Revolvers for Everyone!

[gamewell45]

Just answer the question I originally asked; it’s very simple.

I did answer the question, but its not the answer you want to hear.

Don’t try and change the subject; just answer the question.

No need dispute that; you’ve already answered the question.

 

[royal_archer]

That is very rare. To make a functional, practical to carry firearm is very difficult. I hope you gave some good examples to share with us.

I assumed he was talking about American companies who build weapons that are sold to the public.

When someone shows an indifference to the possibility of someone elses rights being stripped from them, then you are no different in my book than those wanting to take away the rights.
.

Sort of like those who figured that since they were not Jewish they didn’t need to worry about the Nazis.

I have never needed one in my 30 years and pray that I don’t ever have to need one, but it doesn’t hurt to be prepared. No different than having insurance.
.

I have never needed to juse the fire extinguisher or trauma kit in my car either but We all should carry those things with us.

If you are in a situation where you feel a firearm must be used to protect your life and are going to call the police to do the protecting, then it is too late for you. When seconds count, the police are minutes away. The police have no legal duty to protect you.

And there have been cases of the police being the aggressors.

 

[royal_archer]

I can’t disagree more. I credit the safe streets to the good work of the police; not a gun carrying civilian who in most cases is untrained to deal with criminals in a hostile situation…

Every veteran is trained for such a situation.

 

[royal_archer]

One of the nice things about being a US citizen is that you are not required to take positions on issues which don’t effect you.

Then why would you care how the rest of us arm ourselves?

 

[royal_archer]

You are telling me that is is my opinion that police officers, in uniform at a shooting range, are missing their targets and showing improper firearm safety?

Can you say for shure they were not intending to hit the floor, target clip, ceiling, neighboring target…

 

[Newbie2]

You do realize that those in college and some in highschool are the same age as the youthful soldiers in Iraq and Afganistan that are carrying loaded fully automatic weapons every day. Also how could you doubt the suitability of an ROTC student carrying a loaded weapon.

Yes, of course. However, in the military there is intensive training and those in the military, similar to those in law enforcement, are professionals in the use of deadly force (as are the “professionals in training”, the ROTC). Students are professional students; their job is to study and learn etc. I don’t know how arming Joe Average Student, even with good training, is a better idea than say, having visible or “invisible” i.e. undercover police or security around campus.

Non-military, non-professional college students are apt to make very bad decisions with deadly force, that’s all I’m saying. When I think “college student”, I think of the potential problems with a firearm at a party in the dorms.

When Chuck Norris jumps into the water, he doesn’t get wet, the water gets Chucked.

Chuck Norris has a night-light. Not because Chuck Norris is afraid of the dark, the dark is afraid of Chuck Norris.

 

[royal_archer]

Yes, of course. However, in the military there is intensive training and those in the military, similar to those in law enforcement, are professionals in the use of deadly force (as are the “professionals in training”, the ROTC). Students are professional students; their job is to study and learn etc. I don’t know how arming Joe Average Student, even with good training, is a better idea than say, having visible or “invisible” i.e. undercover police or security around campus.

Non-military, non-professional college students are apt to make very bad decisions with deadly force, that’s all I’m saying. When I think “college student”, I think of the potential problems with a firearm at a party in the dorms.

Current rules keep veterans and ROTC students, (many of whom are currently enlisted in the Armed services) from carrying weapons.

Also, if someone is not responsible enough to carry a weapon, why are we letting them drive a car on campus? for that matter, why are we allowing them in college at all. Would you want a doctor, lawyer, engineer, etc who was not responsible enough to handle a weapon?

 

[gamewell45]

Every veteran is trained for such a situation.

Unless they were military police I highly doubt it.

 

[royal_archer]

Unless they were military police I highly doubt it.

Are you a veteran?

 

[gamewell45]

Then why would you care how the rest of us arm ourselves?

I don’t care.

If you read my original post I said that I could care less either way if they were banned or not.

 

[royal_archer]

I don’t care.

If you read my original post I said that I could care less either way if they were banned or not.

If you are not a veteran how can you say how well trained veterans are in handling fire arms?

Part of living in a civilized society is looking out for the rights of others. Would like for the rest of us to look away while your rights are violated?

 

[gamewell45]

Part of living in a civilized society is looking out for the rights of others. Would like for the rest of us to look away while your rights are violated?

In all honesty, I don’t think that I could agree with you on that as its strictly subjective.

 

[fultonfish]

Unless they were military police I highly doubt it.

Another example of argument by falsehood.

 

[gamewell45]

Another example of argument by falsehood.

I’m surprised by your response; I honestly expected a more rational response from you as opposed to a knee-jerk reaction.

 

[Newbie2]

Current rules keep veterans and ROTC students, (many of whom are currently enlisted in the Armed services) from carrying weapons.

Also, if someone is not responsible enough to carry a weapon, why are we letting them drive a car on campus? for that matter, why are we allowing them in college at all. Would you want a doctor, lawyer, engineer, etc who was not responsible enough to handle a weapon?

It’s not that I disagree with you, RA, I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying/asking.

Are you asking why we admit (admit in the adademic sense) people who are not responsible enough to carry a gun into college programs at all?

I’m not sure that I understand your parallel of allowing students to drive cars (which can kill people, of course) and carrying a firearm. The primary purpose of cars and firearms are completely different. Please explain.

How does admitting someone into college for the purposes of education compare to allowing them to carry a firearm? I don’t see the parallel there, please explain.

Are you asking if I would want a professional (doctor, lawyer, etc.) if they were not responsible enough to carry a weapon?

Perhaps.

In my lifetime, I’ve come across some very intelligent and capable people in their own sphere of influence…in the case of my cardiologist, world-class. Would I want him carrying a firearm? NO WAY. While I don’t know him pesonally, he seems to be the absent-minded professor type: Very, very good at what he does, but not terribly capable at anything else. And that’s what I want in a cardiologist; someone that’s focused on MY HEART, my well being at the time he’s attending to my medical needs (dittos for his other patients).

There are other people that I know who are similarly proficient in their own careers, but might be considered “scatter-brained” or perhaps more charitably “absent minded”, and I would not want them to have a ready firearm. These people, seriously, would with even intensive and regular training be more likely to literally shoot themselves in the foot than ward off an attacker.

 

[royal_archer]

It’s not that I disagree with you, RA, I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying/asking.

Are you asking why we admit (admit in the adademic sense) people who are not responsible enough to carry a gun into college programs at all?

I’m not sure that I understand your parallel of allowing students to drive cars (which can kill people, of course) and carrying a firearm. The primary purpose of cars and firearms are completely different. Please explain.

How does admitting someone into college for the purposes of education compare to allowing them to carry a firearm? I don’t see the parallel there, please explain.

Are you asking if I would want a professional (doctor, lawyer, etc.) if they were not responsible enough to carry a weapon?

Perhaps.

In my lifetime, I’ve come across some very intelligent and capable people in their own sphere of influence…in the case of my cardiologist, world-class. Would I want him carrying a firearm? NO WAY. While I don’t know him pesonally, he seems to be the absent-minded professor type: Very, very good at what he does, but not terribly capable at anything else. And that’s what I want in a cardiologist; someone that’s focused on MY HEART, my well being at the time he’s attending to my medical needs (dittos for his other patients).

There are other people that I know who are similarly proficient in their own careers, but might be considered “scatter-brained” or perhaps more charitably “absent minded”, and I would not want them to have a ready firearm. These people, seriously, would with even intensive and regular training be more likely to literally shoot themselves in the foot than ward off an attacker.

automobiles are dangerous weapons that kill many more people than guns. it defies logic to ban the less dangerous item while permitting the more dangerous item.

I am not sure I would want a scatter brain doctor opperating on me. Howe ver I am not sure that scatter brain would be as worrisome a trait for someone carrying a weapon. Fr instance someone ith ADD my forget to load it or may not remove the safety while attempting to fire. It is unlikely they will randomly have lapses of judgement and pull it out fire it irrationally. If they are of the mind set that would be irrational with a weapon, there is a high probability they will be irrational in other areas as well. Being irrational would make it difficult to succeed in areas that would require a college education.

I did not mention that I presumed this would be for college kids who were at least old enough adn properly trained to carry a weapon in other circumstances. Obviously this would not apply to 16 and 17 year old college students.

As for your cardiologist I would hope that he is responsible enough to know his limmitations. For instance does he only take public transportation and not drive a car? Let’s face it it is much easier to have a short lapse of attention and kill with a car than if one were carrying a loaded weapon. I do know some “savants” that know their limitations and as a result choose not to engage in activites where they do not feel they can execute them safely including carrying or using weapons.

 

[gamewell45]

automobiles are dangerous weapons that kill many more people than guns. it defies logic to ban the less dangerous item while permitting the more dangerous item.

Your analogy is flawed in this instance. Automobiles are not designed as weapons; whereas guns are made for the express purpose of killing/maiming of living creatures.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Using exceeding the speed limit as an example of committing a crime is not really applicable to the gun issue. The speed limits on highways are generally set too low, primarily because of the superficial reasoning used during some previous administration to reduce gasoline consumption by setting speed limits at 55 mph. So what you had was some bureaucrats restricting automobile usage based on some arbitrary bureaucratic one-size-fits-all criteria that they probably thought up during a coffee break.

The national 55 mph speed limit was established in 1974:

heritage.org/research/smartGrowth/bg532.cfm

If somebody says that most people do not need cars, then they obviously don’t have children or need to travel more than a few blocks or have to transport more than a knapsack of stuff at one time or travel in bad weather or they have a lot of free time and can wait around on the few public transportation routes. Outside of a very few high density urban areas, public transportation is inappropriate, irrevelant and not applicable.

I believe by the arguments you make against fultonfish you have hoisted yourself on your own petard. Unless I’m mistaken you are arguing that the arbitrary, bureaucratic, one-size fits all speed limit criteria is stupid and that his car analogy isn’t relevant to gun ownership. I would argue that both the speed limit and gun ownership are being governed by the same arbitrary, bureaucratic, one-size fits all, illogical people who send too much time dreaming this stuff up in the break room, so the car analogy is right on.

Cars only become a requirement where public transportation isn’t provided. Guns only become a requirement when a person really needs one but doesn’t have one.

You can take all guns away from the criminals etc. but criminals etc. ain’t gonna pay any attention to any laws…that is simple, straight-forward, old, American ogic.

God Bless and Merry Christmas,

Iowa Mike

 

[Newbie2]

automobiles are dangerous weapons that kill many more people than guns. it defies logic to ban the less dangerous item while permitting the more dangerous item.

Automobiles are not meant to harm or kill people; they are not weapons. Classifying them as “weapons” is what defies logic.

I am not sure I would want a scatter brain doctor opperating on me. Howe ver I am not sure that scatter brain would be as worrisome a trait for someone carrying a weapon. Fr instance someone ith ADD my forget to load it or may not remove the safety while attempting to fire. It is unlikely they will randomly have lapses of judgement and pull it out fire it irrationally. If they are of the mind set that would be irrational with a weapon, there is a high probability they will be irrational in other areas as well. Being irrational would make it difficult to succeed in areas that would require a college education.

My experience with peole has been far different; I do not share your thoughts here. There are many, many irrational professionals out there.

I did not mention that I presumed this would be for college kids who were at least old enough adn properly trained to carry a weapon in other circumstances. Obviously this would not apply to 16 and 17 year old college students.

So are all 18, 19 and 20 year olds “old enough”? Again, in my experience, “old enough” is a very wide open term…and that’s the problem, isn’t it? There are 14 year-olds that are “old enough” to fly airplanes (very few).

I see the entire problem that we’re discussing as there is no single criterion to judge a person on whether he or she is competant to carry a firearm to be used for the protection of others (in a Columbine or VT situation. Agree?

As for your cardiologist I would hope that he is responsible enough to know his limmitations.*** For instance does he only take public transportation and not drive a car? Let’s face it it is much easier to have a short lapse of attention and kill with a car than if one were carrying a loaded weapon.*** I do know some “savants” that know their limitations and as a result choose not to engage in activites where they do not feel they can execute them safely including carrying or using weapons.

Perhaps. But there is the intent there as well. I believe your comparison to be flawed as an automobile is never meant to be used to hurt or kill someone or something; this is the sole purpose of a firearm (except perhaps for pointing it at someone to scare them off).

I think we’re basically in agreement here, that it is exceedingly difficult to craft a way to constitutionally allow for some in our population to carry firearms and that not everyone should be doing so, as asked in the OP/thread title.

 

[TinaG]

I think we’re basically in agreement here, that it is exceedingly difficult to craft a way to constitutionally allow for some in our population to carry firearms and that not everyone should be doing so, as asked in the OP/thread title.

Hi!

I don’t understand your statement. Would you mind restating or explaining it?

Thanks!

-Tina