Gun Control / Nerd Fight

[Blind_Io]

Owned.

Anyway, if a burglar has a gun in your home you still have the advantage. You know the layout - it's your home turf. Not having a gun yourself does not mean an intruder won't have one either. As I said before, it evens the odds (well actually tips them slightly in your favor).

Sports car can transport two people but that is not their purpose. They are dangerous and unnecessary, we should ban them and restrict everyone to driving Geo Metros and Toyota Priuseseseses (what the hell is the plural of Prius anyway? Priei?) You arguments still has one major flaw - car ownership is not constitutionally protected. Gun ownership is. Our founding father specifically said that we have the right to bear arms. There can be no question that this issue was very important to them, The Firs Amendment guarantees the right to free speech, the right to practice (or not practice) any religion, freedom of the press, the right to peacefully assemble, and the right to petition the government about your grievances. That's quite a bit to pack in to a few short lines. The very next thing they guarantee in the Bill of Rights is The Right To Bear Arms. This one gets its own amendment which includes the reason why we have the right to bear arms. We have the right to bear arms because the government has to maintain a military to protect the people. The Right to Bear Arms was written so that the people could protect themselves, not just from criminals, but from their own government military. Now, I know there are some people that say this is an obsolete concept with the strength of the military and how much more advanced military weapons are from civilian models.

I bet the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have a different opinion. We are there with an overwhelming force trying to fight a guerrilla war on someone else's home-turf. it's a lesson we should have learned during the Revolutionary War when we fought the British using the same tactics. Our own tactics were later used against us in Vietnam. That is the beauty of guerrilla warfare. You capture weapons, ammo, and equipment, you improvise and adapt, you get stronger as your enemy gets weaker. Now, I'm not saying that we should rise up and overthrow the government (although there are days...) What I am saying is that the concept of armed rebellion is hardly an outdated one. This is a big country and there simply isn't enough money to put cameras in every city, even if you could do it there is no way the people would let it happen. There are not enough police to be on every corner and make sure no one gets mugged and no houses get burglarized. Even in London with it's army of cameras crimes like this still occur. Sure they happen here too but per capita it is much less common.

Are there gun crimes? Yes, and there always will be. I'm talking about allowing the right people to have guns too. Gun laws don't keep guns out of the hands of criminals, just law abiding citizens. It disarms them and makes them helpless to defend themselves.

Finally, gun ownership is part of our culture. Unlike European nations which banned firearms back when knights were still riding around in plate armor, this nation embraced the gun as a means of survival. It protected the owner and provided food. There were no cops to call, no military to come to your defense, hell most of the time you weren't actually in the United States/Colonies. They didn't call it The Frontier for no reason. Sure, those days are mostly gone, but the gun remains as a cultural icon. It would be like me trying to ban tea in England or wine in France. The way gun ownership is treated in the US in unique, it's one of the things that defines us as a culture.

[nomix]

Originally Posted by jetsetter

:*snipsnipsnip*

Firstly, she shot the tires, not the guy. She says she would have shot the SOB had he approached her. She says so. Most guys would have said that they would aim right at Fritz' face when they walked into battle. No difference really.

Unless she's one of the 2 percent that can shot without compassion because she's either a sociopat or a psychopat. And that's unlikely.

Opening fire on someone is hard, no matter how many exeptions one finds, the rule is, that 98 percent of guys won't fire even under direct threath if they aren't trained to do.

Anyway, if a burglar has a gun in your home you still have the advantage. You know the layout - it's your home turf. Not having a gun yourself does not mean an intruder won't have one either. As I said before, it evens the odds (well actually tips them slightly in your favor).

And then you need to be able to shoot.

Sports car can transport two people but that is not their purpose. They are dangerous and unnecessary, we should ban them and restrict everyone to driving Geo Metros and Toyota Priuseseseses (what the hell is the plural of Prius anyway? Priei?)

A sports cars prime objective is to give you a smile. And the plural of Prius probably is Priuses.

You arguments still has one major flaw - car ownership is not constitutionally protected. Gun ownership is. Our founding father specifically said that we have the right to bear arms. There can be no question that this issue was very important to them, The Firs Amendment guarantees the right to free speech, the right to practice (or not practice) any religion, freedom of the press, the right to peacefully assemble, and the right to petition the government about your grievances.

Many years and many moons has passed since then. As for the first ammendment, there has been mass arrests of peaceful protesters in the US in the past and in the present, just as in any country. I still maintain, that guns are not needed in the situation you're in right now.

That's quite a bit to pack in to a few short lines. The very next thing they guarantee in the Bill of Rights is The Right To Bear Arms. This one gets its own amendment which includes the reason why we have the right to bear arms. We have the right to bear arms because the government has to maintain a military to protect the people. The Right to Bear Arms was written so that the people could protect themselves, not just from criminals, but from their own government military. Now, I know there are some people that say this is an obsolete concept with the strength of the military and how much more advanced military weapons are from civilian models.

I bet the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have a different opinion. We are there with an overwhelming force trying to fight a guerrilla war on someone else's home-turf. it's a lesson we should have learned during the Revolutionary War when we fought the British using the same tactics. Our own tactics were later used against us in Vietnam. That is the beauty of guerrilla warfare. You capture weapons, ammo, and equipment, you improvise and adapt, you get stronger as your enemy gets weaker. Now, I'm not saying that we should rise up and overthrow the government (although there are days...) What I am saying is that the concept of armed rebellion is hardly an outdated one. This is a big country and there simply isn't enough money to put cameras in every city, even if you could do it there is no way the people would let it happen. There are not enough police to be on every corner and make sure no one gets mugged and no houses get burglarized. Even in London with it's army of cameras crimes like this still occur. Sure they happen here too but per capita it is much less common.

Well, I really don't think mass resistance against the American government would really work, even with guerilla tactics.

And as for overthrowing the government, I guess I'm biased about this, but please, PLEASE do.

Are there gun crimes? Yes, and there always will be. I'm talking about allowing the right people to have guns too. Gun laws don't keep guns out of the hands of criminals, just law abiding citizens. It disarms them and makes them helpless to defend themselves.

I doubt that a criminal would shoot you if you weren't posing a threath to him. It might happen, but still, in most cases, no.

Finally, gun ownership is part of our culture. Unlike European nations which banned firearms back when knights were still riding around in plate armor, this nation embraced the gun as a means of survival. It protected the owner and provided food. There were no cops to call, no military to come to your defense, hell most of the time you weren't actually in the United States/Colonies. They didn't call it The Frontier for no reason. Sure, those days are mostly gone, but the gun remains as a cultural icon. It would be like me trying to ban tea in England or wine in France. The way gun ownership is treated in the US in unique, it's one of the things that defines us as a culture.

That is true. Culture and the ways of life, are truely hard to change. I'd like to point out that if you're a hunter, you can own guns in Norway too. Hell, when my granny moved, we even found a loaded shotgun on the loft, she didn't know it was there.

But it's still easier to access firearms if they can be bought legally without that many restrictions.

Then again, our police doesn't even carry guns, like the British. We do have them, and put them to use when we need to. But it has had an effect, we allmost never see guns being used on cops. Exceptions do occour, couple of years ago two local "sheriff deputies" (I supose you'll understand that better than "Lensmenn") were shot by a nutter not so far away from here. They were hit in the chest by a hunting rifle. They were carrying guns and wearing kevlar. Accidents do happen. And I probably could get a Glock in a week through surtain channels, but if I could walk down to the city centre and buy the Glock without too much trouble, that would be easier.

[Firecat]

Originally Posted by nomix

I doubt that a criminal would shoot you if you weren't posing a threath to him. It might happen, but still, in most cases, no.

Living in South Africa, I lost a lot of family members to criminals (Home intruders and car jackers). It doesn't matter if it's in most cases or not.

The idea of a victim posing a threat to a criminal is mind boggling.

[Blind_Io]

[quote=nomix;447329]Firstly, she shot the tires, not the guy. She says she would have shot the SOB had he approached her. She says so. Most guys would have said that they would aim right at Fritz' face when they walked into battle. No difference really.[/quote/

The point is that she could have shot the guy. Do you think they would have hesitated to knock her down or harm her if she didn't have the gun?

Unless she's one of the 2 percent that can shot without compassion because she's either a sociopat or a psychopat. And that's unlikely.

Shooting in self-defense does not make you a sociopath. The clinical term is Antisocial. Look it up.

Opening fire on someone is hard, no matter how many exeptions one finds, the rule is, that 98 percent of guys won't fire even under direct threath if they aren't trained to do.

Whose rule is that? Source?

And then you need to be able to shoot.

Yeah, and that is why you go to the range. Some states require you to demonstrate the ability to hit a target of X size at Y distance in Z time. Others trust the applicant to either have that ability or to practice to get it.

A sports cars prime objective is to give you a smile. And the plural of Prius probably is Priuses.

Feeling happy is good. Sports cars can make you feel happy. Therefore sports cars are good.
Feeling safe is good. Owning or carrying a gun can make you feel safe. Therefore guns are good.

Many years and many moons has passed since then. As for the first ammendment, there has been mass arrests of peaceful protesters in the US in the past and in the present, just as in any country. I still maintain, that guns are not needed in the situation you're in right now.

Arrests have been made of protesters, but it wasn't because they were protesting. It was for obstruction of traffic, trespassing, or other offenses. You can't arrest someone for protesting, if you do the case will be thrown out faster than you can say "I'm calling the ACLU" and the arrested party can file civil charges against the arresting agency.
That is your opinion. The nice thing about the Bill of Rights is that it protects my rights no matter what you think. It was penned to protect the people from the government and the minority from the majority.

Well, I really don't think mass resistance against the American government would really work, even with guerilla tactics.

And as for overthrowing the government, I guess I'm biased about this, but please, PLEASE do.

Then you aren't doing it right. Can you even begin to imagine what a mass uprising of the public would be? There is no way the military could handle it in a nation this size of this many people - even if all the commanders obeyed the illegal order to act against citizens.

I doubt that a criminal would shoot you if you weren't posing a threath to him. It might happen, but still, in most cases, no.

Bet your life on the good intentions of a gun-toting criminal?

That is true. Culture and the ways of life, are truely hard to change. I'd like to point out that if you're a hunter, you can own guns in Norway too. Hell, when my granny moved, we even found a loaded shotgun on the loft, she didn't know it was there.

But it's still easier to access firearms if they can be bought legally without that many restrictions.

Then again, our police doesn't even carry guns, like the British. We do have them, and put them to use when we need to. But it has had an effect, we allmost never see guns being used on cops. Exceptions do occour, couple of years ago two local "sheriff deputies" (I supose you'll understand that better than "Lensmenn") were shot by a nutter not so far away from here. They were hit in the chest by a hunting rifle. They were carrying guns and wearing kevlar. Accidents do happen. And I probably could get a Glock in a week through surtain channels, but if I could walk down to the city centre and buy the Glock without too much trouble, that would be easier.

Again, these are based on cultural differences. The old kingdoms and nations of Europe acted to restrict arms well before the firearm was invented. The US has no such legacy and as such we take a more personal approach to our safety and don't wait around for the men in funny hats to protect us. We do the job ourselves and call them to clean up the mess.

You have to realize that you are arguing not just a legal point, but a cultural one. Your perspective is from outside our culture and you keep coming back to the same arguments over and over - that guns are bad and Europe has strict firearms laws. Great - you also have way more assaults, muggings and home invasions than we do. Everything has an up and a down side. We have guns and live with those consequences. You have none and live with those consequences.

[tigger]

Originally Posted by Blind_Io

You have to realize that you are arguing not just a legal point, but a cultural one. Your perspective is from outside our culture and you keep coming back to the same arguments over and over - that guns are bad and Europe has strict firearms laws. Great - you also have way more assaults, muggings and home invasions than we do. Everything has an up and a down side. We have guns and live with those consequences. You have none and live with those consequences.

Quality post, excellent points. I'm curious where you are getting your stats too nomix.

I will attempt to find the source, but I recall a poll of prison inmates regarding what they feared most in commiting a crime. It wasn't the paranoia of getting caught or dealing with jail; most where scared that the person they where robbing would be packing.

Personally i'd rather have a gun and shoot someone trying to rob me than rely on his goodwill. Even if I don't get a CCP, I plan on owning and learning to use firearms.

[nomix]

Originally Posted by Firecat

Living in South Africa, I lost a lot of family members to criminals (Home intruders and car jackers). It doesn't matter if it's in most cases or not.

The idea of a victim posing a threat to a criminal is mind boggling.

I am sorry for putting it that way, that was insensitive, that was not my point. Please accept my appology.

Originally Posted by Blind_Io

The point is that she could have shot the guy. Do you think they would have hesitated to knock her down or harm her if she didn't have the gun?

We'll never know, I guess.

Shooting in self-defense does not make you a sociopath. The clinical term is Antisocial. Look it up.

Not in all surcumstances, but the research did indicate that the majority of people wouldn't be able to shoot even if they felt a deep threat against their person.

Whose rule is that? Source?

That's based on research by the US military after WW2. I'll see if I can dig up who did it.

Edit: Found the info.
Major General Marshall of the US army, interviewed thousands of soldiers from the war. Front line soldiers, not medics and so on. Only a quarter fired against the enemy. The percentage of them who shot to kill, was as low as 10 %. That's 2,5 percent.

Have no links to the sources, but if I were to lie, I sure as hell wouldn't do it by giving enough traces that it could be disproven, would I?

Yeah, and that is why you go to the range. Some states require you to demonstrate the ability to hit a target of X size at Y distance in Z time. Others trust the applicant to either have that ability or to practice to get it.

There is no occurance in history of someone being attacked by a cardboard target.

Feeling happy is good. Sports cars can make you feel happy. Therefore sports cars are good.
Feeling safe is good. Owning or carrying a gun can make you feel safe. Therefore guns are good.

Well, the feeling of happiness really isn't something that can be false, if you feel happy, you are happy.

Having a gun won't nessesarily make you safe.

Arrests have been made of protesters, but it wasn't because they were protesting. It was for obstruction of traffic, trespassing, or other offenses. You can't arrest someone for protesting, if you do the case will be thrown out faster than you can say "I'm calling the ACLU" and the arrested party can file civil charges against the arresting agency.

Yes, that is true. But the charges were in many cases misdemenors (am I spelling it right?) which normally leads to a fine. Sure, you could arrest someone for it, but why would you, just on the one count of committing a misdemenor once?

That is your opinion. The nice thing about the Bill of Rights is that it protects my rights no matter what you think. It was penned to protect the people from the government and the minority from the majority.

I do agree that everyone should have every single right possible. But when police use misdemenors normally punished by a fine written out at the spot, you have to ask yourself a question why police instead chose to arrest several hundred people, and later deny them the right to know what they are arrested for, the right to legal assistance and so on. This has happened. I am NOT saying this is thypicly American, you'll struggle to find any country where it won't occur, I'm just mentioning that sometimes, laws doesn't work.

Then you aren't doing it right. Can you even begin to imagine what a mass uprising of the public would be? There is no way the military could handle it in a nation this size of this many people - even if all the commanders obeyed the illegal order to act against citizens.

That is true. It might just work. Not that I see that much of a possibilty of it, do you?

Bet your life on the good intentions of a gun-toting criminal?

Criminals are generally people. Research show they usually are unemployed and so on, but they are people. Why should he shoot you?

Again, these are based on cultural differences. The old kingdoms and nations of Europe acted to restrict arms well before the firearm was invented. The US has no such legacy and as such we take a more personal approach to our safety and don't wait around for the men in funny hats to protect us. We do the job ourselves and call them to clean up the mess.

Unless you end up dead. Which could just as well happen. I agree that it would be best, if each and every one was perfectly able to keep and use a gun, and used it only to protect themselves. If no kids ever got ahold of the guns and so on. But that isn't the reality.

You have to realize that you are arguing not just a legal point, but a cultural one. Your perspective is from outside our culture and you keep coming back to the same arguments over and over - that guns are bad and Europe has strict firearms laws. Great - you also have way more assaults, muggings and home invasions than we do. Everything has an up and a down side. We have guns and live with those consequences. You have none and live with those consequences.

That is absolutely true. I read a collumn by a former US correspondant for a large Norwegian newspaper. The essential point is the cultural difference. He once spoke to the local sheriff. He lived in a perfectly safe neighbourhood where there were less breakins every year than any other place in the city he lived in. The sheriff put it quite bluntly. Get a gun. If someone enters your house, shoot them. If you do it outside, drag the guy into your house, that will save you paperwork.

I know, that is a grosely overdramatized image of the American culture. Most Americans aren't that way, I am sure. But there culture clash is in essense what is making us European sissys () oppose all the guns you've got lying around.

Still, let's not forget there are Americans that agree with us. They are outnumbered, but there still is quite a lot of them. So it shows that even Americans can be pro gun control (I know that came out stupidly stupid, but you get the point), in the same way you'll find a lot of guys in Norway who think they should have the right to carry guns.

[Blind_Io]

The research you cited is for battlefield conflicts using conscript armies. You can't generalize that data to a one-on-one confrontation between two individuals. One is personal the other is not. In a personal attack the threat of harm is immediate and personally directed. In a battlefield (especially with a conscript army) the goal is individual survival, and that may mean no sticking your head out to take a shot. Also in WWII there were many "front line" soldiers who never fired their weapon and never saw the enemy. In a year of combat duty the WWII soldier may have only seen 10 days of actual fighting, as opposed to Vietnam when the average soldier saw closer to 200 days of combat (or more). (I'll try to find the source for it, I know it's in one of these many books on warfare I have). The point is that it doesn't say why they didn't fire their weapon. They may not have had the chance to, even in a combat situation.

No one has been attacked by a paper target, but that doesn't mean that practice is pointless. The police, military and federal law enforcement agencies all practice on paper or metal targets.

Check my statement again, you will find that I said a sports car can make you happy and a gun can make you safe. I never said they were absolutes.

The point is that they were not arrested for protesting, they were arrested for other crimes they committed while protesting. People get arrested for misdemeanors all the time. Public intoxication, and Drunk and Disorderly Conduct are usually misdemeanors that result in arrest or at least a night in the drunk-tank.

Writing a citation or arrest is at the discretion of the officer, if the department feels that a protest is getting out of control, or is beyond the protected rights of the citizens they can make arrests to restore peace and protect the public at large. You are right, sometimes laws don't work. The US has a system designed to allow the people to challenge the laws in the courts and overrule the legislature. It's in our Constitution that you can bring a grievance against the government.

Right now it's not much of a possibility and that is by design. We have regular "revolutions" built into our system through elections and term limits on the Presidency. This is to give the people a chance to change leadership if they are not satisfied without the need for a violent revolution or coup.

Why should he shoot you? Because he's desperate, scared, high, or in the DTs (or any combination thereof). 90% of prisoners in US prisons are there for some kind of drug motivated crime. Growing, selling, possession, or any kind of crime to support a drug habit (Prisons and Corrections class, Westminster College, Salt Lake City, UT, 2003 (?) - Professor worked in the area prison). The criminal may be high on drugs or in the DTs - either way he has broken into your home or is robbing you and has brought a gun. I don't know about you, but I'm not betting my life or the life of my family on his goodwill or mercy. Your sense of trust is not admirable, it is foolhardy. I don't mean that as a personal attack, but there are some people in the world who mean to do you you harm, trusting them will only make you more vulnerable. Criminals are people, but that does not mean that they can show empathy or remorse. Anyway, the track record of humanity is not exactly a glowing road of goodwill.

Yes, I could end up dead. But there is less of a chance of that if I can defend myself instead of being at the mercy of a criminal with a weapon.

There certainly are Americans who agree with you about firearms. That is their right, as misguided as it may be. If I have a gun (I do plan to get my CCP when I move back home) I'm not going to care about someone's politics if they are being attacked, I will defend them with all the necessary force. It is my hope that I never have to do that and that no one ever is the victim of a crime - but that is a shallow hope. People will become crime victims, people will be killed who would have lived if they had the means to defend themselves, women will be assaulted and raped. It is a sad truth of the world, all I can do is try not to let me or my family become one of those people.

As always, it's nice to have a civilized debate about a typically emotional subject.

[nomix]

Originally Posted by Blind_Io

The research you cited is for battlefield conflicts using conscript armies. You can't generalize that data to a one-on-one confrontation between two individuals. One is personal the other is not. In a personal attack the threat of harm is immediate and personally directed. In a battlefield (especially with a conscript army) the goal is individual survival, and that may mean no sticking your head out to take a shot. Also in WWII there were many "front line" soldiers who never fired their weapon and never saw the enemy. In a year of combat duty the WWII soldier may have only seen 10 days of actual fighting, as opposed to Vietnam when the average soldier saw closer to 200 days of combat (or more). (I'll try to find the source for it, I know it's in one of these many books on warfare I have). The point is that it doesn't say why they didn't fire their weapon. They may not have had the chance to, even in a combat situation.

Yes, but the research was undertaken on soldiers that had been in a position to fire on the enemy. 97.5% fired over their heads.

There are differences, but it's a rather solid pointer that there's something wrong with the ability of the common soldier to shoot someone.

No one has been attacked by a paper target, but that doesn't mean that practice is pointless. The police, military and federal law enforcement agencies all practice on paper or metal targets.

The objective of the excercise is to hit a target. And you might be able to hit the target. But then we come back to the fact that no one gets attacked by paper targets, they get attacked by persons, and that is different.

Check my statement again, you will find that I said a sports car can make you happy and a gun can make you safe. I never said they were absolutes.

Sorry mate, lacked time, didn't read it properly.

The point is that they were not arrested for protesting, they were arrested for other crimes they committed while protesting. People get arrested for misdemeanors all the time. Public intoxication, and Drunk and Disorderly Conduct are usually misdemeanors that result in arrest or at least a night in the drunk-tank.

Problem is this sort of misdemenor in many cities lead to a fine. 50 years of history, no one's ever been arrested, and they get arrested on the day they protest? Hmmm.

Sorry, but don't shit me, you know there's a connection. They were being threated like that because they were protesting.

On a sidenote, have you ever seen the comments on YouTube when that happens? One side goes around saying that all cops are murderers, the other side asks everyone to get a job. And some people do argue that people shouldn't be alloved to protest. Cause they've got elections. You find them in all lands, don't you?

Writing a citation or arrest is at the discretion of the officer, if the department feels that a protest is getting out of control, or is beyond the protected rights of the citizens they can make arrests to restore peace and protect the public at large. You are right, sometimes laws don't work. The US has a system designed to allow the people to challenge the laws in the courts and overrule the legislature. It's in our Constitution that you can bring a grievance against the government.

But even if it is legal, in theory, it's questionable to see maybe one or two hundred people getting arrested for walking in the street. I don't care if it's legal, the reason why it's done shines through.

Why should he shoot you? Because he's desperate, scared, high, or in the DTs (or any combination thereof). 90% of prisoners in US prisons are there for some kind of drug motivated crime.

Then maybe it's time to change the living conditions and perhaps threat the drug addicts, rather than putting them in prison. Clinton's war on drugs was a quintessentially stupid idea.

Growing, selling, possession, or any kind of crime to support a drug habit (Prisons and Corrections class, Westminster College, Salt Lake City, UT, 2003 (?) - Professor worked in the area prison). The criminal may be high on drugs or in the DTs - either way he has broken into your home or is robbing you and has brought a gun. I don't know about you, but I'm not betting my life or the life of my family on his goodwill or mercy. Your sense of trust is not admirable, it is foolhardy. I don't mean that as a personal attack, but there are some people in the world who mean to do you you harm, trusting them will only make you more vulnerable. Criminals are people, but that does not mean that they can show empathy or remorse. Anyway, the track record of humanity is not exactly a glowing road of goodwill.

That's sort of my point. Humans are generally quite irresponsible, and they shouldn't have guns, on a general basis. No matter what you say, you won't get me to agree that people should have guns, neither will you agree with me, so let's just agree to disagree.

Yes, I could end up dead. But there is less of a chance of that if I can defend myself instead of being at the mercy of a criminal with a weapon.

Yes, you take away his choice. He or she has the possibility of shooting you or not shooting you, or they see a gun and shoots you.

There certainly are Americans who agree with you about firearms. That is their right, as misguided as it may be.

That's really quite nicely put.

If I have a gun (I do plan to get my CCP when I move back home) I'm not going to care about someone's politics if they are being attacked, I will defend them with all the necessary force. It is my hope that I never have to do that and that no one ever is the victim of a crime - but that is a shallow hope. People will become crime victims, people will be killed who would have lived if they had the means to defend themselves, women will be assaulted and raped. It is a sad truth of the world, all I can do is try not to let me or my family become one of those people.

As always, it's nice to have a civilized debate about a typically emotional subject.

It's nice to see it's sort of possible. Normally, these threads just evolve into napalm fuled flaming hyperspeed-fights.

[Blind_Io]

I'll just address a couple of your points - I'm starting to feel like Tolstoy here.

My comment about humanity not having a great track record of good will should not be misinterpreted as irresponsibility. I mean that there are some people out there who wish to do you harm for their own good; I don't trust in others to keep me safe, when you do that is when something bad happens. Call me a cynic or paranoid if you like, it's true. The fact that there are those who wish do do you harm is exactly why you should be able (and fortunately are able in the US) to defend yourself.

I assume that you have not done much in the way of shooting. A paper target does provide adequate training to put lead on target. Eventually you develop what is called muscle memory, where you don't even think about sight picture, cocking the hammer (if there is one) and squeezing the trigger. You don't think about your grip or where do aim, your body just does it leaving your mind free to make the decision about whether or not to shoot at all. Although no one has been attacked by a range target, it doesn't mean that it's not an effective training tool. I have a Grandfather who was in the Army and on the US Army Pistol Team, a father who shot competitively when he was younger and was in the US Army, a brother who is in the US Army, and I am an avid shooter myself. You may just have to trust me on this one.

Finally, the big one.
You said that I would take away the criminal's choice if I shot him while he was in my home or victimizing me or my family in some way. Damn skippy I would. He gave up his right to choose when he decided to make me a victim. He knew that there was the chance his victim would be armed and willing to defend himself, his family and his home. He could have chosen another path of action, but he chose to put himself in front of my gun. It's my responsibility to protect myself and my family, not protect the scum-sucking criminal who is trying to make us victims. To put it bluntly: Fuck That Shit. He made his choice and now he gets to face those consequences. You make it sound like I am hunting him down on the street - not so. Here is someone who is breaking into my home or trying to rob me on the street, he is the perpetrator here. He gave up his right to choose his fate when he made the choice to assault or rob me. Now his fate is in my hands because I am armed. If I had to choose my life or his, I would choose me every time. Sorry to sound cruel but I'm not going to lay down my life to protect a criminal scum bag. I worked hard for what I have and I'll be damned if I will stand by and let some self entitled crook take it from me or threaten me or my family.

[nomix]

What you need to do is view the situation from the assholes point of view, not yours. Yours is irrelevant as for the situation in question. If he feels threatened, he is more likely to shoot. If you corner a dog, it will bite.

And my point wasn't that paper targets won't teach you to hit a target. But it won't teach you to do the real deal. That's the point.

And Tolstoy would be proud.

[Blind_Io]

I got new for you, Nomix. I'm not going to give him the chance to shoot me. There isn't going to be a dramatic and tense stand-off like in the movies, that's not the way things happen in real-life. If I wake up in the night to hear someone breaking in, I'm not going to ask him politely if he wouldn't mind going away, I'm going to exercise my right to protect myself, my family and my property.

Nomix, I understand what you are saying, but the Police, FBI, CIA, US Army, US Navy, US Air Force, US Marine Corp, US Coast Guard, ATF, Border Patrol, Customs and every other government agency that carries weapons trains on targets that don't shoot back. The target practice gives you proficiency to draw and fire your weapon accurately, it trains your body to react with precision so you don't end up spraying lead all over the place and missing your target. It's a valuable part of firearms training. Of course it's not going to be the same as taking a life, and it would be my wish that no one ever has to make that choice, but if I am ever in that situation I want the option to save myself. Without a firearm I don't have that choice and am at the mercy of the criminal.

I have done target shooting for quite a while and I can tell you it makes you a better shot. If it didn't serve any purpose then why do you think the military and law enforcement agencies still use targets? It does condition the mind and the body.