Utah Legislator proposes allowing concealed firearms without a license

If you are familiar with your firearm, practice regularly (including drawing and firing quickly), and take a tactical shooting class you will be fine. The big thing is becoming familiar with your firearm so it becomes second-nature.

Police and federal agencies typically qualify at 7 yards, I practice at 15 yards with my micro-compact and can turn in groups that are all well within center-mass using a shorter (less accurate) pistol at more than twice the range. Even when I'm shooting my full-frame revolver from a western-style holster I can get six rounds in center-mass at 7 yards, and that's shooting from the hip.
 
Ever tried doing it scared stiff? It's a in important point. Heck, it even applies for being a photojournalist. It's one thing trying it at a course, going up to people and taking their photo, you'll also want to train for long periods of time to get good at exposure, composition. You'll also spend time getting the post production right.

You might get good at it. But you'll still get scared stiff once you're out in the real world, trying to get photographies that's good enough. You'll mess up exposure, you'll mess up composition, you'll be a mess, psychologically speaking, as it's going to take a lot of courage to actually step in close.

It sounds silly, but believe me, it's true. I've seen enough photographers mess up that way. It doesn't matter for photography, as you get loads of chances later. But most people don't do tactical employment of their firearms on a regular basis. I really don't think you'll be 'fine' with a course, and 'fine' training on how to quick-draw and hit a target.
 
You Europeans come off as "I am anti gun and there is nothing you can do to change my mind". Your in your country where the murder rate is pretty similar without guns, and we are in the USA where guns are legal. The genie is out of the bottle and won't go back in.

I am far more worried about some of the absolute paranoia that gun nuts show than I am over the guns.


@ Spectre, can I get some of the sources I asked for?
 
You Europeans come off as "I am anti gun and there is nothing you can do to change my mind". Your in your country where the murder rate is pretty similar without guns, and we are in the USA where guns are legal. The genie is out of the bottle and won't go back in.

Our homicide rate is pretty similar to what? The USA's homicide rate?

Overall homicide rate in the USA: 4.55 per 100000, of that 2.97 with a firearm, 1.58 without.
Overall homicide rate in Germany: 1.17 per 100000, of that 0.47 with a firearm, 0.70 without.
 
I will NOT be made a prisoner in my own home. I will NOT allow the threat of violence deter me from living my life and enjoying it. In most cases, the idea that a homeowner or potential victim might be armed is deterrent enough to have a clear-thinking criminal go elsewhere - if that isn't enough then nothing short of poured concrete and iron bars will keep a meth-head out - and if someone high on meth or PCP or so desperate for a fix that they have nothing to lose is the problem, then I have a .45 caliber solution. Someone like that is so dangerous that nothing short of deadly force will stop them.
Actually, yes, it sounds like your paranoia has made you a prisoner of your own home.

You go on for pages about the threat of drug-induced violent crime sprees and how you carry a loaded gun around in your own home... yet you've already admitted that as far as your location, the chance of someone cranked up on PCP jumping through your window and murdering everyone are slim to none.

@ Spectre, can I get some of the sources I asked for?
Get in line, I'm still waiting for the ones I asked for.
 
Actually, yes, it sounds like your paranoia has made you a prisoner of your own home.

You go on for pages about the threat of drug-induced violent crime sprees and how you carry a loaded gun around in your own home... yet you've already admitted that as far as your location, the chance of someone cranked up on PCP jumping through your window and murdering everyone are slim to none.

If I go my entire life without drawing my gun in anger, I will be just fine with that. However, there is always the chance of a road-rager or desperate drug addict attempting a mugging or burglary. I sincerely hope that I never have to point my firearm at anyone, but I am mentally and physically prepared to protect myself and my loved ones against a threat if necessary.

The chance of such an event is slim, but it is a chance. The chance of me being stranded for a prolonged period of time and needing to filter my own water, erect a shelter and survive on emergency food is very slim, but I carry all the equipment to do so in my vehicle. The chance of an earthquake happening in my lifetime that renders the city unlivable is even more remote, but I have enough food and water for me and my girlfriend for three days plus whatever is in the house.

The point is that just because something seems unthinkable or the chances remote, doesn't mean that it won't happen.
 
zOMG People are DANGEROUS!! Why don't you just shoot everyone (from orbit), it's the only way to be sure!
 
zOMG People are DANGEROUS!! Why don't you just shoot everyone (from orbit), it's the only way to be sure!

Think of how much safer the world would be if people werent only allowed to carry guns but also nuclear weapons!
 
Seems fairly normal for Utah to me.

From the year 2000:

"Utah Town Requires All Households to Own Gun
The Associated Press

VIRGIN, Utah (AP) - This tiny southern Utah town has enacted an
ordinance requiring a gun and ammunition in every home for
residents' self-defense.

Most of Virgin's 350 residents already own firearms so the initiative
has lots of support, Mayor Jay Lee said. The ordinance was
passed June 15.

Residents had expressed fear that their Second Amendment right
to bear arms was under fire so the town council modeled a similar
measure passed by a Georgia city about 12 years ago.

The mentally ill, convicted felons, conscientious objectors and
people who cannot afford to own a gun are exempt. "
 
Get in line, I'm still waiting for the ones I asked for.

I understand he is busy with other, more important things at the moment.
 
I understand he is busy with other, more important things at the moment.

Yeah, like trying to find a clinical trial for my mom to get into. I'm currently ducking in and out of FG between that, trying to keep her spirits up (dad is NOT helping) and my work responsibilities. Not to mention fighting off the flu.

Right now I don't have time to get back with all threads in the depth I would like. And mom is taking precedence over FG because it'll still be here whenever, and she... may not be.
 
The mentally ill, convicted felons, conscientious objectors and
people who cannot afford to own a gun are exempt. "

EVERYONE HAS TO OWN A GUN!!! Except those that shouldn't, and those that don't want to. Seems like an unnessicary law...

@ Nomix: No one will truely be ready to draw a firearm against another human being 100%, but as you said with photography. Practice makes perfect. It's the same as practicing collision avoidence in a vehicle. It won't prepare you 100%, but you'll certainly be better off than someone who has never practiced it at all.
 
Yeah, like trying to find a clinical trial for my mom to get into. I'm currently ducking in and out of FG between that, trying to keep her spirits up (dad is NOT helping) and my work responsibilities. Not to mention fighting off the flu.

Right now I don't have time to get back with all threads in the depth I would like. And mom is taking precedence over FG because it'll still be here whenever, and she... may not be.
We've disagreed on a lot, but as someone who's had a lot of serious illness and accident in the family, I wish your mom the very best. So, now you can tell her that a stupid Norwegian socialist on the internet wishes her well. And I really mean that. Should at least get her a smile. Good luck. :)


@ Nomix: No one will truely be ready to draw a firearm against another human being 100%, but as you said with photography. Practice makes perfect. It's the same as practicing collision avoidence in a vehicle. It won't prepare you 100%, but you'll certainly be better off than someone who has never practiced it at all.
Indeed. And with sufficiant training under the correct circumstances, it's very efficiant, probably as good as it can be. Most modern military forces do that kind of training, giving people the ability to actually become efficiant at killing, before they get into combat. The 40s GI didn't have that training, and it showed. History shows us that the percentage of soldiers who actually pull the trigger has moved on considerably over the years, correlating with better training. Looking at front line soldiers in the trenches during WW1, most soldiers never fired a round at another human being. They found a rifle with five or six unused charges of powder and ball after a Civil War battle. The man stood in a line, looking his enemy in the eye, and had reloaded his rifle five or six times without shooting.

What am I on about? I'm just saying that it's a big differnce between training to do it, and actually doing it. It's a big deal taking a life, even in some of the most extreme self defense situations. Being good on a target range, that's WW1 training. A tactical course, would probably be like a part of the basic training of a 1941 GI.

I'm not saying that it can't be done. I'm saying it's not as easy as some make it out to be. It's never been.
 
Since this has now gone from a discussion about concealed carry to one about firearm ownership in general, I'd like to post two things.

1) Kinda goes along with that Blind said about refusing to be a prisoner in his home




2) http://www.gun-politics.org/showpost.php?p=42&postcount=1
"the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen."
If that's not good enough to convince you that you are responsible for protecting yourself and your loved ones, then I don't know what is.
 
We've disagreed on a lot, but as someone who's had a lot of serious illness and accident in the family, I wish your mom the very best. So, now you can tell her that a stupid Norwegian socialist on the internet wishes her well. And I really mean that. Should at least get her a smile. Good luck. :)



Indeed. And with sufficiant training under the correct circumstances, it's very efficiant, probably as good as it can be. Most modern military forces do that kind of training, giving people the ability to actually become efficiant at killing, before they get into combat. The 40s GI didn't have that training, and it showed. History shows us that the percentage of soldiers who actually pull the trigger has moved on considerably over the years, correlating with better training. Looking at front line soldiers in the trenches during WW1, most soldiers never fired a round at another human being. They found a rifle with five or six unused charges of powder and ball after a Civil War battle. The man stood in a line, looking his enemy in the eye, and had reloaded his rifle five or six times without shooting.

What am I on about? I'm just saying that it's a big differnce between training to do it, and actually doing it. It's a big deal taking a life, even in some of the most extreme self defense situations. Being good on a target range, that's WW1 training. A tactical course, would probably be like a part of the basic training of a 1941 GI.

I'm not saying that it can't be done. I'm saying it's not as easy as some make it out to be. It's never been.

Sorry, but you are wrong. The reason the number of troops who have actually fired in combat has increased is because of tactics. In WWII we had a huge conscript army that systematically worked it's way across an entire continent and spent most of their time walking or riding from one engagement to the next. Often the enemy had moved on or pulled out by the time they arrived. In Vietnam we used helicopters to leap directly into combat as well as having a front line of combat (or not, depending on the time in the war). Troops were almost always surrounded, even at Forward Operations Bases (FOBs) and Fire Bases, meaning more time in combat and less time in transit.

Here is a NY Times article on the court ruling about police and their "duty" to protect: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=1
 
Last edited:
Sorry, but you are wrong. The reason the number of troops who have actually fired in combat has increased is because of tactics. In WWII we had a huge conscript army that systematically worked it's way across an entire continent and spent most of their time walking or riding from one engagement to the next. Often the enemy had moved on or pulled out by the time they arrived. In Vietnam we used helicopters to leap directly into combat as well as having a front line of combat (or not, depending on the time in the war). Troops were almost always surrounded, even at Forward Operations Bases (FOBs) and Fire Bases, meaning more time in combat and less time in transit.
The reason is training. You can't train a mass conscript army that well in the time available during a large war like WW2, and then the training becomes less efficient in making people kill.

It's quite simply a question of human psychology. What the modern armed forces do, is, in effect, a small form of brain washing. It's efficiant, too.
 
Nomix, you're just embarrassing yourself at this point.

In Vietnam we also has a conscript army, yet troops spent the majority of their tour in combat. That war faced massive public opposition, while WWII had a massive support after Pearl Harbor.

Today we have troops in combat that have had their tours extended and have gone straight from one deployment into another, troops have been stop-lossed so they cannot leave the service when they want to and we have deployed National Guard units that were meant to serve only domestically in a time of emergency to a foreign country. None of these are what these troops signed up for and there have even been lawsuits brought against the DoD in an attempt to return deployments to their original length and enforce the rules regarding time between deployments and number of deployments without a state of emergency being declared by the President.

That doesn't really make it an all-volunteer force anymore. They aren't drafting, but they sure as hell are keeping people who are due to get out.

Finally, unless you have some pretty heavy citations to throw at me that contain the term "brain washing" related to military training, I recommend you stop using that term. Not only is it untrue, it's insulting to someone like me whose family has a long history of military service going back generations.
 
Last edited:
It's harder, but it's still possible. Heck, Israel proves that well enough. While it's harder to train drafties or conscripts to kill, because it leaves you with less time than you have over four years with an inlisted, voluntarily recruited soldier, it's still possible. It's not JUST about time, it's also about training. The troops in Vietnam had a higher ratio of actually pulling the trigger than WW2, heck, so did Korea. Every step of the way, training to kill (not just shoot, but to kill) had progressed. Todays army spends a lot of time on it. They just didn't focus on that part back in the 40s, because they didn't bleeding understand it.

I have to say I don't give a rats arse about your sensibilites on this matter, I read shit, and I forget where I read it. I don't get angry every time someone makes use of a Hitler-reference, and my grandfather spend three years in Ravensbruck.

I call it brainwashing because that's what it is. It's not in the human mind to take life, psychologists, I'm told, refer to those who are easily able to kill without training to do so as sosiopats or psychopats or some of the -pats, it's part of the training of modern soldiers to break down that barrier, as it's realized that it's fucking important for soldiers to be efficiant. I call it brainwashing, and now I've explained what I put into those words. If you're offended, tough luck. I'll use whatever word I find descriptive, and I do find it descriptive.
 
Top