A Navy vet's case for gun control

[chipbennett]

\

Nope, you seem to have misunderstood what I wrote.

Key word is I can "ALMOST" convince myself...meaning I can see his point, but that I DO NOT FULLY agree with him.

Something to think about is that we actually have it pretty good in Indiana as a "Shall issue" state. A lot of other "gun friendly" states do require some level of safety proficiency to obtain a license. I would be interested to see if there have been any long term studies done to see if there is any benefit to that other than to appease those that want compromise in gun control.

I had to do classroom training, take a written test, and show practical proficiency in both Missouri and Ohio. Indiana was like a breath of fresh air.

I'm pretty sure there have been such studies. I'll look to see if I can find them. I wouldn't be surprised if John Lott has studied it.

 

[chipbennett]

We are definitely rowing the same boat here. You almost sound like an engineer...do you use facts and data to make decisions?

There's an ENGINEERS! thread here at INGO. Do NOT go in there! Super nerds, all.

 

[Bluejeeper]

I do agree that we should get some sort of training. I am planning on it as soon as I get some money saved up for it. I don't believe it should be State mandated. You are almost convinced it should be. That tells me that you could be swayed into believing that State mandated training should be required.

 

[Bluejeeper]

We are definitely rowing the same boat here.

Same boat, just not quite in sync

 

[jblomenberg16]

I do agree that we should get some sort of training. I am planning on it as soon as I get some money saved up for it. I don't believe it should be State mandated. You are almost convinced it should be. That tells me that you could be swayed into believing that State mandated training should be required.

Glad to hear you are saving up and taking responsibility in your own hands!

Its ok for us to have different views on things. And for me, being almost convinced is like being almost pregnant...either you are or you aren't. So while I can certainly see his reasons, I don't agree with his recommendation. I think that part of logical debate is to try to understand the other person's perspective. Worst case scenario is that you get even more convinced in what you believe in, and have further justification for it.

 

[Bluejeeper]

Glad to hear you are saving up and taking responsibility in your own hands!

Its ok for us to have different views on things. And for me, being almost convinced is like being almost pregnant...either you are or you aren't. So while I can certainly see his reasons, I don't agree with his recommendation. I think that part of logical debate is to try to understand the other person's perspective. Worst case scenario is that you get even more convinced in what you believe in, and have further justification for it.

Well said! Thank you for explaining the "almost". We obviously have slightly different ideas on the nuances of it. I enjoy a good debate, unfortunatelt, I am not always the best with words and can come of as an a**. There are alot of times I type a response to a post, read through it, and delete it to avoid sounding like a complete a**.

As to his reasons, I'm not convinced that they are anything more than feel good stuff. I'm interested to see if Chip finds any studies on that.

 

[Compatriot G]

I noticed an interesting comment in the comment section. It seems the author of the article works for Sony Corp. in some sort of managerial position in security and he is an instructor for DHS. So, all of the restrictions he proposes wouldn't affect him. How convenient!

 

[gundoc111]

There are a few Vets who are traitors to the Second. John Kerry, John McCain, just to name a few.

 

[88GT]

Gentleman, define "training" for me.

 

[Bluejeeper]

Instruction.

 

[Leadeye]

I noticed an interesting comment in the comment section. It seems the author of the article works for Sony Corp. in some sort of managerial position in security and he is an instructor for DHS. So, all of the restrictions he proposes wouldn't affect him. How convenient!

They are all after the same thing and have been for a long time, the elimination of legal private possession of firearms. It takes many forms and has many names but it's all about the same thing and should be recognized as such.

It reduces you to the level of a middle ages peasant.

 

[Rey B]

Just a quick thought from a retired Navy FC1. The gent that wrote the article can go commit a physical impossibility in a solo manner.

 

[Bluejeeper]

Just a quick thought from a retired Navy FC1. The gent that wrote the article can go commit a physical impossibility in a solo manner.

 

[Mark 1911]

Same old story, same old answer, "NO".

 

[JS1911]

I would definitely support this requirement. Can be get it as part of the Common "Four" Core?

I like it, Reading, 'Riting, 'Rithmatic, and Riflery!

 

[2tonic]

This squid is a total tool who neither believes in, nor understands the Constitution and the word "infringed".
My eldest son, who currently is a " high velocity valet " for the USN ( depositing and retrieving expensive aircraft from carrier decks at unnatural speeds) agrees with me that this guy spent his time in our Navy with " his opposing digit in rectal defilade ".
In addition, I can think of numerous firearms that weren't designed to kill anyone, and many chemicals that were.

 

[6mm Shoot]

Rey B I like the way you think. Leadeye I think you hit the nail on the head. The regulations have only one intent and that is to remove us from owning guns. Regulation will limit who and how many will have guns. If you are not in the click you will not have a gun.

Look around the world to see how it happens. We have enough laws on guns that don't make any sense. Why should we make more. People that are going to break the law are not going to care about the gun laws.

Lets say I am twelve years old and I have had it with the school bully. He has made my life a living hell. I decide to get one of Dads guns and take it to school and protect my self next time he starts pushing me around witch happens every day.

Now with that thought. The child shouldn't be able to get Dads gun. If he can get Dads gun then Dad isn't doing his job. Many states have laws that state how you must store a gun.

If the kid gets a gun. How many laws has he broken before he even shoots the bully. Did any of them stop him from shooting the bully?
The only thing that can stop such kids is stopping the bully.

When you go to buy a gun the form asks about mental health. The mental health is the part that we need to do better with. I don't know about any of you, but I don't want any one with a mental health problem to have a gun. Did the kid above have a mental health problem? I don't think so. I think he was hunting for a way to not be abused every day when he went to school.

The guy that shot up all the children at that school. He was nuts. I don't give a --- why he did it nor do I have any idea how to stop such. I have to say that he had a really bad mental health problem and someone should have noticed.

There are laws on the books that say that such people can't have guns already. Making new laws to say the same thing isn't going to help.

The people that don't want us to have guns try and use such events to try and get more laws passed. The last cry was, It is for the sake of the children. If that was the case we would hire armed guards to protect or children while at a gun free place of learning. In the upper grades we put police in the schools and metal detectors at the doors to curb the violence in schools. So it has been decided by the powers that be the cost isn't worth the few lives it would save. Our government at work. Then they say if it would save one child it would be worth it to take our guns away.

 

[chipbennett]

The good folks commenting over at TTAG seem to have rooted out his claim of being a "firearms instructor" for the Navy as BS:

Navy Vet: 80 Hours of Training = Common Sense Gun Control - The Truth About Guns

 

[OakRiver]

The good folks commenting over at TTAG seem to have rooted out his claim of being a "firearms instructor" for the Navy as BS:

Navy Vet: 80 Hours of Training = Common Sense Gun Control - The Truth About Guns

I had just read that and was about to share it. Here is the direct link to the comment in question;
Navy Vet: 80 Hours of Training = Common Sense Gun Control - The Truth About Guns

I would be very interested in seeing his proposed curriculum for a 40 hour firearm safety class, and exactly what merits an extra 40 hours for concealed carry. For all those people thinking that classes and training is the answer to gun safety (it isn't, we all know it's just a barrier to exercising this right) perhaps they should read the uphill struggle Dana Loesch had.

 

[Drail]

I always knew there was something wrong with them squids.