Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
Redman wrote:88sins wrote:Redman wrote:
how so?
The provisional is authorization from the CoP to train with a gun...at a named range and expires in 3 months or something so.
the FUEC at the range is given as a result of your membership at the range.
Both mean that you can only shoot here.
Functionally the same.
Functionally similar, in that they both allow you to discharge a firearm at a specific location, but that's where their similarities stop, because the the actual purposes of these licenses are not the same at all. One gets you valuable certification, the other gets you nothing
Singular purpose of the prov is to get the cert.
Hence its short life
A FUEC at the range you can get the Cert....and shoot any of the ranges weapons.
Splitting hairs really.
De Dragon wrote:Redman wrote:Well Dragon...is it not patently obvious that the officers that you referenced in your response were not willing to respond?
So why according to your theory, would untrained persons do so?
Having a gun and actually using it against an active shooter are worlds apart, especially if you're untrained. Most guns are used to harm innocent people and gun owners own families.
Redman wrote:De Dragon wrote:Redman wrote:Well Dragon...is it not patently obvious that the officers that you referenced in your response were not willing to respond?
So why according to your theory, would untrained persons do so?
Having a gun and actually using it against an active shooter are worlds apart, especially if you're untrained. Most guns are used to harm innocent people and gun owners own families.
how is it that I post able and willing yet you comprehend untrained?
Please show how you interpret willing and able to mean untrained.
Able indicates HAVING THE ABILITY TO DO SOMETHING.
Willing indicates readiness to do something.
Able and willing are airy fairy concepts when it comes to drawing on an active shooter. When you apply for a firearm are you asked if you're willing and able? What you are required to do is get TRAINING, and even then, there is no guarantee how you'll react.
so u might think, and you wouldn't be the only person to think that way. you wouldn't be the only person to be unpleasantly surprised either. I could get into the whys and why nots and hows, but I too tired right now for that.
Redman wrote:Able and willing are airy fairy concepts when it comes to drawing on an active shooter. When you apply for a firearm are you asked if you're willing and able? What you are required to do is get TRAINING, and even then, there is no guarantee how you'll react.
I see the problem.
Moving on,the point remains
The evidence of the benefits of having an armed citizen, who is able and willing to intervene if necessary in an active shooter event, is clear and beyond logical dispute.
@88so u might think, and you wouldn't be the only person to think that way. you wouldn't be the only person to be unpleasantly surprised either. I could get into the whys and why nots and hows, but I too tired right now for that.
Well Im not the only one for sure. Which clearly doesn't mean that we right.
I would appreciate the clarification-this is relevant to several things on my side.
De Dragon wrote:Redman wrote:Able and willing are airy fairy concepts when it comes to drawing on an active shooter. When you apply for a firearm are you asked if you're willing and able? What you are required to do is get TRAINING, and even then, there is no guarantee how you'll react.
I see the problem.
Moving on,the point remains
The evidence of the benefits of having an armed citizen, who is able and willing to intervene if necessary in an active shooter event, is clear and beyond logical dispute.
@88so u might think, and you wouldn't be the only person to think that way. you wouldn't be the only person to be unpleasantly surprised either. I could get into the whys and why nots and hows, but I too tired right now for that.
Well Im not the only one for sure. Which clearly doesn't mean that we right.
I would appreciate the clarification-this is relevant to several things on my side.
Which mass shooting in recent times was stopped by an "able and willing armed citizen?" In fact which shooter has even been deterred by that?
Well there was the incident with the 2 bandits trying to rob the officer, not knowing he was an officer and also armed.De Dragon wrote:Redman wrote:Able and willing are airy fairy concepts when it comes to drawing on an active shooter. When you apply for a firearm are you asked if you're willing and able? What you are required to do is get TRAINING, and even then, there is no guarantee how you'll react.
I see the problem.
Moving on,the point remains
The evidence of the benefits of having an armed citizen, who is able and willing to intervene if necessary in an active shooter event, is clear and beyond logical dispute.
@88so u might think, and you wouldn't be the only person to think that way. you wouldn't be the only person to be unpleasantly surprised either. I could get into the whys and why nots and hows, but I too tired right now for that.
Well Im not the only one for sure. Which clearly doesn't mean that we right.
I would appreciate the clarification-this is relevant to several things on my side.
Which mass shooting in recent times was stopped by an "able and willing armed citizen?" In fact which shooter has even been deterred by that?
Redman wrote:@88so u might think, and you wouldn't be the only person to think that way. you wouldn't be the only person to be unpleasantly surprised either. I could get into the whys and why nots and hows, but I too tired right now for that.
Well Im not the only one for sure. Which clearly doesn't mean that we right.
I would appreciate the clarification-this is relevant to several things on my side.
rspann wrote:I now going to answer a reply to my post and it gone.
This thread makes it clear why so many people apply and can't get through. Too much misunderstanding/misinformation.
Redman wrote:De Dragon wrote:Redman wrote:Able and willing are airy fairy concepts when it comes to drawing on an active shooter. When you apply for a firearm are you asked if you're willing and able? What you are required to do is get TRAINING, and even then, there is no guarantee how you'll react.
I see the problem.
Moving on,the point remains
The evidence of the benefits of having an armed citizen, who is able and willing to intervene if necessary in an active shooter event, is clear and beyond logical dispute.
@88so u might think, and you wouldn't be the only person to think that way. you wouldn't be the only person to be unpleasantly surprised either. I could get into the whys and why nots and hows, but I too tired right now for that.
Well Im not the only one for sure. Which clearly doesn't mean that we right.
I would appreciate the clarification-this is relevant to several things on my side.
Which mass shooting in recent times was stopped by an "able and willing armed citizen?" In fact which shooter has even been deterred by that?
Like I said-the problem is obvious.
https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/act ... 7.pdf/view
Screen Shot 2019-03-20 at 7.52.06 AM.png
My point was that the benefit of having armed citizens who are able and willing to respond to a mass shooting attempt...is already proven in the US.
Which mass shooting in recent times was stopped by an "able and willing armed citizen?" In fact which shooter has even been deterred by that?
sMASH wrote:what kinda assness u type there?
mass first aid and cpr is what u would use, implement, render if u are the most immediate at the scene of an emergency , for example, a mass shooting with victims with gun shot wounds.
first aid is the response, not the cause
it IS quite obvious that gun owner ship are not similar.
since u thing first aid, cpr, condoms, plaster, seat belt, airbags, spare tire, all thsoe things are too dissimilar to gun ownership, to make that comparison, even though the premise is about preparedness...
answer this, why do police have the need to carry guns? what use are guns to them?
Redman wrote:My point was that the benefit of having armed citizens who are able and willing to respond to a mass shooting attempt...is already proven in the US.
This is what I said
Which mass shooting in recent times was stopped by an "able and willing armed citizen?" In fact which shooter has even been deterred by that?
Thats you.
Smash listed a few-and any simple search will answer your questions.
That said-the FBI study indicated that 8 incidents out of 50 were stopped by a armed civilian. 16%
And the last sentence in conclusion points out the IMPORTANCE of preparation by LEO and civilians alike.
Slartibartfast wrote:Redman wrote:My point was that the benefit of having armed citizens who are able and willing to respond to a mass shooting attempt...is already proven in the US.
This is what I said
Which mass shooting in recent times was stopped by an "able and willing armed citizen?" In fact which shooter has even been deterred by that?
Thats you.
Smash listed a few-and any simple search will answer your questions.
That said-the FBI study indicated that 8 incidents out of 50 were stopped by a armed civilian. 16%
And the last sentence in conclusion points out the IMPORTANCE of preparation by LEO and civilians alike.
Some follow up questions. I honstely don't know the answer to these questions and i have an open mind for/against gun ownership. I'm just ignorant of the issues like most people here and looking for info.
Are the guns in mass shootings normally illegally owned or legally owned? (Note that a child taking his father's legally owned firearm still counts as legally owned)
What other forms of mass murder are there and how prevalent are they when compared to mass shootings? (Mass bombings, mass vehicular manslaughter etc.)
What are the occurence of these other forms of mass killings influenced by?
Slartibartfast wrote:sMASH wrote:what kinda assness u type there?
mass first aid and cpr is what u would use, implement, render if u are the most immediate at the scene of an emergency , for example, a mass shooting with victims with gun shot wounds.
first aid is the response, not the cause
it IS quite obvious that gun owner ship are not similar.
since u thing first aid, cpr, condoms, plaster, seat belt, airbags, spare tire, all thsoe things are too dissimilar to gun ownership, to make that comparison, even though the premise is about preparedness...
answer this, why do police have the need to carry guns? what use are guns to them?
I'm sorry that went over your head. I shall state my point clearly.
A gun can cause grevious bodily harm very easily. It can cause harm to multiple individuals depending on the gun/ owner. A mass shooting is an example of this type of incident.
Is there any example of an event similar to a mass shooting where first aid was used instead to harm and kill tens of people over a short period of time?
All I am saying is that you are oversimplifying the issue to a point where your views are incorrect.
Mass gun ownership is not the only solution. It also has the potential to give rise to a host of other problems. Also, not all police have guns. In fact,the majority of police in the UK (except Northern Ireland) don't carry guns. Are mass shootings and murders by firearms there any better or worse? I wonder why.....
My view is that the best option lies somewhere in the middle. Mass gun ownership may not be the best solution; no gun ownership will also have problems. Those oversimplified arguments do more harm than good.
De Dragon wrote:Slartibartfast wrote:Redman wrote:My point was that the benefit of having armed citizens who are able and willing to respond to a mass shooting attempt...is already proven in the US.
This is what I said
Which mass shooting in recent times was stopped by an "able and willing armed citizen?" In fact which shooter has even been deterred by that?
Thats you.
Smash listed a few-and any simple search will answer your questions.
That said-the FBI study indicated that 8 incidents out of 50 were stopped by a armed civilian. 16%
And the last sentence in conclusion points out the IMPORTANCE of preparation by LEO and civilians alike.
Some follow up questions. I honstely don't know the answer to these questions and i have an open mind for/against gun ownership. I'm just ignorant of the issues like most people here and looking for info.
Are the guns in mass shootings normally illegally owned or legally owned? (Note that a child taking his father's legally owned firearm still counts as legally owned)
What other forms of mass murder are there and how prevalent are they when compared to mass shootings? (Mass bombings, mass vehicular manslaughter etc.)
What are the occurence of these other forms of mass killings influenced by?
Maybe we should have more "willing and able" citizens with cars and bombs, so when a mass vehicular/bombing is attempted, it can be deterred. Hell, we could have avoided 9-11 if we had more "willing and able" citizens with commercial airplanes
Redman wrote:Mass ownership has never been suggested.
The point here is that there are responsible people who want to own a fire arm-and are happy to conform to any logical requirements to do so.
Despite all the whining above, all of us, if there is a mass shooting here in TnT, would want it to be stopped asap- by any means necessary.
Having people ON SITE with the ability to do so,and the willingness to intervene is the only way for this to happen.
The longer these people take to arrive-the more damage will be done.
rspann wrote:One thing I didn't see mentioned is that the more legal firearms out there, the easier it is for criminals to get one. There are some people who might be qualified, but can they really protect against a hardened criminal waiting to relieve them of their weapon? Will we then see attacks against firearm owners for an easy source of weapons by young criminals who might not have the link or resources to get one from the underworld sources?
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 82 guests