Summations Only

Not in Alaska, Arizona, Vermont, Wyoming, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Washington.Most state training is very rudimentary. Have you been trained? have you seen any training docs. It is laughable if you think CCW traing gives any training t all on effectively stopping a situation like a mass shooting.

Oh Faith, how many google hits did you have to ignore to cherry pick this rubbish?1. Hitler had plans to incorporate all German speaking countries into its Reich. The Swiss army knew that Berne could be taken with a single Panzer regiment. There were many reasons that Hitler didn't invade - mostly economic and political. Had his main chance worked out, Switzerland would have been swept up on the way back home from the bigger game.2. The UK Home Guard was fondly called Dads Army and was probably most effective as a propaganda exercise. Britain's real defence was the English Channel and the RAF. If things had gone the wrong way on the Continent of Europe, Britain would have been invaded and no amount of geriatrics with rifles would have prevented it.3. The fact that mentally ill people can get their hands on lethal weapons is an excellent reason for controlling those weapons.

Oh, the "B" team. The wannabe fantacy cops who aren't afraid to "stand their ground" when confronted by that black guy in the hoody, armed all the way up his boody, with that hairy eyeball look, staring at that Algebra book, with such malice in his heart.You can just feel the comfortable warmth of knowing that your loved ones are protected by the George Zimmermans and Michael Jocks we have been graced with in this most civilized of nations.If I go out and buy me a really big gun can I go patrol the high schools and guard all the pretty girls too?

Yes! Or, you could go the other way - buy a t-shirt bearing a giant skull, brood about how "criminals" don't deserve to live, and call yourself the Punisher. You don't get many girls, but you get to make the streets "safe" by making them run with blood.Let's be honest - guns used for the prevention of crime by non-police are essentially the acceptance of vigilante justice. The appeal of taking "justice" into one's own hands is a strong one, reinforced by our media (and I'll admit, I enjoy superhero movies as much as anyone else), but it's also not something we actually want to deal with.

Or the third option: "I don't give a fuck about protecting you, my gun is to protect ME. If something bad happens to you, you should have had your own gun".

Sure. That's a viable option.One more for our consideration.Hows 'bout we, as a sane enlightened society, repeal the fuckin 2nd Amendment and get rid of all the fuckin guns.I know, I know, just a pleasant dream. But we all have our wishful fantasies, don't we?Imagine all the people living life in peace ... Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

But then Zombie King George III will rise from the grave to eat your liberties.

But all those rights are over 200 years old. They've been out on the table exposed to patriots, being sneezed on, poked at, rubbed raw, eroded. You think he still wants 'em?Ok, how's this. One factory for wooden stakes and a federal subsidy for garlic farms ...Wait. Wrong ghoul.What does zombies? Tetracycline?

This statement exposes your complete ignorance of why some law-abiding citizens desire to bear arms. Let me know if you actually care why.

If you're proposing that people without the necessary training simply never draw their weapon, then why are they carrying it?And if you're not proposing that, then you're still missing the point. Without the necessary training they don't know that they don't know whether it is going to help and will therefore make all the kinds of mistakes that have been described while putting themselves and everyone around them in greater danger.--Percy

The data has already been presented in this thread, and it says that guns are more likely to be used against the owner and/or people known to him than in defense against crime. And incidents illustrating the kinds of dangers guns present and that are captured in the data have also already been presented.So going back to Tangle's original point, given that owning and/or carrying a gun makes you less safe, why take the additional risk and endure the inconvenience. If you enjoy target shooting with your brother why not leave the guns locked up at the gun club where they are less of a danger? If you just enjoy the feeling you get owning and carrying then, well, that's scary.--Percy

What I'm proposing is that if you don't know if drawing your firearm will help or not, then don't draw it. Are you saying that without training, a person cannot ever be in a situation where they'd know that drawing their firearm would help?From Message 1286: Which post? And how did they measure crimes that didn't occur because they were defended against? I don't doubt the danger, I'm interested in the likelyhood. Well, despite the stats, I personally am not less safe owning my gun. When I bought my gun I filled out paperwork where I checked two boxes for the reason I bought it: Recreation and home defense.

Sure, right after you show me the support for the claim you made to me.

What's the crime like in those states?Anyways, you've missed the point; I wasn't talking about any legal requirements. Isn't the option to take a course still available in those state?He was saying that cops get training and civilians don't, but civilians can get training if they want to. The fact that people aren't required to get training doesn't mean that they are unable to. I don't. My position was that it doesn't need to include that. Just because you have a gun doesn't mean that you have to use it. If you can't help the situation then don't even try.

No doubt this is what the overwhelming majority of gun owners sincerely believe. But statistically we know it isn't true for the majority of gun owners don't we? On what do you base this conclusion?