UAA students rally for right to carry guns

[TheStatutoryApe]

It's not common because a handgun is not standard military issue for soldiers. And why would that be changed? For civilian life after the military? That's not the purpose of military service.

Yes, it certainly pisses off those of us who carry concealed when idiots accidently discharge a firearm in public (a pistol should never be removed from a properly designed holster while in public). I've read of a few accounts of it happening. I attribute it to a lack of training which brings me back to my point the gov't, whether it be local, state, or federal should get involved more proactively in training.

I believe that training persons for both service and application of that training to life after the military is eminently reasonable.
On the other hand government funding going to any yahoo that feels like learning to use a gun does not seem so reasonable, at least not to me. What all would the government be paying for? Do they pay for the guns? ammo? professional instructors? accessible shoooting ranges? How much would it all cost and what exactly is the value of the return benefit to society? I believe that there are law enforcement training schools that are open to any applicants and receive government funding. Of course they have to pay just like anyone going to any school that receives government funding and increases the number of educated and skilled citizens. You have to pay to get CPR and first aid training. You have to pay for training to become a police officer, sheriff, nurse, EMT, doctor, educator, and any number of other skill sets far more valuable to society in general. Why should training with guns be free?

Either they need guns to protect themselves (in all situations, not just the ones shown in the videos), in which case they should have sufficient training to ensure public safety, or they don't need guns to protect themselves. If they have the gun, they should be trained. Guns without training is little better than Russian Roulette.

I never argued that training should not be required. I only argued the level of training which you seem to believe necessary.

 

[drankin]

I believe that training persons for both service and application of that training to life after the military is eminently reasonable.
On the other hand government funding going to any yahoo that feels like learning to use a gun does not seem so reasonable, at least not to me. What all would the government be paying for? Do they pay for the guns? ammo? professional instructors? accessible shoooting ranges? How much would it all cost and what exactly is the value of the return benefit to society? I believe that there are law enforcement training schools that are open to any applicants and receive government funding. Of course they have to pay just like anyone going to any school that receives government funding and increases the number of educated and skilled citizens. You have to pay to get CPR and first aid training. You have to pay for training to become a police officer, sheriff, nurse, EMT, doctor, educator, and any number of other skill sets far more valuable to society in general. Why should training with guns be free?


I never argued that training should not be required. I only argued the level of training which you seem to believe necessary.

As far as who pays for it, that's a different discussion really. My point is that it would be in the interest of public safety if there was a gov't program available that at least provided a baseline training criteria for those who carry in public. Right now there are many high end private training programs available but they are in remote locations:

http://www.thunderranchinc.com/home/index.html"
http://www.gunsite.com/"

One idea might be to provide additional instruction at law enforcement schools for private citizens. And I never suggested that it would be free.

Or, we just keep things the way they are and deal with the fact that many people carry concealed in public with very little training. I believe there is an opportunity for our gov't to get more involved with public safety of gun owners while respecting the their rights to carry.

 

[rootX]

One idea might be to provide additional instruction at law enforcement schools for private citizens. And I never suggested that it would be free.

How about http://www.taser.com/pages/default.aspx" ? They are about 300$ right now (affordable) and I am expecting them to get better and cheaper. I don't know the gun costs.

 

[junglebeast]

How about http://www.taser.com/pages/default.aspx" ? They are about 300$ right now (affordable) and I am expecting them to get better and cheaper. I don't know the gun costs.

You have 1 shot. You have a 25 foot maximum range. You have terrible accuracy. It will only temporarily stun the person, and isn't effective at stopping everyone, and it won't work if they are wearing body armor of any kind. It's large and bulky so it cannot actually be carried concealed. Anyone who's perpetrating a school shooting is going to be using a minimum of 1 semi automatic handgun, if not larger automatic SMG's or assault rifles. In other words it would be useless. Personally, I think you'd have better luck hiding behind a doorway and clobbering the shooter over the head with a rock when he walks by. Also, consider that a used semi automatic handgun of high quality craftsmanship, or a semi-automatic AK47 rifle, could both be picked up for under $300.