Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 sebster wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
No other democracy besides the UK has survived this long with at least some of their rights intact. Show me these democracies two hundred years from now.

Oh look, and now it's the 'okay guns haven't stopped these countries becoming totalitarian hell holes, but they totally will at some point in the future!'

I like guns. I think there is one extremely good reason for people to have access to guns - because they're a really fun hobby for lots of people. But all this crazy ass bs about guns stopping governments from going bad is crazy nonsense. Armed societies go bad all the time, look at Nazi Germany for feth's sake - this is because a guy with a gun is not a freedom fighter. And unarmed societies can still mount resistance movements, because once you have the cell structures that allow a resistance to continue, getting guns is a piece of cake.


These are just things that are simply, completely, utterly true. No debate. Just facts, versus noise and bs from people who like pretending their guns make them exciting freedom fighters, and not just working schlubs like the rest of us. So stop the bs, and if you really can't deal with the idea that your guns are nothing but a fun hobby, at least stop posting this bs where sane people can hear you. Because it's really fething annoying.

Sebs you always seem to be two or three pages behind everyone else

Nazi gun laws weren't terrible by my standards.... unless you were Jewish, in which case you were screwed... by all means not the worst way you were about to be screwed living in Germany in the early 20th century but still. For more on Nazi gun control I refer the curious to this brief guncite article http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html

The IRA/Provos are a good example. Very strict gun control there and they still managed to get AK-47s, M-16s, RPGs, Dragunovs and other things to make the RUC and British Army's lives a living hell. That's in a country smaller then Rhode Island too. A resistance of any decent size in the United States would be a nightmare... never mind the nightmare that would have to happen to cause a resistance movement in the first place.

Personally I hate the concept of using firearms in a major conflict in the United States. My guns ARE a fun hobby, as well as my profession and an enjoyable way to get meat "on the hoof" shall we say. I'm a historian, target shooter, hunter, tactical shooter (not competitive, I can't afford the toys you need, much less the match entry fees), and CCW holder. I'll leave the heroism to other people.

My next buy for the curious:


*drool* can't wait to have that in my safe <3

Start looking at legging KM.
A master rifle badge is wearable on your uniform and it tells other marines that you're better than they are...for life.

 AustonT wrote:
Start looking at legging KM.
A master rifle badge is wearable on your uniform and it tells other marines that you're better than they are...for life.

If I can find a more hospitable range I actually will start looking into competing. Going out to Camp Perry would be legendary.

Edit: For those who want a service rifle of their very own, join the NRA, a veteran's organization (most will let you join as an associate member) or a rifle club affiliated with the US Civilian Marksmanship Program

then you go here:

http://www.thecmp.org/sales.htm

A new M1 can be yours for as little as $500

I have no illusions of shooting there but it's not the only game in town. I'm hoping to get into rifle first and then pistol. Once I get the distinguished I'll probably give it up. I prefer clay games in the long term.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I already shoot in long range matches, but its just for fun. There's no national body unless you count F/TR

 whembly wrote:

What's your take on what I posted earlier? http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/780/494653.page#5088971

I would think retired police/military G'pa would mitigate some angst...

I have two issues with it:

1: Reliance on volunteerism is plagued with problems. First, it is inconsistent. Despite what people say regarding the replacement of social security with charity, I suspect that most would hesitate when actually forced to depend on such a system. Second, while many people love their grandparents, I'm sure that they also understand their limitations. I would not have trusted my own grandfather to operate a gun when he was of retirement age, and he served in the Army Air Corps during WWII.

To be blunt, there is a reason that retired people work at Wal-Mart beyond needing something to do: no one trusts them to do anything else.

2: It is, ultimately, a new system. Police liaison agreements are well established. I don't see how a volunteer corps of old men could perform better than the present system, or a variation of it. Indeed, the uniform alone is a major advantage.

 Monster Rain wrote:
No one trains with their weapons on a daily basis. Not even Marines.

Ask me how I know.

I know how you know, bro.*

I was exaggerating, but the specific point being made was that, in general, simply knowing how to use a gun is considered inferior, or insufficient with respect, to being in a profession which involves actively using a gun. This mirrors the tendency of people to prefer employment candidates with a degree over that those who do not have one, all other things being held equal.



*So much rhyme, and very little Dave Matthews.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

Well, that's just not true at all. You should read the fact sheet Kalashnikov posted a few pages ago. According to ATF statistics, for example, 6850 violent crimes are prevented per day in America just by showing a gun.

That's a highly disputed number. The Department of Justice says it's about 60,000 defence uses of firearms every five years, which is a mile from frankly goofy 2.5 million a year that you claim.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Roughly 100,000 defensive gun uses a YEAR

and that's the conservative estimate, the numbers go into the millions with other surveys.

And some go as low as 12,000 per year.

Citation needed. I cite everything I list so it would seem acceptable for everyone to do the same no?

For example the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms that concluded 1.5 Million DGU annually.

The low number I regularly see, and that I personally tend to use is the National Crime Victimization Survey which concluded 108,000 DGU annually. This is despite some issues that have been brought up with how the NCVS was collected, but I tend to stick with the conservative number.

I personally believe the actual number is somewhere between the NCVS and the higher numbers.

Sebster doesn't do citations, man. Too mainstream.

_Tim?

 AustonT wrote:
I have no illusions of shooting there but it's not the only game in town. I'm hoping to get into rifle first and then pistol. Once I get the distinguished I'll probably give it up. I prefer clay games in the long term.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I already shoot in long range matches, but its just for fun. There's no national body unless you count F/TR

Yeah there's a decent amount of competition here... lot of .22 mostly. The bonus to living near the US Olympic training center.

 dogma wrote:
Obviously security is the paramount concern, and you are correct that there is no perfect solution. However, one issue that always needs to be addressed in matters of policy is belief. Policymakers not only need to ensure that children are protected, but that their parents believe they are protected. And there are a lot of people that do not trust armed individuals that do not train with their weapons on a daily basis, which most teachers surely would not.

Yet, bizarrely, folks like that trust cops, the majority of whom shoot to qualify and then don't touch the weapon...until they need to shoot to qualify again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:
None of that has anything to do with the claim that guns are an effective means of stopping terrorist attacks. I'll ask once again, exactly how does people walking around with concealed weapons prevent a suicide bomber?

And I'll respond once again: it doesn't, but that doesn't matter unless you're making the absurd claim that suicide bombing is the only form of activity that falls under the label of 'terrorist attack.'

You need to come to terms with the reality that the gun lobby lies to its members as a matter of course. Because what you just claimed is laughably wrong.

You're welcome to prove it.

That's a highly disputed number. The Department of Justice says it's about 60,000 defence uses of firearms every five years, which is a mile from frankly goofy 2.5 million a year that you claim.

What is DoJ's criteria for that number? Actual justifiable homicide, actual firing of the weapon, or mere brandishing?

 Seaward wrote:

That's a highly disputed number. The Department of Justice says it's about 60,000 defence uses of firearms every five years, which is a mile from frankly goofy 2.5 million a year that you claim.

What is DoJ's criteria for that number? Actual justifiable homicide, actual firing of the weapon, or mere brandishing?

Well I just cited a '94 DOJ sponsored study that was the 2.5 Million number. Sooooo take Seb's claim as you will.

 Seaward wrote:

Yet, bizarrely, folks like that trust cops, the majority of whom shoot to qualify and then don't touch the weapon...until they need to shoot to qualify again.

A guy that has to shoot to qualify once still has to shoot to qualify, which extends beyond what Teacher X must do absent some kind of gun trial for school carriage.

Much as a degree makes you more employable regardless of competence, a badge makes you more trustworthy regardless of firearm skill. Its a farce, but it is what it is.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

What's your take on what I posted earlier? http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/780/494653.page#5088971

I would think retired police/military G'pa would mitigate some angst...

I have two issues with it:

1: Reliance on volunteerism is plagued with problems. First, it is inconsistent. Despite what people say regarding the replacement of social security with charity, I suspect that most would hesitate when actually forced to depend on such a system. Second, while many people love their grandparents, I'm sure that they also understand their limitations. I would not have trusted my own grandfather to operate a gun when he was of retirement age, and he served in the Army Air Corps during WWII.

To be blunt, there is a reason that retired people work at Wal-Mart beyond needing something to do: no one trusts them to do anything else.

2: It is, ultimately, a new system. Police liaison agreements are well established. I don't see how a volunteer corps of old men could perform better than the present system, or a variation of it. Indeed, the uniform alone is a major advantage.

That is a fair point... just thinking outside of the box, and not advocating that this is "pushed" across the country. Consider it as an option, in addition to the police liaison.

If nothing else, just remove the "gun-free zone" signs and perpetuate rumors (real or not) that old fogys and/or police liaison are on campus. At least knowing that someone might be able to shoot back would enter the equation whenever bad guys deliberate doing this.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That isn't data, it is conclusions.

If we don't have the original data, we don't know what kind of statistical analysis has been done, so we can't test the conclusions.

Steve steveson wrote:

That's not an estimate, that's a made up number.

Killkrazy, the source you're looking for is the Keck and Gertz 1995 phone survey. It's somewhat questionable, as the conclusion they come to is that upwards of 2.5 million self defense incidents took place per annum, though it's solid enough that the main complaint of it's detractors is that it's misleading due to not 'only' addressing use of guns to prevent violent crime but also guns used in other potentially life threatening situations and depending on the persons surveyed to answer truthfully.

100,000 came from a FBI report that is occasionally referenced, but I'm still trying to track down someplace with an original for you to examine. EDIT: I see some others found the source for you.


On September 9th of this year, a situation that might have turned into a murder spree was ended by an armed civilian. Sadly, it was too late for the first two victims.

"William J. Allabaugh was inside Bonnie's Food and Spirits, a local pub, reportedly making racial statements. Other patrons had also complained about Allenbaugh being armed in the bar. Allabaugh was told to leave, and while being escorted out, drew a handgun and shot a black patron, Stephen Holman in the head while he was chatting on his cell phone. Holman is in critical condition. Allabaugh then shot passerby Scott Luzetsky outside the bar multiple times, killing him. As Allabaugh walked down the street, he approached the bar owner Bob Wallace, and patron Mark Ktytor who were had gone outside and were hiding behind a car. Allabaugh pointed his gun at the two men, at which point Ktytor drew his own weapon and shot Allabaugh multiple times. Ktytor then called 911. Allabaugh is in the hospital. Authorities said that Allabaugh has been charged with Homicide and Attempted Homicide. Ktytor will not be charged." Wikipedia, sourcing the Times Tribune (sept 11 2012)

According to sources, Mr Allabaugh had his weapon illegally. Mr Ktytor had a CWP and had his weapon legally.

 dogma wrote:
[...the specific point being made was that, in general, simply knowing how to use a gun is considered inferior, or insufficient with respect, to being in a profession which involves actively using a gun. This mirrors the tendency of people to prefer employment candidates with a degree over that those who do not have one, all other things being held equal.

This makes total sense, but I think what may be required is, whether or not some of our school faculty end up being armed, is a re-defining of the roles of at least some of the people that work in the schools. Perhaps even a new type of position could be created not unlike the "air marshalls" that were mentioned earlier.

That's just one possibility. The police liaison wasn't a bad idea. I think that this, combined with some updated security measures and a bit of construction here and there could really go a long way to reduce the risk of something like this happening again.

 Monster Rain wrote:

 dogma wrote:
[...the specific point being made was that, in general, simply knowing how to use a gun is considered inferior, or insufficient with respect, to being in a profession which involves actively using a gun. This mirrors the tendency of people to prefer employment candidates with a degree over that those who do not have one, all other things being held equal.

This makes total sense, but I think what may be required is, whether or not some of our school faculty end up being armed, is a re-defining of the roles of at least some of the people that work in the schools. Perhaps even a new type of position could be created not unlike the "air marshalls" that were mentioned earlier.

That's just one possibility. The police liaison wasn't a bad idea. I think that this, combined with some updated security measures and a bit of construction here and there could really go a long way to reduce the risk of something like this happening again.

I rather like the idea of arming teachers. The idea that several armed persons will respond immediately in the event of an attack on the school without the delay inherent in sitting tight and waiting for police appeals to me. For obvious reasons. Then again, I've also never been a big subscriber to the idea that a non-solider is always inherently inferior to a soldier. A sufficiently motivated individual on their home terrain can be very, very dangerous, even without special training, and quite capable of taking out a soldier one on one. If you have any doubts about this, read up on the horrendous casualties angry farmers were able to inflict on Nazi Paratroopers during the invasion of Crete.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Citation needed. I cite everything I list so it would seem acceptable for everyone to do the same no?

For example the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms that concluded 1.5 Million DGU annually.

I'll go you one better, I'll give you a Department of Justice report that clearly and logically puts the case for why such numbers are completely flying rodent gak crazy.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

"For example, in only a small fraction of rape and robbery attempts do victims use guns in self-defense. It does not make sense, then, that the NSPOF estimate of the number of rapes in which a woman defended herself with a gun was more than the total number of rapes estimated from NCVS... For other crimes listed in exhibit 8, the results are almost as absurd: the NSPOF estimate of DGU robberies is 36 percent of all NCVS-estimated robberies, while the NSPOF estimate of DGU assaults is 19 percent of all aggravated assaults. If those percentages were close to accurate, crime would be a risky business indeed!"

"NSPOF estimates also suggest that 130,000 criminals are wounded or killed by civilian gun defenders. That number also appears completely out of line with other, more reliable statistics on the number of gunshot cases."

"Any estimate of the incidence of a rare event based on screening the general population is likely to have a positive bias.... The reason this sort of bias can be expected in the case of rare events boils down to a matter of arithmetic. Suppose the true prevalence is 1 in 1,000. Then out of every 1,000 respondents,only 1 can possibly supply a "false negative," whereas any of the 999 may provide a "false positive." If even 2 of the 999 provide a false positive, the result will be a positive bias—regardless of whether the one true positive tells the truth."

"The key explanation for the difference between the 108,000 NCVS estimate for the annual number of DGUs and the several million from the surveys discussed earlier is that NCVS avoids the false-positive problem by limiting DGU questions to persons who first reported that they were crime victims. Most NCVS respondents never have a chance to answer the DGU question, falsely or otherwise."

I personally believe the actual number is somewhere between the NCVS and the higher numbers.

I think, given the imformation above, we can just accept the higher numbers are completely screwball crazy, and move on to discussing more sensible things.

Now, we might note the methodology of the NCVS method will systematically under-report, because it fails to account for any instances in which a gun is drawn and no crime is subsequently reported. But we can acknowledge that such a bias is likely to be only a small number and somewhat quantifiable (whatever portion of prevented crimes go unreported, likely fairly substantial for minor crimes like attempted burglary, and incredibly small for serious crimes like attempted murder), whereas the bias inherent in cold call surveys is massive, and so much bigger than the underlying number that it makes such studies completely worthless.

 Monster Rain wrote:

That's just one possibility. The police liaison wasn't a bad idea. I think that this, combined with some updated security measures and a bit of construction here and there could really go a long way to reduce the risk of something like this happening again.

I suppose I should elaborate. Police liaisons are stationed in schools, at least where I grew up. In Primary School the officer would wave at us as we came in off buses, or from parents' cars, and his office was feet from the main entrance. In HS/JH they (there were 2 of them) would walk the halls in order to corral kids, and keep an eye on the doors. Granted, there were less than 600 kids in my HS and maybe 300 in my JH.

One thing that could be done is limiting the number of entrances/exits. My primary school had 4, my Junior High had 6, and my High School had 8.

One thing to keep in mind about the idea of arming teachers, or the motion that an armed individual would have stopped the attacker, is a very important lesson I was tought during my EMT training:

Don't think that having a cop on scene makes it safe and always expect the worst to happen anyway. Everytime a police officer gets killed in the line of duty, there was an armed person on scene that was unsuccessful at protecting himself.

It appears that in 2011 there were 67 law enfocement officers killed by gunfire in the line of duty. Having an armed person at the scene of a crime did not protect them.

I'm not denying that I am pretty certain that there were more deaths prevented by the presence of an armed responder there, just pointing out that having a gun to protect yourself is not the magical answer that people say it is.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Then again, I've also never been a big subscriber to the idea that a non-solider is always inherently inferior to a soldier.

Inherence isn't relevant, only generality is. And yes, people that are not soldiers are generally inferior to soldiers.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Sebs you always seem to be two or three pages behind everyone else

I'm always 12 hours behind you lot. Stupid other side of the country.

That said, when it comes to this debate, I'm kind of also about 5 years ahead. Because I've hashed out every one of these points so many times in the last five or possibly more years that I can see each one coming and it's just so tiring.

Nazi gun laws weren't terrible by my standards.... unless you were Jewish, in which case you were screwed... by all means not the worst way you were about to be screwed living in Germany in the early 20th century but still. For more on Nazi gun control I refer the curious to this brief guncite article http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html

Yeah, I know. And they didn't because, as I've already said, the ownership of a gun doesn't make you a revolutionary.

The IRA/Provos are a good example. Very strict gun control there and they still managed to get AK-47s, M-16s, RPGs, Dragunovs and other things to make the RUC and British Army's lives a living hell. That's in a country smaller then Rhode Island too. A resistance of any decent size in the United States would be a nightmare... never mind the nightmare that would have to happen to cause a resistance movement in the first place.

Which supports what I was saying. Once you've got sophisticated cell structures in place, then getting your hands on guns is a piece of piss.

Personally I hate the concept of using firearms in a major conflict in the United States. My guns ARE a fun hobby, as well as my profession and an enjoyable way to get meat "on the hoof" shall we say. I'm a historian, target shooter, hunter, tactical shooter (not competitive, I can't afford the toys you need, much less the match entry fees), and CCW holder. I'll leave the heroism to other people.

Which is a really healthy way to look at guns. If there were more folks like you then we wouldn't need to keep having this fething debate

My next buy for the curious:


*drool* can't wait to have that in my safe <3

That is such a beautiful thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:
Sebster doesn't do citations, man. Too mainstream.

_Tim?

Oh look, a baseless drive-by bitch.

I mean, fething hell, you can complain I'm not that polite, or maybe that I'm not that constructive in debates. But you can't complain I don't give references. That's just bs.

 d-usa wrote:
I'm not denying that I am pretty certain that there were more deaths prevented by the presence of an armed responder there, just pointing out that having a gun to protect yourself is not the magical answer that people say it is.

Is anyone saying that, though?

I think the general gist is that increasing the potential for preventing deaths is better than not doing so.

 Seaward wrote:
And I'll respond once again: it doesn't, but that doesn't matter unless you're making the absurd claim that suicide bombing is the only form of activity that falls under the label of 'terrorist attack.'

Pick some other terrorist attack. Whatever takes your fancy. Then start listing the instances in which local civilians with weapons have prevented such attacks with personally owned guns. And keep on listing them until you've produced so many answers that you can, even slightly plausibly, claim that civilians with guns are the best means to combat terrorism. Because that was the original wingbat claim, that you for some reason have tried to defend.

You're welcome to prove it.

Already done by the DoJ. You're welcome to read the link I provided.

I complain about the lack of democracy and the presence of republic.

 Monster Rain wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I'm not denying that I am pretty certain that there were more deaths prevented by the presence of an armed responder there, just pointing out that having a gun to protect yourself is not the magical answer that people say it is.

Is anyone saying that, though?

Yes, lots of people, my Facebook feed is full off them. They are all over FoxNews as well. "If CC would have been allowed in school and teachers were armed none of this would have happened..."

I think the general gist is that increasing the potential for preventing deaths is better than not doing so.

I know quite a few teachers I wouldn't want near a gun though .

Lets take the last comparable instance we have had that is similar to the push for armed teachers: 9/11 and arming pilots. How many terrorists have been stopped by an armed pilot, and how many pilots have fethed around and fired their gun on the flight deck, lost the gun in an airport bathroom, etc...

 d-usa wrote:
I'm not denying that I am pretty certain that there were more deaths prevented by the presence of an armed responder there, just pointing out that having a gun to protect yourself is not the magical answer that people say it is.

I don't think a lot of people are saying that having an armed responder (civilian or otherwise) present is the magical answer to the problem. I think the idea is simply that it will increase the odds of survival compared to a situation when there is no armed responder present. Obviously, if an active shooter comes into a building and starts taking people out, and no one else is armed, the chances of someone being able to stop the shooter quickly is a lot lower than if someone besides the shooter has a weapon. Yes, there are a variety of situational factors, there is a chance that a bystander could be hit, but at least there is a viable opportunity to resist the attacker and everyone doesn't have to wait for the shooter to finish slaughtering all the victims before he kills himself or surrenders to the police who arrive after he has finished. There's also the potential for an armed responder to buy time for others to escape, even if the responder is ultimately unsuccessful in stopping the shooter.

 d-usa wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I'm not denying that I am pretty certain that there were more deaths prevented by the presence of an armed responder there, just pointing out that having a gun to protect yourself is not the magical answer that people say it is.

Is anyone saying that, though?

Yes, lots of people, my Facebook feed is full off them. They are all over FoxNews as well. "If CC would have been allowed in school and teachers were armed none of this would have happened..."

Per this site,

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2012/12/one-in-ten-mass-shootings-stopped-by-armed-citizens-most-occur-where-guns-are-banned-2516426.html

99 mass shootings in between 1980 and 2010. 98 of them occured in a "gun free zone". While I doubt what you said was a direct qoute, by all probability that may be right.

These things overwhelmingly target area's where they will meet the least amount of resistance possible. Much like the Aurora shooting earlier this year. He specifically targetted the one theatre in the area that publicized it was a weapon free zone.

I say if you remove the places where these murderers will be safe, you will see a drop in their occurance.

 d-usa wrote:
Yes, lots of people, my Facebook feed is full off them. They are all over FoxNews as well. "If CC would have been allowed in school and teachers were armed none of this would have happened..."

I'm not saying it wouldn't have happened, I'm saying there's a chance it might have been stopped, and it wouldn't have made the situation any worse than it was. I don't see any alternatives being proposed that would also accomplish that. Columbine occurred during an Assault Weapons Ban, after all.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
Start looking at legging KM.
A master rifle badge is wearable on your uniform and it tells other marines that you're better than they are...for life.

If I can find a more hospitable range I actually will start looking into competing. Going out to Camp Perry would be legendary.

Edit: For those who want a service rifle of their very own, join the NRA, a veteran's organization (most will let you join as an associate member) or a rifle club affiliated with the US Civilian Marksmanship Program

then you go here:

http://www.thecmp.org/sales.htm

A new M1 can be yours for as little as $500

I'm not a fan of M1's. I've got an AR-10, I'm quite pleased with it. I even use it for hunting.

So what about the results of the armed flight deck program, and the incidents resulting from armed pilots?

I'm not really arguing against armed teachers. It looks like Oklahoma is trying to indroduce a bill where teachers can become CLEET certified and then be armed at school.

I am just bringing up points and counterpoints and real questions that we should be asking ourselves.

On the topic of mass shootings, are we counting all the drive by shootings that occur on a daily basis? Lots of people with guns there and nobody is stopping nothing. Not that many people die in drive by's, but just because they got crappy aim doesn't mean it couldn't be counted as a mass shooting...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

djones520 wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
Start looking at legging KM.
A master rifle badge is wearable on your uniform and it tells other marines that you're better than they are...for life.

If I can find a more hospitable range I actually will start looking into competing. Going out to Camp Perry would be legendary.

Edit: For those who want a service rifle of their very own, join the NRA, a veteran's organization (most will let you join as an associate member) or a rifle club affiliated with the US Civilian Marksmanship Program

then you go here:

http://www.thecmp.org/sales.htm

A new M1 can be yours for as little as $500

I'm not a fan of M1's. I've got an AR-10, I'm quite pleased with it. I even use it for hunting.

Boars are mean and are one of the few instances where I think it is perfeclty logical and reasonable to go hunting with a .50 cal

Well, how many hijackings have been attempted since then D?

One could say that the terrorists now knowing there are weapons on board has acted as a deterent.

Of course that's a pretty simplistic way of looking at that, and obviously there are other factors, but the simple truth of the matter is you can't say the program is a failure.

Firearms are not simple a means to stop a crime. They also act as a strong deterrent.

 d-usa wrote:
So what about the results of the armed flight deck program, and the incidents resulting from armed pilots?

I'm not really arguing against armed teachers. It looks like Oklahoma is trying to indroduce a bill where teachers can become CLEET certified and then be armed at school.

I am just bringing up points and counterpoints and real questions that we should be asking ourselves.

On the topic of mass shootings, are we counting all the drive by shootings that occur on a daily basis? Lots of people with guns there and nobody is stopping nothing. Not that many people die in drive by's, but just because they got crappy aim doesn't mean it couldn't be counted as a mass shooting...

Well, as far as arming the flight deck goes, I'd say that's an afterthought measure at best, thrown in with a whole host of other changes that represented a comprehensive reform of airline security. I actually think that example's illustrative for a lot of reasons, least among them the fact that no one measure is guaranteed to prevent a repeat of a similar crime. If the gun control side of the debate was showing any interest in a full spectrum approach to the problem at hand, I'd probably be a little more interested in what they had to say.

That Oklahoma bill's interesting. I wouldn't be opposed to endorsements, like with driver's licenses now, for concealed carry permit holders. Complete X training, get Y endorsement, whether Y's the ability to carry lawfully in a school or whatever else.