Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
Granted, but since I saw my name mentioned and I have a larger then life ego, I think that I need to revist.
When you talk about civillians using weapons, as far as learning to put bullets on targets that's one thing. I can successfully teach fire arms safety and I can do a relatively good job of teaching someone how to put lead to target.
However that's a long way from teaching a person how to use a fire arm in a chaotic situation and to do it without
A) Killing innocents who are not targets
B) shooting your own toe off
C) something worse.
There is a big difference between target shooting or hunting an animal and using a weapon for self defense in a chaotic situation.
I get that a lot of the really good snipers got an early shot Davy Crockett style, I get that some very good soldiers and cops graduated from hunting in the wilds.
But lets be honest, the whole call to arm teachers and to allow people to walk around with fire arms which they can use if a chaotic situation with a mad shooter erupts to me is ludicris.
I'm sure guys like Undercover and others who have served can attest to the same thing. You can't train someone to react properly with a firearm under stress in days, or weeks or months, you don't even know if someone can handle that kind of a situation until you get them into that situation, or at the very least find a way to simulate that situation realistically.
I knew a lot of guys that were very good shots when they came on board and I was working as an instructor with basic training groups. They could put bullets down range with ease. We taught gun safety out the wazoo and corrected people with a passion when they messed it up so they never did it again.
But seeing and teaching people to react when things start going crazy is another thing and it takes a looong time before you'd ever trust a person in a real situation.
In one of my first exercises in basic where we went up against a trained enemy force, it was the middle of the night, they practically sleep deprived us and ran us ragged and waited until about midnight, we were called to stand too and we jumped into our slit trenches. The enemy forces started chucking in grenade simulators and arty sims to make us extra jumpy and basically snipped at us from a distance. It felt real, and you quickly forgot that it was fake. Then I was told to move to another trench to re-enforce that position, so I left and thought I was doing the right thing. I took my time, made sure I was situational aware. But I came around a tree line and I was face to face with an enemy force guy, and he had the drop on me.
I will admit that at that moment because of my inexperience in this kind of situation, all of my training left me, and I froze for just that second.
Yes, children CaptainCrunch came pretty close to soiling himself when I saw that rifle barrel swing up, and even though he was about 30 yards away that barrel looked like it was 8 yards across. I didn't dive for the grass or behind a tree, or snap shot him. I basically died in that exercise.
But since we were so "lavishly trained over the next few years we learned how to overcome that and depend on our training.
So long story short. I believe completely that unless you take incredibly indepth in the field training and you take massive psychological testing you shouldn't be able to buy a gun that you can take into public. I don't even think you should be allowed to buy anything but a bolt action hunting rifle or a shot gun for hunting.
When the NRA talked about paying for training teachers to carry guns in school I laughed, because teaching someone to shoot at a stationary target that doesn't shoot back or scream or bleed or cry as it dies isn't going to teach someone how to react when some nut bar goes into a school with bad intentions. It won't teach a person to identify who the enemy is and isn't, and it certainly won't teach someone to be able to analyze a situation and make a semi decent decision.
Those people that joined the army that knew how to shoot a gun, they only had one percent of the training required for me to even consider them to be allowed to carry a handgun in public or use it to defend their homes or their schools or whatever, and I'm not even talking about knowing if they're psychologically stable enough to be trusted to do so.
I spent way to much time in the army with guys that thought it was easy, that a gun was the great equalizer because you simply had it and you could aim it. I spent way too much time with pocket rambo's who we had to bring back to earth with the seriousness of what they're doing.
Cops go through massive training and continue to train every day to be able to react to situations and use their weapons properly and they still get it wrong.
Soldiers train almost full time for years and there is a large percentage that still struggle when it gets real.
There's no training that a civilian will want to take in terms of time required and stress level required that would make me comfortable with them basically being a first responder.
For the most part guns are not cars. Guns are designed with the intent of causing bodily harm and death, a car is not. Guns propel bullets at high rates of speed on an uncontrollable trajectory once they leave the barrel. Cars you can constantly control.
I'm probably the most anti-gun conservative your ever going to see.
If your going to accept a right to bear arms then you have to accept that there has to be a responsibility on who has that right and what kind of guns should be allowed
The 2nd amendment needs to be revisited. When the founding fathers wrote it they had no idea that guns would become far more vicious and dangerous then they were back then. They also didn't have a civillian base lifestyle with the density and mental illness awareness that they had now. They also had an armed forces that could be generously called a civillian militia that was equal in arms technology to the average Joe, that's not the case anymore.
Anyways just blathering on now.
|
Blather on, your input is well thought out and more than welcome.
I get and totally understand the points you make. No amount of civilian training can equate to what you would receive in the military. Even though there are many groups that train civilians for tactical scenarios, self defense or other applications, run by former military personnel. Hell, 1/3 of the US "boots on the ground" funding goes to PMC's. I get that living and breathing military training is something you cannot replicate.
However we are talking about lone active shooters in a public environment. These situations are not being played out in the battlefield against other lawful combatants.
I understand what you are talking about when you explain the urgency, fear and panic in a combat scenario. But to assume civilians are trigger happy, unable to execute judgement in regards to surroundings and the situation at hand isnt fair. People (at least in the US) defend their homes against intruders regularly. Unfortunately. Public shootings being stopped by civilians with good judgement happens as well. Off hand, a shooting at a middle school in Texas (I believe) was stopped by the principal after he SHOWED his handgun to the shooter. He held his fire. Still he was able to diffuse the situation. Another story from a year ago or so, a man shot his neighbor, and after police were called to deal with him he holed himself up against a car and had a standoff with police shooting at them and others. Another neighbor, who had clear view of him and knew nothing was behind the shooter, used his snub nosed revolver to drop the shooter from over 125 yards. Thats an incredible shot. The police claimed the man to be a hero, saying he saved many officers lives that day. I don't have the links to the stories off hand but I can dig them up if you would like.
I think the issue for "the gun lobby" is that concerted efforts are being made to neuter peoples ability, and right to self defense. A bullet travels much faster than a phone call to the police, and they can't be everywhere at once. A man in Ontario, a firearms instructor, lives in a rural area. His neighbor flips out one day, sets fire to his property and threatens to "blow the guys head off" Subsequently police are called, and take over 1.5 hours to arrive. This guy is currently jumping through the legal hoops in order to be able to legally carry his pistol as its obvious the police cannot protect him. So should people just lay down and die because they shouldn't be allowed to have the right to self defense? Should we entrust the police, who in this case are over 1.5 hours away, to protect us?
When you talk about banning all guns except for bolt action rifles and shotguns, are you talking about magazine fed firearms as well? Basically the Australian model? The majority of shotguns used to hunt waterfowl are semi automatic, many hunters use semi autos to take their game every year, and I would guess that over 90-95% of the hunting rifles available in Canada are magazine fed. You would want those banned as well? Basically anything outside of breach actions or single shot bolts? I don't understand why their is such a concerted effort to take away semi auto rifles as if they are the pinnacle of the gun controls ire. The recent navy yard shooting was committed with a typical rem 870 pump shotgun. The most common shotgun in the world. Should we ban those too?
I guess I don't understand why the anti gun lobby thinks its imperative to go after so called assault rifles. Especially when they make up but a fraction of gun crimes committed in the US. Millions of them are present on NA soil and they are simply not a problem. Mental health and social issues need to be examined before draconian bans are placed on certain firearms. Tighter border security for example would help reduce the gross amount of illegal handguns being transported into Canada. These guns make up the vast majority of gun crime in Canada, yet imposing more laws in Canada that hurt the law abiding do NOTHING to stop this, or stop the main issue, which is the criminal element.
Captain Crunch I appreciate your opinion and even though my reply may not seem like it I do agree with you. No amount of training can replicate or prepare people for the kind of things you have trained for in the military. Agree 100%. However I do not agree that confiscation or banning of firearms is the answer.
One other quick question I have for you. You say you support the banning of all firearms outside of bolt action rifles and shotguns. What are your thoughts on collectors who have historic models and have invested a great deal of time and money into their investments. Say for example, the magazine fed Lee Enfield, perhaps the most common and available centerfire sporting rifle in Canada? The M1 Garand? A firearm designed by a Canadian which General Patton proclaimed as the greatest tool ever used in the field, which he attributed to the winning of the second World war?