TriniTuner.com  |  Latest Event:  

Forums

Right to bear arms

this is how we do it.......

Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods

rspann
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 11167
Joined: June 25th, 2010, 10:23 pm
Location: Trinituner 24/7

Re: Right to bear arms

Postby rspann » March 19th, 2019, 8:48 pm

They do ask for bank records at a later stage when the local police( in your area) do their investigation. This is then sent back to headquarters. They also ask for approval from your spouse, check to see where the firearm is going to be kept etc.

User avatar
88sins
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 10073
Joined: July 22nd, 2007, 3:03 pm
Location: Corner of Everywhere Avenue & Nowhere Drive

Re: Right to bear arms

Postby 88sins » March 19th, 2019, 8:52 pm

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.


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
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 10430
Joined: August 19th, 2004, 2:48 pm

Re: Right to bear arms

Postby Redman » March 19th, 2019, 9:09 pm

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.

User avatar
De Dragon
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 17902
Joined: January 27th, 2004, 3:49 am
Location: Enjoying my little miracles............

Re: Right to bear arms

Postby De Dragon » March 19th, 2019, 9:25 pm

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? :roll: What you are required to do is get TRAINING, and even then, there is no guarantee how you'll react.

Redman
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 10430
Joined: August 19th, 2004, 2:48 pm

Re: Right to bear arms

Postby Redman » March 20th, 2019, 7:01 am

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? :roll: 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.

@88
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.


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.

User avatar
De Dragon
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 17902
Joined: January 27th, 2004, 3:49 am
Location: Enjoying my little miracles............

Re: Right to bear arms

Postby De Dragon » March 20th, 2019, 7:31 am

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? :roll: 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.

@88
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.


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
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 10430
Joined: August 19th, 2004, 2:48 pm

Re: Right to bear arms

Postby Redman » March 20th, 2019, 7:50 am

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? :roll: 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.

@88
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.


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

User avatar
sMASH
TunerGod
Posts: 21939
Joined: January 11th, 2005, 4:30 am

Re: Right to bear arms

Postby sMASH » March 20th, 2019, 8:05 am

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? :roll: 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.

@88
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.


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.
One got away with shots, and the other succumbed.

That's two assailants VS one victim. Even worse odds than mass shooter and a crowd of victims.

I say, yeah. Moar guns!

User avatar
88sins
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 10073
Joined: July 22nd, 2007, 3:03 pm
Location: Corner of Everywhere Avenue & Nowhere Drive

Re: Right to bear arms

Postby 88sins » March 20th, 2019, 8:37 am

Redman wrote:@88
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.


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.


There's literally hundreds of people over the decades that actually joined the TRA, STRA, & other institutions, thinking that an FUEC to use firearms owned by those organizations on their premises equates to training, and that their membership in those organizations would aid them in acquiring an FUL when the time comes. Only to come to the rude awakening that it doesn't. TRA & others do not give any sort of certificate or validation that you are trained to use a firearm, because they are not recognized as a certifying body that can do so. Simple as that. The most they can do is give you a letter of recommendation to forward with your application, stating how long you've been a member in good standing within the organization & whether or not they think that you are a suitable candidate that should be allowed to have your own firearm, & that letter literally holds zero value in the application process. If you know how many ppl take that letter of recommendation to apply for an FUL & get blanked, you would be amazed. & I mean ppl that were members in these places for years, in some cases decades. Same goes for most of the people that join these local hunters associations as well. These associations can't aid, assist, or expedite anyone getting their FUL, regardless of what they or others might say.


Now, there are some instructors that can provide training and certification of qualification that are members of these organizations, & ppl can go to these persons for assistance in getting training & certification. These instructors may then use another facility to train an applicant, or they may just get permission from TRA or wherever to train you at their facility. But at the end of your training, when you get your certificate, you won't see a TRA, STRA, etc logo/emblem/stamp/seal on it. It won't even be printed on their stationery. The most you might see of them on it is that their facility is mentioned as the location where your training took place, but that's all.

rspann
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 11167
Joined: June 25th, 2010, 10:23 pm
Location: Trinituner 24/7

Re: Right to bear arms

Postby rspann » March 20th, 2019, 12:17 pm

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.

16 cycles
3ne2nr Toppa Toppa
Posts: 5525
Joined: May 10th, 2003, 9:25 am

Re: Right to bear arms

Postby 16 cycles » March 20th, 2019, 1:39 pm

who are the local training outfits that the TTPS/CoP recognizes in pursuit of a FUL in the application process?

are international bodies / training courses recognized?

from the above, can't fault the process for denying someone even if they are a member of a pro-firearm org as it does not indicate proficiency with firearm...imo...

User avatar
*KRONIK*
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 9066
Joined: August 5th, 2005, 9:50 am
Location: UP IN DA HEEZY!

Re: Right to bear arms

Postby *KRONIK* » March 20th, 2019, 1:44 pm

Hai guize

Pew
Peww
Peeeeewwww

pugboy
TunerGod
Posts: 25190
Joined: September 6th, 2003, 6:18 pm

Re: Right to bear arms

Postby pugboy » March 20th, 2019, 2:15 pm

Not to mention the answers ppl give the cops when they come to do the lil interview at home


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
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 10430
Joined: August 19th, 2004, 2:48 pm

Re: Right to bear arms

Postby Redman » March 20th, 2019, 3:57 pm

Well I haven't come across any one that tried what 88 indicated...never even occured to me that people concieve that...but my sample would be small.

People became members of a range...then got the cert after some training.



When I joined...the range management were clear.
Join and get training, tbh no person at the range ever came close to implying that the range membership is the cert of competence.

FUECs were granted after the the cert of comp was presented.

User avatar
De Dragon
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 17902
Joined: January 27th, 2004, 3:49 am
Location: Enjoying my little miracles............

Re: Right to bear arms

Postby De Dragon » March 20th, 2019, 9:00 pm

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? :roll: 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.

@88
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.


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

Did you actually look at what you posted to support your "willing and able" theory? :? :?

Redman
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 10430
Joined: August 19th, 2004, 2:48 pm

Re: Right to bear arms

Postby Redman » March 21st, 2019, 9:50 am

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.

User avatar
Slartibartfast
punchin NOS
Posts: 4646
Joined: May 15th, 2012, 4:24 pm
Location: Magrathea

Re: Right to bear arms

Postby Slartibartfast » March 21st, 2019, 11:51 am

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.

User avatar
Slartibartfast
punchin NOS
Posts: 4646
Joined: May 15th, 2012, 4:24 pm
Location: Magrathea

Re: Right to bear arms

Postby Slartibartfast » March 21st, 2019, 12:00 pm

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?

Redman
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 10430
Joined: August 19th, 2004, 2:48 pm

Re: Right to bear arms

Postby Redman » March 21st, 2019, 3:59 pm

I would suggest that you do your own research -the reality is that there are strong lobbies on both sides and there is quite a lot of mis information out there.

So its would more useful for you -in search of info- to do your thing and assess what you read for yourself.

when you get it come and share the info.

User avatar
De Dragon
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 17902
Joined: January 27th, 2004, 3:49 am
Location: Enjoying my little miracles............

Re: Right to bear arms

Postby De Dragon » March 21st, 2019, 4:36 pm

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

rspann
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 11167
Joined: June 25th, 2010, 10:23 pm
Location: Trinituner 24/7

Re: Right to bear arms

Postby rspann » March 21st, 2019, 7:49 pm

I am able, but certainly not willing to interfere with any madman randomly killing people ,unless it;s directed at me or mine.

User avatar
sMASH
TunerGod
Posts: 21939
Joined: January 11th, 2005, 4:30 am

Re: Right to bear arms

Postby sMASH » March 21st, 2019, 8:19 pm

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.


well, we agree on one thing, not mass ownership, but sumwhere in the middle. once u meet the spec for responsible citizen and competent gun handler, nothing should bar u from owning a gun, and carrying it around on ur person, except on a plane.

not every body should have access to guns, for the same reasons that those against wider gun ownership post.


and as spann said that they would be willing to use a gun to defend their self, family, or property... that is good enough use of a gun.

if u have a gun, u are not OBLIGATED to use it. that is an on-the-spot situational decision.
i remember the first time i was in a major accident. nobody hurt, but both cars were in a mess. made all the reports, documentation, arrangements to fix, parts sourced. went home took a sleep, woke up in the evening to use the other car to go to work, and just could not sit behind the wheel. just wasnt in the mental state to drive that same day.

Redman
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 10430
Joined: August 19th, 2004, 2:48 pm

Re: Right to bear arms

Postby Redman » March 22nd, 2019, 7:09 am

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.

matr1x
Trying to catch PATCH AND VEGA
Posts: 6969
Joined: February 25th, 2017, 7:46 am

Re: Right to bear arms

Postby matr1x » March 22nd, 2019, 8:07 am

I would look bada$$ with bear arms

redmanjp
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 16156
Joined: September 22nd, 2009, 11:01 pm
Contact:

Re: Right to bear arms

Postby redmanjp » March 22nd, 2019, 11:17 am

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

a bomb or plane obviously won't work as it can't target one person unlike a gun, however the passengers of Flight 93 fought back with what they had and likely prevented it from taking out another building

User avatar
Slartibartfast
punchin NOS
Posts: 4646
Joined: May 15th, 2012, 4:24 pm
Location: Magrathea

Re: Right to bear arms

Postby Slartibartfast » March 23rd, 2019, 7:22 am

Yeah Redman and sMASH well I guess I agree with both of you on that. I see nothing wrong with responsible gun ownership. If they could do that and crack down on illegal firearms i think it would be a massive step in the right direction.

Mass shootings don't seem to be a concern here right now but murders are. I wonder, of all the gun related homicides, what was the ratio of illegal to legal firearms used. If it's mostly illegal firearms being used then illegal firearms might be the real problem and not gun ownership. Afterall, there are no restrictions on owning an illegal firearm.

The nice thing is that guns isnt really a big part of our culture so making it easier to get might not have that much of a drastic increase in ownership. Personally, if I have no need for a gun then I have no interest in owning one.

rspann
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 11167
Joined: June 25th, 2010, 10:23 pm
Location: Trinituner 24/7

Re: Right to bear arms

Postby rspann » March 23rd, 2019, 7:56 am

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?

User avatar
De Dragon
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 17902
Joined: January 27th, 2004, 3:49 am
Location: Enjoying my little miracles............

Re: Right to bear arms

Postby De Dragon » March 23rd, 2019, 8:03 am

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.

Now once again you've drifted over into being disingenuous. Where has anyone stated, or maintained an absolutely no gun posture or stance? Where has anyone advocated for a mass shooting to continue uninterrupted? :roll: Your pig headed insistence on having "willing and able" shooters flies in the face of logic, as it is at odds with the argument for mass ownership, since to have someone on spot for all potential shooters, means there will need to be near universal ownership.

User avatar
88sins
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 10073
Joined: July 22nd, 2007, 3:03 pm
Location: Corner of Everywhere Avenue & Nowhere Drive

Re: Right to bear arms

Postby 88sins » March 23rd, 2019, 9:42 am

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?

you have a point, but to straighten out your statement, I'll say this.
we don't have as many so called hardened criminals as people may think we do. most so called gangsters know very well who they can go around taking advantage of, and then there's ppl they not even entertaining the idea of futzing with.
in all honesty 99.9% of the criminals we dealing with are in fact gutless cowards who prefer to use their illegal firearms as an intimidation tactic that encourages a victims compliance, and they prefer to attack unarmed people they can catch off guard. If that person is ready and able to defend himself, or even just aware of their environment, these halfway crooks usually alter their intentions. no local so called gangster/badman going around anyone who he pretty much certain carries a weapon and is not going to hesitate to use it, and is aware of their environment, just to get that persons weapon. it's simply not worth it to them to knowingly risk their lives to get something that they can already acquire with zero risk. not saying that if they catch someone off guard that they didn't know was armed and the victim has a weapon they'll leave it. of course they'll take it. but if more people are allowed to legally carry weapons, it creates more doubt in that criminals mind whether or not he'll survive an attempt on his intended victim, and more often than not that doubt alone is enough for them to change their mind about attacking that person.

now, I am not advocating that any random person be allowed to keep and carry, of course there must be criteria that needs to be filled. I don't even advocate for the proliferation of small arms that can be easily concealed such as pistols, because anything that can be easily concealed can be used abused, misused and even stolen. But I believe that all qualifying, law abiding homeowners and business owners should be allowed to keep a shotty on their premises, ideally nothing bigger than 12g and no shorter than 30 inches.

User avatar
sMASH
TunerGod
Posts: 21939
Joined: January 11th, 2005, 4:30 am

Re: Right to bear arms

Postby sMASH » March 23rd, 2019, 11:31 am

Greater presence of Legal guns on the road is not a magic bullet to solve crime.
It's just a way to upp the odds against a criminal or potential criminal.

A bullet proof vest will not prevent u dying drom gun shots, but reduces the risk. Ban against guns doesn't eliminate gun violence, just makes it harder to get a gun to do it. But it will still happen.


A legal gun being stolen is a possibility and will occur. But the intention is, to have the place so filled with legal guns ( meaning licensed, vetted responsible, certified competent) , that any attempt at crime will encounter more or less be a suicide mission.

The mass shootings, most mass shootings, the assailants go in without an exit plan. They don't intend to live after.
The guy killed most of them in a short time, and wandered about returning to shoot them again, cause it was done so quickly and easily, he had time to spare and nothing to do again.
If 10 of them had guns, and were able to get some shots off. It might have been a different story.

Advertisement

Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 82 guests