result in accidental injury. Employed maliciously it can cause intentional injury or death of the innocent perpetrated by the evil.

The intended purpose of a car is transportation. Employed properly it results in peaceful transportation of people and cargo from point A to point B. Employed negligently it can result in accidental death or injury. Employed maliciously it can cause the same injurious or deadly consequences as a firearm.

What's the difference?


First, I still don't agree that "training taking over" is going to get you through this situation 100% of the time in the manner you intended (I found this interesting article (http://www.policeone.com/writers/columnists/SteveWalton/articles/122284/) that appears to support neither of our positions, or both - I can't tell). The risks just aren't worth it in my house.


I, nor anyone I know of like mind, would say it's 100%. Highly trained marksmen sometimes end up on the wrong end of things. Nothing is a guarantee, and anyone arguing that it is is being disingenuous.

A method doesn't have to be 100% to be effective or reasonable. I am perfectly willing to accept that I may end up on the wrong end of a gunfight. I am, however, confident enough in my training and experience to accept the risks.

If you find a 100% effective and safe method of self-defense, let me know and we'll partner up to sell it and make billions.



Second, the flaw with the "gun safety by training" arguments in this thread is that they focus on the top 10-20% (and I am being extremely generous with that guestimate) of the gun-owning population. Given the amount of training that you have gone through and your background, I have no reason to doubt that you are a better marksman than the average police officer. I would venture to guess that the gun-owners with which you associate are like-minded in their view of the importance of vigorous training.

However, this argument ignores the fact that the vast majority of people who own guns do not take the time to get the training that you describe. If this training were made mandatory, then I might be a little more comfortable with the idea.

I can't even make an overall guess as to the training level of most gun owners. I'm sure there are plenty who are completely unqualified to own or operate a firearm. My personal belief is that the answer is education, not blind fear and mass banning.

I still think you have something of an exaggerated perspective on firearms training. If I had to venture a guess, I would say your experience with firearms has slight or nonexistent (and that's not an insult, just an observation). I've been a novice, I've known little to nothing about guns. I've also received excellent training and progressed. I've seen and trained others who have gone from barely knowing which end to point, to being extremely competent and skilled operators. It is NOT that difficult. Let me repeat myself, it is NOT that difficult. I am nothing special - I am extremely average. I have taken it upon myself to understand firearms and learn to operate them safely and effectively. In my mind that does NOT move me into some elite category.

As I mentioned before, the notion that police officers have some level of training and expertise with respect to firearms that the average civilian could never attain is preposterous. Again, as I said, any person with a modicum of intelligence and common sense can take a few thousand dollars, 5 days of their time, and be as well trained or better trained than a police officer. That I am 100% confident about, because I've seen it done time and time again without fail.

Do I have high standards with respect to a person's seriousness about handling firearm? Your damn right. I also have high standards about how someone should educate themselves in general, about keeping a certain level of physical fitness, about being rational and responsible as well.

To answer what dmek25 said also, I think what we're getting back to here (finally!) is what amount to a personal choice of ethics. I'll say right up front that the chances of changing anyone's ethic on a internet message board is slim to none.

That being said, I personally feel that the bar should be raised and people expected to reach for it as opposed to enacting massive, sweeping laws to remove the responsibility from the citizen. The responsibility is YOURS, not anyone else's, and I don't think it should be any different. I will continue to train and make myself better in every facet of life which I can control, and I expect the same of everyone else.

It almost literally brings a tear to my eye to see so much of this country sit back, fold their hands, and expect someone else (i.e. the government) take care of their problems. I take some solace in the fact that I am not like that, that I'm not raisin my kids like that, and I know a good number of others who feel the same.

God forbid something like Katrina happen on a nationwide scale, or terrorism become a regular part of everyday American life, because I fear that many in his country have trained themselves to be sheep.

I think this discussion boils down to a few basic philosophies.

1) Should the government be restricting access to something (anything really) that CAN be used irresponsibliy even though with proper training it WOULD be used properly.
2) It sounds cliche but the old saying that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is pretty central to the argument here.

I think a lot of people would rather the government remove the ability of irresponisble people causing harm to others at the expense of the responsible. Others would rather not. I guess it is a fundamental difference of opinion. Neither side is probably right or wrong totally.

You are absolutely right.

It is also probably so deeply ingrained from childhood depending on your upbringing, moral and ethical values and experiences that it's extremely difficult to change.

I guess the fundamental question is "Who's bears the responsibility of your personal protection?"

How you answer that pretty much answers the entire debate.

Interesting that I don't see a huge difference in our assessment of the general population. We both agree that most people sit back and don't prepare themselves for contingencies. Our point of disagreement is whether that unprepared person should have a gun in their hand. I'll leave it at that, and just answer the question you asked.

Good point about the natural use of a firearm. I fail to see how that debunks anything however. That natural purpose IS injurious, I'd argue deadly (if it functions as it should.) What's wrong with that? If an intruder breaks into my home with the intent of harming my family, you are absolutely correct that I will not hesitate to end their life.

Going with your argument, if the natural use of a car is transportation, will it make you feel better that its natural use isn't injurious when some idiot on the road loses control and hits you and your family head-on? Will you say, "Well, at least it wasn't intended for injury, that makes me feel better."

The intended use of a firearm is injury or death, just as it should be. Employed properly, this results in the protection of the innocent against the evil. Employed negligently it can result in accidental injury. Employed maliciously it can cause intentional injury or death of the innocent perpetrated by the evil.

The intended purpose of a car is transportation. Employed properly it results in peaceful transportation of people and cargo from point A to point B. Employed negligently it can result in accidental death or injury. Employed maliciously it can cause the same injurious or deadly consequences as a firearm.

What's the difference?
The problem is that you are conflating intended results and byproducts. Employed properly, the use of a firearm has the intended result of the death or injury of an individual. The byproduct is protection.

For you, that may not be a distinction that matters (I don't mean that as an insult - it's an implication of your argument). However, it does create these hyperbolic strawmen that distort the discussion.

As for cars, etc., the fact is you can use most items maliciously to kill or injure someone (Sean Taylor could use 1,432 items in the average living room, including the room itself). It doesn't really help the argument to throw the kitchen sink in there as an analogue to a gun.

You are absolutely right.

It is also probably so deeply ingrained from childhood depending on your upbringing, moral and ethical values and experiences that it's extremely difficult to change.

I guess the fundamental question is "Who's bears the responsibility of your personal protection?"

How you answer that pretty much answers the entire debate.

I think FRPLG's and your comments are correct. We'll start another thread for that. Maybe with a poll ;)

jsarno, why i admire you for your belief in your second amendment rights, im with darksets. guns are made for one reason, and one reason only. killing. the old wild wild west mentality amuses me. the constitution needs amended so people that need guns have them( military, police) and those who don't, have alot harder access to them. and enforcing the gun laws we have on the books right now. no need for new laws, just use the existing ones

Well, I do respect your opinion, but I slightly disagree as to why there are guns. There are people shot all the time that don't die, therefore they are not intended solely for killing people. In fact, many thefts / break ins have been prevented just because a gun was present.
I understand there are ramifications for the use of guns, but I also understand that nothing protects you better.

I do firmly agree with the 2nd amendment, however, if the country could guarentee that gun laws would keep guns out of the hands of evil people, then I'd listen more intently and reserve the right to change my mind. We all know that will never happen, so all gun laws do is hurt the honest people, which makes them pretty damn useless. This is something that pro gun law people miss regularly. All gun laws will do is cause more harm because people won't be able to protect themselves, and the evil people will have easy access to them. For that fact alone, the argument about gun laws becomes moot.
There is a reason we as americans have the right to have fire arms, this country was founded on it. You don't go outside and take a sledge hammer to the foundation of your house do you? So why take one to what made America great?

I am curious as to what you meant by, "no need for new laws, just use the existing ones." The existing laws allow everyone to own a gun. So what laws are you speaking of?