DHS says AR15 sporting rifle (and 30 round magazines) suitable for home defense

[quade 3]

Quote

The majority of the single week out of the 17-weeks of an academy was spent on firearms. The majority of that deals with the legal aspects and the use of force ideals, not actual time on trigger.

Actually, Dave. That's exactly in line with what I was thinking. Some mandatory training of the legal responsibilities of ownership.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Some mandatory training of the legal responsibilities of ownership.

One of the gun law reforms I would like to see is some codification of gun owner responsibilities.

I know many gun owners. Sadly, I know fewer responsible gun owners.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

The majority of the single week out of the 17-weeks of an academy was spent on firearms. The majority of that deals with the legal aspects and the use of force ideals, not actual time on trigger.

Actually, Dave. That's exactly in line with what I was thinking. Some mandatory training of the legal responsibilities of ownership.

How does that solve a problem?

[rhaig 0]

Quote

One of the gun law reforms I would like to see is some codification of gun owner responsibilities.

Texas has a law that will cause criminal charges to be brought against a gun owner whose firearm was not "reasonably secured" and is taken by and fired by a minor. (resulting in injury) It's a very specific statement of one responsibility, but it is there. Also much of the Texas CHL class is about when you are allowed to use deadly force, what constitutes deadly force (less than you might think) and where you are not allowed to carry your gun. Much of the optional training Dave referred to has, as a prerequisite, possession of a CHL so that they know they don't have to cover this.

Quote

I know many gun owners. Sadly, I know fewer responsible gun owners.

Sadly the same can be said for everything. drivers, skydivers, gun owners, students, professors, journalists, politicians... the list goes on...


The problem I see with mandatory training is that it will devolve to the bare minimum and the cheapest classes will be the ones most attended. Also likely the ones of less quality. I saw this in my CHL renewal class 5 years ago as it felt like high school gym with several videos to watch. I don't attend that instructors classes anymore.

--
Rob

[Bignugget 0]

Quote

Quote

One of the gun law reforms I would like to see is some codification of gun owner responsibilities.

Texas has a law that will cause criminal charges to be brought against a gun owner whose firearm was not "reasonably secured" and is taken by and fired by a minor. (resulting in injury) It's a very specific statement of one responsibility, but it is there. Also much of the Texas CHL class is about when you are allowed to use deadly force, what constitutes deadly force (less than you might think) and where you are not allowed to carry your gun. Much of the optional training Dave referred to has, as a prerequisite, possession of a CHL so that they know they don't have to cover this.

Quote

I know many gun owners. Sadly, I know fewer responsible gun owners.

Sadly the same can be said for everything. drivers, skydivers, gun owners, students, professors, journalists, politicians... the list goes on...


The problem I see with mandatory training is that it will devolve to the bare minimum and the cheapest classes will be the ones most attended. Also likely the ones of less quality. I saw this in my CHL renewal class 5 years ago as it felt like high school gym with several videos to watch. I don't attend that instructors classes anymore.

Couldn't agree with this more.

I imagine you were probably 3-4x less safe after attending that class in the gym and watching the movie.

I know thats how I felt after my "mandatory" skydiving training.

I was like SERIOUSLY??!!? Just gimme the thing and let me go wtf is the DEAL WITH MANDATORY CLASS???? I demanded they name a single possible advantage to this mandatory training. They couldn't as I suspected.

They were super anal though and made me sit through the ENTIRE thing.

Bunch of donkeys if you ask me but what can you do. Gotta dance to the tune the man plays.

[quade 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The majority of the single week out of the 17-weeks of an academy was spent on firearms. The majority of that deals with the legal aspects and the use of force ideals, not actual time on trigger.

Actually, Dave. That's exactly in line with what I was thinking. Some mandatory training of the legal responsibilities of ownership.

How does that solve a problem?

Well, it might help keep your kids from stealing your guns and shooting you in the face and then going on to shoot up a bunch of other kids.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

One of the gun law reforms I would like to see is some codification of gun owner responsibilities.

Texas has a law that will cause criminal charges to be brought against a gun owner whose firearm was not "reasonably secured" and is taken by and fired by a minor. (resulting in injury) It's a very specific statement of one responsibility, but it is there.

That sounds like a step in the right direction, though I don't necessarily like how it's limited to use by a minor. If an adult accesses a firearm because it isn't "reasonably secured," and subsequently uses that firearm in a crime, the legal owner should not be without blame.

Quote

The problem I see with mandatory training is that it will devolve to the bare minimum and the cheapest classes will be the ones most attended. Also likely the ones of less quality. I saw this in my CHL renewal class 5 years ago as it felt like high school gym with several videos to watch. I don't attend that instructors classes anymore.

I get that. That said, I'm pretty sure I'd receive a more thorough mathematics education at MIT or Cambridge than I'm receiving at my local state university, but I'm equally confident that I understand mathematics better than most anyone without a math degree from anywhere.

I don't see how raising the minimum standards can hurt.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Couldn't agree with this more.

I imagine you were probably 3-4x less safe after attending that class in the gym and watching the movie.

I know thats how I felt after my "mandatory" skydiving training.

I was like SERIOUSLY??!!? Just gimme the thing and let me go wtf is the DEAL WITH MANDATORY CLASS???? I demanded they name a single possible advantage to this mandatory training. They couldn't as I suspected.

They were super anal though and made me sit through the ENTIRE thing.

Bunch of donkeys if you ask me but what can you do. Gotta dance to the tune the man plays.

you're funny... I know you think it's a satirical response, but by completely missing my point, you come off as a jackass. I know you probably aren't (I don't know you, I wouldn't call you a jackass based on one post) but just the way you come off here is incredibly condescending and dismissive.

I'm sorry I have my own ideas that don't agree with yours. May I continue living? Is that OK with you?



Reminds me an Einstein quote "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."

Also reminds me of "condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance" though I've seen that attributed to so many people, I don't know who said it.

And Bignugget, as we'd say in Texas, "Well bless your heart".

--
Rob

[Bignugget 0]

I just wish you owned my local DZ so I coulda skipped the damn class.



Your point that mandatory training has no use, is valid. I got it and agree.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Reminds me an Einstein quote "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."

"The trouble with quotes on the Internet is that you never know if they are correctly attributed." -Winston Churchill.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Bignugget 0]

Can you imagine him trying to use a computer.

Its like watching my dad with the TV remote.

You would think the thing was written in ancient Mayan.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

Reminds me an Einstein quote "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."

"The trouble with quotes on the Internet is that you never know if they are correctly attributed." -Winston Churchill.

I actually remember that Einstein quote from a biography I did on him almost 30 years ago. (well, I didn't recall the exact words. google helped with that)

The other one I've only seen online, and have no idea who really said it.

Irregardless, didn't you know that 87.2% of all internet statistics are made up on the spot?

yes... I put "irregardless" in there to troll someone... anyone actually

--
Rob

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Reminds me an Einstein quote "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."

"The trouble with quotes on the Internet is that you never know if they are correctly attributed." -Winston Churchill.

I actually remember that Einstein quote from a biography I did on him almost 30 years ago. (well, I didn't recall the exact words. google helped with that)

The other one I've only seen online, and have no idea who really said it.

Irregardless, didn't you know that 87.2% of all internet statistics are made up on the spot?

yes... I put "irregardless" in there to troll someone... anyone actually

From WikiQuote.org:

Two things are infinite: the universe and the human stupidity.
As discussed in this entry from The Quote Investigator, the earliest published attribution of a similar quote to Einstein seems to have been in Gestalt therapist Frederick S. Perls' 1969 book Gestalt Theory Verbatim, where he wrote on p. 33: "As Albert Einstein once said to me: 'Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity.' But what is much more widespread than the actual stupidity is the playing stupid, turning off your ear, not listening, not seeing." Perls also offered another variant in his 1972 book In and Out the Garbage Pail, where he mentioned a meeting with Einstein and on p. 52 quoted him saying: "Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I am not yet completely sure about the universe." However, Perls had given yet another variant of this quote in an earlier book, Ego, Hunger, and Aggression: a Revision of Freud’s Theory and Method (originally published 1942, although the Quote Investigator only checked that the quote appeared in the 1947 edition), where he attributed it not to Einstein but to a "great astronomer", writing: "As modern times promote hasty eating to a large extent, it is not surprising to learn that a great astronomer said: 'Two things are infinite, as far as we know – the universe and human stupidity.' Today we know that this statement is not quite correct. Einstein has proved that the universe is limited." So, the later attributions in 1969 and 1972 may have been a case of faulty memory, or of intentionally trying to increase the authority of the quote by attributing it to Einstein. The quote itself may be a variant of a similar quote attributed even earlier to the philosopher Ernest Renan, found for example in The Public: Volume 18 from 1915, which says on p. 1126: "He quotes the saying of Renan: it isn't the stars that give him an idea of infinity; it is man's stupidity." Renan was French so this is presumably intended as a translation, but different sources give different versions of the supposed original French quote, such as "La bêtise humaine est la seule chose qui donne une idée de l'infini" (found for example in Réflexions sur la vie, 1895-1898 by Remy de Gourmont from 1903, p. 103, along with several other early sources as seen in this search) and "Ce n'est pas l'immensité de la vôute étoilée qui peut donner le plus complétement l'ideé de l'infini, mais bien la bêtise humaine!" (found in Broad views, Volume 2 from 1904, p. 465). Since these variants have not been found in Renan's own writings, they may represent false attributions as well. They may also be variants of an even older saying; for example, the 1880 book Des vers by Guy de Maupassant includes on p. 9 a quote from a letter by Gustave Flaubert where Flaubert writes "Cependant, qui sait? La terre a des limites, mais la bêtise humaine est infinie!" which translates to "But who knows? The earth has its boundaries, but human stupidity is infinite!" Similarly the 1887 book Melanges by Jules-Paul Tardivel includes on p. 273 a piece said to have been written in 1880 in which he writes "Aujourd'hui je sais qu'il n'y a pas de limites à la bêtise humaine, qu'elle est infinie" which translates to "today I know that there is no limit to human stupidity, it is infinite."

I'm not picking on you. In my experience, any quote attributed to Ben Franklin, Lincoln, Einstein, or George Carlin is more likely than not misattributed, so I tend to look them up to see.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[rhaig 0]

Ok... Don't tell my 8th grade English teacher.

--
Rob

[davjohns 1]

"DHS and its components have a requirement for a 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense use in close quarters and/or when maximum concealment is required."

This is a very interesting quote from the requirements. How does this differ from home defense?

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[quade 3]

At a minimum, the automatic setting. The compound word, "select-fire" being the operative.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[davjohns 1]

Personally, I don't even like three round burst. But it is actually very practical for close quarters home defense. Full auto is generally useless to all but the most skilled. And the most skilled control the bursts to three or four rounds, so what's the point?

But my point is, how is personal defense in close quarters different from personal defense in close quarters? Whether you are LEO or John Q, the bad guy is a bad guy, close quarters is close quarters, personal defense is personal defense...

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[quade 3]

I'm not defending it. You asked what the difference was. Well, there it is.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The majority of the single week out of the 17-weeks of an academy was spent on firearms. The majority of that deals with the legal aspects and the use of force ideals, not actual time on trigger.

Actually, Dave. That's exactly in line with what I was thinking. Some mandatory training of the legal responsibilities of ownership.

How does that solve a problem?

Well, it might help keep your kids from stealing your guns and shooting you in the face and then going on to shoot up a bunch of other kids.

Why not just require a little instructional manual with every gun sale. Something like "Don't let your kids get ahold of your guns. Doing so could result in serious injury or death." Like the seat belt warnings in cars. That seems to work.

[Bignugget 0]

Quote

Personally, I don't even like three round burst. But it is actually very practical for close quarters home defense. Full auto is generally useless to all but the most skilled. And the most skilled control the bursts to three or four rounds, so what's the point?

But my point is, how is personal defense in close quarters different from personal defense in close quarters? Whether you are LEO or John Q, the bad guy is a bad guy, close quarters is close quarters, personal defense is personal defense...

You seem like an intelligent guy.

You don't see a difference between the police officer and the civilian walking down the street armed?

Police receive training, they receive screening both psychological, and background.

Random citizens with guns do not have any of the requirements of a police officer.....

What may be the most effective killing weapon in close quarters is irrelevant.

What is relevant is who is qualified to possess such weapons.

Joe down the street isn't. Which is why this report doesn't say that DHS needs 7,000 guns to hand out to homeowners on the border.

It does say it needs some guns for the trained, evaluated, qualified, officials.

[davjohns 1]

Fair enough. That wasn't the part I was looking at, but you couldn't know what was in my head.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Bignugget 0]

Quote

Personally, I don't even like three round burst. But it is actually very practical for close quarters home defense. Full auto is generally useless to all but the most skilled. And the most skilled control the bursts to three or four rounds, so what's the point?

But my point is, how is personal defense in close quarters different from personal defense in close quarters? Whether you are LEO or John Q, the bad guy is a bad guy, close quarters is close quarters, personal defense is personal defense...

Or perhaps another way to look at it.

How is swooping a crazy loaded canopy with a go pro, different from swooping a crazy loaded canopy with a go pro? Whether you are Bignugget with 17 jumps, or Dav with (alot?), swooping is swooping, go pros are go pros, and skydiving is skydiving.

Well I'd be on the losing end of that example I think.

[davjohns 1]

Quote

You seem like an intelligent guy.

Thanks, but you aren't getting me in bed that easily. Buy me a drink.

You don't see a difference between the police officer and the civilian walking down the street armed?

I've been a cop. Let me assure you, there is little difference. In fact, the difference between cops and criminals is smaller.

Police receive training, they receive screening both psychological, and background.

Training...ah hell. I don't want to make you cry. I was 21 when i went through the academy. I was helping teach on the range. There are no psychological evaluations. The background check is a little better than that required for owning a firearm. I still saw more than one officer in uniform and cuffed.

Random citizens with guns do not have any of the requirements of a police officer.....

Statistically, I will agree. Random citizens aren't called to the location of the bad guy. They are there by chance. That generally puts average police officers in more contact with bad guys than the average Joe. Of course, the bad guy to average Joe contacts are more numerous, just spread out over a larger population. Just depends on how you look at it.

What may be the most effective killing weapon in close quarters is irrelevant.

Not when you are the one in close quarters... but ok.

What is relevant is who is qualified to possess such weapons.

I'll side with the US Constitution, the US Founding Fathers, and the US Supreme Court on this one and select answer 'A', "The People". I'll pretend I didn't see answer 'B', "The Government". It's inconsistent with the Bill of Rights. I like the Bill of Rights.

Joe down the street isn't. Which is why this report doesn't say that DHS needs 7,000 guns to hand out to homeowners on the border.

Clearly I disagree with the whole concept of 'who is qualified to own a firearm'.

It does say it needs some guns for the trained, evaluated, qualified, officials.

I'll take those criteria as implied in the document. I didn't see them stated. However, I'm familiar with the level of training and evaluation. Not impressed. "Qualified" is either a derivative of the training and evaluation, or you think only government agents are qualified. That scares me.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Bignugget 0]

Quote

I'll take those criteria as implied in the document. I didn't see them stated. However, I'm familiar with the level of training and evaluation. Not impressed. "Qualified" is either a derivative of the training and evaluation, or you think only government agents are qualified. That scares me.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

I'll take those criteria as implied in the document. I didn't see them stated. However, I'm familiar with the level of training and evaluation. Not impressed. "Qualified" is either a derivative of the training and evaluation, or you think only government agents are qualified. That scares me.

To tell you the truth what scares me is from the LEO posts on here, it seems like LEO is pretty damn untrained as well.

Thats scary.

I don't know that its a good reason to not train anyone else, but it sure is scary!

I will think twice before trusting a cop after hearing these stories.