Gun Rights: Should you be allowed to own an RPG?
 

I stumbled across an article that I found to be pretty interesting, related to this conversation with Supreme Court Justice Scalia:

Aside from the very literal interpretation of "bear," it brought up a question of justification for widespread firearms ownership - specifically the idea that the intent of the Second Amendment was to protect individuals from government powers or tyranny.

If that is the case, a nation of hunters, range enthusiasts, sport shooters and tacticool weekend warriors sporting Glocks, ARs and Mossbergs is not really going to be a match for a tank batallion or column of infantrymen (to say nothing of the Air Force).


So, should anyone be allowed to own mortars, RPGs or SAM launchers (provided they have the financial means to purchase them)? If not, what limitations should be imposed?

I bet they had cannons on those ships...

Yes, you should be able to own an RPG. Or a gatling gun. Or whatever else.

.....So long as you are willing to take full legal responsibility and liability for it, that is. If the RPG is used in a terrorist attack, it's your ------- personal responsibility, no one else's.

Up untill the mid-1930s I want to say, even a 10-year old could mail order a gatling gun. Bring that back, I'm perfectly fine with it, so long as the owners accept responsibility for their weapon choices.

When I bear the burdens of being an admin, I'm not hand-carrying anything.

"O ye partial ministers of your own acknowledged principles! If the bearing arms be sinful, the first going to war must be more so, by all the difference between wilful attack and unavoidable defence."

I feel that once weapons reach a certain level of destructive capability there should at the very least be a stringent license that must be attained to legally possess these weapons. Then that raises the question of should a citizen own a SAM or other highly destructive what would their responsibility be to properly secure this equipment so that it does not end up stolen by someone who should not have control of it. The argument can be made that citizens who legally carry firearms rarely commit crimes with them but by making much more destructive weapons accessible to the public also opens the flow for easier access by criminals buying them illegally. I think it is a very thin line to tread. I also think if the country went into a revolution style war you might be suprised at just how well average citizens would be able to ward off the military. I am not saying it would be easy or that casualties would not be high but history has shown that people tend to find ways to adapt to overcome especially when the military would be heavily outnumbered by normal citizens.

Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but "to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER" and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God.

I've never been terribly impressed by this argument, to be honest.

Yes, of course, Bubba in his hunting camo and carrying his .30-06 bolt action is no match for a modern soldier.

But then, an armed civilian population probably wouldn't need to win an conflict in the same way that we think of a standing army winning a conflict, would it? The civilian population need only to exhaust the political will and/or popular support for the military action. The name of the game is resistance, inflicting notable (even if nominal) losses for the other side, attempting to outlast the enemy's will to fight; not going toe-to-toe, trading blows, and attempting to win outright in a show of force.

Am I wrong? We're talking about insurgency here, not modern military warfare.

Does the 2nd Amendment assure that people will be armed against foreign invaders? Look at how Iraq destroyed the Kurds and how the Syrian rebellion maintains the respect of their opposition. There is a genuine need for weapons like ARs, 30 round magazines, and sniper rifles along the TX/Mexico border, and anywhere a flash-mob strikes.

I'm not sure how I feel about an RPG.

lol @ RPG

Do you have any idea of what I can make in my kitchen???

A lovely risotto?

I want some mango mahi.

That's a fair point. I guess it's tough to say because the scenario is, so far as I can think, pretty unprecedented. I can't seem to think (off the top of my head) of any instances in which a totalitarian or dictator came to power - edit: or attempted to stay in power - using the force of a national military of even a fraction the scale of he US military.


The closest proxy might be modern day Syria?

Under current US law, I get the impression that it's perfectly legal to own a hand cranked Gatling gun with about the same restrictions as a conventional rifle. I got to fire one of those at a gun range a couple years ago (It is possible its owner had a special permit, but as one has to keep operating the mechanism, it appears it legally doesn't meet the legal definition of a machine gun.). Muzzle loading cannons have even fewer restrictions as they don't meet the legal definition of a firearm in certain laws. And nobody's really bothered to close the loopholes since you'd be nuts to use either one for ordinary criminal purposes.

I've always liked to think that the military itself would be divided in such a conflict.

Agreed...in what proportion I'm sure would depend on the nature of the conflict, but I'd imagine that under almost any circumstances, there'd be at least a significant number of soldiers that would refuse orders to fire on American citizens.

Then again, who knows?

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1344284288

The premise of the debate within this thread is rendered useless by the fact that Scalia is a scumbag shithead disgrace of a justice who should just resign and go crawl into a hole and ---- off.

Ask me how I really feel though. :P

My grandfather is a retired airforce colonel and my other grandfather was army special forces. I've had discussions with them before about it. the word Freedom is near and dear to our country. It's plastered everywhere and engraved in our heads. For any United States Citizen to jeopardize that especially a military soldier would be sacrilegious. Although these days i'm starting to think the sheep are straying and our idea of freedom is quite tainted.

I guess to stay on topic. scalia is a shithead disgrace and to lawyer that statement instead of taking it in it's true context is a bullshit liberal move. another person who doesn't deserve to live here because they don't appreciate and understand what people did for us to have what we have and be the people we are today. It's mind boggling how people can vote and appoint these douchebag fucktards.

I dont' think the authors of the constitution really intended the right to "bear" arms to only apply to weapons easily carried.

You only have to read some of the other works by the Founding Fathers to know this. The Constitution wasn't the only important document written 200 years ago. The easy read is The Federalist Papers, but just about anybody back then who laid quill to parchment has some endearing quote about how important it to have a well armed populace to ensure both the "group" and "individual" securities of the nation.

I wouldn't mind having a few SA-18s but I don't think my neighbor could be trusted with one.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1344287751

When RPGs are outlawed, only outlaws have RPGs.

I'm unclear on what you are sayingin this post. Are you saying that the American understanding of freedom means that you feel there is a low likelihood of the military using force against the citizenry in the name of the government?

I would like to think I agree with that.

So you do support the ability of a civillian to purchase anti-aircraft and/or anti-tank weaponry?

I'm confused, are you saying the 2nd Amendment authors only wanted "arms which could be carried" to be available?

Actually, I think I would under the right conditions. Those conditions would obviously equate to proper training, security, and storage. Security would be the tough part. You essentially need a small base surrounding the armory that you would need to keep them in.

Somebody who could afford a decent supply of modern heavy weaponry to outfit their own squad, say their immediate neighborhood, would also have the dough to afford the property and infrastructure to safely store and maintain that weaponry. National Guard Armories are in residential neighborhoods and it's no big deal.

In the situation where somebody had the cash to do it as well as the military, I would completely support a private citizen owning as much of the "good stuff" as they wanted.

I won't walk straight into that one... I'll sidestep.

Back in the day, there were weapons you carried in your hands (rifles and pistols), and weapons that required a horse to pull them(cannons and mortars). I'm unsure whether the authors of the Constitution could envision an F-22.

We could walk this to it's farthest extent and just ask the question of whether or not average citizens should be allowed to buy nuclear weapons in order to completely destroy the government if they get out of hand.

I still keep coming back to the fact if the gov't shows up at your doorstep to take something you're willing to die to keep, they have to decide it's worth killing you over to achieve what they're trying to accomplish in the taking.

I'll reference the Great New Orleans Gun-Grab after Katrina. When the word went out to the various armed agencies out performing clean-up work to start confiscating guns, there was a huge dissent within the various National Guard factions about whether the order from the Mayors order should be followed. Of course, all the local and "regular" police/cops went apeshiz took everything in site.

There is a great story out there somewhere about a National Guard Major who basically told his entire command structure they could go f-themselves if they thought he was going to take peoples guns.

The point is, it's almost certainly not going to be US Army or State National Guard tanks rolling down your street, that's just not the way they come after you. It's going to be a couple squad cars out to enforce some new "zoning violation", and the police are there to make sure nothing bad happens as a semi pulls up with a 40ft backhoe to demo your house (or infringe on your rights, take your guns, whatever). At that point, if you're willing to die for what they've come to take, they will need to kill you to take it. That's when you need your guns, and your neighbors.

The responsibility to secure a weapon by its owner should go up as the deadly nature of the weapon goes up. the way you secure a knife is not the same as a gun.
I'm not sure what is reasonable security for a missile or other very dangerous weapons but armed guard and security gates seem to do a reasonable job for the military. if people want to live in a isolated area and set up a military base protected by rockets should that be allowed? personally I don't really have a problem about it however it could raise more complex issues.

what happens to people who are born inside the gates of such a guarded community? will they be free to join the outside world and leave whenever they want? how can that freedom be guaranteed in such a closed off community that likely does not want the government inspecting their stockpile? should it even be the responsibility of the government to under take such a task. so it becomes a tricky issue, with such a high level of responsibility to protect the weapons, other freedoms are sacrificed. like a soldier whose job it is to protect people and secure military assets must make many personal sacrifices.

I think it would be hard to argue a single person could sufficiently secure a stockpile of surface to air missiles and even if a group owns 100 rockets or whatever, the US military would crush them if the ---- hit the fan so in the end what is the point.

This is just a stupid idea.
OK first, what is the deal with the paranoia of gun owners. There are 300 million plus privately owned guns in the US. That is like 80% of the privately owned guns in the world. Gun sales are certainly not going down. The gun lobby has more power than ever before and yet gun owners put out these constant conspiracy theories about how some secret conspiracy is organizing to take away their guns. Obama is secretly negotiating a deal with the UN to outlaw guns-give me a break. Gun owners are in more danger of elves stealing their guns than any concerted efforts to eliminate guns.
Now on the question
Sure everyone should have RPGs, 40mm grenade launchers. Heavy machine guns(everyone should have an old ma deuce in their pickup. Bet you could have some fun with a Dillon minigun if you were drunk or pissed off at a high school football stadium
Hell, I could landmine my yard or ring it with claymores. A 60/81/120mm mortar would be fun. Neighbors/local business pissing you off?drop a few rounds on them then drive away
They should just give military surplus away to citizens
They should just stock hundreds of bricks of C4 and blasting caps at the supermarket-come on big explosions are FUN.
No one would ever get hurt right? Everyone would keep tight control over their inventory and be well trained. ---- disappears from secure lock ups all the time. You think suburban houses are safe? Think the fire department is going to want to run into save your house if there is a question of a bunch of high explosives hidden under your bed?
What about a bunch of VX gas. Sure I can store it as safely as the military.
Couple of tactical nukes. If everyone has a nuclear weapon then we'll all be safe from the gubbment.
Obviously an exaggeration, but if you want to live in Mogadishu then move there.

I would tend to agree with this sentiment. I think the members of the US military, while sometimes "looking down" on civillians - as a whole - are much more inclined to take seriously the idea that they are safeguards of national freedom and American liberties.

My impression is that the police, on the otherhand, are much more likely to take an "us versus them" mentality of a civillian population.


That, to me, goes towards kaiser's point of how incredibly unlikely a scenario it is for a totalitarian dictator to come to power in the USA and for armed citizens to then have to displace them.


Gun ownership is alsways a tricky issue for me as I struggle with an inherent bent toward elitism. I remember when I "qualified" for my concealed carry permit. I had been shooting pretty regularly at the time and brought my SIG P226. I put 10 rounds through the bullseye (~2" group), then another 10 rounds through the "9" (another ~2" group).

Meanwhile, most of the other targets looked like they had been sprayed with birdshot. Still, as long as you got most of your rounds on paper, you qualified. I honestly think it was tougher to get a driving license... and I am genuinely undecided on whether that's a good thing or a bad thing.

Time to get a new ICBM for my silo? Always wanted one with multiple warheads

How the hell do you think the gun lobby is so powerful? It's because they need to be so fukking powerful to fight all the bullshit legislation that comes through to take our fukking guns.

Your fairly standard response is of somebody who has no idea how much firearms legislation passes through the hands of our various government representatives every year.

Without the constant focused efforts of groups like the NRA, 2nd Amendment Foundation, Calguns, VCDL, and dozens of other national and local pro-2A groups, the left would quickly and neatly institute a national registry, an intrusive and complex permitting process, and restrict private citizens from owning anything more than single-shot .22lr and 20ga for the purposes of hunting only. Every single piece of firearms legislation is one step closer to disarming the masses. You cannot think of this issue as something that is just happening today or in the next couple years... it's something that has been happening for a couple centuries. People just like you and me were having this exact same discussion 20 years ago, 40, 80 years ago... and without the actions of individual citizens supporting the lobby groups, we'd be down to slingshots by now.

The longstanding battlegrounds are California, New York, and the City of Chicago.

The goal of the anti-2A groups is a complete ban of all firearms, do not get sucked into their wishy-washy rhetoric of "We support the 2nd Amendment, but it must be "reasonable". The Brady Campaign has openly said many times that their goal is outright banning. They have a calculated approach across many angles, nibbling, nibbling, nibbling. If they can't get the law they want outright, they have about 20 other methods of making it such a burden on the individual that nobody can afford it, or there's no place to do it, or there's nobody to sell it to them, or the law is so vague that the police have no clue what's legal or not... etc.

For example... the below is CURRENTLY BEING ROUTED THROUGH THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE:

Senate Bill 249 – Semi-Automatic Component Ban – EXPECTED TO BE HEARD NEXT WEEK.
SB 249, as amended, would make a small but profound change to the definition of what constitutes a detachable magazine for a semiautomatic firearm. By doing so, hundreds of thousands of semi-automatic rifles, which were legally sold in California over the last decade, would become illegal on July 1, 2013. SB 249 also has no provisions to allow permitting, licensing or reimbursement for the loss of valuable property. Worse yet, the bill doesn’t require a public notice program to advise owners of this change in state law. Thousands of owners could be arrested for inadvertent violations. If you own an affected firearm, your only choices would be to destroy it, surrender it to a law enforcement agency, sell it out of state or have it confiscated at the time of your arrest! SB 249 is a pure anti-gun bill and MUST BE DEFEATED.

Senate Bill 1221 – Hunting Ban – EXPECTED TO BE HEARD THIS WEDNESDAY.
SB 1221, introduced by state Senator Ted Lieu (D-28), would ban hunting bears and bobcats with dogs. Hunting with dogs is a tradition that continues to be practiced across the country. Many dog breeds with select characteristics for hunting can be traced back for thousands of years. Seventeen states allow bear hunting with dogs. The use of hounds for hunting has never been shown to have an adverse impact on wildlife numbers. Biologists and other wildlife experts determine regulations and bag limits, just as they do with other hunting seasons.

Senate Bill 1366 – Lost and Stolen Reporting of Firearms
– EXPECTED TO BE HEARD THIS WEDNESDAY.
SB 1366, introduced by state Senator Mark DeSaulnier (D-7), would require every person to report the theft or loss of a firearm he or she owns or possesses to a local law enforcement agency in the jurisdiction in which the theft or loss occurred within 48 hours of the time he or she knew or reasonably should have known that the firearm had been stolen or lost. Law-abiding gun owners should not be made a victim twice.

Assembly Bill 1527 – Open Carry Ban (of unloaded long gun)
– EXPECTED TO BE HEARD TODAY.
AB 1527, introduced by Assemblyman Anthony Portantino (D-44), would expand on last year’s ban on open carrying of an unloaded handgun to also include unloaded rifles and shotguns.

Assembly Bill 2460 – Ban of Law Enforcement Transfer of Firearms
– EXPECTED TO BE HEARD TODAY.
AB 2460, introduced by Assemblyman Roger Dickinson (D-9), would ban law enforcement officers from transferring handguns that are not on California’s approved “roster” to anyone but law enforcement officers. Currently, California law allows for the transfer of firearms that are not on the approved "roster" to be transferred to law-abiding civilians. These transfers must go through a licensed firearms dealer and are only transferred when the new civilian owner has passed a criminal background check.

Senate Bill 1315 – Local Regulation of Firearms – EXPECTED TO BE HEARD TODAY.
SB 1315, introduced by anti-gun extremist state Senator Kevin de León (D-22), is just a stepping stone to completely destroying California’s firearms preemption law. Firearms preemption laws are in place to standardize firearm laws across the state. This critical law keeps law-abiding gun owners from being placed in jeopardy of running afoul of local restrictions they don`t even know exist simply because they have crossed from one municipality to another. SB 1315 would authorize Los Angeles County to enact and enforce an ordinance or resolution that is stricter than state law regarding the manufacture, sale, possession or use of any BB device, toy gun, replica of a firearm, or other device that is so substantially similar in coloration and overall appearance to an existing firearm as to lead a reasonable person to perceive that the device is a firearm and that expels a projectile that is no more than 16 millimeters in diameter.

The irony of all that bullshit regulation is how little it does to decrease or deter gun related crimes. Just look at all the gang activity in L.A. Criminals don't give a ---- if it is illegal because they are already planning to break worse laws. All these laws accomplish is dearming law abiding citizens and diminishing their ability to lawfully defend themselves.

lol @ people from murder-free Chicago sharing opinions on gun ownership.

gun violence was reduced with DC lifting the gun ban.

Chicago/Detroit are still sh-tholes with all the crazy laws they have.

This same thing has been proven time and time again in many different locations spanning many countries. Criminals are much more likely to use a gun if they think you won't have one.

Yeah but facts and figures < feelings and superiority complex.

The world is not the happy, pretty place you think it is. People want to kill/rob/rape all the time, and you're constantly being stalked as a potential victim. You trivialize this as "claymores for the annoying neighbors" but people are murdered and raped everyday.
Flash-mob murder:
Milwaukee Flash Mob Attempts to Murder Two Women After Robbing Store : Greenville Dragnet
home invasions:
Man Fatally Shot During Home Invasion In Sharon - Courant.com
Dr. William Petit, lone survivor of horrific Conn. home invasion, remarries - NY Daily News
3 held in D'Iberville home invasion - SFGate

I also like where you asserted us gun owners would shoot-up a football stadium. Maybe you're the one we need to keep away from guns. I assume you're unarmed, what do you do when someone breaks into your home and starts tying people up? Do you accept it as the price you pay for a higher-state of consciousness? Half this country decided the need to protect yourself and others went away for some reason.

Police: 7-Year-Old Involved In Violent Home Invasion In Juniata « CBS Philly


time to outlaw rocks, sticks, and plants!

Not in Jew Nersey.

I left out the far-right sources, but there are crazy stories about flash-mobs running through PA cities and invading homes, then getting fragged by guys with assault rifles. Some have 90-minute police response times. I suppose this is the "practical application" of the semi-auto rifle the left says we don't need.

Lol @ gun owners, at least those that own them legally, running around shooting places for silly reasons. Those I know, that own guns legally, have high respect for others and will only turn to use a firearm in light of a life-threatening situation. Only those that acquire fire arms with the intend to commit crime will have such low regard for other's well being.

I couldn't embed, so here it is:

Penn & Teller: Gun Control is Bullshyt

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBLwSR2Mxyw

Good thing. Inept car owner is still more likely to kill someone else than inept gun owner.

I think every driving test should be similar to Finland's driver test. If you do not know what I am talking about google it. There is a reason the motorsports saying goes "If you want to win, hire a Fin."

agree with that.

Eff yes, but it will never happen here. If a politician even tries to broach the subject, he won't be re-elected.

It may have been addressed already.......but.....

What say you guys about the best solution to random violant acts with legally acquired weapons (Aurora, CO, etc.)?

Imagine that, the streets will be empty. People freak about driving a manual car. What are these numbers and where is "D"?

I think that random acts deal with the individual's ability to manage anger and the manner in which that person retaliates. The amount of work and money to create a detailed psychological profile for every gun owner in order to determine the potential risk of snapping and causing harm would be high and not entirely eliminate these acts. All in all that's is a very hard question because for those fixed on causing harm to others will find a manner in which to cause harm. :dunno:

You need to be more specific.

Are you asking how we prevent such acts through commerce?
Are you asking about how to tactically handle an active shooter?
Are you asking about how a CCW handgun carrier would fare against an assault weapon wielder?

What exactly is your question?

Since I think you're asking the first version, it's pretty obvious that there is nothing you can do to prevent most mass-shootings that were done with legally obtained weapons and still maintain the liberties of the law abiding from the view of restricting sales of the weaponry itself.

If he'd run into the theater and thrown a couple 5-gallon buckets of gasoline on the first row and lit them off, causing everybody in the theater to have to run through the inferno and over the bodies of their burning fellow viewers, WOULD WE:

A: Restrict gasoline sales to only people who could prove they owned vehicles.
B: Ration gasoline to only XX gallons per week based on what kind of car you have.
C: Require a national licensing program so that only background checked legal vehicle owning people could buy gas.
D: Force people to annually report every mile they drove and demonstrate proper cause to continue to own their gasoline ration.
E... you get the idea.

By no measure of reason can you use the circumstances surrounding a mass shooting to justify changes in firearms law.

If the guy had made a dozen pipe-bombs and blown the place up, would people be down at Home Depot picketing that they are evil pipe-selling death dealers that have blood on their hands.

Just read this. People are actually calling the online store (that has 85% sales to police officers) and berating, insulting, threatening them for their "role" in the shooting:
A Statement Regarding The Colorado Shooting | Tactical Gear News

Great video, was about to post that.

For those who don't wanna click that link here is an embed,



I suggest watching the criminal's input at 20:12. It's pretty creepy and all too true.

You said it ritght there. Random acts are just that, random. But would things turned out the same if even 1 or 5 or more of those people had been armed?

:ugh:

I wouldnt want to own an RPG, they are very inaccurate and hard to predict.

As an opinion, I dont believe the US military would have much power if they came into a civil conflict with US citizens, since I would like to believe if given such an order without an extreme and legitimate cause for such blasphemy half if not most would use their own military training and resources to arm and defend the civil rebellion.

As for ownership of explosive ordinance with guided warheads and/or anti-aircraft capability, you can already own older WW2 and vietnam war era weaponry, that could still pack enough heat to destroy the most advanced abrams tanks or multi-role fighter jets. To own more modern weapons I agree with sam about being trained, legal, and know how to successfully secure an armory from unwanted and unlawful persons, and because if that I wouldnt want to own anything that would put me in that situation.

I dont think our fore-fathers could have even imagined anything close to the fighting force we as a country have today, but they sure created an amendment that I cherish close to my heart, because we are a country of rebels, and we will fight if our freedom is threatened. Civilian resistance has proven in history time and time again to be a major threat to an opposing military force, after all its what made us a country to begin with. Adapt and overcome any situation, we as citizens under invading forces or corrupt government powers have the ability to fight because of this amendment, not just defending ourselves and our families from criminals, in fact rebel forces are known to obtain assets of the enemy, so if we cant legally own modern ordnance, we can sure as hell take some in the heat of battle. Thats why I am all for weapon ownership just as long as you are responsible to everything you do, and strictly proven competent to own such a devastating item.

Evil minds will commit evil deeds no matter what the circumstance. If an opportunity presents itself, they will rape it. So all the "gun bans" will only disarm innocent people from unlawful fire arm attack. Its simple, if I want to commit a crime, im going to break the law anyways, so I dont give a ---- if my weapon is illegally obtained.

Here in Reno Ive met really sweet and nice people that own enough firepower to arm their neighbors around them. Including Barrett .50s, full auto M4/M16s, full auto M60s, .50 cal machine guns, tons of random rifles, handguns, and even a weapons capable M48 patton vietnam tank. If you have the money here, you basically can own it if you go through the right channels.


But TL;DR, I feel that our own sane military members will defend and arm us with assets of under insane corrupt government attack. If under invading forces, they will happily take you in, train you, and arm you to fight. As for large capability weaponry, you can own it just as long you are trained, secure, responsible, sane and under a watchful eye in times of peace.

I agree 100%. If a person bent on killing others doesn't have access to guns, he or she doesn't just say "oh well, I guess I'll just not do it". It's even easier and cheaper to make many different types of explosives and incendiary devices than get a gun. Tide and gasoline anyone? Thank God he didn't chuck a bunch of pipe bombs in the audience, the body count would likely have been much higher.

As for someone engaging the shooter had they been carrying? As said before somewhere on here, it would have been very difficult. Through the darkness, smoke, point of view (looking at bright screen vs looking away from), etc, engaging at range would greatly increase the risk of hitting a bystander. Also, if several people had weapons drawn, there's a high possibility of friendly fire (is that the bad guy?). However, if he was directly in front of you and shooting into the crowd, the likely hood of a successful engagement goes up.

Do you prefer watching a series of executions or a fighting chance? I several examples of mass shootings that I've read, it appears that it would be fairly easy to identify the shooter in the room. I'd like to hear from someone trained on this. When I get my CHL in the very near future, I'm going to follow it up with more training with a local group that does tactical shooting a couple times per month.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I definitely prefer a fighting chance! And I plan to do the exact same things you're going to do. My only point is the argument that it could have been easily stopped if someone had a gun doesn't take into consideration all the factors.

I'm a huge fan of proper training for firearms (as with driving) and practice, practice, practice. I feel these fulfill the responsibilities of a, uh, responsible gun owner.

I'm reminded of the incident which happened outside the Fairchild AFB hospital. An AF security forces member engaged at shooter at 75yds with an M9...after pedaling like mad to the scene on a bike (or something like that). Four rounds fired, two took out the shooter. The guy was a hero, but had those two rounds struck bystanders, it could have turned out worse. Granted, it's easy to judge after the fact; however, proper training most likely ensured he had a clear shot at the target, and was able to judge the area around/behind the shooter.

As with cars, just because a person can get one doesn't mean they're qualified to use it.

Consider the alternative.

There's a question I'd like to ask rhetorically... let's say there had been a SEAL, Green Beret, SWAT member, or regular old Marine... basically anybody in the audience who some serious quick reaction training and the mental discipline to establish a tactical solution. Do you think a SEAL would let the fact that he wasn't carrying stop him from trying to take down an active shooter... and succeeding?

Anybody in my list above would not have been one of the scared-to-death panicking-running-for-their-lives-completely-unable-to-defend-themselves citizens getting gunned down as they tried to run out the door. If anybody in that list had been armed, I guarantee you the incident would have gone much differently.

People who have never considered how they will react to a crisis... any crisis, will almost always do what everybody around them is doing. Men will run as fast as they can, and women will either freeze, hide, or run screaming.

I have a metric fuk-ton of Anti-Terrorism training. I've been to 2 schools and been credentialed in addition to yearly refreshers.. Having done my tour working the flight-deck, my mass-casualty scenario training is also pretty extensive, and while I haven't ever been put to the test like those people in the theater, I've had those moments where I felt like running, but the training not only told me to stay put, but gave me the ability to process that staying put was not only safest for me, but put me in a position to be safe for others. The psychology of "mass-panic" is well-documented. What is equally well documented is the difference military (or military-style) training makes during an event like that.

As Hustler intoned, simply being able to hit a paper target at a range does not constitute the type of "firearms training" that allows a person to react offensively during a mass-shooting. You also need the mental and tactical discipline not to become a victim before you can engage the shooter.

Sam, yes I am referring to the prevention of mass shootings. Now don’t get confused, I’m not anti-gun. Not even close. I support the right for any sane, law-abiding citizen to arm themselves with practically any level of weaponry.

I don’t claim to be a psychologist or any type of gun expert.….but I don’t buy the argument that the shooter would find another method (pipe bombs, etc) of harm. Because they don’t. They choose assault weapons and tactical handguns. I feel that this type of attacker is looking for the glory and control that this type of weaponry provide. Regardless of my opinion of the assailant’s frame of mind, ultimately this is exactly the type of weapons that are being used in these situations. Now, if they were being acquired illegally we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Sadly, that isn’t the case. So my concern is: as a society (not gov’t) are there any suggestions to prevent mass shootings involving assault weapons and tactical handguns?

The analogy that I keep coming back to is: you stick a bunch of kids in a room with a box of magic markers. You tell them that they can play with the markers but that they are not allowed to write on the walls. Inevitably, some kid is going to write on the wall. How long will you allow this to go on until you take back all of the markers? Or, can you find another method to ensure that the wall doesn’t get written-on when the kids have control of the markers?

ah I get it, we should provide 300,000,000+ citizens with bullet proof vests. You so smart.