• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you feel safer Now?

independentusa said:
You may be surprised, but learned gun safety by the NRA when my father was stationed in Japan in the late 50's. We took a 4 hour course in gun safety before they would allow us to even touch a weapon. Now the NRA pushes the right to have concealed carry and wants it without any training. That is what they suggested to the GOP who controlled my states legislature at the time they passed the concealed carry law, but even those people would not allow that. The watered down training though is why my neighbor had no training on how to load her weapon or take it off safety. I am sorry but the NRA has become an ad agency for the gun makers who provide them with most of their funding.
Click to expand...

Wow.. that is wrong on multiple levels.

First is that NRA bit. There is no watered down bit by the NRA. The NRA is not a government agency.. that is mandated to provide training to people. It is an organization that provides the pretty much the most support to firearm training in the nation. But its not a government agency that's mandated by law to provide training.

Secondly.. the NRA is certainly not an ad agency for gun makers. Please. The NRA is a huge source of funding for firearm safety.

IF you disagree.. then you please point to any entity that provides more firearms training,, more shooting sports support, and more support to providing safe gun ranges..than the NRA.
 
vegas giants said:
Training can help reduce accidents but more importantly it can weed out morons who should not have a gun. Training should be tough to complete....not everyone should have a gun.


But some will fight for the rights of morons
Click to expand...

Free training provided by the state?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I never once mentioned the NRA, but your (personal?) beef with the NRA should not be cause for folks not to seek gun safety training. Whether a gun is to be carried concealed or not, gun safety training is important. Even those who do not currently own guns could benefit from from such training.
Click to expand...

My only beef wit the NRA is that they have turned from a group whose purpose was to insure that those who owned and used guns were trained to do so safely to a group that's mission was to help the gun makers sell more guns. I have no problem with people owning guns, but they MUST be trained to use and store them safely. I presently do not own no weapons, but I have been trained both early by my father's wish by the NRA and the military when I served. It is also when I saw the destructive power of the weapons like the AR15, it was a demonstration of the power of the M-16.
 
independentusa said:
My only beef wit the NRA is that they have turned from a group whose purpose was to insure that those who owned and used guns were trained to do so safely to a group that's mission was to help the gun makers sell more guns. I have no problem with people owning guns, but they MUST be trained to use and store them safely. I presently do not own no weapons, but I have been trained both early by my father's wish by the NRA and the military when I served. It is also when I saw the destructive power of the weapons like the AR15, it was a demonstration of the power of the M-16.
Click to expand...

The M-16 or AR-15 (5.56mm or .223) round is not more powerful than that of most modern sporting rifles.

Rifle Ballistics Table - Improved
 
independentusa said:
Armed Man Who Caused Panic at Missouri Walmart Said It Was 2nd Amendment Test, Authorities Say - The New York Times

For over 30 years the NRA and gun advocates have told us we will be safer with more guns out there and fewer places that guns are not allowed. The estimate is that we have over 300 million guns out there and there are fewer places you can not carry. In fact Texas has one of the laws that allow carry almost everywhere and yet the shooting in El Paso took place. Not only that but there are people who were interviewed who said they were carrying, but they like everyone else fled the shooting. There are even people who are so gun nuts that they are willing after what happened in the El Paso Walmart, to go into another Walmart carrying weapons similar to the El Paso shooter to prove their 2nd Amendment rights. See the article above. Needless to say there was a panic. So my question to you, as the number of mass shootings grow to record numbers, do all of these guns and laws make you feel safer?
Click to expand...

I don't feel safer. I also don't feel unsafe.
 
independentusa said:
My only beef wit the NRA is that they have turned from a group whose purpose was to insure that those who owned and used guns were trained to do so safely to a group that's mission was to help the gun makers sell more guns. I have no problem with people owning guns, but they MUST be trained to use and store them safely. I presently do not own no weapons, but I have been trained both early by my father's wish by the NRA and the military when I served. It is also when I saw the destructive power of the weapons like the AR15, it was a demonstration of the power of the M-16.
Click to expand...

The NRA is a corrupt group that has sold out responsible gun owners
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The M-16 or AR-15 (5.56mm or .223) round is not more powerful than that of most modern sporting rifles.

Rifle Ballistics Table - Improved
Click to expand...

Oh but it looks dangerous!!!..

Meanwhile.. it can be defeated by certain types of body armor.

While my hunting rifle can kill a bull moose at 600 yards... or a man wearing body armor.
 
jaeger19 said:
Oh but it looks dangerous!!!..

Meanwhile.. it can be defeated by certain types of body armor.

While my hunting rifle can kill a bull moose at 600 yards... or a man wearing body armor.
Click to expand...

They will want those just as soon as they get "weapons of war" and hanguns banned, be patient.
 
jaeger19 said:
Oh but it looks dangerous!!!..

Meanwhile.. it can be defeated by certain types of body armor.

While my hunting rifle can kill a bull moose at 600 yards... or a man wearing body armor.
Click to expand...

Yep, facts have no place in an emotional argument. Which is precisely why that post got no reply from the person who I quoted. M-16 is a banned "weapon of war", AR-15 looks like M-16 thus AR-15 should be banned too.
 
Last edited:
independentusa said:
In fact Texas has one of the laws that allow carry almost everywhere and yet the shooting in El Paso took place. Not only that but there are people who were interviewed who said they were carrying, but they like everyone else fled the shooting.
Click to expand...

Sadly most people who carry do not have good training and this all too often even includes people that make a living carrying guns such as police officers and soldiers. While I do not think heavy training should be mandated in order to be allowed to carry I would strongly encourage it for anybody who does decide to carry. I, myself have hundreds of hours of formal training and I've fired thousands of rounds in my formal training. Its always possible to get better though.
 
Oborosen said:
They tried a while back, by fluffing the numbers of gun deaths without letting anyone know that over half of them were suicides.
Click to expand...

As many as two thirds of the gun deaths in the USA are suicides.
 
RyanB314 said:
Although I hope for a time where guns are completely gone
Click to expand...

Such a time would've been in the past, back in medieval times, before guns were invented.

Obviously guns would be completely gone, nonexistent, in a world where they haven't been invented yet.

But that is not the world today. It was the world hundreds of years ago but we are not like that now.

Perhaps you were born in the wrong time period.
 
independentusa said:
Armed Man Who Caused Panic at Missouri Walmart Said It Was 2nd Amendment Test, Authorities Say - The New York Times

Not only that but there are people who were interviewed who said they were carrying, but they like everyone else fled the shooting.
Click to expand...

What is surprising about this. If I were carrying and a shooting started my first reaction would to be to get out of harms way and seek cover. Then use my gun to protect myself and the people around me if needed. I would not seek out and engage until after I had found cover and could see that it was safe to do so. I was a soldier and an MP and even when on duty I would first take cover and evaluate the situation. Unless it broke out right in front of me and I was forced to take action to protect myself. Sorry but the Rambo approach is for idiots.
 
eman623 said:
No that's actually true. One really, REALLY unlucky man was at the 2017 Las Vegas music festival mass shooting, survived, but was later shot and killed at the 2018 Thousand Oaks shooting. I know it sounds impossibly unlikely, but it's not.
Click to expand...

There was also a case of a woman who won the lottery, twice. Winning the lottery even once is unlikely enough but twice? Imagine that.

Impossibly unlikely, or it seems, but it is in fact possible, and has happened.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
What is surprising about this. If I were carrying and a shooting started my first reaction would to be to get out of harms way and seek cover. Then use my gun to protect myself and the people around me if needed. I would not seek out and engage until after I had found cover and could see that it was safe to do so. I was a soldier and an MP and even when on duty I would first take cover and evaluate the situation. Unless it broke out right in front of me and I was forced to take action to protect myself. Sorry but the Rambo approach is for idiots.
Click to expand...
Quite right. I would do much the same thing you would do in such a situation.

And if police had arrived I would not engage the shooter. I would retreat from the area and let the professionals deal with it.
 
DebateChallenge said:
Quite right. I would do much the same thing you would do in such a situation.

And if police had arrived I would not engage the shooter. I would retreat from the area and let the professionals deal with it.
Click to expand...

This problem has been mentioned several times in posts, but here goes again. If you are in a mall and shooting starts and everyone there carrying pulls their gun, how do you know who is the good guy with a gun and who is the mass killer. So stating you would not engage the shooter and retreat once the police get there is a very good idea.
 
independentusa said:
This problem has been mentioned several times in posts, but here goes again. If you are in a mall and shooting starts and everyone there carrying pulls their gun, how do you know who is the good guy with a gun and who is the mass killer. So stating you would not engage the shooter and retreat once the police get there is a very good idea.
Click to expand...

When seconds matter it takes the police minutes to arrive. If I was carrying I would not pull my gun until I am absolutely positive who the mass shooter is. Whoever is firing wildly into the crowd is the mass shooter.
 
DebateChallenge said:
When seconds matter it takes the police minutes to arrive. If I was carrying I would not pull my gun until I am absolutely positive who the mass shooter is. Whoever is firing wildly into the crowd is the mass shooter.
Click to expand...

If any civilian had pulled out a gun in Las Vegas he would have been shot by police on the spot
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom