How do you feel about, "The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun"?

SPC Rory J. Mattheisen — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 14:19:23 -0500

Do you think there should be a certified training program pre-purchase, or that every person in the country deserves to own any type of weapon because they want it, or are you somewhere more in the middle? Where do you stand and why? Please stay on topic and respectful.

Response by SPC Rory J. Mattheisen made Dec 21 at 2015 2:21 PM

SPC Rory J. Mattheisen — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 14:21:36 -0500

I am personally terrified by the number of untrained people who carry firearms.

Response by SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 21 at 2015 2:33 PM

SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 14:33:35 -0500

Everyone has the right to defend themselves...everyone.

Response by Col Joseph Lenertz made Dec 21 at 2015 2:39 PM

Col Joseph Lenertz — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 14:39:42 -0500

I very much would like every gun owner to be properly trained. It gets messy after that initial desire though. One reason the government refuses to require ID for voting, is the stance that it would favor those with money, or disenfranchise those without access to free ID cards. In a similar vein, we cannot create a new requirement (training) as a prerequisite to gun ownership when gun ownership is not a privilege, but a right. Even if we agreed to spend large sums of taxpayer money to create a (free) national training program and (free) firing ranges to stay current, there would be a perception of burden placed on those in poverty, especially the rural impoverished, without free access to training. So while I like the idea of training (who wouldn't?), I wouldn't advocate for yet another government bureaucracy running the training centers and spending taxpayer money.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Dec 21 at 2015 2:51 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 14:51:05 -0500

"An armed society is a polite society"

The concept of "The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun"? is not about DIRECTLY engaging an active shooter with another active shooter. It is more about having a relatively armed society, where the wolves think twice about attacking the sheep.

To use a metaphor. You have a herd of sheep and one shepherd. Wolves will attack it and pick the sheep off one at a time and the shepherd can only do so much. He cannot be everywhere at once. The wolves get fat on the sheep.

However, if you get a sheepdog, you now have someone who can go head to head with the wolves and maybe chase them off. Not necessarily fight them, but are more of a visible "deterrent." He helps the shepherd keep the flock safe.

The more sheepdogs there are, the less likely you are to have MASSIVE wolf attacks. There will always be some. But there will be less of them. And the sheep won't have to worry so much, and the shepherd won't have to sweat so much.

Now as for "Certified Training Pre-Purchase." It's a Poll Tax. It's a Tax on Poor People who are least likely able to afford a gun, and the training, and most likely to be in the Socio-Economic areas where crime is going to be prevalent (and where crime has been declining for 40 years). Poll Taxes have been deemed Unconstitutional.

Furthermore, the Right to defend yourself is the only enumerated Right (Protection thereof) we talk about which we suggest having to get training for. What about Voting? What about Speech? What about Due Process? For any other the thought is absurd. Because it is absurd.

Firearms are equalizers of force. They change Predators into Equals. They change Women who are 110-130 lbs, with a 20-40lb disadvantage into EQUALS of Men.

But Aaron, Training!!! Training is amazing. Love Training. Suggest Training. However these are "Point & click" mechanisms. If you point a shotgun at a door from the end of a hall, and pull the trigger , chances are you are going to hit the door. That doesn't require a 40 hour training course to PURCHASE (which is what many are suggesting).

Should everyone be running around with a gun on their hip? No. Should everyone be allowed to use a cell phone? No. I don't think most people should be allowed outside without an escort either though.

But Arms ownership is Protected by our Constitution. It's as simple as that. It gets A LOT more nuanced than that depending on other specific aspects, but the Framers put a hard limit and said we could "Bear Arms" which means "Carry Weapons."

Response by SGT Bryon Sergent made Dec 21 at 2015 3:13 PM

SGT Bryon Sergent — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 15:13:44 -0500

IMHO I think it is the right for everyone to OWN a gun. No not everyone should carry a gun. If you would only defend you home land and Family obviously you don't carry. Bit me personally I want the right to carry. I understand that there are certain places that you can't but if I am at the movies with the fam and some dumba$$ decides to do something stupid then Yes I will use my carry to defend my family and everyone else. Before carrying I think everyone should be pre trained on how to carry when to and not to shoot and the consequences that come behind shooting and the back stop of where you are! Combat pistol classes are popping up everywhere by former Navy Seals and Spec ops. Just wish the price would come down. Last one I seen was 800 for a weekend.

Response by SFC Everett Oliver made Dec 21 at 2015 3:14 PM

SFC Everett Oliver — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 15:14:23 -0500

In many states you have to go to a class and be certified in order to receive a concealed carry permit. In some while you must have a permit to carry a concealed weapon you can openly carry without a license. (Ohio) I'm sure that in many places where even though it's legal you would find problems with the local law officers if you were to walk down the street with an AR15 over your shoulder. I don't mind people needing a certification to conceal carry, but some states go way over board. Any veteran has already received more weapons training than anyone can pack into a 2 day class, yet some states will not accept your military training....I don't have 2 days to spend in a class that I could teach (I was a certified range safety officer) So instead of getting my Ohio license I sent off for a non resident license from AZ....which is accepted in 28 states. Now while everyone has a right to carry or own a weapon, until they do something to have that right restricted, I feel they should have some type of training. For their own safety if no one else......

By the way, I hope I never have to be the good guy with a gun....But I'm ready if the need ever does come up.

Response by PVT Robert Gresham made Dec 21 at 2015 3:22 PM

PVT Robert Gresham — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 15:22:11 -0500

The fact of the matter, SPC Rory J. Mattheisen, is that crime statistics are lower in areas where guns are allowed to be kept/carried. The analogy of the sign at the convenience stores that say, "This store guarded by shotgun 3 nights a week. You guess which nights." comes readily to mind, and is so often in use because it makes a potential criminal think twice if he/she believes that the establishment employee(s) may be armed. I do believe that every sane person over the age of 21, with no criminal convictions, has the right to a gun. Some type of training is a good idea for those who have never handled a firearm, but I believe that it is also a restriction that should be waived for Military, and prior Military with an honorable discharge.

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made Dec 21 at 2015 3:50 PM

SSG Gerhard S. — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 15:50:02 -0500

IHistory has shown us it is true.

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Dec 21 at 2015 3:50 PM

Capt Walter Miller — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 15:50:58 -0500

I tend to agree that good guys with guns have their place. But as SPC Mattheisen indicates, training is lacking. Shame on the NRA for not taking a lead in this.

Walt

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Dec 21 at 2015 4:16 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 16:16:14 -0500

This article annoys me. It forces me to once again think about a subject that I have pondered countless times. Why must so many fearful people intrude on my life? What annoys me even more is when it causes me to consider something new; something I hadn't thought of before (and no one else bothered to mention). Gun ownership is not only a freedom, it's a responsibility. Why should someone exercise the freedom of owning a gun or carrying it without taking the responsibility of learning how to employ it safely and effectively? Is it possible that too many Americans have forgotten or, even worse, never been taught the link between freedom and responsibility? Those on the Left not only want to trade their liberties for freedom from responsibility, but also insist that the rest of us (US) do likewise. Such people, fearful of responsibility, are more than happy to avoid it.

Now the painful truth is that anyone who exercises the right to bear arms, but does so irresponsibly, may find themselves responsible for great loss and injury for which they may have to pay dearly. Thus, they shouldn't need prompting from the government or anyone else to seek training and qualification, and keep refreshing their skills from time to time.

I'm sorry if you're an American, a real American, and don't need this reminder. Sadly, our schools have been infiltrated by the Left and civics classes fled under their assault

Response by SSG Keith Cashion made Dec 21 at 2015 4:31 PM

SSG Keith Cashion — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 16:31:40 -0500

Yes...No law will ever keep guns from the "Bad Guys." And the more and more the Government tries to limit the ownership or use of guns to the law abiding citizens, the more damage they do. Do I think everyone should have training. Sure, but training does no good, if you do not practice or maintain the gun you are using for self defense. There are people out there that have purchased weapons for self defense and have not looked at the gun in years after it was stuck in the sock drawer.

I read the below article on the Four Concealed Handgun Holders last night, and believe it or not....this is the most positive news about guns I have read in a long time. It's funny that mainstream media doesn't report like this...wonder why.

http://crimeresearch.org/2015/12/four-concealed-handgun-permit-holders-use-their-guns-to-stop-violent-crimes-in-the-last-week/

Four Concealed Handgun Permit Holders use their guns to stop violent crimes in the last week -...

Calumet City, Illinois, December 17, 2015 A Calumet City resident prevented a gunmen from robbing him by pulling out his gun and firing it at the would-be robber, Midlothian police reported. The 68-year-old man, who has a concealed-carry gun permit, told police that a man tried to rob him and his 9-year-old son Dec. 5 …

Response by LTC David Brown made Dec 21 at 2015 6:17 PM

LTC David Brown — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 18:17:15 -0500

I learned gun safety by reading and I had an uncle who helped teach me to shoot. Then I took hunter safety with each of my three children and I worked to teach them to shoot and hunt. I think people should take gun safety courses, pistol courses etc. There is a video of a police officer shooting himself in the leg in a classroom full of grade school children. He had pulled the clip but not cleared the chamber!

Response by SPC Mark Beard made Dec 21 at 2015 6:32 PM

SPC Mark Beard — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 18:32:39 -0500

correct and agreed there should be a certified training program pre-purchase, or that every person in the country deserves to own any type of weapon because they want it

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Dec 21 at 2015 8:04 PM

CAPT Kevin B. — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 20:04:36 -0500

I live in the sticks now. Up here, kids grow up learning to shoot and hunt. Guns are common as are concealed permits which require a class to obtain. A good percentage carry around their property as wild animals are all around and skunks love chickens. Since so many carry at home, they also carry everywhere else. Our town is on the ISIS hit list but I'm pretty sure there will be an organic response to a threat. Law enforcement doesn't have a problem with guns as they know the folk up here will back them up. It's very different here than San Francisco. People aren't afraid around here. BTW I'm old school so it's an xDS 45 for me. Just another tool you keep handy.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Dec 21 at 2015 11:35 PM

COL Charles Williams — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 23:35:36 -0500

I agree... If we all are armed to the teeth... like say Israel... I am pretty sure random terrorist guy will not show up... Gun control hurts the general population and puts us at risk. Bad guys will have guns no matter what the law is; they always have and always will.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 22 at 2015 12:33 AM

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 00:33:47 -0500

Makes my day!!!

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 22 at 2015 12:37 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 00:37:37 -0500

I would add that the good guys should have bigger guns than the bad guys.

Response by 1LT Aaron Barr made Dec 22 at 2015 8:44 AM

1LT Aaron Barr — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 08:44:51 -0500

When there's a shooting, especially an ongoing mass shooting, who do we send? Is it a bunch of hippies in their most colorful tie-dyed shirts and sturdiest Birkenstocks, arm in arm with kumbaya on their lips and towing a wagon of all the gun laws in this nation to go and reason with the shooter? Or is it a SWAT team with more firepower than a normal infantry platoon? I think the question answers itself.

Mass shooters in particular tend to be disgruntled and mentally ill people but they aren't stupid. They feel the world's wronged them and want to get even by wracking up the highest body count possible. That's why they almost always choose gun free zones to commit their atrocities. Further, most of them end up dead, either in a gunfight with the cops or by their own hand. In other words, they don't fear death; it's their desired end state. You can't negotiate or reason with that, you can only apply violence in kind.

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Dec 22 at 2015 8:58 AM

Cpl Jeff N. — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 08:58:35 -0500

There are already laws on the books about the types of weapons you can legally buy (they vary by state). So the premise of your question is off. Not anyone can buy any weapon they want. They can only buy the weapons that their elected representatives have allowed them to through various laws/restriction and the like. Keep in mind, this is still a representative democracy. We have the laws we have because we have elected the people we have elected and we have certain rights that were embodied in the Bill of Rights. Even though that is under attack every year by those on the left.

I am a fan of training for weapons owners like I am a fan of training for drivers. We have very little of both but drivers drive every day, gun owners do not "gun" every day, only when they have to. As a veteran in Florida I was not required to take the CC classes but I did just to familiarize myself with the laws as they change periodically. It cost me $75 for a 3-4 hour class and we sent a few rounds down range to show we knew how to operate the weapon.

I supposed we could ask where are the stats about legal gun owners shooting people improperly that demonstrate your concern and call for more training of those that legally purchase weapons. I do know that the place I normally buy my weapons offers a lot of training classes and they are reasonably priced and normally done by LEO's certified in training. They offer them weekly and I think most legal buyers want to exercise the use of their weapon as they are all "law abiding" citizens to begin with.

I do not want the government involved in the training as we all know how that will end. I also do not want training as a requirement to buy a weapon for home/self defense. Conceal Carry already has a far higher bar and a very extensive background check. I also had to pay over $100 for the CC license in FL. So I was at about $175 just to get a CC license. Not a big deal for me but it could be for many.

In the final analysis, an active shooter is usually killed by a cop (a good guy) or another citizen (good guy) or they take their own life. A few surrender to a good guy too. They normally are the crazies that want their fame through crime.

Response by Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth made Dec 22 at 2015 10:00 AM

Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 10:00:08 -0500

I believe that it is an inherent right for anyone that passes a background check and is not a felon to own a firearm if they so choose. I believe in the right to protect myself and my family. I do think that training programs are a good thing prior to purchase if you have never had training. In my state, Mississippi, if you have ever served in the Armed Forces, they consider that training and don't charge for an enhanced conceal carry. To get the basic carry, you just have to provide the right documentation ad go through the background checks, to ensure nothing has changed since you retired or separated and you are good. It is getting more and more easier for criminals to get guns and harder for honest people to get them. I believe that if you don't allow honest good people to get weapons, then only criminals will get them because they can. I carry with me most of the time now because there are places that are turning into the wild wild west.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 22 at 2015 10:19 AM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 10:19:02 -0500

let just look it at this way, is police a good guy when a bad guy is shooting people up? This is not about gun rights, this is about common sense. This is the argument that will lead to gun rights, but the bottom line is, gun is just a tool.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 22 at 2015 10:25 AM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 10:25:58 -0500

I just need to post again to counter the topic of "require training", are you going to tell people to try to use their hand or baseball pat to defend themselves to train to how to fight with hands and baseball pat first???? something wrong with people that don't understand the nature rights of self defense. The fear of guns is getting through people head!

Response by PO1 Glenn Boucher made Dec 22 at 2015 1:35 PM

PO1 Glenn Boucher — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 13:35:45 -0500

I think that its much better if gun owners are properly trained by certified trainers who can teach gun safety. If I remember correctly the NRA used to be a huge supporter of gun safety training and not just fear spewing about losing your weapons.
I am a member of the NRA and there are some great benefits but at the same time I get several emails a week about the fear of "Obama taking our guns".
I know that an organization like the NRA could do a lot of good by conducing training classes for people who are new to guns and also to people who are looking for concealed carry permits. And they could even make the training a perk of membership.
The only down side to having a training class would most likely be long wait times and extreme cost ranges because they will try to bundle up training with something else.
Here in California I have been told its going to cost me anywhere from $250 to $695 to obtain a concealed carry permit depending on who does the training. It should be a flat fee and the trainer should be certified by the police or other law enforcement agency.
A person properly trained in firearms use and safety is going to be less dangerous because as we all know from out time in the military that training is valuable.

Response by A1C Wayne Martin made Dec 22 at 2015 4:37 PM

A1C Wayne Martin — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 16:37:37 -0500

When they're in civilian clothes, how do you tell the difference?

Response by CPT John M. O'Connor made Dec 22 at 2015 6:22 PM

CPT John M. O'Connor — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 18:22:45 -0500

It is too simplistic of course. Let's up the discussion.

Response by CPO Andy Carrillo, MS made Dec 22 at 2015 6:33 PM

CPO Andy Carrillo, MS — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 18:33:14 -0500

How best to defend oneself and family is a personal choice. Training should be required and that will create another political foosball--who will have the power to certify the certifiers: local, state, federal government, or the NRA? Will weapons, training, and certification fees be subsidized for the poor?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 22 at 2015 7:43 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 19:43:51 -0500

Now listen, because this pearl of wisdom comes once in a lifetime!:"the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good reasoning argument" or a reflective belt. True story

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 22 at 2015 7:47 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 19:47:56 -0500

In NY, CA, and MA you need a license to carry this

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Dec 22 at 2015 11:35 PM

Capt Richard I P. — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 23:35:52 -0500

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Response by SSgt Jim Gilmore made Dec 23 at 2015 12:26 AM

SSgt Jim Gilmore — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 00:26:52 -0500

Those who would vote to restrict my 2A rights have no comprehension of the Constitution. If we were to place some of the same restrictions on the 1A that are currently in place on 2A the world would be in a hissy fit. Please take note, the police are under no obligation to provide protection to you on a personal level (Warren v. DC). Police do not carry firearms to protect you. They carry them to protect themselves. The very laws those anti-gun wish to place upon us have no clue how to enforce it upon the non-law-abiding. The criminal will always be able to get a gun. Gun control is not about guns...it's about control. A people cannot be effectually oppressed and enslaved unless they are first disarmed.

Response by Maj Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 23 at 2015 5:00 AM

Maj Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 05:00:27 -0500

I don't have a problem with requiring people to be trained; however, growing up my Dad trained me on firearms. We had loaded guns ready to be used at any time. We weren't hunters either. Not everyone should have a gun. Example: recently I got my concealed gun permit. Our instructor who happens to be the local sheriff said he had an elderly couple who had their home burglarized going through his class. On the range the woman turned around with the loaded gun and pointed it at one of the instructors. He refunded their money for the class and said he was going to get them pepper spray.

Response by SPC Steven Depuy made Dec 23 at 2015 8:55 AM

SPC Steven Depuy — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 08:55:04 -0500

I have a concealed permit since the 90's. Never had to pull a gun on someone, hope I never do. That being said, there are people running around with guns who scare the hell out of me. My son was in a bar a few years ago, a guy had gotten drunk, was pissed at his girlfriend, pulls a gun out in the bar. My son has a permit and was armed. Did he pull his gun, nope, he walked up behind the guy, put him in a full nelson, and disarmed him. How many people who have gotten guns the past few years would have pulled their out and bullets would have been flying like an old western movie. My biggest disappointment with the NRA and people who scream 2nd amendment all the time, is they never have any solutions. There has to be a way we can deal with both sides of this issue, being able to carry if your a responsible gun owner, and making sure those who do carry are responsible. The woman who shot the tires out in the Wal Mart parking lot the other week, yeah, that was as stupid as the guy a few years ago shooting at a thief running away in the Philadelphia farmers market. Once the round leaves the barrel, you don't know where it could end up. They say she was a marksman, and the parking lot was clear. Please, you see some guys running from Wal Mart, fleeing in their car, and you instantly know there is no one else in the parking lot, or driving in a street behind it. That round strikes a tire rim funny, you have no idea where it might end up, or if it bounced off the pavement and hit the fuel tank and killed the people in the car, then what. Does having a permit turn us into Judge Dredd where we can execute perceived criminals on the spot.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 23 at 2015 10:11 AM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 10:11:57 -0500

On the surface and at face-value, this sounds like a good idea. Matter of fact, it IS a good idea.
In real life, however, there are people in this country (in growing numbers) who feel guns are evil and will look for ANY foothold for gun control. Who says what an acceptable training course is?
For the sake of argument, shouldn't parents HAVE to go through some sort of training course before having children? MORE gun legislation only hurts law-abiding citizens.
What I am trying to say is instead of MORE things foisted upon us as citizens, maybe we should incorporate some course of instruction in schools to teach children how to respect each other.

Response by PO2 Jason Gray made Dec 23 at 2015 10:13 AM

PO2 Jason Gray — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 10:13:32 -0500

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

If someone starts shooting innocent people around me you can rest assured that I will be returning fire. And as far as training goes, my personal experience is that I grew up being around, and shooting firearms from a very young age. Gun safety has been preached to me since I could walk, so I wouldn't say I need any training, but that is not to say that others don't need it. And when are we going to require training for our other rights? We all know that people need to be trained to vote, our current "Elected Officials" are living proof of that.

Response by SGT Josh Suchoski made Dec 23 at 2015 10:35 AM

SGT Josh Suchoski — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 10:35:18 -0500

Technically, I suppose you could use a knife, sword, trebuchet, or arrow, but the guys with the gun has better odds.

Response by CH (CPT) Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 23 at 2015 12:52 PM

CH (CPT) Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 12:52:06 -0500

Well Rory, all I can say is that it's been known for a while (even before you where born) that you never bring a knife to a gun fight. So yes o want vous guys atún guns.

Response by CW3 Kevin Storm made Dec 23 at 2015 4:17 PM

CW3 Kevin Storm — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 16:17:08 -0500

I believe people should have far more training than what is currently done, and I think a form of security for the weapons should be mandated. and not those cheap two dollar Chinese locks. I also feel that the background check is improperly used. As a member of the NRA, I believe in the 2nd amendment, but I don't subscribe to the notion that we should have access to any firearm we want, when ever we want it. You have to go get a hunting license, which normally means classroom time. I can't tell you how many times I have been in a shop and been flagged by some dip who came in and wants to hold the XX Super mega magnum, or brought their "unloaded" rifle in only to see a live round fall out. As for me the bolt/slide is removed or the weapon is obviously disabled before I go into a shop. The shop staff appreciate it, and I know that no matter what happens the weapon is safe.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 23 at 2015 4:29 PM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 16:29:30 -0500

It's a very good idea to have some kind of training before getting a firearm, if only so that you understand that you bear the complete responsibility for every bullet which leaves the muzzle. That means if you shoot a bad guy and miss, or the bullet goes through him and kills an innocent bystander, you are still guilty of 2nd degree murder.

On the other hand, gun control fanatics can use this to deny the right to self defense in many ways. The cost of the class, the location, or the frequency it is offered can all be used to deny this right. The amount of time before it has to be retaken can also be used. Approval of a class may be another way. For example, I shot for the 5th Army Rifle Team, and of course most of us had some kind of weapons training in the service. Who do we have to get to rubber stamp that as an appropriate class?

Until our politicians agree that we have the right and that they should not use legal chicanery to restrict our rights, I'll have to come down on the "Everyone has a right to a gun" side.

Response by SPC Steven Sciotto made Dec 23 at 2015 7:48 PM

SPC Steven Sciotto — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 19:48:50 -0500

The 'good' guy had better be very good; at least 'better' than the bad guy...

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 23 at 2015 9:52 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 21:52:11 -0500

Well until they give me my ninja training with a samurai sword I will rely on my pistols.

Response by SCPO Charles Thomas "Tom" Canterbury made Dec 23 at 2015 10:31 PM

SCPO Charles Thomas "Tom" Canterbury — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 22:31:21 -0500

While I think that being prior military should count for something - there are some folks in the civilian world that don't know the level of responsibility they should have in ownership and use of a firearm. I believe that the 2nd Amendment should never be infringed, but I also believe that you give a jackass a gun, you're going to get the results of a jackass having had a gun. Just calling it like I see it. Some people should have to be pre-trained to purchase cotton balls at the local drug store.

Response by SGT Edward McMillan made Dec 24 at 2015 8:06 AM

SGT Edward McMillan — Thu, 24 Dec 2015 08:06:18 -0500

The problem with a government pre-qualification program is the government can't accomplish any goals without spending 3x more money on rules and administa

Response by SGT Edward McMillan made Dec 24 at 2015 8:27 AM

SGT Edward McMillan — Thu, 24 Dec 2015 08:27:41 -0500

The problem with a government pre-trading program is the word government and it's propensity to legislate changes in secret deals plus the outlandish cost (meaning tax) on certification! This is clearly against the 2nd Amendment!
We should be allowed to defend ourselves and others anywhere as the bad guys don't follow the laws anyway. Veterans who have qualified in Basic Combat Training should be grandfathered in to allow free carry. The question here is how many qualified with a pistol? Does that really matter if you have been in the 3 combat arms in any war! You should know your weapon but the more important point is knowing you can handle the split second response that you faced in battle isn't it that would be more important than those who have not experienced that decision before. Plus the surprise factor to the bad guy having an armed target instead of nobody armed as they expect. Case inpoint a church in South Africa surprised 2 terrorist with 2 armed members sending them away or dead from the attack because it was a hard target instead of a soft one. We must stand with the 2nd Amendment or our way of life will be destroyed !
A Vietnam Vet

Response by PO2 Gerry Tandberg made Dec 24 at 2015 11:24 AM

PO2 Gerry Tandberg — Thu, 24 Dec 2015 11:24:14 -0500

Gun ownership comes with a responsibility to properly train yourself in how to use it. Generally, that does not mean combat training, but basic firearms safety. I've not been formally trained to be an effect combat shooter anymore than I was trained to be a father. But, I managed to teach myself basic skills in both without the government stepping in and charging me a fee, tax, or give me a certificate. Additionally, because we have children around our house, every gun is kept in a safe where only two of us know the combination. That is, all but one gun which is loaded and its whereabout is known only to a select few, and completely out of reach of little ones. I'm no Shepherd, but I'm a pretty good Sheep Dog, and so is my wife.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 25 at 2015 10:38 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 25 Dec 2015 10:38:29 -0500

It worked in Charlotte.

Response by CMSgt Steve Pennington made Dec 25 at 2015 2:58 PM

CMSgt Steve Pennington — Fri, 25 Dec 2015 14:58:17 -0500

The latest copy of gun laws as published by the BATF contains 28 pages of gun laws for California, 13 pages for Washington D. C., where gun possession is all but prohibited, whereas Arkansas has 2 pages. If gun laws prevented crime I should feel safer in California than in Arkansas. Laws don not prevent crime they define the crime. That being said, when we enlisted or were commissioned we swore to protect the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. We were not given the choice as to what parts of the document we agreed with and which parts we did not. The Second Amendment is pretty clear as is the Amendment that allows States Rights. The State of Utah requires certified firearms training to obtain a CCP, the State of Washington, where I live, does not.

Response by SPC Byron Skinner made Dec 25 at 2015 3:21 PM

SPC Byron Skinner — Fri, 25 Dec 2015 15:21:11 -0500

Sp4 Skinner. I don't think that a through and complete fire arms training program is out of the question as a prerequisite for fire arms ownership. The current NRA Hunter safer course offered by the NRA, a one day event that promotes the NRA and solstices memberships is not the answer. Besides classroom there must be range time and qualification with large bore weapons such as the M-1911 .45 ACP. There should be Federally administered exam by BATFE that would have to be passed. Passing a military qualification, not the one afternoon orientation for non combat arms and law enforcement troops, but a marksmanship qualification in "Pistol D" would be adequate substitution for the civilian course.

Response by SPC Franklin McKown made Jan 20 at 2016 12:04 PM

SPC Franklin McKown — Wed, 20 Jan 2016 12:04:57 -0500

A knife works if you're close enough. The courts don't like them but ,to me, it's a better weapon to carry.

Response by 1stLt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 28 at 2016 12:21 PM

1stLt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 28 Jan 2016 12:21:24 -0500

It will only possibly work if the 'good guy' is properly trained in marksmanship and quick response to an active shooter situation. If he's just a hobbyist, then it could go either way for the 'good guy.' Maybe he will accidentally shoot an innocent in the way. Maybe he will miss the 'bad guy.' Maybe he will get shot. Maybe it will be the Gunfight at the O.K. Corral. Instead of relying on the hopes of a 'good guy' with a gun, maybe we should strive as a society to figure out why we have thousands of people killed by guns every year and try to stop that from happening. Perhaps keeping guns out of the hands of 'bad guys'? A 'good guy with a gun' could someday in the future become a 'bad guy with a gun'.

Edit: I will also add another controversial opinion here, I believe gun ownership, while a right under the Constitution, should now be considered a privilege. I believe not everyone should have the right to own a firearm. I think they should go through proper training on the responsibilities of gun ownership, a thorough background check, and marksmanship skills. They train Marines to be very aware of their weapons at all times, and I believe some of this training should bleed into the civilian world as well.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2016 5:16 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 02 Jun 2016 05:16:46 -0400

Next time a situation occurs where someone with a gun is threatening people, I feel it a moral imperative for anti-gun advocates to stand up and shout "Stop, or I'll shout stop again as I'm unarmed!". This way we can collect the data as to the effectiveness of that option. If this works 100 times in a row, then I'll, buy into the notion.