What is wrong with the nanny state?

[vz71]

Sure – but my question stands: How can we trust pilots with huge aircraft and hundreds of passengers, but we cannot trust them with a simple handgun?

Trust doesn’t play a part (at least from my POV).
Training does.

If the pilot is not trained to use the gun he has, I would consider him more of a danger for it.

As I said before…get the training and certifications together, then bring in the guns.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Trust doesn’t play a part (at least from my POV).
Training does.

If the pilot is not trained to use the gun he has, I would consider him more of a danger for it.

As I said before…get the training and certifications together, then bring in the guns.

In what way would the pilot be more of a danger for it?

Please be really specific.

 

[vern_humphrey]

How can you reduce an ability that didn’t exist in the first place? They couldn’t carry handguns around prior to the ban, nor could they have one at the ready in their homes. Hence a ban on handgun ownership effects nothing.

Successive laws have made it illegal to use an umbrella or a pocket knife for defense.

In one famous case, a 70 year old man who had been beaten when his home was invaded used a shotgun to repel another invasion – and was sent to jail.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Trust doesn’t play a part (at least from my POV).
Training does.

If the pilot is not trained to use the gun he has, I would consider him more of a danger for it.

As I said before…get the training and certifications together, then bring in the guns.

I asked before, what training is required? List the training objectives in the conventional task-condition-standard format.

 

[cynic]

And given the illegal means in which they already obtained firearms, another law would do the trick??

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

the means by which their (different) friend obtained the shotguns was not illegal. It’s not clear whether supplying (giving) them to minors is illegal like selling to a minor is.

“In the months prior to the attacks, Harris and Klebold acquired two 9 mm firearms and two 12-gauge shotguns. A rifle and the two shotguns were bought in what was perhaps a straw purchase in December, 1998 by a friend, Robyn Anderson, who had purchased the shotguns at the Tanner Gun Show in December, in private sales from individual(s).[38] Harris and Klebold later bought a handgun from a friend, Mark Manes for $500. Manes was jailed after the massacre for selling a handgun to a minor,”

If licensing were required, it would have been harder for their friends to purchase guns in the first place.

 

[cynic]

Successive laws have made it illegal to use an umbrella or a pocket knife for defense.

In one famous case, a 70 year old man who had been beaten when his home was invaded used a shotgun to repel another invasion – and was sent to jail.

That’s nothing to do with the issue. You said the recent ban on handguns had resulted in higher levels of crime. Since, prior to the ban, it wasn’t possible to (legally) use handguns for self-defence then this can’t be true.

 

[vern_humphrey]

That’s nothing to do with the issue. You said the recent ban on handguns had resulted in higher levels of crime. Since, prior to the ban, it wasn’t possible to (legally) use handguns for self-defence then this can’t be true.

That’s everything to do with the issue.

Britain has a long history of banning means of self defense, and that history is accompanied by a rising rate of victimization – to the point that Britons are much more likely to be victims of crime than the citizens of any other industrialized nation.

 

[cynic]

I see, it’s impossible for you to concede even the most minor point. Feel free to repeat this in your reply, I give up.

 

[vz71]

If licensing were required, it would have been harder for their friends to purchase guns in the first place.

You keep laying the claim that it would be ‘harder’

I submit that this is a completely false premise. Eliminating a source does not mean there are not other available sources.

Given the illegal action the people involved seem willing to take, I highly doubt written law will stand in their way from any number of sources.

And you still have not answered for gun laws that were already in effect not stopping the tragedy from occurring.
Perhaps there were not enough laws?
Maybe they didn’t use the right words in the laws…
Maybe if they used a bolder font in writing the laws these criminals would feel compelled to comply with the law.

Criminals do not follow the law.
Expecting the criminal element to follow a law is…obtuse.

 

[vz71]

In what way would the pilot be more of a danger for it?

Please be really specific.

I expect anyone with a gun to have some training in how it is used.
Will this person be able to aim properly?
Is the safety off? Is the person aware of this?
Am I going to be shot because this person fired while pulling their weapon?

These are the questions a little training can fix.

Make no mistake, I do not want to restrict people from having their weapon of choice. I just want to be certain that their intended target is what gets shot.

 

[vz71]

I asked before, what training is required? List the training objectives in the conventional task-condition-standard format.

I am unfamiliar with the “conventional task-condition-standard format”

Does that disqualify me from the discusion??

 

[vern_humphrey]

I expect anyone with a gun to have some training in how it is used.
Will this person be able to aim properly?
Is the safety off? Is the person aware of this?
Am I going to be shot because this person fired while pulling their weapon?

These are the questions a little training can fix.

Make no mistake, I do not want to restrict people from having their weapon of choice. I just want to be certain that their intended target is what gets shot.

Please restate your position in task-condition-standard format.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I am unfamiliar with the “conventional task-condition-standard format”

Does that disqualify me from the discusion??

Pretty close!

Let me explain – training is a solution. As I used to explain to clients, before you push to a solution, you need a problem (for the solution to solve). In the ideal world, there would be a relationship between problem and solution.

When a training program is stated in task-condition-standard format, it is possible to see the problem driving the solution.

On this general subject (in this case, training for a concealed carry license), a fellow said to me, “Well, they at least ought to be able to strip and clean their guns!!”

And I replied, “So you see the problem as people carrying too many dirty guns?”

When you the training requirement in task-condition-standard, you also gain something else – you can see if the students even need training – if they can do the task to standard, under the specified conditions, they have no need of being trained on that task.

In an earlier post, you said somehting about being sure the safety is off. Revolvers (and many modern automatics) have no safeties. So there’s a task that needs no training.

 

[anthony022071]

That’s everything to do with the issue.

Britain has a long history of banning means of self defense, and that history is accompanied by a rising rate of victimization – to the point that Britons are much more likely to be victims of crime than the citizens of any other industrialized nation.

In order to make a real correlation between Britain’s gun laws and the higher rate of victimization,there would have to have been a significant percentage of citizens that had guns for self-defence before the laws were passed. If there wasn’t,then the gun laws didn’t have much,if anything,to do with the higher victimization rate.

 

[vern_humphrey]

In order to make a real correlation between England’s gun laws and the increased rate of victimization,there would have to have been a significant percentage of citizens that had guns for self-defence before the laws were passed.

That’s incorrect.

First of all, “correlate” means to establish a mathematical relationship between two related sets of data, usually using what is called the Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient. That can be, and has been done in this case.

Second, look at the drop in violent cime in states that adopt “shall-issue” laws. Only a small percentage of citizens apply for permits, and of those who have them, not all actually carry guns any significant portion of the time. And when guns are used in self-defense, they are rarely fired. So we see empirically that a small percentage of armed citizens can have a dramatic effect on crime.

Third, disarmament in England has been accompanied by legal and social disapporval of self-defense – so that people are much more willing to be victims in England than they are in the United States.

 

[anthony022071]

vern humphrey:

That’s incorrect.

First of all, “correlate” means to establish a mathematical

relationship between two related sets of data,

That’s one definition.

usually using what is called the Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient. That can be, and has been done in this case.

So what are the figures for English citizens who owned guns for self-defence before the laws were passed? And what are the figures of citizens who defended themselves with guns before the laws were passed?

Second, look at the drop in violent cime in states that adopt “shall-issue” laws. Only a small percentage of citizens apply for permits, and of those who have them, not all actually carry guns any significant portion of the time. And when guns are used in self-defense, they are rarely fired. So we see empirically that a small percentage of armed citizens can have a dramatic effect on crime.

Third, disarmament in England has been accompanied by legal and social disapporval of self-defense – so that people are much more willing to be victims in England than they are in the United States.

It’s because of the social disapproval of guns that these laws get passed in the first place. In the liberal suburb where I live,Oak Park,IL,which has quite a few cornballs,the government passed anti-gun laws and not many people got upset about it. It was a feel-good social statement. People used to put up posters which said “Oak Park is a Gun-Free Zone”. Gun possession is not a part of the culture here. There’s not much violent crime here,even though we’re right up against a Chicago ghetto,because we have fairly good police protection.

Most of the the citizens of England who live in urban areas are not likely to insist on the right,or need,to bear arms,unless they think the police are completely failing them.

 

[vern_humphrey]

That’s one definition.

That’s the definition in this matter.

When debating issues, we either use the standard definition, or establish a working definition before we start.

So what are the figures for English citizens who owned guns for self-defence before the laws were passed? And what are the figures of citizens who defended themselves with guns before the laws were passed?

I have the correlation – Lott did the work. It’s pretty solid.

Let me point out that Lott’s work used multi-variate correlations, which are quite complex – and iron-clad.

It’s because of the social disapproval of guns that these laws get passed in the first place. In the liberal suburb where I live,Oak Park,IL,which has quite a few cornballs,the government passed anti-gun laws and not many people got upset about it. It was a feel-good social statement. People used to put up posters which said “Oak Park is a Gun-Free Zone”. Gun possession is not a part of the culture here. There’s not much violent crime here,even though we’re right up against a Chicago ghetto,because we have fairly good police protection.

Which is a typical situation – let poor folks stew in their own juices while the well-to-do enjoy protection.

But one price you pay is that you dare not go into those un-protected areas.

Most of the the citizens of England who live in urban areas are not likely to insist on the right,or need,to bear arms,unless they think the police are completely failing them.

Which is neither here nor there – people often make bad decisions, especially when urged by demagogues. That’s why we have a Constituion – to protect us from “feel good” laws that infringe on our rights.

 

[anthony022071]

vern humphrey:

Which is neither here nor there – people often make bad decisions, especially when urged by demagogues. That’s why we have a Constituion – to protect us from “feel good” laws that infringe on our rights.

It isn’t neither here nor there. The citizenry of England ultimately determines by their votes,or by other means,what kinds of laws are passed,rescinded,or enforced.

The rights of the Constitution itself stand or fall on the opinions of the American public. The Constitution can’t protect itself,it has to be protected by citizens.

 

[vern_humphrey]

It isn’t neither here nor there. The citizenry of England ultimately determines by their votes,or by other means,what kinds of laws are passed,rescinded,or enforced.

Which is irrelevant – it’s like saying Stalin or Hitler ruled because the people let him.

 

[vz71]

In an earlier post, you said somehting about being sure the safety is off. Revolvers (and many modern automatics) have no safeties. So there’s a task that needs no training.

The complexities you have just introduced me to in gun ownership prove to me that training before one is permitted to use the firearm on a plane to be a necessity.

Is it really your position that pilots should have firearms without any idea how to safely use them?