Priest killed

[EvilMonkey]

How dear do we hold gun ownership in comparison to other things, like safety?

For many people gun owner ship equals safety. You can't discount that, despite the many times anti gunners try to. People DO use guns to protect themselves and their families. All the time.

 

As for a few of the other things you mentioned, I am sure many people would think twice about the license plate scanning and all the camera if they were given a choice. Many times those things were implemented without public knowledge until AFTER the fact.

Edited June 15, 2014 by Alpha Dog

[farmteam]

For many people gun owner ship equals safety. You can't discount that, despite the many times anti gunners try to. People DO use guns to protect themselves and their families. All the time.

 

As for a few of the other things you mentioned, I am sure many people would think twice about the license plate scanning and all the camera if they were given a choice. Many times those things were implemented without public knowledge until AFTER the fact.

Do you mean people have/buy guns with the general intention of protecting their families, or that there are actual occurrences everyday where people protect themselves or their families with guns?

 

Not jerking your chain, legitimately curious. And if it's the latter, can you give me some examples of what you mean? I'm just imagining bad guys bursting in the door and there's a gun-wielding homeowner standing in the way, and that seems far-fetched, at least to happen frequently.

[caulfield12]

Do you mean people have/buy guns with the general intention of protecting their families, or that there are actual occurrences everyday where people protect themselves or their families with guns?

 

Not jerking your chain, legitimately curious. And if it's the latter, can you give me some examples of what you mean? I'm just imagining bad guys bursting in the door and there's a gun-wielding homeowner standing in the way, and that seems far-fetched, at least to happen frequently.

 

 

There was one example in the news last week, the one where the 2 perpetrators were using a kid as a human hostage...I think both the man and wife fired at them, and it sounds like the woman didn't even come close with her shots.

[EvilMonkey]

Do you mean people have/buy guns with the general intention of protecting their families, or that there are actual occurrences everyday where people protect themselves or their families with guns?

 

Not jerking your chain, legitimately curious. And if it's the latter, can you give me some examples of what you mean? I'm just imagining bad guys bursting in the door and there's a gun-wielding homeowner standing in the way, and that seems far-fetched, at least to happen frequently.

It happened weekly in Detroit for a while, until Yahoo stopped putting the stories in their feed. There are always cases where someone with a gun protects themselves/family and it never gets reported because the bad guys go away without shots fired. Do you seriously think that people don't defend themselves with guns? I was in a situation where I was about 10 seconds away from having to do that myself. I thank God every day that I didn't have to, but I was ready to if I had to. There was no way those bastards were getting inside my house and at my wife and kids.

[EvilMonkey]

There was one example in the news last week, the one where the 2 perpetrators were using a kid as a human hostage...I think both the man and wife fired at them, and it sounds like the woman didn't even come close with her shots.

It says she didn't hit them. Nice editorializing on her aim. The man killed his target.

[farmteam]

It happened weekly in Detroit for a while, until Yahoo stopped putting the stories in their feed. There are always cases where someone with a gun protects themselves/family and it never gets reported because the bad guys go away without shots fired. Do you seriously think that people don't defend themselves with guns? I was in a situation where I was about 10 seconds away from having to do that myself. I thank God every day that I didn't have to, but I was ready to if I had to. There was no way those bastards were getting inside my house and at my wife and kids.

I don't doubt it happens, but like you said it doesn't get reported. It's difficult for me to imagine because I can't think of a single incident where a gun would have come in handy. Maybe just my good fortune.

[cabiness42]

I don't doubt it happens, but like you said it doesn't get reported. It's difficult for me to imagine because I can't think of a single incident where a gun would have come in handy. Maybe just my good fortune.

 

There is at least 1-2 news stories a year in Indiana where homeowners have shot armed intruders. A case in South Bend made headlines a few years ago because it was the first usage of a new law that allowed three of the intruders to be charged with the murder of the fourth intruder who was shot and killed by the homeowner.

[Jenksismyhero]

From this weekend:

 

http://www.pjstar.com/article/20140615/NEWS/140619400

 

The three people killed Saturday night in a shooting inside a crowded East Peoria sports bar have been identified by authorities.

 

Lance E. Griffel, 36, of 1611 W Daytona Drive in Peoria and Lori A. Moore, 33, of 220 E. Maywood St. in Morton were pronounced dead in the Emergency Department of OSF Saint Francis Medical Center at 11:39 p.m. and 9:16 p.m., respectively, Peoria County Coroner Johnna Ingersoll said.

 

Both Griffel and Moore sustained apparent gunshot wounds to the head, Ingersoll said. Their autopsies are scheduled for Monday.

 

Griffel and Moore were the apparent victims of a violent domestic dispute when Moore's ex-husband, identified as Jason A. Moore by the Tazewell County Coroner's Office, burst into a high school reunion at Fifth Quarter Sports Bar and Pizzeria, opened fire and fire one round at each of the victims, before he was struck himself by an off-duty law-enforcement officer.

 

Could have easily been more dead.

Edited June 16, 2014 by Jenksismybitch

[Quin]

From this weekend:

 

http://www.pjstar.com/article/20140615/NEWS/140619400

 

 

 

Could have easily been more dead.

 

I'm ok with an off-duty cop doing it, vs. Random Joe Citizen

[caulfield12]

I'm ok with an off-duty cop doing it, vs. Random Joe Citizen

 

Or especially non-random Joe The Plumber. Hate that guy.

[EvilMonkey]

I'm ok with an off-duty cop doing it, vs. Random Joe Citizen

You think cops have better aim or something?

[cabiness42]

I'm ok with an off-duty cop doing it, vs. Random Joe Citizen

 

I don't think it matters. The other people at this place don't know that this is a domestic thing and that he's only targeting two people. For all they know, he's going to keep shooting up the place. I'm OK with anybody who happens to be carrying taking this guy out.

[illinilaw08]

I don't think it matters. The other people at this place don't know that this is a domestic thing and that he's only targeting two people. For all they know, he's going to keep shooting up the place. I'm OK with anybody who happens to be carrying taking this guy out.

 

To me, this is one of those arguments that's great in theory. The assumption here is that everyone who is carrying in that bar (1) is proficient with their firearms; and (2) are able to calmly ascertain the situation and take down the correct person(s).

 

I have never understood why there isn't a comprehensive exam required for firearm ownership (sort of like a driving test - mandated range time, instruction, etc. prior to obtaining the right to purchase a firearm) with mandated continuing education (on the range, firearm safety classes, whatever). As someone who doesn't own or use firearms, I would feel a lot safer around people who do carry if I had a reasonable expectation that they were competent with their weapon.

[Soxbadger]

To me, this is one of those arguments that's great in theory. The assumption here is that everyone who is carrying in that bar (1) is proficient with their firearms; and (2) are able to calmly ascertain the situation and take down the correct person(s).

 

I have never understood why there isn't a comprehensive exam required for firearm ownership (sort of like a driving test - mandated range time, instruction, etc. prior to obtaining the right to purchase a firearm) with mandated continuing education (on the range, firearm safety classes, whatever). As someone who doesn't own or use firearms, I would feel a lot safer around people who do carry if I had a reasonable expectation that they were competent with their weapon.

 

These ideas would seem to be common sense, yet shockingly not agreeable to all.

[southsider2k5]

To me, this is one of those arguments that's great in theory. The assumption here is that everyone who is carrying in that bar (1) is proficient with their firearms; and (2) are able to calmly ascertain the situation and take down the correct person(s).

 

I have never understood why there isn't a comprehensive exam required for firearm ownership (sort of like a driving test - mandated range time, instruction, etc. prior to obtaining the right to purchase a firearm) with mandated continuing education (on the range, firearm safety classes, whatever). As someone who doesn't own or use firearms, I would feel a lot safer around people who do carry if I had a reasonable expectation that they were competent with their weapon.

 

Now imagine if someone wanted to place the same sorts of tests on voting rights...

[Soxbadger]

Next time I accidentally kill someone while filling out my ballot Ill give you a call

[southsider2k5]

Next time I accidentally kill someone while filling out my ballot Ill give you a call

 

People can die because of freedom of speech too.

[illinilaw08]

People can die because of freedom of speech too.

 

Yeah, but the courts are able to place reasonable restrictions on that type of speech. Ie, can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

 

 

[Soxbadger]

Yeah, but the courts are able to place reasonable restrictions on that type of speech. Ie, can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

 

Not to mention the 2nd amendment specifically says "Well Regulated". But lets not let facts get in the way of this absurd comparison.

[southsider2k5]

Yeah, but the courts are able to place reasonable restrictions on that type of speech. Ie, can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

 

And they have on guns as well.

[illinilaw08]

And they have on guns as well.

 

Right. I proposed what I think is a pretty reasonable restriction on gun ownership... you know, some sort of proof that you can competently handle the weapon before you own one. You responded by bringing up false equivalencies to voting and speech. Which are obviously distinguishable.

 

I'd prefer we get to the meat of the argument. I'm genuinely curious why making people show they can operate a firearm before they can own one would be an overly onerous restriction.

 

EDIT: Basically everyone I know who own and use guns, whether it's for hunting, protection, use at the range, whatever, respect firearms for what they are... a tool that can be pretty dangerous is used incompetently, but provide utility if used properly. I see plenty of reasonable uses for firearms. I don't need/want one, but I don't begrudge those that do. I just think people that own firearms should be competent with them before they can own one.

Edited June 16, 2014 by illinilaw08

[Quin]

You think cops have better aim or something?

 

Better training and in most cases, probably better aim.

[Jenksismyhero]

Right. I proposed what I think is a pretty reasonable restriction on gun ownership... you know, some sort of proof that you can competently handle the weapon before you own one. You responded by bringing up false equivalencies to voting and speech. Which are obviously distinguishable.

 

I'd prefer we get to the meat of the argument. I'm genuinely curious why making people show they can operate a firearm before they can own one would be an overly onerous restriction.

 

EDIT: Basically everyone I know who own and use guns, whether it's for hunting, protection, use at the range, whatever, respect firearms for what they are... a tool that can be pretty dangerous is used incompetently, but provide utility if used properly. I see plenty of reasonable uses for firearms. I don't need/want one, but I don't begrudge those that do. I just think people that own firearms should be competent with them before they can own one.

 

I'm not really opposed to this, and I agree that it's sorta nonsense that I can buy/own a gun with no certification/training required, but I then have to go get that training if i'm going to get a hunting license. That doesn't make much sense.

 

Still, at the end of the day shooting a gun isn't rocket science. I'm not sure you need to create classes and make people spend more money to learn how to do that. Maybe if you offer up a state-sponsored program like drivers' ed that would make sense. But I think forcing people to pay/spend the time/energy to practice a constitutional right probably isn't going to fly from a legal perspective. That's restrictive and probably discriminatory (because poor people).

[EvilMonkey]

Right. I proposed what I think is a pretty reasonable restriction on gun ownership... you know, some sort of proof that you can competently handle the weapon before you own one. You responded by bringing up false equivalencies to voting and speech. Which are obviously distinguishable.

 

I'd prefer we get to the meat of the argument. I'm genuinely curious why making people show they can operate a firearm before they can own one would be an overly onerous restriction.

 

EDIT: Basically everyone I know who own and use guns, whether it's for hunting, protection, use at the range, whatever, respect firearms for what they are... a tool that can be pretty dangerous is used incompetently, but provide utility if used properly. I see plenty of reasonable uses for firearms. I don't need/want one, but I don't begrudge those that do. I just think people that own firearms should be competent with them before they can own one.

Some states have that, at least for concealed carry. You have to pass a test in Illinois. There are several states that are more strict and some that have no restrictions whatsoever. One thing you will never overcome is the slippery slope argument, give them an inch, they take a mile. Because you know they will. Temporary income tax hike? Sure it is. Seat belt laws will NEVER be enforced on their own. Border security after amnesty? Yeah, ok, let's go with that...And on and on. What do you base the proficiency tests on? Police training? Harder? Easier? Who gets to decide?

 

here is what you need just to apply in Illinois:

A Valid Driver’s License or State Identification card.

A valid FOID card.

A head and shoulder electronic photograph taken within the last 30 days.

Be able to provide the last ten years of residency.

Fingerprints – Electronic fingerprints will expedite your application! Specify to the Live Scan vendor that your fingerprint application is for the Concealed Carry application (ORI = IL920707Z, Purpose Code = CCW).NOTE: Applicants will be assigned a transaction control number (TCN) at the time of fingerprinting and will be required to retain that TCN to complete the application.

$150.00 payable with a credit card or electronic check.

 

To obtain the Certificate of Completion, applicants MUST

attend their required level of training and successfully pass the live fire

proficiency exam. The live fire proficiency exam consists of 30 rounds total

with a concealable handgun. 10 rounds at 10 yards, 10 rounds at 7 yards and 10

rounds at 5 yards with 70% of the shots hitting the scoring rings of the B27 target.

 

 

Is that enough for you? If not, what would you consider to be correct? Serious question, not snark.

 

 

[illinilaw08]

I'm not really opposed to this, and I agree that it's sorta nonsense that I can buy/own a gun with no certification/training required, but I then have to go get that training if i'm going to get a hunting license. That doesn't make much sense.

 

Still, at the end of the day shooting a gun isn't rocket science. I'm not sure you need to create classes and make people spend more money to learn how to do that. Maybe if you offer up a state-sponsored program like drivers' ed that would make sense. But I think forcing people to pay/spend the time/energy to practice a constitutional right probably isn't going to fly from a legal perspective. That's restrictive and probably discriminatory (because poor people).

 

I know it would cost money at the state/federal level to implement, but I think a driver's ed type of program could work.

 

And while I agree that shooting a gun isn't rocket science, doing so accurately isn't so simple. Nor is gun maintenance necessarily intuitive (my father-in-law made me watch an instructional video on gun safety when I expressed interest in going shooting with him... hypothetically... at some point in the future).

 

Finally, with respect to guns as a deterrent, either for home protection or to take down a shooter in a mass shooting, having some sort of training with respect to simulating the chaos that results increases the likelihood that someone will be able to effectively protect themselves, their family, innocent bystanders in such a crisis. Soldiers are sometimes killed by friendly fire. Guns as protection ultimately isn't as simple as point and shoot.