I read this post and literally laughed out of my bed last night. It sounds so typical of a gun control advocate; good enough for me, even if it does not help you.
So what I am talking about? I am talking about the 37% of people who rent and thus do not have the option of installing a alarm system, as most landlords do not allow (plus vast majority of renters cannot afford anyway, that is why they rent, not own). I am talking about the 18% of people who are underwater in the houses that they do own, who cannot afford an alarm system, as all their money is going toward their special mortgage plan. I am talking about all the people who live in poorer high crime neighborhoods who have no other way to defend themselves, if they choose to, as police are in short supply, but criminals are in surplus. Maybe we should ask them what good no alarm system does them? And not to mention the people who live in an area where it takes police 15 - 20 minutes to get to our house - alarms in in those houses are useless and intruders know it as they have 10 - 15 min of free reign.
This social media search taboo is worse than I thought:
(Emphasis mine)
You know something is nefarious when you need to make this policy “secret.” Why the need for a secret policy to limit investigators’ and law enforcement tools? And why are you limiting investigators research tools on non-Americans from dangerous world hotspots?
And these are the same people who say trust them with vetting people. Yeah, right.
What is ironic is they want to stop people on the No Fly List from buying guns based on dubious information and clerical errors, but allow people into the country who actually say outright that they want to do harm to Americans. No wonder more and more people can little faith in government to protect them, as it is becoming clear that being PC is more important than protecting Americans.
We live in the middle of nowhere and have an alarm and guns. We have four doors. If someone breaks in through one door, I am leaving out another and calling 911 on my cell phone, which I usually have in my pocket. I am not standing my ground or protecting my castle.
Our guns are all inherited. We sometimes kill varmints, especially if they look rabid. We don’t hunt. I would happily give the guns up if gun control is instituted. I wouldn’t want my neighbors who only eat hunted meat to have to give up their guns.
As I was reading along this thread I looked at a link that showed frequency of home break-ins in your locale. In spite of all my neighbors feeling under siege, we have had only a handful the past decade and it didn’t look like any happened with homeowners home. I only set the alarm once a month, because otherwise the company calls to be sure it is still operational.
My neighbors have lots of stories but no stories of armed intruders within living memory. There are sadly way too many stories of accidental shootings of family members, especially children.
“As I was reading along this thread I looked at a link that showed frequency of home break-ins in your locale. In spite of all my neighbors feeling under siege, we have had only a handful the past decade and it didn’t look like any happened with homeowners home. I only set the alarm once a month, because otherwise the company calls to be sure it is still operational.”
How would I get to that link? I am curious about my area. I feel it is pretty safe, but it would be nice to know.
Seriously, even if you think some people should have a concealed carry permit, this guy is not one of them. awc tells us that people are seriously vetted before getting a concealed carry permit. Um, not in Texas. Seems like if I were a Texas resident, I could rent a gun, take a six hour class, and get the permit.
Another false argument - we are doing nothing, if we are not doing what they want. I guess there are no gun control laws in place currently then, since we are doing nothing.
I just got an idea, Maybe we should ask France for suggestions on how to keep such military weapons out of the hands of terrorists. We could start, like France, and outlaw all such guns, and also outlaw all citizens from having any guns. Yes, that is the answer to stopping terrorists and criminals from getting such guns and using them to kill innocents. Outlawing such guns must mean none would be available to hypothetically shoot journalists at a newspaper or young people at a concert or people eating dinner in restaurants.
What is interesting to me is given all the endless proof that criminals get the weapons (guns, bombs etc.) they want, there are people who just refuse to accept that and seek to blame others for not keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals. I will never understand that logic.
Another thing I will never understand is why people think that outlawing is the same as being unavailable or difficult to get. Therefore, it begs the question, if outlawing such guns only limits the law-abiding, who is the outlawing punishing except for the person who is not a criminal? People have looked in the mirror and have accurately deduced the answer.
I live in Alaska. Alaska is a fully unrestricted concealed carry state, which means that if I go buy a gun tonight, I can immediately carry it concealed without a permit. Of course, if I want to go to most other states, I need a permit—but Alaska is also a shall-issue state, which means I could just walk down to my local police station, fill out a form, and be given a permit valid in 38 other states.
No classes, no training, no nothing (except for a very basic criminal background check if I want a permit for use in other states). And Alaska is nowhere near unique—it may be extreme, but there are other equally extreme states, and many more that are close.
So much for the idea that permit holders are all nicely and properly vetted, eh?
So what are you confusing - the difference between assessing risk and being prepared? Having a very low risk of a home invasion, assault or burglary has nothing to do with being prepared if something does happen. Said another way, having a low risk of something is not a reason to be unprepared to fully defend yourself.
95% of all businesses never get burglarized, yet 95% of businesses have alarm systems and video cameras etc. Why, given the risk is very small? Because no one business knows if it will be one of the businesses that get burglarized and it is expensive, even with insurance. Many view their lives, the only ones they have, no differently, i.e., be prepared in case the low risk, worst case scenario meets you head on that bright sunny day.
More specifically though, as the women in my conceal carry class will tell you, the vast majority who are self-protecting against a crazy man or stalker, the stats are always 100% when you are targeted. But, the danger comes in that you have to know that you are targeted.
Therefore, this tidy scenario that most home invasions and the like are random events is really just hypothetically useful to fit the narrative that being unarmed is very safe. That could be very true, but also not true. And there are millions of women who can attest to the fact they did not know they were targeted until they were, and they are lucky to be alive because the first time they were unprepared.
Not unavailable…but certainly more difficult to get particularly after the turn-in grace period, when possession would become illegal. More costly to buy, more risky to possess, more likely to get on the police radar while in the act of obtaining it…more likely to get caught and charged.
The NRA likes to claim that gun laws never work, but the ban on machine gun sales has worked fine since the federal government banned the sale of fully automated guns to civilians in 1986. These guns are almost never used in criminal activity, and none of the recent mass shootings in the U.S. involved a machine gun, (although, the San Bernardino terrorists tried to modify one of their guns to make it fully automatic.)
So a ban on sales to civilians = no use of fully automated guns in mass killings.
No ban on sales of assault rifles since 2004 = three notable cases of assault rifles used to slaughter people in as many years. More than 50 people dead, many more wounded.
guess we should be thankful the NRA hasn’t been successful lifting the ban on machine guns, or one of those could have wound up in Nancy Lanza’s arsenal for her mentally disturbed son to pick as his weapon of choice. Or James Holmes could have brought a machine gun into a dark theater. Or Farook and Malik would have used an easy to obtain and inexpensive machine gun rather than try to tamper with their merely semi-automatic AR.
The federal ban on those guns has been effective at keeping them out of the hands of criminals, crazy people, and terrorists. If it worked for machine guns, it can work for ARs.
Maybe if strict enforcement of gun laws had extended to Belgium, they would have worked better. But they didn’t.
My husband has a concealed carry license in Texas. The UT student was incorrect. He had to submit fingerprints, a background check was done, he did a 6 hour course, and it took 8 weeks to get the license. People are denied if they have a misdemeanor assault in their background, a felony, some arrests, any history of mental health issues. There are not that many CHL holders percentage wise in Texas in terms of population.
That doesn’t comfort me. The point is, almost no one who applies is denied. If I applied, right now, (if I was a Texas resident), I would go through the six hour course, take the written test that I’d pass with ease having known nothing whatsoever about guns before taking the course, apparently be able to pass the marksmanship test although I’ve never shot a gun before, pass the background check because I have never had trouble with the law, and, in 8 weeks, get the permit. I should not be able to get a concealed carry permit. And the UT student also should not be able to get a permit with his abysmal knowledge of guns, gun safety, and how to handle a gun in a tense situation.
The claim about people being denied if they have any history of mental health issues is incorrect. The background check that is performed has no way to search medical records. Medical records are private in the US. I could be under treatment for schizophrenia, or at least for some lesser condition like bipolar, and the background check would never find out unless I’d come to the attention of the authorities.
Nope, it’s still a risk-assessment problem. After all, if you have a gun in your home, the odds that it will be used against someone in the home (whether by an intruder, or by a member of the household) is much, much greater than the odds that it will be used against an intruder.
The course is a shooting class where you have to show proficiency on the weapon. If you use a revolver you are not certified on a weapon with a clip. It is more than was stated. People are entitled to their opinions and voters can vote. They chose to vote to allow residents to have a CHL.
I would think that training in safety precautions and the legalities of owning and using a weapon would also be necessary.
And the there’s the hard part – learning how to make correct life-or-death decisions under pressure. This is what the police and military train for – over and over again – and still, they make mistakes because people are human and situations vary and it’s hard to act rationally in an emergency.
Can any course for civilians even come close to providing adequate training?