Spent a couple of hours in the range with the team today.

I wish we invited DBAs too. Still targets get boring after the first couple dozen rounds

Definitely envious.

Nearly every person at $work thinks firearms are evil and should be banned.

@Root I kind of agree with them. Firearms for sport or hunting - that I agree with.

But for carrying - I see no point. If noone could carry, there would be noone threatening you with a firearm to defend from.

It'd be cool if only long guns were allowed. Inconvenient to carry, suitable for hunting and sports. I'd feel safer outdoors

@netikras I disagree. Criminals will always have them, at least here in the states. Allowing citizens to carry lets them defend themselves (and others!), and works as a nice deterrent too.

@Root well, in Great Britain firearms aren't as popular among civilians as in the US, and even police officers don't carry them (with some exceptions). And yet I don't hear GB complaining about the shootings and the absolute need for firearms to "defend".

There are more examples out there.

So far I see the US as an alcoholic. You can't cut on alco, because it makes you feel terrible and vulnerable. So you claim you need more alco to feel better. However, if you bit the bullet and cut on it completely, you'd pass through that horrible detox phase and continue living sober.

Armed criminals were, are and will be out there. Pointing a gun at one makes him feel cornered: fear for his life and freedom. And a trapped animal is especially dangerous and is motivated to do tremendous damage (incl collateral) to get out of this situation. Meaning he can aim at anyone and even fire w/o aiming if he is threatened w/ a gun.

That's why I don't feel safe being near *anyone* with a gun in public. It may create a sense of security, but for the price of threatening the offender and causing him act inadequately.

That's just my personal opinion

P.S. I have a permit, I've passed the trainings, I've been training in the range. Yet I don't own a firearm and don't plan on getting one. I do, however, have a KO peperspray: non-lethal, works on animals and people, even if there are multiple offenders, and the potential max collateral damage is negligible. It's better for self-defence in every way I can think of

The thing with the US and other countries is: Even *if* the impossible would happen and the stricter gun laws would pass...

... the guns would still exist everywhere.

It's definitely like a disease with permanent side effects. Just because you stopped the disease from progressing further, the side effects still exist.

That said, I think it is wise to only allow certain kind of fire arms, and it is wise to disallow an open carry for fire arms.

Defense is an argument that I find only partially applicable. Even when you shoot in defense, you might hurt innocent people. One of the reasons I dislike guns, especially anything that isn't a simple revolver / pistole with regular munition.

With each person additionally to one defendant and one assailant the risk of hurting innocent people rises dramatically.

Thus defense means always that you could inflict more harm than good. Especially by an untrained person who shoots in psychological distress.

@IntrusionCM

> defense means always that you could inflict more harm than good

Depends on the means of defence. Lethal force - yes, absolutely. If some chap only wants your wallet and you knock him out of his crocs with a 9mm between his eyes - that's definitely more harm than good. Even if you plant a bullet in his thigh or shin or even foot.. He may have not even intended to hurt anyone and he got a bullet, potentially ripping one of his arteries. The force applied was inadequate to the potential threat. Falls out of the self-defence scope. And if an innocent bystander got scraped by another bullet - that's even worse (and quite likely).

Now, pepper spray is a different story. Collateral damage is minimal, impairs the assailant's ability to aim and does not threaten his (nor anyone's) life, so he has no reason to shoot blindly. Also works against animals (dogs) w/o killing them. Can you defend from an animal with any firearm w/o killing it? No. Same applies to human attackers

@IntrusionCM IDK, I feel like the "defence" is nothing but an excuse for carrying. IMO the real reason is that they think it's cool to own and carry a weapon. As if that makes them cool. And "true Americans". And they have to because they can, because... it's America.

The guns will still be there -- sure. That's the detox phase. Will carrying make criminals use fewer firearms? Hell no! If anything, it only worsens the situation. Everyone will eventually be afraid of everyone. Criminals will continue robbing, except now they are forced to take firearms to the field. And if a shooting begins, everyone has to run and hide for their dear life.

A guy at the range kept on flashing us with his sidearm. As if that made him cool and powerful. IDK, IMO it was silly to the least. As if he had to compensate with firepower for lack of power elsewhere... Not exaggerating, that's how it felt.

@netikras my comment regarding defense was solely based on guns.

Exactly for the reason you said: You can shoot someone, but it's very likely you end up hurting innocent people.

Ricochet, through and through, ... Or just interpreting things wrong due to stress and shooting the wrong person.

Non lethal weapons like pepper spray etc are "preferable"… though I think that stuff like a taser should fall under the lethal category, as it can be lethal despite declared non-lethal.

Regarding the "show off" mentality...

Yeah. That's the reason why lethal weapons shouldn't be given out like candy.

Someone who thinks a lethal weapon is a penis / ego extension shouldn't have a lethal weapon.

It's not a toy. It's a lethal weapon.