A Positive Story About Guns/gun Ownership

[gnasher16 30,470]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If training a soldier how to deal with combat works then you can be sure training a civvy under a suitable course will do the same. If the civvy can't pass the course they don't get their license. That is after all my original suggestion.... If someone looks at you in a threatening way that should just make you alert, armed or otherwise, when someone has already assaulted you and continues to advance on you after you have tried to flee, drawn your firearm, given clear warning, then that IS a serious threat.

Top paragraph.......ok so who is in a more terrifying situation.......a careful selected and expertly trained soldier or an everyday Joe who passed a training course ?......we,re going round in circles here but im of the opinion you cant put in what nature left out,you clearly think instinct can be trained into people. Bottom paragraph.....you,ve changed the question,nobody has been assaulted one person was waving a bat in a threatening manner the other was " looking " in a threatening manner who is the more dangerous threat ( who does he pull his gun on ) Yes these are simplified examples......but still everyday scenarios people walking around armed could easily face.

Regard training, what is a soldier... he's simply a trained and selected civilian. I see no difference here. If we can select and train civilians to soldier then we can do the same for a militia of concerned and responsible citizens.

Born the difference is an infantry soldier goes through 6 months BASIC training which is very intense and pretty much 24/7 ... They then still don't get the full meaning of their training until they are placed in a combat situation ... So I don't think you could ever train a civilian to the standard of a fully trained infantry soldier .......

Half the combat instruction needed for soldiering would be completely unnecessary for defensive purposes. Why would a civvy need to know how to pepper pot or navigate or shit shower and shave properly, how to throw a grenade, how to deal with an IED, how to assault a village, how to march etc etc.Real life implementation of CCW supports my stance on this. I'm not theorising here, we can look to the US for real data and a working model. The stats stand for themselves. CCW permit holders are not the threat to society that people seem to think. That's trained civilians as well as former servicemen. And we could make our testing and training far more rigorous if wanted.

apart from the shaving and marching you would need to know the rest in a combat situation mate .......

And yet most CCW holders don't and manage to do a thoroughly decent job within their society... I keep coming back to this actual evidence.

 

At what point do I need to plan the assault of a village when defending myself from an armed criminal in a shopping center? Navigation in an area I'm most probably completely familiar with? Dealing with an IED, why wouldn't you just clear the area?

 

The extent of tactical knowledge needed to make a safe civilian conceiled carrier would be far less than needed to make an infantryman. It's surely a question of what is necessary, and imo someone trained as a infantryman is not. I look to other countries like the US to see what they do and what the effect has been.

 

Why is regular army infantry considered the standard? Why not reservist infantry, or police AFOs, police SFOs, military special forces etc etc? AFOs get a fraction of the training you had and the majority of that is spent on driving and we let them loose on our streets. In light of the documented firearms related f**k ups, albeit very few, by police AFOs and even infantry, should we not demand a higher standard? No because it's totally unnecessary.

 

Thats just my thinking on this mate. No disrespect intended. I can see we're probably just going to disagree on this.

 

Ps f***ing hell socks, don't be pretending you know how to navigate! LOL

 

you wouldn't need to plan the assault of a village but you would need to plan an assault on the gunmen so being tactically aware and knowing how to move using the available cover will give you the advantage over the gunmen ... navigation would be imperative as when the security forces eventually arrive they would expect you to give them at least a direction of travel of the gunmen if they have fled the scene ... you just answered your own question about an IED ... yes clear the area but taught to do it methodically and calmly to save life and not cause panic ... I don't only believe regular infantry to be the minimum but infantry with combat experience ... when armed police or special forces etc arrive at such scenes they have tactical knowledge of the ground fed to them they have the luxury of being not on their own ... they have time to formulate an initial plan of attack ... a concealed carrier will most probably be on his own ... it will all happen very quickly ... there will be chaos ... panic ... noise disorientation as the man on the ground in the moment you will need to be tactically aware be able to process what's gong on in an instant and react accordingly ... in my opinion no amount of training can teach that ... only real time combat can prepare you for that ..........

 

ps I was a maprick instructor specialist ... I just don't get that fukcing M25 Lol .......

 

Without getting all tactical and technical because i wouldnt know my arse from my elbow.....but the basic thing screaming out of a debate like this is the simple common sense process of right man for the job......whether we like it or not being a soldier is a highly respected occupation in this country and rightly so......i remember a time when the first question you,d be asked when applying for any kind of security/police/fire brigade/prison staff was " are you ex military ? ".....if you wasnt you can safely say your application was put to the bottom of the pile........i remember a time when most of our jails were filled up with ex army screws,most of our plod were ex army.........yet today it seems more important if a young trainee copper/screw has some A levels and a psycology degree..............maybe im old school but for me you will never beat raw life experience and id rather have a man walking the street armed who cant read or write but has experienced battle first hand than a great academic.

[Born Hunter 17,813]

That's not old school at all! Anybody with a shred of intelligence and real experience has learnt that.

 

I haven't meant to suggest that a civilian trained rigorously is just as effective in combat as a veteran infantry soldier who's probably seen a lifetime of violence and firefights. However, is it unreasonable to say that you could select and train civilians through a sufficiently rigorous regime to produce something of a similar standard to that of a soldier, police firearms officer etc? Obviously the proof of the pudding is in actual combat and I'm not denying that without this final test of a person you can't say whether they are a success or not. But if training and selection weren't proven to be greatly successful factors in producing competent combatants(?) then we wouldn't invest so much in it. I'd stress too that when I say 'similar standard' I mean in terms of ability to deal with a typical civilian situation, not a typical military one.

 

I still stand by what I have said that a lot of what an infantry soldier is taught would be overkill for a civilian concealed carry permit holder. Surely in this debate the line has to be drawn at what is really necessary to at least not make things worse? And I can't get my head past the evidence of real life examples of CCW being implemented in foreign countries, when we look at these real life examples it's very hard for me to say that trained and tested civilians are the headless chickens that you, socks and the majority of the British public seem to think.

 

Edited November 17, 2015 by Born Hunter

[ChrisJones 7,975]

 

As usual a fair reasonable post, good to see you back on here

 

Honestly I can see this debate gaining a lot of traction in the coming years with the heavy cuts to policing budgets it's only natural that people will start wanting ways to protect themselves and I could see the government relaxing laws as a way to appease the public after a few years of soaring crime rates with less and less police on the streets.

 

For what it's worth I'd actually like to see the laws on handguns relaxed just because I'd like to own a few for recreational shooting but I'm uneasy with the idea of CCW because I simply don't trust the vast majority of the general public I also don't think deadly force should be used against anything but a deadly threat and that's just so rare on the streets of the UK that I don't really see it as an issue that needs addressing.

 

 

It's entirely possible but I just don't see a repeal being probable. It's too emotional and the shift has been away from civilian firearms and towards authoritarian security measures. We're being drip fed that more government powers, across the board, will make us safe but all we have to do is give up our essential liberties. It's clearly not working despite the fact that the security services have the ability to follow individuals in real time. Britain is one of the most surveiled nations in the world but crime doesn't seem to be effected in the slightest.

 

From a recreational point of view, shooting is a lot of fun. The stigma that Rambo wannabes are the only ones who want to carry is complete horseshit. My kids are currently in the scouts, over here, and are undergoing their shooting badges. .22LR marksmenship competition. OMG you're kids are carrying guns?!?!?!11 Not really. They enjoy it and would like to compete! Imagine the health and safety hurdles on that one, in the UK!

 

It's a sad day when our Olympic shooters have to live in France, to train...

 

That's not old school at all! Anybody with a shred of intelligence and real experience has learnt that.

 

I haven't meant to suggest that a civilian trained rigorously is just as effective in combat as a veteran infantry soldier who's probably seen a lifetime of violence and firefights. However, is it not unreasonable to say that you could select and train civilians through a sufficiently rigorous regime to produce something of a similar standard to that of a soldier, police firearms officer etc? Obviously the proof of the pudding is in actual combat and I'm not denying that without this final test of a person you can't say whether they are a success or not. But if training and selection weren't proven to be greatly successful factors in producing competent combatants(?) then we wouldn't invest so much in it. I'd stress too that when I say 'similar standard' I mean in terms of ability to deal with a typical civilian situation, not a typical military one.

 

I still stand by what I have said that a lot of what an infantry soldier is taught would be overkill for a civilian concealed carry permit holder. Surely in this debate the line has to be drawn at what is really necessary to at least not make things worse? And I can't get my head past the evidence of real life examples of CCW being implemented in foreign countries, when we look at these real life examples it's very hard for me to say that trained and tested civilians are the headless chickens that you, socks and the majority of the British public seem to think.

 

 

I absolutely believe that the military is not the be all, and end all, when it comes to shooting skills. I'm not knocking infantry skills, in the slightest, but you're absolutely correct when highlighting the overkill angle.

 

Many people like to fantasize what they would do in a life or death situation and some of the comments, regarding recent news events, are fascinating. However in a situation where 110% stress is involved, you fall back on your training and your situational awareness. Your fine motor skills go out of the window and muscle memory takes over.

 

Over here a CCW and tactical training can be, and has proven to be, a life saver. Sometimes a civilian is on the scene before the police can respond, and before the military can call in an airstrike. If that solves problems, and saves lives, I'm all for it. All police officers, and soldiers, were once civilians. The difference is training and experience.

[Born Hunter 17,813]

It's good to see you back on here Chris. I hope all is well in the land of the free? You can certainly bring experience to this debate that not many of us this side of the Atlantic can.

[ChrisJones 7,975]

It's good to see you back on here Chris. I hope all is well in the land of the free? You can certainly bring experience to this debate that not many of us this side of the Atlantic can.

It's nice to call in every once, and a while, it makes a nice distraction from spreadsheets and attempted robberies!

 

Like everyone here, I used to read the stories in the media about the Yanks affection for firearms. When I moved here I got to see it first hand. Like in the UK there are the good, the bad, and the ugly. The good are very good, the ugly are very, along with the bad.

 

The biggest surprise was the media representation. We all know it's horseshit but the British media's representation of US gun culture is purely a pushed agenda. If you believe everything you read you'd think that people are gun toting and paranoid and with a constant figure on the trigger. It's simply not true. You're being marketed a set of stereotypes designed to make you feel better than them.

 

The reality is much different. Many are very politically aware. They see the shift towards large government as an attack on their inalienable rights. They don't want it, where the Brits seem to sign away theirs on an almost daily basis.

 

Like most places in the world. The majority are decent hard working families, looking to get through life as comfortably as possible. I now live out in the country. My local police station is 90mins away and a patrol car is at least an hour, depending on the weather. The county is 2500m² and there are at least twice as many deer as people. On the flip side I work out of Las Vegas, a place that isn't the nicest. If any of you have visited there, on your holidays, you've walked past many locals with concealed carry permits and I'd be willing to bet you never knew it until now.

[Born Hunter 17,813]

All that really very strongly resonates with me. And something you said earlier, in the UK anybody that puts value on guns is immediately labelled Rambo and a hard ass wannabe. It's total bullshit.

 

I've probably told you but a couple years back I found myself in Fort Worth, Texas, and my brief experience with the pro gun lot over there was refreshing! I would not want to live there but that's for reasons other than the guns, just not a place I would feel at home if that makes sense.

[ChrisJones 7,975]

All that really very strongly resonates with me. And something you said earlier, in the UK anybody that puts value on guns is immediately labelled Rambo and a hard ass wannabe. It's total bullshit.

 

I've probably told you but a couple years back I found myself in Fort Worth, Texas, and my brief experience with the pro gun lot over there was refreshing! I would not want to live there but that's for reasons other than the guns, just not a place I would feel at home if that makes sense.

 

Absolutely! Las Vegas is the same for me. It pays my bills but it's the same reason I don't want to live in Manchester, London, New York, or Chicago. The town I live in has a little over 600 people in it. I'm not saying there aren't some Johnny Rambo types but to most it's simply a tool, the same way you'd go out and buy a drill, or hammer. Deer and elk hunting is huge here. Long guns and large calibre revolvers are the just part of the surroundings. Everyone is carrying, at this time of the year, and the only people that notice are those that aren't familiar with how it is. A lot of tourists come through and get a little twitchy but that's just another arguement for a CCW than any. For everyone else carrying it's as normal as carrying a mobile phone.

 

When you remove the stigma you remove the perception and despite that everyone is carrying, most of the time, crime is practically non-existent. Funny that.

[socks 32,253]

it's very hard for me to say that trained and tested civilians are the headless chickens that you, socks and the majority of the British public seem to think.

 

Ive never once said that or implied it ... What I keep saying is no training is the equal to a live combat situation ... Put the best trained civilian and a combat veteran in the same scenario and see which one prevails ..........

[ChrisJones 7,975]

Ive never once said that or implied it ... What I keep saying is no training is the equal to a live combat situation ... Put the best trained civilian and a combat veteran in the same scenario and see which one prevails ..........

 

Socks. In a civilian situation would you rather have trained, or untrained, civilians? I only ask because we're talking about inner cities, rather than active war zones.

[Born Hunter 17,813]

 

it's very hard for me to say that trained and tested civilians are the headless chickens that you, socks and the majority of the British public seem to think.

 

Ive never once said that or implied it ... What I keep saying is no training is the equal to a live combat situation ... Put the best trained civilian and a combat veteran in the same scenario and see which one prevails ..........

I apologise then mate, this debate has spanned three different threads now so I've probably inferred a few things wrongly.

 

I would have to agree with you on that. Experience is certainly the best teacher.

[socks 32,253]

 

Ive never once said that or implied it ... What I keep saying is no training is the equal to a live combat situation ... Put the best trained civilian and a combat veteran in the same scenario and see which one prevails ..........

 

Socks. In a civilian situation would you rather have trained, or untrained, civilians? I only ask because we're talking about inner cities, rather than active war zones.

Obviously the trained civilian but my whole point has been about ex soldiers that have experienced combat versus trained civilians ......

[ChrisJones 7,975]

Obviously the trained civilian but my whole point has been about ex soldiers that have experienced combat versus trained civilians ......

 

Absolutely, and I haven't missed that point nor am I having a pop.

 

The point I'm making is that civilians out number soldiers, by a considerable margin, and any security conclusion needs to include them. Military skills are indeed important but so are skills relevant to living in peace time.

[socks 32,253]

 

Obviously the trained civilian but my whole point has been about ex soldiers that have experienced combat versus trained civilians ......

 

Absolutely, and I haven't missed that point nor am I having a pop.

 

The point I'm making is that civilians out number soldiers, by a considerable margin, and any security conclusion needs to include them. Military skills are indeed important but so are skills relevant to living in peace time.

I was talking about civilians mate ... Civilians if possible that have served in the forces and have seen combat ... Failing that then yes well trained civilians would be better than nothing ........

[ChrisJones 7,975]

Would you say that combat experience trumps training in all cases?

[socks 32,253]

Would you say that combat experience trumps training in all cases?

In the scenario that we are talking about here then yes ......