How do we address a problem like this?

[autosurgeon]

Maslow... Ah yes well this is cute.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

[gryphon]

An NRA friend of mine researched the FBI statistics, and what he came up with is 60-70,000 possible incidents a year where someone defended themselves with a firearm.

Please cite these FBI statistics.  I say you are lying.

[gryphon]

Maslow's hierarchy of basic human needs list safety just above physiological needs.

That means it was at the bottom.  Actually second from the bottom.  Psychological needs was at the very bottom.  You want to be safe?  Carry a gun.  The constitution doesn't guarantee your safety or happiness, only your right to pursue happiness.  The law doesn't guarantee your safety.

“There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered.” Bowers v. DeVito

Actually the wording is 'Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."  For some reason you want to trample on other people's liberty.  Stop it.

[part deux]

1. A firearm by definition is a deadly weapon. It exists for one purpose: to kill something or someone.

this quite frankly is ALL I need to hear.

For someone that claims to have taken the oath twice, you sure have a misguided view of the 2nd amendment.

Plain language was clearly written for a reason...

shall not be infringed

[TheQ]

I am not a sheep, a wolf, or a sheepdog. I don't carry to protect the sheep -- I carry to protect myself and my pack.

[gryphon]

Q, freediver isn't smart enough to understand that.

[freediver]

Mr gryphon: I see that, as usual, you decide that name-calling is preferable to reasoned-arguments. I am not stupid, brainwashed, naive, mis-guided, nor am I some sort of "problem" as mr ultra states. I am an intelligent gun owner with years of training and experience who sees things differently than you do. If you would like to change my mind, offer a fact-based well reasoned argument. Name-calling is for children.

If I can track down the source of my friend's FBI statistics, I will post it here. It's evident that there are a lot of numbers being thrown about, most of which are inaccurate. Like the "millions of times a year" number. It is physically impossible with our crime numbers to have a number that high.

As far as the "sheep, sheepdogs, and wolves" analogy, it is not BS. I learned about this in a class taught by law enforcement professionals with years of experience. I'll take their word over yours any day of the week. The theory matches up with my own life experience; that most people are sheep and it's up to those of us who choose to be sheepdogs to take on the wolves. What I've been saying is that being that "good guy with a gun" is not that easy. It requires training, it requires practice, it requires a level of commitment that I don't see among most gun owners.

[thamm]

So where do I fit in to your 3 types? I carry to protect myself. I'm not a wolf, as I'm a law abiding citizen causing no harm to others. I'm not a sheep because I'm providing my own protection. I'm not a sheepdog because owning a gun doesn't mean that I took an oath to protect those that can't or won't protect themselves.

[Ultra]

"I am an intelligent gun owner"

No. No you are not.  To be an intelligent gun owner is to understand the second amendment.  You, clearly, do not. 

This is why you are the problem.  This is why you get unflattering labels justly applied to you and your "thinking."   

If you really think I'm wrong about this or my proclamations about democracy, start a thread with a poll asking if you and your views are a problem and let the voters decide. Democracy. Let's vote as to whether you are "an intelligent gun owner who sees a need for common sense gun control" or if "your views on gun control are the problem."

Put up the poll.  Use the phrases I quoted in the poll options.  Let's let the voters decide who's right.  Let's put your love of democracy to the test....

[Divegeek]

forget the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. There are only 10 types of people; those who understand binary and those that don't.

As for Freediver, you aren't going to change our minds, we aren't going to change yours.

[gryphon]

Mr gryphon: I see that, as usual, you decide that name-calling is preferable to reasoned-arguments.

Apparently you need to take a reading comprehension class.  Even a third grader can see that every single post I have made to you is a reasoned argument.  I posted with facts from a U.S. Department of Justice National Survey.  I posted with facts about firearms carry today vs. ten years ago.  I posted with facts countering your faulty argument, or at least I can point you to the lengthy rebuttal of your precious criticism of Kleck (but it doesn't matter, read the U.S. DoJ).

I am not stupid, brainwashed, naive, mis-guided, nor am I some sort of "problem" as mr ultra states.

Yes, you are.  You exhibit little thought and nigh zero reasoned process.

I am an intelligent gun owner with years of training and experience who sees things differently than you do. If you would like to change my mind

I don't care if I change your mind or not.  I do care to counter your lies and misperceptions.  Whether you agree with them or not is immaterial.  I'm pretty sure you are a lost cause because you already have shown a pattern of refusing to look at valid data.  So go ahead and try to get your gun-control agenda passed in Michigan and the US.  I will be against you.  Nothing, I repeat nothing that you have proposed is acceptable to me.  I think gun laws are too strict.  You think they are too lax.  We are at an impasse.

offer a fact-based well reasoned argument.

You could try reading with comprehension for a change.  I have.  Repeatedly.  You, on the other hand, have come with hand-wringing crying that "we have got to something."  No, we don't. 

If I can track down the source of my friend's FBI statistics, I will post it here.

  If they are actual FBI statistics you can post them here, and you should be able to track them down in less than one hour.  Ten minutes, tops.  But take as long as you need.  You will fail.

As far as the "sheep, sheepdogs, and wolves" analogy, it is not BS. I learned about this in a class taught by law enforcement professionals with years of experience.

LOL! Yeah, no sh*t.  Newsflash--they're wrong.  Have you never had an original thought yourself?  Have you never had someone try to teach you something and you say, "Hey, that's not right."  I'm an engineer.  I live on facts.  I went though some "professional instruction" in university, particularly sociology.  I told a few profs they were wrong.  Notice this was more than once.  I backed it up.

I'll take their word over yours any day of the week.

You will?  LOL!  Not only are you a flippin' moron, but your opinion as well as that of LTC Grossman and your instructors can get you in legal trouble fast.

[jgillmanjr]

In FFDO school we talked about the psychology of survival. The world is made up of three groups; sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. The sheep are the general populace; keep your head down and hope nothing bad happens. The wolves are the thugs, the criminals, the crazies who wish to do us harm. The sheepdogs are those people who decide to step up and protect the sheep. They figure prominently in the military and law enforcement. They rise to the challenge of keeping their fellow citizens safe. They learn, they train, they practice, they adapt.

You know what the ironic part of this statement is? It's the fact that as an FFDO, the government DOESN'T WANT YOU to be the sheepdog.

Unless things have changed, the only time you're actually going to do anything is if the cockpit gets breached. Some asshole could be wasting every single passenger in the damn cabin, but you still have to stay put.

Which brings me to...

2. Since dropping out of the FFDO program and retiring from the military, my tactical shooting skills are not what they were. I don't feel entirely comfortable with my shooting skills in a tactical situation.

Tactical shooting as an FFDO? That's hilarious. The cockpit entrance provides a fatal funnel if someone were to breach it.

What branch of the military were you in? What was your MOS/AFSC/NEC/Designator/? For the aviation side of things, who did you fly for, what airframes were you rated for, total time?

[TheQ]

So where do I fit in to your 3 types? I carry to protect myself. I'm not a wolf, as I'm a law abiding citizen causing no harm to others. I'm not a sheep because I'm providing my own protection. I'm not a sheepdog because owning a gun doesn't mean that I took an oath to protect those that can't or won't protect themselves.

This

[TucTom]

Jason, you are asking questions that require specific / actual answers. I have yet to see freediver answer questions asked, just return questions or the standard statements as answers.

Oh, I noticed freediver wrote in regards to sheepdogs "They figure prominently in the military and law enforcement." In my experiences I can not agree with that statement. I do agree there are some with the want to keep others safe, but NOT prominently!

[TheQ]

"I heard it from a cop, so it must be true."

The brainwashing is strong in this one...

[freediver]

Well, gentlemen , I see we have wandered far afield from any serious discussion on gun regulation and improving our country. Since you seem to be more intent on lining up to hurl stones at me than actually discussing anything, I'll bow out and let you go back to whatever else you do. Me, I'll be chasing fish with a speargun in the Sea of Cortez.

mr jgillmanjr: I was a fighter pilot in the Air Force. In the Air National Guard I was a ground Forward Air Controller for 10 years. Our role was to go forward with the Army lead units and call in airstrikes for Close Air Support. I was attached to both armor and infantry units.

As far as your comments on the FFDO program, if you've never been through it, I doubt you can speak competently as to its training regimen. So say whatever you want. I was in it. I know how we trained.

Best of luck, gentlemen. You've reaffirmed my observations of the sad state of gun ownership in this country. I'm sure we'll speak again.

[linux203]

I'm sure we'll speak again.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Freediver, perhaps you shouldn't be packing a gun.

[part deux]

mr jgillmanjr: I was a fighter pilot in the Air Force. In the Air National Guard I was a ground Forward Air Controller for 10 years. Our role was to go forward with the Army lead units and call in airstrikes for Close Air Support. I was attached to both armor and infantry units.

And still didn't answer the question.

[CharleyVCU1988]

"that "good guy with a gun" is not that easy. It requires training, it requires practice, it requires a level of commitment that I don't see among most gun owners."

Then make it easier to access for all citizens across the board.  You threw your lot in with those who would go much, much further than you do.  Now the NRA spends even more money trying to fight gungrabbers rather than actually creating more affordable, accessible courses that focus on judgmental use of force and scenario based, force on force training.

I recently attended a custom-made course where I was put through video based training (VirTra), force-on-force training (with UTM simunition guns and real actors), all allowing me to decide for myself in various situations whether force was needed or not, as well as how to comport myself should I be actually assaulted.

It is not cheap at all.  It cost me nearly $4000.  $1800 for the course alone.  Another $1000 for a plane ticket.  $200 for gas, $100 for car rental, $200 for the hotel stay.  Additional costs factored in for food and emergencies.

Not to mention expenses for prior courses in the past that allowed me to use my prior training experience to get the most out of this custom course.

Most people don't have this kind of money, let alone time off.

Let us train alongside police officers for firearms skills.  Or simply back off and let the NRA get back to an actual firearm safety focus.

Your call.

[freediver]

Mr CharleyVCU: Excellent points all. I was lucky enough to go through the types of training you mentioned on the government nickel. I just had to keep my hair cut short and show up for drill weekends. A small price to pay for the quality of training I received.

I would love to see the NRA get out of the political game and back to what their original charter was: gun safety and education. In current times they are mainly a political front for the gun manufacturing industry. They (and other gun groups like this) should take the lead on the points you mentioned: have us train alongside the military or law enforcement. Run us through the tactical courses, take our skills up several notches, and add those well-trained "good guys with guns" to make our streets safer.

And for those of you worried about government tyranny, there's a great side benefit to all this training: the government knows that not only are its citizens armed, but they can handle those weapons very well. Win-win.