Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Firearms
#11
She understands the whole self defense argument. Basically there are two major factors. Her immediate family by in large are pretty flaming liberal and lean towards that statistics quoting accidents that happen from irresponsible use, and they aren't really interested in learning responsible use since they have no desire to possess them. The other reason is that her cousin, who was a police officer and moonlighted as a security officer at a jewelry store was murdered by some criminals who had it in for him while working said security job. His being shot in the head put a bad taste in their mouth for firearms.

Trust me, I know the conversation about why the fun isn't at fault and all that. Just doesn't fly.
Reply
#12
I understand what you're saying and it's a shame when a family suffers this type of tragedy.  But it begs the question, "what does this person's death at the hand of a criminal do with personal protection"?  By using this tragedy as an excuse they have disarmed themselves against the very type of criminal that would exploit their choice.  

As far as accidental shootings, particularly with children, yes it is heart-wrenching.  But it needs to be stated that 'statistics' can and are very misleading and gun control groups are quite guilty of using misinformation.  As an example, their come out with a stat of X number of people dying in year such-n-such due to accidental shootings (kids) and 'gun violence'.  While accidental shootings do occur, they make it appear that it is the bulk of the number they are relaying.  It is not.  And what they term 'gun violence' includes police shooting bad guys and law abiding private citizens shooting bad guys (which is over 3X that of police).  That isn't not 'gun violence' but they report it as such to skew the numbers and continue a false narrative to promote a liberal agenda.
Two thousand years ago wise men sought Christ, wise men still do.

Techniques are situational, principles are universal.

Fast as the wind, quiet as the forest, aggressive as fire, and immovable as a mountain.

He who gets there first with the most...wins!

Minimal force may not be minimum force!

We don't rise to the occasion...we sink to the level of our training.


Reply
#13
Over the years I have trained with and against firearms in various forms. My preferred carry is a 9mm. I had a Steyr M9 years ago that I sold when I was strapped for cash. Recently I picked up a Springfield XDS Mod.2.

As far as training goes- I have taken a variety of courses over the years and I am currently certified to teach a program called "Stress Shooting" which was originally created by FAST Defense founder Bill Kipp. I have since started training in Combat Focus Shooting as a means to further improve my defensive shooting skills.


Steve
"Personal safety is a way of life, not just a hobby!" ~Steve Zorn
Personal Safety Unlimited
Reply
#14
(03-06-2016, 06:42 PM)szorn Wrote: Over the years I have trained with and against firearms in various forms. My preferred carry is a 9mm. I had a Steyr M9 years ago that I sold when I was strapped for cash. Recently I picked up a Springfield XDS Mod.2.

As far as training goes- I have taken a variety of courses over the years and I am currently certified to teach a program called "Stress Shooting" which was originally created by FAST Defense founder Bill Kipp. I have since started training in Combat Focus Shooting as a means to further improve my defensive shooting skills.


Steve

Good example of a law abiding citizen seeking out sound, practical/tactical training.  That's the responsible thing to do.  Keeping in mind that everyone may not have this opportunity due to location or finances. But the net holds a plethora of sound training for free that can easily be incorporated into one's training. 

It could be as simple as drawing from concealment numerous times during a commercial.  Practicing malfunction clearing drills.  Practicing shooting with either hand, loading and charging with either hand. Learning where in your house you are safe to shoot and where you can't.  Seeking out local, and perhaps free training from local P.D.'s.

I both an FDLE Instructors certification and an Israeli Instinctive Shooting Instructor certification.
Two thousand years ago wise men sought Christ, wise men still do.

Techniques are situational, principles are universal.

Fast as the wind, quiet as the forest, aggressive as fire, and immovable as a mountain.

He who gets there first with the most...wins!

Minimal force may not be minimum force!

We don't rise to the occasion...we sink to the level of our training.


Reply
#15
(01-10-2016, 03:36 PM)Kong Soo Do Wrote: I'm not aware of any country (other than the U.S. and IIRC Sweden or Switzerland) where a citizen is free to keep and bear arms.  Let's use Australia as an example.  From what I understand, the government issued a mandatory buy-back of 650,000 weapons deemed 'assault weapons'.  Now I can't speak for Australia, but the term 'assault weapon' here in the U.S. is a media buzz term that has no basis in fact.  According to the U.S. government, an assault weapon is one that has a select fire switch that allows automatic fire.  Citizens in the U.S. don't have access to these accept under special licensing through the Federal government which is strictly regulated. 

The 'Port Author' laws are in dispute as to the effectiveness of preventing gun suicides and homicides.  Both the 2007 study, "Gun Laws and Sudden Death: Did the Australian Firearms Legislation of 1996 Make a Difference?” by Jeanine Baker and Samara McPhedran and the 2008 study from the University of Melbourne by researchers Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi concluded that the law and buy-back had little tangible effect.  Additionally, any trend in downward homicide rates was already occurring in the 15 years prior to the law.  The law was not a catalyst for a decline. 

In regards specifically to suicide rates, according to the World Health Organization, Developed Western nations such as Hungary, Poland, France, Belgium, and Austria all have higher suicide rates than the United States — and all have stricter gun-control regimes.

What firearm self defense do you teach?

What I find is that it is pointless trying to discuss gun control with American gun advocates so normally I will sit back and watch. When Australia's experience is misquoted to show that reasonable limits on gun ownership is effective I find myself a little peeved. Basically Australia bans military style weapons designed to kill people. I wouldn't want to live in a country that feels it needs military weapons in every home.

When you look at studies of Australia since the buy back it depends on what the study is about. For example, most Americans seem to think that the buy back was to take away people's firearms, full stop. As a result the fact that the number of firearms in the community is about the same as before the buyback is evidence to some that the buyback was a failure. That is inherently untrue. The buyback was to remove certain types of weapon and that was successful. Most gun enthusiasts when straight out and bought a new weapon that was legal, hence the overall number did not drop substantially.

What precipitated the buyback was the mass killing at Port Arthur. We had several mass shootings before Port Arthur but we haven't had one since. That is a period of 20 years in a much more volatile time.

I don't want to precipitate a bun fight but please don't quote Australia as a country that has lost our guns or our privileges.

As to what I teach. I teach disarms against handguns and numerous long arms (including sawn off shotguns) and military style weapons.
Reply
#16
(03-08-2016, 06:22 AM)K-man Wrote: Basically Australia bans military style weapons designed to kill people. 

Any weapon is designed to kill people.  Vehicles statistically are more apt and capable of killing large numbers of people so we can say they're also designed to kill people.  

And that line of thinking misses the point.  First, what is a 'military' weapon?  Can't speak for Australia but in the U.S. a military weapon is one that can be fired on select-fire i.e. full auto.  Select-fire weapons have been banned in the U.S. for citizens for nearly 100 hundred years.  A citizen can own one only if they have a class III license which are difficult to obtain from the government.  

What the media terms as an 'assault rifle' doesn't exist.  That is a media buzz term used to generate emotion from the uneducated.  There are a plethora of semi-auto rifles that 'look' like military style weapons that are perfectly legal in the U.S.   And there's no reason they shouldn't be legal.  

And the point clearly made by our founding fathers is that the citizen should have the ability to possess weaponry equal to the government to deter foreign invasion AND to be able to resist the government itself IF they become a tyranny.  That is the most important point.  The ability to resist our own government if they become a tyranny.  That can't be understated enough.  

Statistically (and factually) the states with free ownership to possess and carry a weapon have the smallest crime rates.  Those states and cities that limit the 2nd amendment have the highest crime rate.  

If you are a good guy that doesn't carry a firearm then you WILL be a victim to a bad guy that does.  If you are a good guy with a gun then you have the ability to defend yourself against a bad guy with a gun.  And that's the whole point.  You cite the mass shooting in Port Arthur.  Fine...was that a bad guy shooting people or a good guy shooting people?  If it was a bad guy shooting people then limiting the right of good guys to defend themselves in any way, shape or form is stupidity on the part of governments.  Bad guys don't obey the law so any law enacted to limit anything from the good guy is NOT going to have any effect on the bad guy.   It will ONLY limit the options of the good guys.
Two thousand years ago wise men sought Christ, wise men still do.

Techniques are situational, principles are universal.

Fast as the wind, quiet as the forest, aggressive as fire, and immovable as a mountain.

He who gets there first with the most...wins!

Minimal force may not be minimum force!

We don't rise to the occasion...we sink to the level of our training.


Reply
#17
As I said, I don't wish to become embroiled in an arguement that goes on and on with no chance a resolution. What the US does with firearms is up to the American people but we read of mass shootings or shootings in schools, in the US, every week. Fortunately, we don't share the same experience. That has absolutely nothing to do with the buy back. The two research papers that were quoted were on gun related suicides and homicides. It is always said, you don't launch an enquiry unless you already know the answer. It is a no brainer that the buyback would have no effect at all on suicides as you haven't taken away people's privilege of owning a firearm. If I want to shoot myself there is nothing stopping me going out and buying a firearm. Sure I have to go through some hoops unless I already possess a shooters licence but no biggie there. Same applies if I am pissed off with my neighbor and decide to kill him. To expect a reduction in those deaths is fanciful. Despite that, people in the US against any form of gun control use those papers to make their point, just it isn't valid.

The reason for the change in laws and the buyback was to prevent another mass shooting like Port Arthur and in that it has succeeded.

Another point that is often used as evidence that the buyback had little or no effect was the observation that homicide rates were already falling. Maybe that is right but if so, was that due to the fact that handguns were banned from general ownership about ten years earlier?

The comment about good guys and bad guys running around with guns is also patently absurd in a country like Australia. We already have more good guys with guns running around than we have bad guys with guns. We don't need to put another 10 million or more guns into the community. To think that will make anyone more safe is crazy. It hasn't worked in the US and it wouldn't work here.
Reply
#18
(03-08-2016, 08:04 PM)K-man Wrote: If I want to shoot myself there is nothing stopping me going out and buying a firearm.


Quote:Another point that is often used as evidence that the buyback had little or no effect was the observation that homicide rates were already falling. Maybe that is right but if so, was that due to the fact that handguns were banned from general ownership about ten years earlier?


So what kind of firearm are you allowed to purchase?

Quote: The comment about good guys and bad guys running around with guns is also patently absurd in a country like Australia. We already have more good guys with guns running around than we have bad guys with guns.  We don't need to put another 10 million or more guns into the community. To think that will make anyone more safe is crazy. It hasn't worked in the US and it wouldn't work here.


But armed law abiding citizens does work.  I've already provided the links and statistics.  Those are FBI and Government statistics, not some media blog.  And they span years, in some cases decades of data.  Introducing more firearms into the community, when in the hands of responsible law abiding citizens does make the community safer. 

And again, that is just one purpose of the law abiding citizen having firearms (both long gun and handgun).  I've detailed the other important reason.  Your own countries history provides stark proof of this.  When the government mandated that populace surrender certain weapons...they had no choice but to do so.  It was forced compliance.  Your country doesn't allow you a fundamental right to keep and bear arms.  Those if they say surrender a particular freedom you have no choice but to comply.  The U.S. is different.  If at some point in the future a government demands firearm confiscation there will be a civil war.  And for good reason.  Historically, what types of governments disarm their citizens? 

At any rate, firearm ownership in the hands of law abiding citizens makes for a safer community and is the last bastion of defense against tyranny.
Two thousand years ago wise men sought Christ, wise men still do.

Techniques are situational, principles are universal.

Fast as the wind, quiet as the forest, aggressive as fire, and immovable as a mountain.

He who gets there first with the most...wins!

Minimal force may not be minimum force!

We don't rise to the occasion...we sink to the level of our training.


Reply
#19
(03-09-2016, 01:56 PM)Kong Soo Do Wrote: So what kind of firearm are you allowed to purchase?

http://www.melbournefirearms.com.au

Quote: 
Introducing more firearms into the community, when in the hands of responsible law abiding citizens does make the community safer. 
Sure, but how do you guarantee "responsible law abiding" when you don't even check.

Quote:And again, that is just one purpose of the law abiding citizen having firearms (both long gun and handgun).  I've detailed the other important reason.  Your own countries history provides stark proof of this.  When the government mandated that populace surrender certain weapons...they had no choice but to do so.  It was forced compliance.  Your country doesn't allow you a fundamental right to keep and bear arms.  Those if they say surrender a particular freedom you have no choice but to comply.  The U.S. is different.  If at some point in the future a government demands firearm confiscation there will be a civil war.  And for good reason.  Historically, what types of governments disarm their citizens? 
You see, here we have a fundamentally different mindset. Your premise is false. There was no forced compliance. A lot of people obviously have retained the weapons they had, albeit hidden. By your definition they are no longer "law abiding" even if they are "responsible". Take suicide out of the statistics and the number of firearm deaths is a lot lower than the quoted firearm figures show. Unless we have legally sanctioned euthanasia suicide figures will remain high. Of the firearm offences left, an enormous proportion of those are due to drug trafficking and in particular gangs including the outlaw motorcycle gangs. In these cases the violence is mostly contained within those groups. Arming civilians will make no difference.

Quote:At any rate, firearm ownership in the hands of law abiding citizens makes for a safer community and is the last bastion of defense against tyranny.
That is your opinion and you might forgive me if I have the totally opposed position. Tyranny is nowhere on the horizon of my country and on average Australian communities are demonstrably safer than those in the US when it comes to firearm offences.
Reply
#20
(03-13-2016, 05:44 PM)K-Man Wrote: http://www.melbournefirearms.com.au
Okay, looks like shotguns and rifles.  So I'm going to assume that handguns are prohibited for carry by law abiding citizens?  If so, then you have to put your safety and security in the hands of someone else while you're outside your home.  
Quote:Sure, but how do you guarantee "responsible law abiding" when you don't even check.

Your statement isn't correct.  In order to purchase any firearm (handgun, shotgun or rifle) the purchaser goes through a background check prior to taking possession.  In the majority of states that have concealed or open carry a background check is required prior to the permit being issued.  That's two checks right there.  
Is it possible to circumvent that by buying a firearm in some dark alley?  Sure, that's what criminals do.  But then they're the problem and no amount of gun control laws matter to them.  
Quote:You see, here we have a fundamentally different mindset. Your premise is false. There was no forced compliance. A lot of people obviously have retained the weapons they had, albeit hidden. By your definition they are no longer "law abiding" even if they are "responsible".

On the contrary, there was forced compliance and you just confirmed it.  If someone didn't comply with the government confiscation then they had to hide the weapon(s).  Why would they have to hide them?  Because it was mandatory i.e. forced and failure to submit means they have committed a crime.  So it isn't my definition, it is the arbitrary definition of your government that a law abiding citizen is no longer a law abiding citizen if they want to have the means of self protection. 

Quote:Of the firearm offences left, an enormous proportion of those are due to drug trafficking and in particular gangs including the outlaw motorcycle gangs. In these cases the violence is mostly contained within those groups. Arming civilians will make no difference.
 
So if it is mostly contained, that means that some isn't.  Which means that it affects private citizens right?  Or do bad guys in Australia refrain from attacking, mugging, raping, murdering private citizens?  If the bad guys in Australia don't pass on the courtesy of not harming citizens then that means citizens, outside the home, don't have a reasonable means of defending themselves.  
Arming citizens does make a huge difference.  I've detailed the differences in this THREAD
Since law enforcement is reactionary, by it's very nature it almost always arrives after the crime has been committed.  Even with outstanding response times, bad stuff happens quickly.  This means that the responsibility of personal protection falls on the private citizen.  Simply put, an armed man has options available that an unarmed man does not.  Doesn't make the firearm magic, nor is it a guarantee.  But it is a option that law abiding citizens in the U.S. have available.  And since bad guys are the issue and law abiding citizens aren't, it makes no sense to disarm the good guys.  
Australia, like most other countries (and some in the U.S.) think that disarming the good guy will somehow magically stop the bad guy.  By definition, the bad guy doesn't give a rip about laws and will always find a way to illegally purchase a firearm if they chose.  And we both know that a bad guy in Australia can illegally purchase a firearm if they chose to do so.  Bad guys in France and London and Moscow and Chicago can get a gun....but the good guys can't.  Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Body building isn't everything...its just that being small, weak and puny really sucks!

Remember somewhere out there a little Chinese girl is warming up with your max!

Someday isn't a friggin day of the week


Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)