Author Topic: Gun Control?  (Read 19079 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #330 on: February 23, 2018, 08:39:42 PM »

Online Neurotic Guy

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12709
  • Tommy Points: 1335
Quote
When Coral Springs police officers arrived at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, on February 14 in the midst of the school shooting crisis, many officers were surprised to find not only that Broward County Sheriff's Deputy Scot Peterson, the armed school resource officer, had not entered the building, but that three other Broward County Sheriff's deputies were also outside the school and had not entered, Coral Springs sources tell CNN. The deputies had their pistols drawn and were behind their vehicles, the sources said, and not one of them had gone into the school.

With direction from the Broward deputies who were outside, Coral Springs police soon entered the building where the shooter was. ...

Some Coral Springs police were stunned and upset that the four original Broward County Sheriff's deputies who were first on the scene did not appear to join them as they entered the school, Coral Springs sources tell CNN.

Itís sickening. 4-on-1, all armed, and you let kids die?

I could understand the SRO to some extent. Heís not realistically expecting to use his firearm. But three regular duty LEOs as well? Thatís breathtakingly cowardly.

Don't be confused by that. He IS an officer and should always have an expectation to address a threat. Just because his assignment is at a school is not an excuse for cowardness. When you say "regular duty LEO's" are you referring to uniform officers?

I do think it speaks to the panic mindset that even trained individuals have in the face of combat.  Arming teachers with handguns to face an AK-47 wielded by a sociopath who is mowing people down while his heart is beating at a calm 60 BPM is a rather large error and will likely end badly for the teacher -- and probably does not create much of a deterrent. 

On the flip-side, the football coach was definitely in "fight mode" and it's reasonably safe to suggest that if he had been adequately armed he would've made an attempt to meet Cruz head-on.

So perhaps the message should be that not all individuals (regardless of profession) will be courageous enough to engage. However, there are those (some, not ALL) teachers that could do pretty well in an adverse situation.
We still can not say that.  Not to take anything away from what he did because it was terribly heroic but I think protecting someone, especially a child, is a more natural instinct than killing someone.  I know many teachers, the majority of them are adamantly opposed to teachers carrying weapons but I have little doubt that most of them would step in front of a bullet to protect a child.  I also have little doubt that none of them would shoot at a child.

Yeah, we can pretty much say that. Fight or flight response is a real thing and it's how your body responds to danger, while also releasing high amounts of adrenaline and cortisol. The fact that he didn't run away indicates that he was in fight mode. At that point, if properly armed he would've met the threat. Now that doesn't mean he would win the gun fight, but he surely would've engaged.

When you're in a shooting, you aren't assessing things like a person's age. That just doesn't happen. It's weird, but things do slow down considerably, even though things are happening very quickly, and what your brain locks in on is the threat (gun, knife) and the target (center mass). Senses such as sound is almost completely nullified, since it's not needed, and what you need to survive (visual on the threat, fine motor skills) is heightened to max levels. It's remarkable how your brain does this instantaneously.

I think we can say that cortisol may heighten your senses in high stress situations, but it's virually impossible to say how any individual will react to these situations (unless they've been in similar situations).  I've heard it said that most people in panic will be highly unlikely to coordinate a straight shot with a gun.  Even the coach, who may have gone into fight mode, still may not have been steady with a gun.  Let's just say that arming teachers comes with potential gains and possible costs (puts outweaponed, non-combat proven civilians in harms way and highly likely to miss targets and possibly hit innocents), and is by no means THE answer.   I understand Trump favors only military trained staff members would be eligible.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #331 on: February 23, 2018, 08:41:44 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34986
  • Tommy Points: -27820
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Quote
Yeah, we can pretty much say that. Fight or flight response is a real thing and it's how your body responds to danger,

I wonder, though, does it apply equally in all situations?

Iíve come to othersí aid in serious situations twice, once when a very large swarm of wasps attacked my then-girlfriend, and another time when I saved my exís neighbor from drowning. Both were very risky situations, and I just reacted without hesitation. But, Iím not sure if I could kill somebody. I never got into hunting, because I always hesitated shooting. I couldnít do it. Now, if my kids were in danger, I think Iíd kill anybody in my way. For complete strangers, Iím not sure.  Iíd like to think Iíd rise to the task, but I just canít guarantee it.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #332 on: February 23, 2018, 08:46:49 PM »

Offline Eddie20

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8019
  • Tommy Points: 860
Quote
Yeah, we can pretty much say that. Fight or flight response is a real thing and it's how your body responds to danger,

I wonder, though, does it apply equally in all situations?

Iíve come to othersí aid in serious situations twice, once when a very large swarm of wasps attacked my then-girlfriend, and another time when I saved my exís neighbor from drowning. Both were very risky situations, and I just reacted without hesitation. But, Iím not sure if I could kill somebody. I never got into hunting, because I always hesitated shooting. I couldnít do it. Now, if my kids were in danger, I think Iíd kill anybody in my way. For complete strangers, Iím not sure.  Iíd like to think Iíd rise to the task, but I just canít guarantee it.

This part is key. In some ways, their students are like their kids and definitely not strangers.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #333 on: February 23, 2018, 08:53:59 PM »

Offline chicagoceltic

  • Gordon Hayward
  • Posts: 626
  • Tommy Points: 83
Quote
When Coral Springs police officers arrived at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, on February 14 in the midst of the school shooting crisis, many officers were surprised to find not only that Broward County Sheriff's Deputy Scot Peterson, the armed school resource officer, had not entered the building, but that three other Broward County Sheriff's deputies were also outside the school and had not entered, Coral Springs sources tell CNN. The deputies had their pistols drawn and were behind their vehicles, the sources said, and not one of them had gone into the school.

With direction from the Broward deputies who were outside, Coral Springs police soon entered the building where the shooter was. ...

Some Coral Springs police were stunned and upset that the four original Broward County Sheriff's deputies who were first on the scene did not appear to join them as they entered the school, Coral Springs sources tell CNN.

Itís sickening. 4-on-1, all armed, and you let kids die?

I could understand the SRO to some extent. Heís not realistically expecting to use his firearm. But three regular duty LEOs as well? Thatís breathtakingly cowardly.

Don't be confused by that. He IS an officer and should always have an expectation to address a threat. Just because his assignment is at a school is not an excuse for cowardness. When you say "regular duty LEO's" are you referring to uniform officers?

I do think it speaks to the panic mindset that even trained individuals have in the face of combat.  Arming teachers with handguns to face an AK-47 wielded by a sociopath who is mowing people down while his heart is beating at a calm 60 BPM is a rather large error and will likely end badly for the teacher -- and probably does not create much of a deterrent. 

On the flip-side, the football coach was definitely in "fight mode" and it's reasonably safe to suggest that if he had been adequately armed he would've made an attempt to meet Cruz head-on.

So perhaps the message should be that not all individuals (regardless of profession) will be courageous enough to engage. However, there are those (some, not ALL) teachers that could do pretty well in an adverse situation.
We still can not say that.  Not to take anything away from what he did because it was terribly heroic but I think protecting someone, especially a child, is a more natural instinct than killing someone.  I know many teachers, the majority of them are adamantly opposed to teachers carrying weapons but I have little doubt that most of them would step in front of a bullet to protect a child.  I also have little doubt that none of them would shoot at a child.

Yeah, we can pretty much say that. Fight or flight response is a real thing and it's how your body responds to danger, while also releasing high amounts of adrenaline and cortisol. The fact that he didn't run away indicates that he was in fight mode. At that point, if properly armed he would've met the threat. Now that doesn't mean he would win the gun fight, but he surely would've engaged.

When you're in a shooting, you aren't assessing things like a person's age. That just doesn't happen. It's weird, but things do slow down considerably, even though things are happening very quickly, and what your brain locks in on is the threat (gun, knife) and the target (center mass). Senses such as sound is almost completely nullified, since it's not needed, and what you need to survive (visual on the threat, fine motor skills) is heightened to max levels. It's remarkable how your brain does this instantaneously.
You may be right but you are only speculating.  The coach may have been in "fight mode" or he may have been in "protect mode".  Obviously we cannot say with any certainty what he would have done if he had a weapon.  As far as I know we also cannot tell if he even would have carried a weapon IF he was allowed.  All we can say with certainty is he was a brave man and a hero.
Pub Draft

Sam N Ella's

At the Bar: The Most Interesting Man in the World
At the Door:  Hugh Hefner
On Stage:  O.A.R., Louis C.K., EDGAR! Special Drinks:  Irish Car Bomb, Martinis On Tap: Lite, Beamish, 3 Floyds Seasonal, Chimay Grand Reserve, Spotted Cow

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #334 on: February 23, 2018, 08:59:17 PM »

Offline Eddie20

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8019
  • Tommy Points: 860
Quote
When Coral Springs police officers arrived at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, on February 14 in the midst of the school shooting crisis, many officers were surprised to find not only that Broward County Sheriff's Deputy Scot Peterson, the armed school resource officer, had not entered the building, but that three other Broward County Sheriff's deputies were also outside the school and had not entered, Coral Springs sources tell CNN. The deputies had their pistols drawn and were behind their vehicles, the sources said, and not one of them had gone into the school.

With direction from the Broward deputies who were outside, Coral Springs police soon entered the building where the shooter was. ...

Some Coral Springs police were stunned and upset that the four original Broward County Sheriff's deputies who were first on the scene did not appear to join them as they entered the school, Coral Springs sources tell CNN.

Itís sickening. 4-on-1, all armed, and you let kids die?

I could understand the SRO to some extent. Heís not realistically expecting to use his firearm. But three regular duty LEOs as well? Thatís breathtakingly cowardly.

Don't be confused by that. He IS an officer and should always have an expectation to address a threat. Just because his assignment is at a school is not an excuse for cowardness. When you say "regular duty LEO's" are you referring to uniform officers?

I do think it speaks to the panic mindset that even trained individuals have in the face of combat.  Arming teachers with handguns to face an AK-47 wielded by a sociopath who is mowing people down while his heart is beating at a calm 60 BPM is a rather large error and will likely end badly for the teacher -- and probably does not create much of a deterrent. 

On the flip-side, the football coach was definitely in "fight mode" and it's reasonably safe to suggest that if he had been adequately armed he would've made an attempt to meet Cruz head-on.

So perhaps the message should be that not all individuals (regardless of profession) will be courageous enough to engage. However, there are those (some, not ALL) teachers that could do pretty well in an adverse situation.
We still can not say that.  Not to take anything away from what he did because it was terribly heroic but I think protecting someone, especially a child, is a more natural instinct than killing someone.  I know many teachers, the majority of them are adamantly opposed to teachers carrying weapons but I have little doubt that most of them would step in front of a bullet to protect a child.  I also have little doubt that none of them would shoot at a child.

Yeah, we can pretty much say that. Fight or flight response is a real thing and it's how your body responds to danger, while also releasing high amounts of adrenaline and cortisol. The fact that he didn't run away indicates that he was in fight mode. At that point, if properly armed he would've met the threat. Now that doesn't mean he would win the gun fight, but he surely would've engaged.

When you're in a shooting, you aren't assessing things like a person's age. That just doesn't happen. It's weird, but things do slow down considerably, even though things are happening very quickly, and what your brain locks in on is the threat (gun, knife) and the target (center mass). Senses such as sound is almost completely nullified, since it's not needed, and what you need to survive (visual on the threat, fine motor skills) is heightened to max levels. It's remarkable how your brain does this instantaneously.

I think we can say that cortisol may heighten your senses in high stress situations, but it's virually impossible to say how any individual will react to these situations (unless they've been in similar situations).  I've heard it said that most people in panic will be highly unlikely to coordinate a straight shot with a gun.  Even the coach, who may have gone into fight mode, still may not have been steady with a gun.  Let's just say that arming teachers comes with potential gains and possible costs (puts outweaponed, non-combat proven civilians in harms way and highly likely to miss targets and possibly hit innocents), and is by no means THE answer.   I understand Trump favors only military trained staff members would be eligible.

He may or may not have been accurate, but that has a large portion to do with his familiarity with a firearm. I could be in full fight mode, but I would be pretty worthless if I had to operate a rig. Now, if I were familiar with operating it then i would be fine.

This doesn't mean that I support arming any and all teachers. However, there are those, especially those familiar with firearms, that might perform pretty well if called. I do think that they could have routine training courses at Police Training Bureau, which would also include things like addressing massive hemorrhaging and the proper way of applying tourniquets. Before you think this idea is farfetched, various South American countries send their police personnel, which isn't very skilled to say the least, to Police Training Bureau's to train. Practice ammo isn't available in many of these countries, so these are people that have been given a firearm and have never fired one single round even at a range.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #335 on: February 23, 2018, 09:04:06 PM »

Offline Eddie20

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8019
  • Tommy Points: 860
Quote
When Coral Springs police officers arrived at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, on February 14 in the midst of the school shooting crisis, many officers were surprised to find not only that Broward County Sheriff's Deputy Scot Peterson, the armed school resource officer, had not entered the building, but that three other Broward County Sheriff's deputies were also outside the school and had not entered, Coral Springs sources tell CNN. The deputies had their pistols drawn and were behind their vehicles, the sources said, and not one of them had gone into the school.

With direction from the Broward deputies who were outside, Coral Springs police soon entered the building where the shooter was. ...

Some Coral Springs police were stunned and upset that the four original Broward County Sheriff's deputies who were first on the scene did not appear to join them as they entered the school, Coral Springs sources tell CNN.

Itís sickening. 4-on-1, all armed, and you let kids die?

I could understand the SRO to some extent. Heís not realistically expecting to use his firearm. But three regular duty LEOs as well? Thatís breathtakingly cowardly.

Don't be confused by that. He IS an officer and should always have an expectation to address a threat. Just because his assignment is at a school is not an excuse for cowardness. When you say "regular duty LEO's" are you referring to uniform officers?

I do think it speaks to the panic mindset that even trained individuals have in the face of combat.  Arming teachers with handguns to face an AK-47 wielded by a sociopath who is mowing people down while his heart is beating at a calm 60 BPM is a rather large error and will likely end badly for the teacher -- and probably does not create much of a deterrent. 

On the flip-side, the football coach was definitely in "fight mode" and it's reasonably safe to suggest that if he had been adequately armed he would've made an attempt to meet Cruz head-on.

So perhaps the message should be that not all individuals (regardless of profession) will be courageous enough to engage. However, there are those (some, not ALL) teachers that could do pretty well in an adverse situation.
We still can not say that.  Not to take anything away from what he did because it was terribly heroic but I think protecting someone, especially a child, is a more natural instinct than killing someone.  I know many teachers, the majority of them are adamantly opposed to teachers carrying weapons but I have little doubt that most of them would step in front of a bullet to protect a child.  I also have little doubt that none of them would shoot at a child.

Yeah, we can pretty much say that. Fight or flight response is a real thing and it's how your body responds to danger, while also releasing high amounts of adrenaline and cortisol. The fact that he didn't run away indicates that he was in fight mode. At that point, if properly armed he would've met the threat. Now that doesn't mean he would win the gun fight, but he surely would've engaged.

When you're in a shooting, you aren't assessing things like a person's age. That just doesn't happen. It's weird, but things do slow down considerably, even though things are happening very quickly, and what your brain locks in on is the threat (gun, knife) and the target (center mass). Senses such as sound is almost completely nullified, since it's not needed, and what you need to survive (visual on the threat, fine motor skills) is heightened to max levels. It's remarkable how your brain does this instantaneously.
You may be right but you are only speculating.  The coach may have been in "fight mode" or he may have been in "protect mode".  Obviously we cannot say with any certainty what he would have done if he had a weapon.  As far as I know we also cannot tell if he even would have carried a weapon IF he was allowed.  All we can say with certainty is he was a brave man and a hero.

There's no such thing as a "protect mode". Fight or flight is in fact a clinical definition to a person's response. This does not mean that a person will always fight, but in this situation he reacted as such and died heroically.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #336 on: February 24, 2018, 01:14:40 AM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10505
  • Tommy Points: 1176
I think the debate on whether or not a teacher would be any good with a gun is just a silly debate.  It's just not a good idea at all to have teachers carrying guns in schools, period.  There's just too many things that could go wrong.

That aside

I maintain the guns themselves aren't the problem, it's the fact they are too easy to obtain that is the issue.  None of my guns are even registered with any agency and do not need to be per NH law.  All but one of them was bought from a licensed dealer, so I'm sure the government could track those to me, but my AK-47 was bought via a private sale, so the government doesn't even know I have that gun.  Private sales in NH do not need to be reported, and there is no background check process, so it's basically no different than selling a used lawnmower.

And that to me is the issue.  Anybody can get their hands on a gun, even if they shouldn't have one.  I'm all for changing that.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #337 on: February 24, 2018, 04:17:24 AM »

Offline freshinthehouse

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1558
  • Tommy Points: 134
I donít thinking raising the age of ownership to 21 is the right thing to do. Itís going to solve very little, while taking rights away from millions of people. There are many, many teenagers who hunt responsibly. Iíve got cousins who have hunted under adult supervision since they were 8 or 9.  Theyíre no threat, nor are the overwhelming majority of gun owners between 18 and 20 years old.

It seems ultra hypocritical that young adults can carry a gun for their country, but canít own one at their homes.

I agree with this as well.  There are so many more feasible ways to cut down on gun violence that don't trample on the rights of a specific age group.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #338 on: February 24, 2018, 04:38:57 AM »

Online Neurotic Guy

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12709
  • Tommy Points: 1335
I donít thinking raising the age of ownership to 21 is the right thing to do. Itís going to solve very little, while taking rights away from millions of people. There are many, many teenagers who hunt responsibly. Iíve got cousins who have hunted under adult supervision since they were 8 or 9.  Theyíre no threat, nor are the overwhelming majority of gun owners between 18 and 20 years old.

It seems ultra hypocritical that young adults can carry a gun for their country, but canít own one at their homes.

I agree with this as well.  There are so many more feasible ways to cut down on gun violence that don't trample on the rights of a specific age group.

I think the raised age is probably a good idea as one measure in a host of measures.  I'm not seeing how Roy's cousins lives are deeply impacted. The US military is about as highly structured and supervised as anything could possibly be - and the guns aren't owned by the soldiers, just operated by them just as Roy's cousins operated their family's guns at 9 years of age..

 If civilian young men/women were scrutinized, trained and supervised to the extent they are in the military (as Roy's 9 year old cousins were) I don't see why they should be denied the opportunity to operate a firearm. But to freely purchase and own - I am fine with acknowledging (as we do with alcohol) that the 18-20 year old brain - in too high a prrcentage of cases - is still too "adolescent".  This helps only if part of a larger package of gun control measures. And I'm betting this will have no influence at all on 18 year olds participating in family traditions of hunting and target shooting.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #339 on: February 24, 2018, 04:52:16 AM »

Offline LatterDayCelticsfan

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1901
  • Tommy Points: 146
  • This is the time when Danny 'Thanos' Ainge brings 'balance' to the roster
Quick question. What does the 'well regulated' part of the 2nd amendment mean?
If you haven't heard Salsa Celtica you haven't heard Salsa

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #340 on: February 24, 2018, 07:22:01 AM »

Offline GreenFaith1819

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12332
  • Tommy Points: 2419
I'm a bit late to this dance but I'll grab a partner and cut the rug a bit anyway.

The thought of my wife (A middle school teacher for several years now and a GOOD one at that) carrying a GUN at school under Pres. Trump's suggestion is HORRIBLE.

HORRIBLE.

He (and some in his administration) seem out of touch with Modern Americans.

LOOK - I know that there are some layers to this issue. I believe in the RIGHT for Americans to carry a gun - even though guns TERRIFY me personally.

I once carried THREE weapons on watch as a Roving Patrol in the Navy onboard my ship right after 911 happened. I felt uncomfortable doing it but was trained and never had any mishaps with this.

STILL feel uncomfortable to this day around guns and while I respect those that have them I have no idea why some choose to collect them.

Like I stated earlier - HORRIBLE HORRIBLE idea to arm teachers.

What happens if a student tries to grab it?

Will there be an ARMORY at the school for teachers to turn in - check out - their weapons?

Will they have to purchase their weapons?

What happens in a situation where an ARMED TEACHER is in a hot situation with an armed assailant and he / she accidentally SHOOTS a student in the name of protecting them?

There is NO WAY we can expect a TEACHER to be as proficient with a weapon as a trained Police Officer.

HORRIBLE idea.

Did I say HORRIBLE enough?

I grieve for the students affected in the Florida Tragedy. I'm praying for their loses and also their COURAGE as they undertake this issue of Guns in our Country.
Marcus Smart "Impacts Winning." Boston Celtics Coach Brad Stevens

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #341 on: February 24, 2018, 08:11:57 AM »

Offline Eddie20

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8019
  • Tommy Points: 860
I once carried THREE weapons on watch as a Roving Patrol in the Navy onboard my ship right after 911 happened. I felt uncomfortable doing it but was trained and never had any mishaps with this.

STILL feel uncomfortable to this day around guns.

Wow! What a terrifying thought that a person that felt this way was tasked with defending life and property. Did you voice your uncomfortableness to whoever assigned you this duty? If not, you definitely should have. By what you wrote, I can't think of anyone more incapable of engaging an armed subject. If you are that uncomfortable around firearms I can only imagine how badly you would have reacted to an armed assailant shooting at you.

This speaks volumes in how some individuals, including police officers, you would assume would be capable of handing an adverse situation are really not that capable.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #342 on: February 24, 2018, 08:23:38 AM »

Offline GreenFaith1819

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12332
  • Tommy Points: 2419
I once carried THREE weapons on watch as a Roving Patrol in the Navy onboard my ship right after 911 happened. I felt uncomfortable doing it but was trained and never had any mishaps with this.

STILL feel uncomfortable to this day around guns.

Wow! What a terrifying thought that a person that felt this way was tasked with defending life and property. Did you voice your uncomfortableness to whoever assigned you this duty? If not, you definitely should have. By what you wrote, I can't think of anyone more incapable of engaging an armed subject. If you are that uncomfortable around firearms I can only imagine how badly you have reacted to an armed assailant shooting at you.

This speaks volumes in how some individuals, including police officers, you would assume would be capable of handing an adverse situation are really not that capable.

lol my "good" buddy Eddie20. If you're not hounding me then you're hounding Rollie in a different thread.

I'll dance with you.



Trust me on THIS - my "uncomfortableness" if there is such a word - had ZERO impact on me doing my JOB  - if it came down to that.

This is evident by my HONORABLE service in the Navy and retirement with benefits AFTER.

This is evident by my Shadow Box that I love that brings to my rememberance my faithful service.

This is evidence to me passing my Armed Qualifications at the shooting ranges when it came to that.

This is evidence by the MANY Security Drills that I was a part of during my time in Service.

STILL didn't gloat over the fact that I carried guns on watch. They were a part of my duty. If tasked to carry out that duty in a hot situation I'd do it.

Marcus Smart "Impacts Winning." Boston Celtics Coach Brad Stevens

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #343 on: February 24, 2018, 08:42:28 AM »

Offline Eddie20

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8019
  • Tommy Points: 860
I once carried THREE weapons on watch as a Roving Patrol in the Navy onboard my ship right after 911 happened. I felt uncomfortable doing it but was trained and never had any mishaps with this.

STILL feel uncomfortable to this day around guns.

Wow! What a terrifying thought that a person that felt this way was tasked with defending life and property. Did you voice your uncomfortableness to whoever assigned you this duty? If not, you definitely should have. By what you wrote, I can't think of anyone more incapable of engaging an armed subject. If you are that uncomfortable around firearms I can only imagine how badly you have reacted to an armed assailant shooting at you.

This speaks volumes in how some individuals, including police officers, you would assume would be capable of handing an adverse situation are really not that capable.
Trust me on THIS - my "uncomfortableness" if there is such a word - had ZERO impact on me doing my JOB  - if it came down to that.

This is evident by my HONORABLE service in the Navy and retirement with benefits AFTER.

This is evident by my Shadow Box that I love that brings to my rememberance my faithful service.

This is evidence to me passing my Armed Qualifications at the shooting ranges when it came to that.

This is evidence by the MANY Security Drills that I was a part of during my time in Service.

That's all nice and equally irrelevant. Officer Peterson could've said the same thing just 2 weeks ago. However, unlike him you were fortunate you weren't put to the test. The likelihood of you responding well wouldn't have been very high based on what you said. I definitely wouldn't want someone with that mindset having my back. Again, you were really lucky.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #344 on: February 24, 2018, 08:47:08 AM »

Offline GreenFaith1819

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12332
  • Tommy Points: 2419
I once carried THREE weapons on watch as a Roving Patrol in the Navy onboard my ship right after 911 happened. I felt uncomfortable doing it but was trained and never had any mishaps with this.

STILL feel uncomfortable to this day around guns.

Wow! What a terrifying thought that a person that felt this way was tasked with defending life and property. Did you voice your uncomfortableness to whoever assigned you this duty? If not, you definitely should have. By what you wrote, I can't think of anyone more incapable of engaging an armed subject. If you are that uncomfortable around firearms I can only imagine how badly you have reacted to an armed assailant shooting at you.

This speaks volumes in how some individuals, including police officers, you would assume would be capable of handing an adverse situation are really not that capable.
Trust me on THIS - my "uncomfortableness" if there is such a word - had ZERO impact on me doing my JOB  - if it came down to that.

This is evident by my HONORABLE service in the Navy and retirement with benefits AFTER.

This is evident by my Shadow Box that I love that brings to my rememberance my faithful service.

This is evidence to me passing my Armed Qualifications at the shooting ranges when it came to that.

This is evidence by the MANY Security Drills that I was a part of during my time in Service.

That's all nice and equally irrelevant. Officer Peterson could've said the same thing just 2 weeks ago. However, unlike him you were fortunate you weren't put to the test. The likelihood of you responding well wouldn't have been very high based on what you said. I definitely wouldn't want someone with that mindset having my back. Again, you were really lucky.

Eddie20 - did YOU serve?

You have no idea how I'd respond in such a situation.

Carrying a GUN on watch was only a PART of my service - a small part.

But AGAIN - answer my question about whether YOU served. And don't lie.
Marcus Smart "Impacts Winning." Boston Celtics Coach Brad Stevens