Playing Golf with Someone Carrying a Weapon

[Ernest Jones]

I agree, but that's why you spend time on the range practicing so that you're comfortable with the gun and don't have to think about anything to fire an accurate shot.   Once you pull the gun out you have to be prepared to shoot your attacker, if you aren't sure you want to shoot them, you don't pull it.

And where exactly does one practice shooting humans?

[David in FL]

Sadly, the good guys have done the same thing.

Can we both agree if both parties had been armed situations like this could be avoided?

Google is your friend. A simple search of Police Shoot unarmed......... will give you endless results

Baltimore and Ferguson are just the most publicized. There are plenty of cases.

So you would advocate disarming the police?!

That's so outlandish, I won't even respond, except to say......

And where exactly does one practice shooting humans?

Canada!

[Elmer]

Agree, but the target in these events is not armed and potentially firing back.  The added pressure is immense.

A late friend of mine was a two tour Vietnam vet.  I asked him about the movie Platoon. He thought is was OK, but inaccurate.  He stated that when new soldiers came under fire for the first time, they were never accurate and shot at almost anything.  The movie showed them to be far too composed and accurate.

I have friends and family who are vets. I have been told that Platoon is the most accurate depiction as to what a grunt did in Vietnam. I have been told that CQC is not like chuck norris movie, it is freighting and you dont have a moment to think. Your heart races and you use what ever is available. IE: you dont always have time to reach for your weapon you use what ever is close to take out the enemy.

I know a few Vietnam vets, 1 of whom is a Marine (tunnel Rat) who has received a purple heart. He has told me stories about combat and killing.

He would be the first to tell you that carrying a gun at all times to make you feel safe at all times is nothing but macho bravado!

So you would advocate disarming the police?!

That's so outlandish, I won't even respond, except to say......

Canada!

I never advocated disarming the police.

There is always a school of thought :

when an unarmed person is killed by gun fire- if they just had a gun they could have stopped the bad guy.

However when you flip that and an unarmed person is killed by a cop- they just should have listened

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/community/fort-worth/article22350993.html

http://www.innocentdown.org/

So how is it that a gun which we pride ourselves on having so we can "protect ourselves from Tyranny", does not apply to all.

So let us dispel with some myths about guns.

This is not the wild west.

Your aim is not that good, your not Dirty Harry. You will not be able to shot the bad guy with pin point accuracy in a movie theater or where ever you run into evil.

not all gun owners are Rambo Wanna-bes!

Not all cops are decent human beings

not all criminals are evil soulless demons

Running from a cop does not deserve getting shot in the back.

Most minor infractions dont warrant getting shot.

Not all criminals have guns illegally!

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by boogielicious

Agree, but the target in these events is not armed and potentially firing back.  The added pressure is immense.

A late friend of mine was a two tour Vietnam vet.  I asked him about the movie Platoon. He thought is was OK, but inaccurate.  He stated that when new soldiers came under fire for the first time, they were never accurate and shot at almost anything.  The movie showed them to be far too composed and accurate.

I have friends and family who are vets. I have been told that Platoon is the most accurate depiction as to what a grunt did in Vietnam. I have been told that CQC is not like chuck norris movie, it is freighting and you dont have a moment to think. Your heart races and you use what ever is available. IE: you dont always have time to reach for your weapon you use what ever is close to take out the enemy.

I know a few Vietnam vets, 1 of whom is a Marine (tunnel Rat) who has received a purple heart. He has told me stories about combat and killing.

He would be the first to tell you that carrying a gun at all times to make you feel safe at all times is nothing but macho bravado!

It is interesting to get people's perspective who have actually been under fire.

I have another Vietnam vet friend who worked for me for a number of years.  He received two purple hearts, the second of which was from a grenade that exploded on his back pack.  The last gun he touched was when he left the service back in the early 70s. He doesn't want anything to do with them.  He still has a bit of PTSD and needs meds to sleep but is perfectly comfortable without weapons.  Great guy too.

[rkim291968]

A good occasion for that loaded gun to come out ....

http://thesandtrap.com/t/82255/mountain-lion-plays-with-flagstick

[14ledo81]

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf

I agree, but that's why you spend time on the range practicing so that you're comfortable with the gun and don't have to think about anything to fire an accurate shot.   Once you pull the gun out you have to be prepared to shoot your attacker, if you aren't sure you want to shoot them, you don't pull it.

And where exactly does one practice shooting humans?

Easy one.   Grand Theft Auto!!!

[David in FL]

It is interesting to get people's perspective who have actually been under fire.   .

The first time I was shot at, I almost crapped myself. I don't know anyone who would claim they weren't scared. If they did, that would really concern me!

[chspeed]

I remember playing at a course in southern Arizona, about 5 miles from the border fence. I was walking, and was the only person out on the course. About half way through the round, I was getting ready to tee off, and there was a border patrol officer with an M-16 right behind me. He was walking around the course looking for smugglers. Needless to say, I yanked my drive into the dessert.

[iacas]

Exactly. Just because you bought a nice, shiny six-shooter doesn't mean you're Billy the kid. From the stats I've seen, sorry no quotable source, most people miss the first shot leading to a panicky firefight at close quarters. Good chance the outcome of that will be precisely what you were looking to avoid in the first place.

I suspect you'd find you're off base on the statistics on this. By a pretty good margin, an armed "victim" is less likely to be badly wounded and/or killed. They're also far less likely to be attacked in the first place if there's any indication that they are armed (i.e. like the NRA Lifetime member sticker on my front window).

Bad guys don't want to risk getting killed either.

Guns are used to prevent or minimize violence far more often than the "anti-gun" people (even the weakly anti-gun people) want to believe.

---

I no longer care very much (when I was single I cared quite a bit more, and had more free time to care more), but I did a lot of studying on this topic a long time ago. People can still choose not to have guns themselves, or even hate guns, but please do yourself the favor of looking at some actual statistics and studies and all that (and the info behind the statistics) if you're going to post in this thread. Far too often there are simply emotional responses made as if they're at all valid, and they're often not even close.

[rehmwa]

Guns are used to prevent or minimize violence far more often than the "anti-gun" people (even the weakly anti-gun people) CHOOSE to believe.

My apologies - I find the correction above to be appropriate.  If a bit patronizing.

But the key point in the anti-gun element is NOT an acknowledgment of differing, but acceptable, ideals with a respect for the other viewpoint (i.e., THAT would result in gun people owning guns, and anti gun people choosing not to and both of us just fine with that).....  But a strong need to enforce their position on others and remove the ability to own guns (property) from others of a differing viewpoint.  So logical arguments do not prevail - just elements of concern, emotional reaction, etc.

The pro-gunners don't help, though, when they paint themselves into a single argument corner by emphasizing the right as protection, rather than just the simple right to own any property.  I don't want to argue if a gun makes me more or less safe - that's not the basic point.  Busy body legislative bullies like anti-gunners, will simply take our guns, and then move on to the next thing they don't "approve" of.

I simply have the right to own mine since I haven't demonstrated, by personal actions, irresponsible or felonious behavior that would remove the right.  Until I do, the right stands and should be protected by society.  Same as any other property I own.  I don't owe anyone any other argument beyond that - it's none of their business.

"why do you NEED a gun?"

"actually, I WANT to own them, and I'm not a convicted felon"

that's all they get.  maybe a "go away" added, or an offer to take them shooting if they are friends

[Jeremie Boop]

Baltimore and Ferguson are just the most publicized. There are plenty of cases.

Off topic, BUT

Neither of those cases actually fit into the shooting someone who was compliant scenario.

[chspeed]

I no longer care very much (when I was single I cared quite a bit more, and had more free time to care more), but I did a lot of studying on this topic a long time ago. People can still choose not to have guns themselves, or even hate guns, but please do yourself the favor of looking at some actual statistics and studies and all that (and the info behind the statistics) if you're going to post in this thread. Far too often there are simply emotional responses made as if they're at all valid, and they're often not even close.

I've tried to understand the numbers too, and have been frustrated by the lack of unbiased studies. Where did you find studies that weren't funded by one lobby or another?

As we all know, statistics themselves are meaningless without the appropriate analysis, and can be easily manipulated to fit any preexisting biases. No offense, but as you pointed out,  this topic is very emotional to many, and I question everyone's claim of knowledge of underlying data, especially if they've got an NRA or Anti-Gun sticker on their cars.

[newtogolf]

I've tried to understand the numbers too, and have been frustrated by the lack of unbiased studies. Where did you find studies that weren't funded by one lobby or another?

As we all know, statistics themselves are meaningless without the appropriate analysis, and can be easily manipulated to fit any preexisting biases. No offense, but as you pointed out,  this topic is very emotional to many, and I question everyone's claim of knowledge of underlying data, especially if they've got an NRA or Anti-Gun sticker on their cars.

Regardless of what the statistics say, it comes down to personal choice and having the right to make that choice.  No one in the NRA would force someone to own or carry a gun if they didn't want to, but they do protect the rights of those that do wish to own and carry firearms.

I prefer to control my own destiny, I hope I never have to shoot someone but if my family is threatened by someone with a gun, I'll have no problem pulling the trigger.

[Ernest Jones]

My apologies - I find the correction above to be appropriate.  If a bit patronizing. But the key point in the anti-gun element is NOT an acknowledgment of differing, but acceptable, ideals with a respect for the other viewpoint (i.e., THAT would result in gun people owning guns, and anti gun people choosing not to and both of us just fine with that).....  But a strong need to enforce their position on others and remove the ability to own guns (property) from others of a differing viewpoint.  So logical arguments do not prevail - just elements of concern, emotional reaction, etc.  The pro-gunners don't help, though, when they paint themselves into a single argument corner by emphasizing the right as protection, rather than just the simple right to own any property.  I don't want to argue if a gun makes me more or less safe - that's not the basic point.  Busy body legislative bullies like anti-gunners, will simply take our guns, and then move on to the next thing they don't "approve" of. I simply have the right to own mine since I haven't demonstrated, by personal actions, irresponsible or felonious behavior that would remove the right.  Until I do, the right stands and should be protected by society.  Same as any other property I own.  I don't owe anyone any other argument beyond that - it's none of their business. "why do you NEED a gun?" "actually, I WANT to own them, and I'm not a convicted felon" that's all they get.  maybe a "go away" added, or an offer to take them shooting if they are friends

For the record, I'm not necessarily an "anti-gunner" nor do I begrudge your right to lawfully own one. Maybe some of my posts give that impression but I'm just taking a side in the debate, FWIW I voted the "maybe" option. I do however think it's amusing when people talk about saving lives because they "pack heat" but scoff at the idea of carrying an EpiPen or learning CPR or something like that. Seems like there is an element of machismo in there. Six-shooter = cool, EpiPen = ridiculous. But again, I don't really take issue with gun ownership per se, I'd just rather not play golf with a stranger that's packing. I'd play with @David in FL any day, even if he had his grenade-launcher with him, but that's because even though I only know him through the web, I feel he's a pretty stable guy...for a right wing nut job. :-P

[Gunther]

For the record, I'm not necessarily an "anti-gunner" nor do I begrudge your right to lawfully own one. Maybe some of my posts give that impression but I'm just taking a side in the debate, FWIW I voted the "maybe" option. I do however think it's amusing when people talk about saving lives because they "pack heat" but scoff at the idea of carrying an EpiPen or learning CPR or something like that. Seems like there is an element of machismo in there. Six-shooter = cool, EpiPen = ridiculous. But again, I don't really take issue with gun ownership per se, I'd just rather not play golf with a stranger that's packing. I'd play with @David in FL any day, even if he had his grenade-launcher with him, but that's because even though I only know him through the web, I feel he's a pretty stable guy...for a right wing nut job. :-P

Don't know who you speak with day to day but I've never known anyone who "scoffed at" carrying an epipen or learning CPR.

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ernest Jones

For the record, I'm not necessarily an "anti-gunner" nor do I begrudge your right to lawfully own one. Maybe some of my posts give that impression but I'm just taking a side in the debate, FWIW I voted the "maybe" option. I do however think it's amusing when people talk about saving lives because they "pack heat" but scoff at the idea of carrying an EpiPen or learning CPR or something like that. Seems like there is an element of machismo in there. Six-shooter = cool, EpiPen = ridiculous.

But again, I don't really take issue with gun ownership per se, I'd just rather not play golf with a stranger that's packing. I'd play with @David in FL any day, even if he had his grenade-launcher with him, but that's because even though I only know him through the web, I feel he's a pretty stable guy...for a right wing nut job.

Don't know who you speak with day to day but I've never known anyone who "scoffed at" carrying an epipen or learning CPR.

We can't get teenagers to wear a seatbelt.  There are many who never get around to learning the simple process of CPR.  Not sure 'scoff' is the right word, but certainly they don't care.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chspeed

I've tried to understand the numbers too, and have been frustrated by the lack of unbiased studies. Where did you find studies that weren't funded by one lobby or another?

As we all know, statistics themselves are meaningless without the appropriate analysis, and can be easily manipulated to fit any preexisting biases. No offense, but as you pointed out,  this topic is very emotional to many, and I question everyone's claim of knowledge of underlying data, especially if they've got an NRA or Anti-Gun sticker on their cars.

Regardless of what the statistics say, it comes down to personal choice and having the right to make that choice.  No one in the NRA would force someone to own or carry a gun if they didn't want to, but they do protect the rights of those that do wish to own and carry firearms.

I prefer to control my own destiny, I hope I never have to shoot someone but if my family is threatened by someone with a gun, I'll have no problem pulling the trigger.

The NRA as an org hasn't done this, but I do recall some towns (one in NH) that over-reacted to anti-gun legislation to try and require residents to own a firearm.  That is the problem with polarizing subjects.  The hardliners on both sides escalate their rhetoric, cloud the data and make it impossible to have an intelligent discussion.

The Founding Fathers wrote into the Constitution the right to bear arms because frankly, King George III and his Lobsters sucked. Lobster was a nickname for Redcoat troops back then.  Rifles were used for hunting, protection and eventually revolution.  The FF did not want any Government to revoke that right to which I agree.

But on the other hand, many are concerned about gun violence and what to do to curb it.  The thread that this OP came from was based on a guy who used his weapon to challenge slow play.  A deadly firearm in the hands of someone with rage can become a lifetime mistake for all involved even if they are usually responsible.  Guns are everywhere in the world.  Do we think ISIS would have any power without the massive amount of AK-47 available?

So where is the middle ground?  Where is the intelligent dialog and best solution to satisfy most everyone?  Criminals have easy access to guns.  How do we stop that?  Occasionally lawful gun owners use their weapons as criminals do with tragic results.  How do we teach them not to? Accidents with firearms happen.  How can we make them safer for those not intended to use them?.   As we've seen in recent history, mental disease has played a big part in recent mass shootings. How do we prevent that?  How do we cure mental disease?

The real problem lies in the middle as does the solution.  But no one is listening to the voices in the middle and they are the majority.  It is sad to me.

[rehmwa]

The hardliners on both sides escalate their rhetoric, cloud the data and make it impossible to have an intelligent discussion.

.

.

.

The real problem lies in the middle as does the solution.  But no one is listening to the voices in the middle and they are the majority.  It is sad to me.

This^^^

I find this to be prevalent on just about anything nowadays.  Emotional escalation is the easiest way to get lazy people to vote.

(but, I think a lot of people listen to reason.  It's just that the hardliners are REALLY LOUD, and it makes for entertaining news reporting.

Now, my bias is that the true hardliners are on the left of it - I've met a lot of people that truly do want to outlaw guns and delete the 2nd.  While I've never (yet?) met someone that wants to force guns into everybody's hands.....Though I have met people that would love to own flamethrowers and tanks and nuclear bombs - but I'm not certain where they drew the line in that continuum between serious and just being funny or on principle....)

[rkim291968]

Quote:

Originally Posted by boogielicious

The hardliners on both sides escalate their rhetoric, cloud the data and make it impossible to have an intelligent discussion.

.

.

.

The real problem lies in the middle as does the solution.  But no one is listening to the voices in the middle and they are the majority.  It is sad to me.

This^^^

I find this to be prevalent on just about anything nowadays.  Emotional escalation is the easiest way to get lazy people to vote.

(but, I think a lot of people listen to reason.  It's just that the hardliners are REALLY LOUD, and it makes for entertaining news reporting.

Now, my bias is that the true hardliners are on the left of it - I've met a lot of people that truly do want to outlaw guns and delete the 2nd.  While I've never (yet?) met someone that wants to force guns into everybody's hands.....Though I have met people that would love to own flamethrowers and tanks and nuclear bombs - but I'm not certain where they drew the line in that continuum between serious and just being funny or on principle....)

Ranting ...

2nd boogie and rehmwa.  I tried to steer folks to stick to the OT.  Despite my feeble attempt, this thread oft became a discussion for gun right vs gun control for some folks.   Like blue and red division in US, neither side wants to give in a little to meet in the middle.   Guess what?  Most disagreements are not black and white.  Most fights, divorces, disagreements happen b/c there are two sides to the story.  It is extremely rare that one side is 100% right or 100% wrong once both sides are heard and understood.   I am no gun enthusiast but I respect gun owner's rights.  There, I said it and it wasn't too hard.

Back to being happy me.