This is actually a point my wife has made regarding "armed population" arguments Would a normal, sane, well adjusted, average joe/jane, pull the trigger? Quickly enough? Without hesitation?
Drawing from martial arts and firefighter training, taking action under duress involves three parts:
- committing to action (draw and aim)
- taking action (pull trigger)
- thinking "holy shit" (actually think about how messed up the situation is)
A large portion of training is simply making sure all three events occur, and occur in that order. Most of the population lacks training and experience.
My point is regarding the effectiveness, not the ethicalness (yes, I just made that word up). I am uncomfortable with an armed population, but I am not logically opposed to it. I have simply met plenty of Gun Polishers at my gun club over the years, and I just don't think their (false?) bravado is offering anything meaningful to discussions.
unwritten implication of "at living things"
Yes, but the distinction I had in mind was actually between humans and targets, not just living things. I think even avid hunters that have no problems pecking off critters would hesitate as well. My knowledge in this realm is very limited, I only have experience getting shot near, not even at.
people thinking that they need to be able to deliver deadly force
I agree, and thus my comments regarding Gun Polishers. However, my point is more regarding people's ability to deliver deadly force (psychologically) rather than the need, or ethics of the matter. Having said that, I would like the ability to conveniently deliver deadly force while gardening. The coyotes were a little more aggressive/inquisitive than I like this year (couple maulings in the province, at least two eyeing me up in broad daylight), so I am somewhat sympathetic.
Would I pull the trigger on an attacking coyote? If a coyote attacks, I would like the opportunity to find out.
a gun is at best false security
I still don't believe it follows. Just because someone is unable to use the tool (not incompetent, just mentally unable), does not mean they should not have it. You can have all the safety training in the world and still not pull the trigger. They are only harmless at that point.
other than ... trained professionals
Professionals or Experts? I would define these differently and feel the distinction is important: Professionals are people that do the action for a living; Experts are people that know about the subject matter (regardless of being paid). I've met a lot of incompetent doctors over the years: they were professionals, but definitely not experts. I imagine there are a lot of professional weapon bearers who are incompetent.
untrained people are far more likely to shoot themselves or a bystander without said training and experience
"People should not carry" does follow from this statement. I agree with it, but it is not my point. If you are going to carry, you need adequate training. I do not believe adequate training is only available to professionals, or that they are any more trustworthy by virtue of being professionals.
1. "Have no business"... splitting hairs: no, it is not their business, (their profession).
2. Will they derive value from it? I'm unsure, that would be up to the individual's psychy and personality. I can't decide that ahead of time
3. Are they dangerous? Maybe, maybe not. But it really wasn't my point.
Oh I'm gritting my teeth, but not for the reason you may think ;)
I will respond, but I have work to do today, and my wife is already glaring at me.
The FAC has been replaced with the PAL, the primary difference being the ID is made of plastic <roll eyes>. Firearms legislation is handled at the federal level in Canada. The law is complex, and has some serious bone-headedness to it, but that is the nature of law. There is not a psychological evaluation, but the background check does delve into psychological evaluations you may have had.
An example of how invasive and dangerous the laws are:
I actually had to wait two years before getting my firearms license because I had just been divorced. My ex was very vindictive and would have said she feared me just to make my life miserable. Once denied, I would have required her approval for the rest of my life. Unfortunately, she was able to use the law as a weapon against me.
it is actively dangerous to anyone within the bullet's range. Therefore most people should not own guns
My point revolves around assuming a perfectly safe environment: everyone gets adequate training, everyone gets adequate psych evaluations, everyone is adequately responsible, removing the risk of accidental stupidity...
Regardless of how an individual feels about those things, I question the practical use of having everyone armed. It has often been stated that if everyone was armed massacres would end a lot sooner. However, not everyone can pull the trigger. To address the elephant in the room, if the entire staff at the school had been armed, would any of them had what it takes to pull the trigger on the assailant? I'm pretty handy with a pistol (actually I am pure awesomeness with a pistol), but I'm not sure what I would do against a human target.
My experience is entirely urban
My experience is primarily Urban, though my most recent experience is rural. I throw the rural experience out as a pet peeve: there doesn't seem to be much dispute that people have a valid use for firearms, but pistols are still forbidden. Unfortunately, planting carrots with a rifle slung over your shoulder is difficult, a pistol on your hip would be much more convenient.
My urban shooting experience comes from belonging to a pistol club in Calgary. I was an avid pistol target shooter for a time. Myself and two of my co-workers found out that we had pistol licenses, and formed a bit of an unofficial company shooting team. I do view firearms as a form of toy, like getting a boat, or an RC. This is my primary concern when I hear "more restriction" arguments. I enjoy shooting,
Here is an article I wrote on my experience and feelings toward firearms, my views have changed significantly over the last two years, but the general attitude towards firearms is unchanged:
http://vius.ca/2011/02/firearms-farms-and-family/
it is still an implement of death
Based on my experience as a sport shooter, I would disagree with statement (not vehemently, but it is not a black/white issue from my perspective). Many firearms are specifically designed for the target shooting market. Yes, you can kill a person with it, but that is not what it is designed for. I can kill a person with an arrow, a discuss, or a javelin, but that is not their specific purpose in the sporting market.
that doesn't mean that any hothead
In the past I have been an advocate for the right to carry. Recently my views have begun to change on the matter. While I agree with arguments regarding the right to self-defense, I remember that story from the Calgary Stampede this year about a fellow who had wished he had had his pistol (US police officer) on him so he could defend himself from hooligans in Nose Hill park. Turns out the hooligans were promoters trying to give away free tickets to the Stampede. Suddenly, I am very leary of hot-heads having firearms.
I'm gritting my teeth, but not for the reason you may think
This brings me around to why I am gritting my teeth: you weren't my target audience.
I am stuck between "Gun-grabbers" and "Gun-polishers" (the two extremes). I am not a polisher, I don't think I would use a firearm on a human being, even if justified, and even if required (defense of self or other). Primarily, my initial post was targeted at the Gun-Polisher crowd, mostly because I don't believe their hubris helps my cause (or theirs for that matter). I think it is important that Gun-Polishers recognize that their heroic statements are a fantasy, and do not foster the family environment I always wanted to see at my gun club, and that would set the non-firearms loving crowd more at ease.
I was gritting my teeth because I had been hoping to discuss with pro-firearm individuals.
I better just post this, my wife is glaring at me again.