After reading you for awhile, I think you have good
intentions/reasoning at heart...what we have are two similar cultures
with a couple of *major* differences, and I'll leave that right there.
However, your statement above smacks of arrogance...don't be offended,
I think we all are that way in one situation or another...but that
mindset is what is taking both cultures over piecemeal: basically one
aspect of society, usually the one in control, telling the other
what's good for him...because, of course, we (the minority) don't know
what's good for *us*; we don't think very well and need to be led by
What's different? I pay my share of taxes. It's money taken out of my
paycheck that goes into government coffers and is partially redistributed
back as health insurance. So you paid cash for a gun. I paid cash too, only
the money went a slightly different route. Either way, we both paid money.
Is that so hard to comprehend? Is there really so much difference?
I don't want to deprive you of defending yourself. I just feel that the
average person does not have the experience, knowledge or proper training to
handle a firearm in the proper way. Maybe it's difference for most people in
the US. You tell me.
Take the right to bear arms one step further. Forget about hand guns. Why
doesn't everybody in the US have a sub machine gun instead? Why isn't
everybody driving around with a bazooka in the car trunk?
You keep on and on about defending yourself. Is everybody in so much dire
peril of being attacked that they have no choice? Is that the type of
society you live in? If so, I'd be gone in a flash. You might consider it an
illusion, but I feel safe when I go out. It's just my viewpoint, but there's
a lot of nut jobs out there. If firearms were relatively easy for anybody to
get, then I'd start being more fearful than I am. Sure, I try to be fully
aware of what's going on around me when I go out, but I'm not going to treat
it as an atmosphere of fear. I don't call that living.
I trust in our police force to do their job and do it well. Yes, I know they
can't be everywhere at once, but I do feel protected for the most part. If I
didn't then I might feel as you do and want to be armed. But, I'm not at
that point yet. Maybe in the future.
I guess it all comes down to existing circumstances. Maybe if I lived in US
society and not Canadian, I'd feel more comfortable with guns being as
prolific as they are. But the fact is that I'm Canadian and I live pretty
much in the centre of Canada's largest city. Many people crowded together
where things are more likely to happen is a much greater catalyst than
someone living in the country. Having many guns around to me anyway, is like
throwing gasoline on any potential fires that might crop up.
That's it. I'm done. Have a good day.
Training is required by law for those who carry in public.
Why, indeed. The 2nd amendment is decidedly not about home defense or
sporting arms. To blame you personally would be misguided and useless. It's
enough to note that your fearful bleating is of the same note and tenor that
led to the restrictions and bans we have today. So, let me ask you. Why
should a government fear their citizens keeping weapons that would be
effective against main battle tanks and armored personnel carriers?
Nope. And it also is not about the quality of beef at the supermarket.
Certainly not in Indiana, where I live. The only requirements for obtaining a
permit for concealed carry are (a) passing a criminal background
investigation, (b) being fingerprinted, and (c) payment of a modest fee.
Please note that I'm *not* commenting on, and don't intend to start a debate
on, whether this is good, bad, or indifferent. Just stating that's the way it
Here is the Arizona summary of gun laws:
Again, no comment on good, bad, etc. One interesting point is training
is required for concealed carry, but not for open carry.
What does that training entail? There's two types of training. I can see
basic gun training as learning how to safely handle a gun and perhaps some
target shooting so when one uses a gun, they at least have a decent chance
of hitting what they're aiming at.
Then there's the dozens of hours of situational training where one learns
how to handle dangerous situations. Learning when a situation is
threatening, how to possible avoid that threat or handle the situation with
the possibility of minimizing violence and the need to shoot someone ~
similar things like that.
Don't you think the situational training is at least if not more important
to know and learn than the basic training? The average person on the street
has very little idea of how to extricate themselves from a dangerous
situation other than shooting someone. Is it different in the US? Have you
all been exposed to so much violence that you have the instincts to know
what's best for most situations?
Does this make any sense? Of what use is basic training when all it comes
down to is shooting a gun? There's much more to know and learn.
Think of it as meaningful in the same sense that driver education is
meaningful in relation to a drivers license. It amounts to squat. Forget I
mentioned it. I agree with that entirely.
OTOH, the parallels are appropriate at many levels. Suppose I didn't like
automobiles. Mortality and morbidity rates are on my side. Explain to me
your need to own an operate private transportation.
Used to be you learned firearms skills from your father, but not so much
any more. I think it would good to have a mandatory marksmanship and
gun safety class in high school. But it would never happen; imagine the
noise the politically correct left wingnuts would make if you tried.
I recommend a mandatory fire arms training course. Mandatory completion
and minimum target score to graduate.
The gang bangers will still shoot each other but at least they will know
that you don't hold the gun sideways and they will be able to miss the
Depends on who he's shooting at. If he's shooting at you, then by all means,
let him hold the gun sideways. And when he's shot by someone else, at least
he can say he was being fashionable when he was shot down.
I understand that Vietnam has 3 years of mandatory military training
for everybody. Not service--there's additional training if they
actually get called up--but training as part of the normal education.
Now given that Vietnam is a certified ultraleftist liberal workers'
paradise, one suspects that the Dems would jump right on such a plan.
...don't the Swiss have something similar? No question, though, they
take their weapons home; for the duration. We don't hear much about
the Swiss Berserkers...oh, Isreal's service commitment is unigender
and required...interesting juxtaposition...
And in Israel people regularly get shot up, blown up, and otherwise
killed, but not by people who are legally armed and despite the best
efforts of the Israeli government the people they don't want to be
armed seem to be getting all the weapons they want.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.