NationStates Jolt Archive

Firearms:

Ugh. I don't like guns!
You are not alone.

Don't let that keep you from learning something about them, however.

Where can I get training?
There are several different kinds of firearms training. There is basic safety and marksmanship training that everyone who has a gun needs, and there is more specialized defensive firearms training that is specifically for those who have guns for self-protection (as opposed to hunting, or sports).

For basic safety and marksmanship, you can usually find good training quite locally. Regardless of what you might think of the NRA, they have created excellent introductory courses. You don't have to join the NRA to take these courses. Two courses that are quite good in theory are Home Firearm Safety, and Basic Pistol. Whether the courses are actually good in practice depends on who teaches them. You can ask the NRA for a list of certified instructors in your area, and try to pick out a woman if that would make you more comfortable, or you can go to a couple of local gun shops and ask what instructors they recommend, or you can call local firearms stores and gun clubs to ask whether they offer instruction.

For defensive firearms training, it is wise to be very, very selective. There are a number of excellent, private gun schools around the country. Several of these that AWARE is acquainted with are (alphabetically): Defense Training International in Laport, CO, Firearms Academy of Seattle in Kirkland, WA, Gunsite Training Center in Paulden,AZ, InSights Training Center in Bellevue, WA, Lethal Force Institute in Concord, NH, and Thunder Ranch in Mountain Home, TX. Others are also very good. Additionally, there is a list of gun schools that appears from time to time on the Internet. Please note that AWARE makes no claims about any of these places, and cannot recommend specific schools.

AWARE offers a number of firearms courses, (http://www.aware.org/courses/coursesindex.shtml) including Home Firearms Safety, Basic Pistol, Responsible Use of Lethal Force, Self Protection with Handguns, Basic Shotgun, Defensive Shotgun, and Handgun Retention.

How should I decide what kind of gun to get?
If you are thinking of getting a gun, get training first. If that isn't possible, get training a soon as you get your gun. Owning a gun without getting the right kind of training is like owning a bathing suit without knowing how to swim -- you may look good, but you won't be able to save your own life in an emergency.

The very best way to figure out what kind of gun is right for you is to go to a club or a course where you have the opportunity to shoot several different types and sizes of guns, so that you can learn about their differences, what they feel like to shoot, how easily you are able to handle them, and how accurate you are with them. Pinpoint accuracy isn't necessary for self-defense, but the better you can shoot in class the more confidence you will have in your ability to shoot under stress.

Most gun magazines run frequent articles on the selection of a self-defense gun and also reviews of individual firearms. Note that not all articles may be completely objective, so get advice from several sources.

Where can I learn more about firearms?
There are several excellent books that tell you a lot about what you need to know if you have a gun. See the AWARE resource list (http://www.aware.org/booksnsites.shtml) on this web site for recommendations.

There is an excellent magazine called Women&Guns that has many articles about all aspects of firearms and many reviews of particular guns and other equipment. AWARE board members, one of them a lawyer, write some of these articles. Check out the magazine, including some material from back issues, at the Women&Guns (http://www.womenandguns.com/)website.

http://www.aware.org/toolsntechnqs.shtml

Lots of good stuff there.

Wrong questions, they should be:

Why should I want to get training?
Why should I decide what kind of gun to get?
Why should I learn more about firearms?

All the questions in your post presume that the reader is going to get a gun!

Wrong questions, they should be:

Why should I want to get training?
Why should I decide what kind of gun to get?
Why should I learn more about firearms?

All the questions in your post presume that the reader is going to get a gun!
Not my words. I'll fix it.

And the reason is... AWARE is a Woman Empowerment / anti-Rape Organization.

Lots of good stuff there.

It's a good organization, but nothing in that quote says anything about why you should rely on firearms ownership for self-defense.

Lots of good stuff there.

There are several different kinds of firearms training. There is basic safety and marksmanship training that everyone who has a gun needs,

My only question is, why do gun rights people get so angry when I suggest that said training should be compulsory if you choose to buy a gun?

It's a good organization, but nothing in that quote says anything about why you should rely on firearms ownership for self-defense.

Because Quagmire has developed an immunity to pepper spray?

It's a good organization, but nothing in that quote says anything about why you should rely on firearms ownership for self-defense.
No, it doesn't. How about that. Maybe thet aren't so much pro-gun as pro-choice... even in self defense tactics.

Like I said, a Rational piece - in particular, the first bit:

Ugh. I don't like guns!
You are not alone.

Don't let that keep you from learning something about them, however.

My only question is, why do gun rights people get so angry when I suggest that said training should be compulsory if you choose to buy a gun?
The same reason Democrats get angry when people propose compulsory Govt. ID at polling places? ;)

Actually it is essentially the same argument.

I'm certainly not against rigerous gun handling training but,

Who determines the criteria for training/testing? Who determines the cost and or availability? Who gets excluded because of it?

Back to the Drivers License/Gun License argument. :p

The same reason Democrats get angry when people propose compulsory Govt. ID at polling places? ;)

Actually it is essentially the same argument.

I'm certainly not against rigerous gun handling training but,

Who determines the criteria for training/testing? Who determines the cost and or availability? Who gets excluded because of it?

Back to the Drivers License/Gun License argument. :p

1. You ignore the many regulations and safeguards that exist concerning voting.

2. You ignore the history of using requirements at polling places as a way to keep minorities from voting.

3. You are really comparing pineapples and hand grenades. No one dies if a voter is able to vote improperly.

I am thoroughly against firearms, but on the other hand I know quite a lot about them.

Am I in a minority?

I actually do want to know, this is not a question aimed to insult anyone.

Back to the Drivers License/Gun License argument. :p

In many, if not all, states, you have to prove a certain degree of competence in order to get a driver's license. An use of your driver's license is regulated in copious ways.

So I don't understand your analogy to work in favor of no restrictions of guns.

Last month, I took the NRA Basic Pistol course. I feel more confident now in being able to properly handle firearms, however I still don't own one (that's just a combination of waiting for my pistol permit and having the necessary fundage for one, though).

I do recommend training if someone is considering getting a firearm, however the cost (I paid $110 for the Pistol course) sometimes scares people away.

In many, if not all, states, you have to prove a certain degree of competence in order to get a driver's license. An use of your driver's license is regulated in copious ways.

So I don't understand your analogy to work in favor of no restrictions of guns.
Ahem... Sherman, set the Wayback machine to... well, 1999 and/or the last time somebody made the analogy....

License & Registration Please? - (shortened from Published article)
<snip>

Let's look at the "Guns = Cars" proposal not as another rights infringement, but (potentially) as a liberalization of the already oppressive gun control system and turn it back in their face. How so? Examine what Driver's licensing & vehicle registration truly entails.

Drivers Licenses.

Drivers Licenses are Shall Issue permits with universal reciprocity, requiring only a basic knowledge of safe handling and use regulations.
Licenses are NOT required for purchase of a vehicle.
Licenses are NOT required for off (public) road use, i.e. agricultural use (farms/farm roads), racetracks, private land, USFS/BIA/BLM dirt trails etc.
Drivers education / auto safety classes are MANDATORY in many public school districts.

Vehicle Registration:

Registration of a motor vehicle is NOT required unless said vehicle is to be USED on public roads. Custom/show cars, racecars, farm equipment, antiques are exempt unless they are to be commonly USED on public roadways. If I am towing a '32 roadster (or ’99 dragster) through town, I cannot be cited for its' lack of registration.
Registration of vehicles exceeding "fleet" quantities is not required. I may maintain as many unregistered vehicles on my private property as I desire (provided they do not constitute an "eyesore" or some such other visibly property-devaluing neighborhood gripe.)
Registration and extra taxation of High Performance vehicles is NOT required, unless they are to be used on public roads. A 13,000 hp Pratt & Whitney Jet Car (which has no "practical" or "sporting" use) may be owned and kept, unregistered, alongside a VW powered off-road-only dune buggy, and used in non-public spaces with impunity.

Law enforcement of DMV rules:
As we know, there are literally thousands of people out there driving without a license. The only time they get punished is if they are caught violating some other driving law (i.e. causing harm to or endangering another’s person or property). Vehicle registration is somewhat easier to spot, as registration is denoted by a sticker of some sort, visible while the vehicle is in use. (Someone sees you use it without a tag, you get a ticket.)

This is all well understood and simple enough, so, let's apply this exact legal paradigm to guns, on a national level, as the panderer in chief (and others) say they want.

“Gun” Licenses: Gun owners would "get":

A genuinely nationally reciprocal, truly "shall-issue" concealed carry license. Now, while everyone hates DoL and the Licensing dept., you can't say they just arbitrarily deny licenses (as some "authorizing agencies" for CCW permits have done.) Only a basic knowledge of safe handling and use regulations would be required.
Licenses would NOT be required for purchase of a gun.
Licenses would NOT be required for non-urban public land use, i.e. agricultural use (hunting/varmint control), ranges, private land, USFS/BIA/BLM hunting areas etc.
True gun safety could be taught in schools, not just anti-gun rhetoric.

“Registration” DMV style… Gun owners would “get”:

A Licensing & registration system that is useful (to the government) only after the fact, i.e. after the shooting stops (ignoring for the moment the fact of door-to-door tracking and confiscation – see California and NYC).
Registration of a firearm would NOT be required unless said firearm is to be USED in a public place. Custom/show guns, race-guns, long-arms or side arms, antiques, etc would be exempt unless they are to be commonly USED in public.
A DMV style registration system would deny “arsenal” registration rhetoric just as it currently does not apply to off-road “fleets”.
Removal of the National Firearms Act (1934) provisions against Class III (high performance/ specialized) weapons. If guns were to be treated as cars, the substantial similarity rules would apply. Just as "High Performance" or specialty vehicles are not restricted, except in their place of use (not on public roads), neither then could the law be justified in restricting the possession of "high performance" (Class III) firearms.

Law Enforcement:
Like Cars, so Guns. It can be truthfully stated that a gun in my possession, regardless of type, in a public place, is NOT being USED, only carried (much like towing a dragster), and therefore it need not be registered nor I licensed. However, should I use that firearm in said public place without License and Registration, I may be subject to penalty upon the assured following inquest … (to be judged by twelve) … perhaps.

Herein we see another potential benefit to "DMV style" gun laws... the principle of reasonable justification and good-Samaritan laws. I may speed, drive an unregistered car, drive without a license, etc in the commission of a life saving act. Judges and juries routinely throw out charges (if charges are even filed) of "rule violation" in such cases. Similar dismissals have obtained (and will continue to obtain) for many “rule violations” of current gun laws. Criminals would obviously receive no such benefit.

Admittedly, this “DMV-ing” argument plays into the Rights vs. Privileges debate, however, it has similarly been argued (with some precedent setting success) that motor vehicle ownership has grown from a privilege to a Right within today's society. (If motor vehicle ownership is now a Right (guaranteed nowhere) then how much more so is gun ownership?)

A dose of Reality:
You and I know that my “best-case” writing of a “motor-vehicle” style of registration & licensing scheme would never be allowed, for precisely the benefits I’ve mentioned. That’s probably a good thing. A Right regulated is a Right denied. (There are NO (non-federal) firearm possession/carry restrictions for the law abiding in Vermont. Theirs is a true right to bear arms.) But it sure would be fun to throw it in the face of the anti-gun establishment and watch them be forced to dump one of their longest standing talking points.

Oh well. Fight the good fight & keep your powder dry.

So, in what way am I so ardently against safety, training or in any way advocating the position of "no restrictions for guns"?

3. You are really comparing pineapples and hand grenades. No one dies if a voter is able to vote improperly.
You wouldn't think that by reading DU, Kos, or some of the more virulent "OMG Bushitler stole the election(s) and eats babies!" rants here... (e.g. allowing more "improper" votes might have saved The World by Gor(e)ing the US... or Kerrying the "Progressive" agenda. :rolleyes:)

Note that in both elections I voted for neither major party....

3. You are really comparing pineapples and hand grenades. No one dies if a voter is able to vote improperly.

I think 30,000 dead Iraqis may disagree with you.

I think 30,000 dead Iraqis may disagree with you.
My point is made! We have a winner! (loser?) :p

My point is made! We have a winner! (loser?) :p

Someone had to say it. ;)

And not to hijack, but who can say for certain that if Bush lost the election we still would have invaded Iraq? Given that we didn't invade cuz of WMDs, we didn't invade cuz of terrorists, we basically invaded because Bush's dad started it and the son wants to finish what the father starts and show he's worth of the Bush name.

Ahem... Sherman, set the Wayback machine to... well, 1999 and/or the last time somebody made the analogy....

Nice cut-and-paste. Not particularly accurate, but then you were just fishing for an excuse to poste it when you brought up the guns/driver's license analogy.

Do I really need to go through and point out the many errors in it?

So, in what way am I so ardently against safety, training or in any way advocating the position of "no restrictions for guns"?

Did you read the next to the last paragraph of your cut-and-paste?

"A Right regulated is a Right denied." How silly. I assume that defamation should be protected free speech.

Ahem... Sherman, set the Wayback machine to... well, 1999 and/or the last time somebody made the analogy....



So, in what way am I so ardently against safety, training or in any way advocating the position of "no restrictions for guns"?
Can't be compared. Driving is not a right, but is a privilage. Drivers Ed came in useful for once :rolleyes:.


That said, guns are inherantly far more dangerous then any car (the point of a car isn't to kill things), and thus can be subject to far more limitations then a car, even if driving was a right. Leaving aside any other constitutional issues, of course.

In order to at least partially avert the upcoming Flamewar (it's Syniks and Cat Tribe in a gun thread folks, they'll be here all night)

Anyone know mch about gun licensing and laws n the UK. I've been interested for a while (mostly after reading gun threads :p) but I have been thinking of getting a license or at least looking at it but I don't know anysites o anything (other than the police who regulate the lcenses anyhow).

Syniks or anyone else know anything about it?

In order to at least partially avert the upcoming Flamewar (it's Syniks and Cat Tribe in a gun thread folks, they'll be here all night)

I think neither of us will flame and we actually agree more than we disagree.

I agree there is a basic right to own and possess firearms. Such a right is not absolute and is subject to regulation - just like other rights.

Originally Posted by AWARE website
Firearms:

Ugh. I don't like guns!
You are not alone.

How should I decide what kind of gun to get?


Sorry, I am the person very likely to make the first comment, and completely UNLIKELY after making the first comment to ask the following question.

While the info in the article may make sense for people who DO like guns (yes, if you do plan to own a gun, you ought to know how to avoid shooting your own children), the premise that simply teaching someone who doesn't like them how to use one is going to promote gun ownership is somewhat weak.

For the record, while I am very much anti-gun, I know a good deal about guns. I know how to take the bullets out of a revolver, I can unload a shotgun, can take out a clip (and the round from the chamber)... the point I am making is that I would never, ever FIRE a gun, and if someone handed me one, I would make sure it was unloaded, take the bullets with me when I left, and go to the nearest police station for disposal of both the gun and the bullets.

And I am a woman. And certainly in favor of women being taught self defense. As such, I also know that any weapon other than your own fists, feet, elbows, teeth etc. can and will be taken away from you by a determined attacker, and will most likely be used against you.

I think neither of us will flame and we actually agree more than we disagree.

I agree there is a basic right to own and possess firearms. Such a right is not absolute and is subject to regulation - just like other rights.


I know, it was hyperbole to some extent. I just gave up on gun threads a while back so both your persistence seems crazy to me ;)

I think neither of us will flame and we actually agree more than we disagree. Generally. ;)

I agree there is a basic right to own and possess firearms. Such a right is not absolute and is subject to regulation - just like other rights. Also, generally.

I have no issues with the kindof regulation that (A) doesn't create a database of "undesireables" and (B) doesn't prevent honest, but poor, people from acquiring the means to feed/defend themselves.

That's why I really don't have too many issues with "Shall Issue" CCW schemes. You don't even have to have a gun to get the permit, nor do you need the permit to get the gun (though it does make the paperwork easier). However, you DO need the permit to carry the gun in a public space, but you do NOT need the permit to carry the gun in private space.

Works for me.

(And yes, the article was written when I was a tad more radical than now, though you must admit that, as with Taxation, the power to regulate is the power to destroy...)

Sorry, I am the person very likely to make the first comment, and completely UNLIKELY after making the first comment to ask the following question.

Nice of you to keave out the bit about education that preceeded the "how do I decide which" question, which, by staggering coincidence, presupposes you actually are interested in choosing firearms from amongst the large list of things supplied on the web page. :rolleyes:

And I am a woman. And certainly in favor of women being taught self defense. As such, I also know that any weapon other than your own fists, feet, elbows, teeth etc. can and will be taken away from you by a determined attacker, and will most likely be used against you.You have been lied to.

"Can"? Possibly, but not if used correctly, in accordance with the training you should take before carrying a firearm. A person who carries a firearm as a defensive tool, and doesn't avail him/herself of proper training is a fool. Firearms are not magic.

"Will... and will most likely be used against you"? Propaganda. Pure and simple... unless you are intent on being a fool.

I think 30,000 dead Iraqis may disagree with you.

Strawman. Argument without relevance to the discussion.

Am I the only one who gets irritatated by OPs which bear absolutely no relation to the thread title?

"A Right regulated is a Right denied." How silly. I assume that defamation should be protected free speech.
How, exactly, can carrying a gun be akin to defemation or shouting fire in a crowded theater? The 'regulation' on free speech is essentially when it is used to harm someone. So unless someone has threatened or harmed someone with a gun your analogy goes straight out the window. There are no prior to the fact limits on free speech. You can print anything you want without it going through any sort of censor. What happens AFTER you have taken your action is a different matter entirely.

And I am a woman. And certainly in favor of women being taught self defense. As such, I also know that any weapon other than your own fists, feet, elbows, teeth etc. can and will be taken away from you by a determined attacker, and will most likely be used against you.
Mmmm, smell that bullshit fear-mongering statistic, put out by anti-gunners pretty much just to scare women from getting guns to protect themselves. Actually, the only way you are likely to have your gun taken away from you is if you're a cop. Civvies carrying guns are much less likely to have it taken away, especially if they CC. Life is not a Jackie Chan movie, taking a gun from an even a minimally trained opponent is pretty difficult.