Religious exemption from having photo on gun license? Really?

Where is the disconnect here?

My point is that no self-aware, responsible human being should ever reach the age of majority with no training.

No self-aware, responsible human being should ever allow themselves to reach adulthood so incapable of dealing with the realities of life that they collapse into hysterics and incontinence at the first sign of danger or violence.

 

You've made that very clear, but you should still be able to say if everyone has a choice to go against their natural psychological state if they've had no training. Yet, you seem incapable of doing so.

 

No, I AM saying so, but you clearly aren't comprehending my point.

Do you REALLY think anyone's "natural psychological state" includes collapsing in helplessness in the face of danger?? Fighting back to defend oneself is one of the most basic and fundamental instincts in nature! Even the meekest of creatures will fight back savagely when cornered; when we see domesticated sheep locking in shock and collapsing, this is an artificially induced response that has been bred into the animals. Sheep in nature will fight when faced with no other option. To collapse in paralysis and panic in the face of murderous attack is a chosen, learned response. There was a time when our society acknowledged reality and encouraged self-reliance and self-defense. Now, we seem to be becoming a society of cowards and prey animals who think that wailing helplessly while you're being murdered is more "civilized" than acting in defense of yourself.

EVERYONE has a choice. Everything in life is a choice. I'm not attacking you by saying this, but it is my true and honest opinion that claiming it is a "natural psychological state" to collapse helplessly, mewing in terror in the face of violence, is nothing but an attempt to defend (and embrace) systemic societal cowardice.

 

“It’s not an ‘arms-race,’ when only one side is racing. When armed conflict cannot be avoided, a shoot-out is always better, and more honorable, than a massacre.

For one, I’m not ‘participating’ in a massacre. They’re not getting me without a fight- and it will be a gunfight!”

 

Yes I do, for certain people. What if someone has a mental impairment? Also, by your argument, a 5 foot tall girl should be able to take on a 6 foot tall armed terrorist.

 

Any Armed Girl or Woman, regardless of stature, can with a good degree or measure of success, defeat an Armed Terrorist.

It happens all the time.

There are many true accounts of such happenings every day, and twice on Sunday.

 

We can "what if" ourselves to death if we want to, and we'd be getting away from the core point. I remember being in a training class, and one student kept throwing "what-ifs" at the instructor, who kept articulating viable tactical responses until the student created such a ludicrous "what-if" that the instructor's response was: "Then you're dead. There are no guarantees and nobody lives forever."

In the end, we aren't talking about mental impairment. Any able-bodied, able-minded individual has a responsibility to themselves to never be so thoroughly helpless that they collapse insensate at the first sign of hostile action.

I've known plenty of 5 foot tall girls who would acquit themselves just fine. A 5 foot tall girl - even unarmed - can put up a pretty effective fight if she has to. But then, that's why I advocate for an armed lifestyle. A 5 foot tall girl who knows what she's doing, armed with a firearm she knows how to use, can stand toe-to-toe with the tallest terrorist. There's a reason why guns are called "The Great Equalizer".

So, what if she's not armed, and what if she's not trained? Well, sorry buddy, but fighting back and losing that fight is infinitely preferable to curling up into a fetal position and just waiting to die; at least in my opinion. And what if there's ten 5 foot tall girls to that 6 foot tall terrorist, all willing to fight to survive? NOW who do you think wins?? So long as you have breath in your lungs and the strength to stand on your own two feet, then you're still in the fight and you still have a chance to survive, so fight for that chance to survive; don't just lie there and scream in mindless terror while you wait for death!

 

Uh, the terrorist with an automatic weapon. Easy. Next.

 

We're talking about the average girl here. To be clear, the average American girl is not walking around armed.

Every day, twice on Sundays there is a girl who defeats an armed terrorist? Really? What part of Iraq or Afghanistan do you live?

 

First your argument pertained exclusively to a six foot tall terrorist. Now you are changing your argument to be a six foot tall terrorist who is armed with an automatic weapon. Where exactly is the consistency in your argument?

 

Actually, if you checked a little more carefully, you would've noticed that at first, my argument pertained exclusively to a six foot tall ARMED terrorist. See below:

I grant that I did not specify initially the "automatic" nature of the weapon in my scenario, however, this entire debate stems from the Orlando terrorist who had an automatic weapon. Even with pistol, I think a combat trained terrorist could easily take out a bunch of girls, potentially as many as he has shots in his gun.

 

Not if they're experienced. Then the reaction is automatic, and instantaneous. Bang from one party, bang bang in return. Just like that. With shots fired your brain, and body, should go directly to green light. Actually "go" is the wrong word because it implies time. Should be just green light, and action, both together instantaneously. Civilian partially in the way? Shoot anyway. Shouldn't even register except for funneling down the shot like they were a post, or piece of furniture. You know whether you have the shot or not without thinking.

Processing and assessing = dead.

 

No, you are wrong. There was no "automatic weapon" at the Pulse nightclub. It was a semi-auto, and how many times do we have to point out that it JAMMED AT LEAST ONCE DURING THE RAMPAGE. Jammed badly enough that he had to pull up a Youtube video to figure out how to clear it! There were multiple opportunities for those who died at Pulse to have risen up and fought back and could have preserved their own lives, but they chose to cower in terror instead. It is THAT mindset that offends me.

More's the pity. Fortunately, more and more girls are discovering the merits of the armed lifestyle, so maybe next time some "AA" spouting jackwagon tries to slaughter innocent people he'll meet ferocious resistance.

Spare me the hyperbole. Show me a properly equipped girl with the proper mindset and I'll show you a dead terrorist.

 

Fair enough. Although it doesn't make the slightest difference to my scenario. A terrorist with a semi could still blow away a bunch of girls. He also had a Glock which would have likely been visible, which he could have easily drawn, aimed and fired at any threats.

I agree that the jamming event is something which would definitely have presented a perfect opportunity for someone to stop him and it might seem unthinkable to you that no one did. However, he did also have that Glock. Anyway, what if the jamming event didn't occur? Would it be a different story for you? Should people STILL have had no excuse to not take him out?

That'd be great! However, what does this have to do with my question? @DoctorWho seemed to be saying that it is quite common for women to shoot attackers, when I can't think of one single instance. I would have though that if this ever happened, the feminism dominated media wouldn't stop talking about '#GIRLPOWER!' Perhaps he was being hyperbolic in the way he put it, which begs the question: Who's hyperbole are you wanting spared of? Mine or his? Because I wasn't aware that I was using any!

 

Assuming facts not in evidence about the visibility of the handgun. That matter aside, if someone is preoccupied with watching a video to try and fix a mechanical error, their situational awareness if significantly diminished.

When the subject of limitations on magazine capacity is brought up for discussion, one of the most common arguments presented to support the notion is that with lower capacities, the shooter would be forced to reload more often, and thus give victims more opportunity to either flee or fight back.

If the nightclub shooting is any indication of what current trends really are, the above argument is not applicable. If potential victims are simply going to hide and cower, paralyzed with fear, over the fact that they are being shot at, a massacre could potentially be carried out with even a musket.

 

If your first reaction to the sound of gunfire is to start shooting in the direction of same, absent any assessment at all, you need to not have possession of a firearm.

 

One of the things I learned, and have seen it demonstrated in real life, is that charging a bad guy throws him back on his heels, and he becomes highly likely to fumble his draw and/or miss wildly as he tries to engage an unanticipated, aggressive charge. Multiple threats charging him all at once, and he might hit one or two, most likely not fatally, before he is taken down.

There's no excuse not to at least try. I'm sorry, but there just isn't. He executed numerous people in the bathroom, the bathroom door is what is called a "Fatal Funnel", basically a bottleneck. Instead of sending texts or voice messages to their family they were going to die, the people in the bathroom could have set up an ambush. As the guy comes through the door, you sandwich him, trap his weapon, and take him down. When his primary weapon went down and he was struggling to clear it, he could have been swarmed and taken down. You mention the Glock he was carrying, but it's clear from his troubles with his rifle that he was not well-trained with his weapons and could have been overwhelmed by a counterattack.

Ultimately, the fundamental truth you aren't grasping is that under such circumstances you can choose to fight or you can choose to die. If you fight back you still might die, but you at least have a chance. Cowering in place, doing nothing, is making a conscious choice to die.

When someone speaks of women fighting back successfully, and you make the sarcastic response "What part of Iraq or Afghanistan do you live?" that's hyperbole. You are insinuating that there is no way for someone in a civilized society to possibly be able to fight back. You speak of the "feminism dominated media", but that selfsame media has been waging a ferocious disinformation war against the idea of armed self-defense. If they can't twist a story into an antigun object lesson, they bury it. Yes, women use guns every day to fend off criminal attack. Ever hear of Jeanne Assam? She's the woman who fended off the Colorado church shooter, wounding him and disabling him to the extent he committed suicide rather than be taken into custody by police.

Yes, women use guns every day to fend off criminal attack. They don't always shoot their attackers, but they regularly drive them off. There's a column called The Armed Citizen that is published monthly in the NRA magazines that is all about documented self-defense instances, and women are featured regularly. I have an ex-girlfriend I'm still friendly with who shot and wounded a would-be rapist and held him for police; he was wanted in connection with three other sexual assaults in the area. A former LEO buddy of mine has a wife who was attacked by three gang-members; she shot two of them, one fatally, and the third ran off. These stories happen all over the country, and it's unconscionable that the media doesn't put such stories out where people could see the benefits an armed society can bring in terms of combating criminal violence.

 

Clear your mind and read it again, no one said anything about shooting in the direction of gunfire.

This is the problem you have when you discuss this kind of thing with people for whom it's theoretical.

 

Interesting. Okay, well I guess the media isn't so much dominated by feminism as it is by leftist politics in general, so I guess their anti-gun agenda is more important than feminism, because if it was the other way around and they didn't so much care about anti-guns, they would surely run those stories which the NRA magazine documents. I would have thought these stories were perfect material to demonstrate powerful women fighting back against the evil, misogynistic 'patriarchy' because those women sound awesome! However, I recognise that this sort of feminism is considered boarder line extreme left.

I had never heard of her until now. I looked up the story and she sounds like quite a woman!
I read that she was a member of the church's security team. Is this normal for churches in the US to have security teams? This sounds unbelievable.

 

It is unclear if the individual in question was a trained and employed security guard, or if she had merely had a concealed carry permit and volunteered for the position.

 

Oh yeah, lets arm the ladies. ( the real reason, so they won't mind if we spend money on guns, and time shooting )

 

I wish more women would embrace that mindset. For some, the very idea of resorting to defense of oneself is too disabling to endure. It's ironic we've been talking about this, because I just had a huge example get thrown in my face; my wife just began a new job at the local middle school working with special needs children. Classes start next week, so she is going through orientation this week. The first thing on the agenda as they began the orientation yesterday was a training class on dealing with a possible violent event at the school. My wife, who spent years in the private security field and is as formidable as she is beautiful, was excited to be involved, as members of our city's SWAT team were the instructors.

Good part of it: she wowed the instructors with what she was capable of. In the very first scenario she ambushed the "gunman" as he came through the classroom door (remember what I said about the door leading into the Pulse nightclub bathroom?), caught the barrel of the simulated rifle, delivered two hard shots to the throat area (the "bad guy" was in protective gear), one to the groin, and she was now the one holding the rifle as the "bad guy" was down on the ground looking up at her astonishment. The SWAT guys loved it, but the other school personnel looked at my wife like she had a second head. The teachers and school staff whined and complained about being subjected to such a thing, to the extent that several said they were going to file protests with the union for being forced to take training that made them feel "triggered" due to the "implied violence". They were horrified that my wife should know what she knows. They would talk about trying to "talk the shooter down" and how to "establish a dialogue". One scenario involved the shockingly easy task of choosing which door to go through to get out of the building, and my wife went to the door that kept her from being exposed to incoming fire... and the rest of the staff kept running into the line of fire because the door that exposed them to the gunman was closer by three steps! Teachers said they would run out and leave the kids because they weren't "paid enough" to "worry about someone else's kids!" One of the cops almost had a stroke, as his own child is starting classes there this year! I find myself disgusted by the whole thing, that such a mindset as these people demonstrated should ever have been allowed to become acceptable. It's the same thing as the Pulse nightclub: an utter refusal to acknowledge the possibility of violence, and an utter emotional collapse when reality rudely intrudes. I mean, seriously! "Triggered"?? Really??

Long story short, my wife was approached and asked if she was willing to take the training to act as the school's "Resource Officer" (basically supplemental security). She'll get her own sidearm, provided by the city, to keep in a lockbox at the school that she'll be able to access in the event of an emergency. The city hasn't approved certification of actual concealed carry, but they've wanted to find someone to handle the position for five years and none of the other personnel were interested. I guess we can be happy she'll at least get a pay differential for it.

Depends on where you are in the country. There have been instances of mentally disturbed people attacking parishioners with knives, threats of Muslim terrorism against Christian churches, threats of Christian terrorism against Muslim mosques, attacks on Jewish Synagogues, etc. In some places the decision was made to create volunteer security teams from the congregation. I believe Assam was part of such a team at her church, partially due to her past experience as a police officer.

 

Seeing as women are regularly targets for rape and brutalization, I think it's a good idea for them to possess the means to defend themselves.



[/QUOTE]

The videos above are not indicative of reality. The first one the woman wanted to commit suicide, and selfishly wounded someone else. The second video is women being handed guns without training by ignorant husbands/boyfriends/etc. so they can be laughed at; an activity which inevitably ticks me off.

Women are actually intrinsically better shots than men for the most part.

 

The videos above are not indicative of reality. The first one the woman wanted to commit suicide, and selfishly wounded someone else. The second video is women being handed guns without training by ignorant husbands/boyfriends/etc. so they can be laughed at; an activity which inevitably ticks me off.

Women are actually intrinsically better shots than men for the most part.[/QUOTE]

Just a little humor.

I started my wife with a little stainless steel Ruger Single-Six. She loved it.

 

The Single Six is certainly a fun revolver! I've kept one around for the better part of thirty years, just for casual plinking and teaching new shooters.