Religious exemption from having photo on gun license? Really?

Following such logic, how can one conclude that a law enforcement officer will be any better at dealing with such a situation, than a member of the general public?

 

The end purchaser of the new firearm, with limited exceptions, is required to pass a background check every time that they purchase a new firearm. New firearms can only be sold by federally licensed gun dealers, and background checks using the NICS database can only be performed by federally licensed gun dealers. The typical exceptions to the background check requirement are law enforcement officers and those already licensed for concealed carry, but those exceptions don't necessarily apply in all states.

 

It should be noted that of the two groups, the only one found to be engaged in the act of reselling said firearms are the police. Law enforcement officers in the state of California have been caught in the act of purchasing firearms not legal for private ownership under state law, and then reselling them to the general public in violation of all applicable laws pertaining to such transactions. No background checks, no documentation of any sort, nothing at all.

 

How do I know how I would act? I have studied the combative arts my entire life. I'm a former law-enforcement officer who has carried a firearm personally and professionally for over a quarter of a century. I have faced the assaults of murderous criminals and successfully acted to defend myself, so I already know how I'd react, because I've done it.

The one who is being naive here is you. Training and mindset is everything, and that training is available to anyone who desires it. Being "paralyzed by fear" or being "in a state of total paralysis" is, believe it or not, a personal choice. If you choose to believe that criminal violence can't happen to you, then you will freeze when you are proven wrong. If you refuse to acknowledge the realities of societal predators and violent crime, then you will be rendered incapable of responding when faced with those realities.

Making the choice that you are going to be prepared, alert, and ready can do wonders for making sure you are never "paralyzed by fear." I remember something an instructor of mine said once: he spoke of people talking about "seeing their life flash before their eyes" when in a crisis situation. He described that phenomenon as being your brain frantically flipping through the Rolodex of your life's experiences struggling to find a solution to the problem. When you are trained and mentally prepared for something, your brain knows where to go for the life-saving information.

Sadly, we as a society have programmed huge numbers of the population to think that violence of any kind - even righteous violence in defense of oneself - is somehow morally repugnant, so their minds reject any idea that they might ever be confronted with the necessity to engage in it. A former high school classmate has always been a pacifist and a believer in non-violence... and recently he was attacked by another man over a traffic altercation. He found himself simply cowering, crouching down and holding up his hands helplessly as he begged the other man to stop hitting him... and he is now nearly crippled with shame and humiliation to realize just how utterly incapable of dealing with such a situation he has allowed himself to become. Fortunately, he was not seriously hurt, but he is now starting to pursue training in how to defend himself.

Sadly, a lot of the victims of the rampage at the Pulse Nightclub didn't have to die... but they made a choice to do nothing, and that choice killed them, and I find that the greatest tragedy of the whole situation.

 

It's not legally possible to do so.

Yes, the person buying the gun has to go through an NICS check for any gun sold through a licensed gun dealer, be it a new gun or a used gun. This is federal law.

 

Several of these attacks have been stopped by armed citizens (for example, a legally armed Uber driver in Chicago shot a man that was opening fire on a public area in Chicago). In addition, many of the attacks have been stopped by the killers themselves (by suicide) after the police arrived (the Newtown killer and the Columbine killers being examples).

 

300 people. All of them too scared to act in the defense of their own life. How can this be?

If it were here, -I'd- have a firearm and -I'd- shoot back.

 

Um, maybe a little thing called 'training?' Whether or not you think the training has some serious flaws and is totally inadequate, the fact is it is still training and they are prepared for these scenarios better than the general public. They're not impacted by shock because they were not inside the club when the attack started. They're coming into the situation from the outside with a job to do. Not to mention a little thing called 'automatic weapons' and 'body armour.' This time, I find your post incredibly stupid. Whether a off duty law enforcement officer who was inside the club would have been any better at dealing with such a situation than a member of the general public, is a completely different question. I think in many circumstances, they would not.

 

No, I'm really not.

Of course.

You're talking about two different things here. And its totally ridiculous!

1. You're saying that people have the choice (if they're faced with it) to be prepared, alert and ready and of course that is correct. However, you must keep in mind that many people will never be faced with this choice because they will never think about what they can do to be prepared, alert and ready for a life threatening situation. They've never thought about it to make the choice of "no, I won't get training to be prepared, alert and ready for a possible situation where I'm under threat." Even if they think that it would be worthwhile, people are busy! Work, family - just where exactly are they supposed to find the time to fit in the sort of training that you are talking about?

2. You're saying that people have a choice of being in a state of total paralysis. So what is the other choice they can make? Defend themselves? What if they don't have the training that you're talking about? The only choice they MIGHT have made (if they were faced with it), was choosing to not get training, but they don't have the choice to go against their natural, psychological reaction. Using your logic, that means YOU yourself also have a choice. If in a situation where your life is in danger, you can decide to be in a state of total paralysis, or you can decide to defend yourself, right? I don't think so. It seems that you would always defend yourself given your background. You would have NO choice. Right?

Of course, there is a third option for people, between paralysis and defending - just being too scared, thinking that they won't succeed, even with training.They're both in the same basket of "not acting" but they're both equally as understandable.

Agreed. Counter violence is absolutely critical. People who think this need to understand that they wouldn't have this stupid opinion if people through history didn't defend themselves, because they wouldn't be alive! That little thing called "war."

 

I have seen Men fail under stress of situations, combat, LE, E.M.S.,
Under fire etc.....
And freeze up, become useless, and need to be taken out of a combat zone.
Training is good, however if a Soldier or Police Officer / Medic is not mentally capable, then no amount of training will suffice.

 

Of course, but very different to the gun free zone nightclub.

 

Well, that's unfortunately the case, as surprising as it might be to you. Why it would be surprising to you I do not understand, because its not surprising in the least to me. It wasn't 300 big, strong men was it. Do you really expect the girls to have done something? Lets just say for argument sake that it was 70% male as I think its safe to say that there would be more men in a gay nightclub, I mean 90% of the fatalities were men. So that's 210. Out of that 210, they're all gay dudes. I think if you ran a survey to determine how many gay dudes are fight ready warriors, I don't think the results would point to the positive for the majority, do you?

Good for you. Did the nightclub people have a firearm?

 

Just because you don't like the point being made doesn't make it "ridiculous."

I'm sorry, but that's empty and brazen rationalization. People make choices every day. Unfortunately, huge numbers of people make the choice - and it IS a choice, whether you want to think of it that way or not - to believe that nothing bad will ever happen to them and to thus take no preventative steps to improve their personal security. They are too deluded/lazy/cowardly/pick your pejorative to acknowledge reality, and that is indeed a CHOICE. Spare me the rationalizations about being "busy". I've been working a full time job, with overtime, with familial and work obligations, and I've managed to find the time to pursue training. It's a simple matter to pick a weekend, get some training, then diligently practice what you've learned. It's all dependent upon your priorities. Again, you have to make a CHOICE about what's going to be important to you and what isn't. I've worked an 80-hour work week and still managed to fit in fitness and self-defense practice.

I made the choice a long time ago that I would never be a helpless victim, and I've dedicated myself to fulfilling that obligation I feel to myself and to my family. But in response to your statements I would point out the passengers on Flight 93. They were faced with an untenable situation, had no training, but realized that if they did nothing they would die, but if they did at least something they might survive. They failed to save their own lives but I applaud their decision to fight, because by their decision to act they saved potentially hundreds if not thousands of people on the ground who might have been killed if they'd allowed the terrorists aboard to fly the plane to its planned destination.

War and conflict have been part of humanity since the dawn of time. Even the self-contained instance of interpersonal combat is, to a certain extent, a "war"; a war for survival and self-preservation.

 

I couldn't help but notice that you didn't reaffirm your opinion that people have the choice of being in a state of total paralysis. And you didn't respond to this:

Agreed.

 

My apologies; I'd actually written a response, but looking back through the thread I'm surprised to find it not posted and realize I might very well have never actually hit the "post reply" button.

On one hand, there's an interesting point brought up by DoctorWho, who talked about how even trained people can freeze in combat; to the extent that they have to be evacuated from the area. I myself saw an agent draw his sidearm against someone threatening him with an impact weapon and be unable to get his mind wrapped around pulling the trigger. Not to denigrate anyone, but I still feel such is a choice; maybe an involuntary one on a subconscious level, but still a choice. How can a choice be subconscious? Bear with me a moment as I try to explain:

Based on my own experiences, I was very fortunate to have been provided the opportunity to be trained by some very serious, very dangerous men; all who had served in both military and law-enforcement capacities and who had killed men. The first was, of course, my grandfather, who regularly spoke earnestly to me about mindset and the necessity to understand that killing someone in defense of yourself or others was a perfectly moral and justifiable action; who was the first to teach me the idea that to freeze in the face of a threat was to die. He spoke to me about the importance of "setting the mental trigger"; too many people think of a gun as a magic want where all you need to do is wave the gun at a bad guy and he will immediately either flee or surrender, but when they face a bad guy who doesn't do one of those two things they're unable to adapt to it and they freeze. They never thought past that point to the moment of actually having to pull the trigger or asked themselves if they had it in them to kill another person even to protect themselves. The individual I spoke of before resigned from the agency after that incident because he realized he had never truly thought about having to kill someone and didn't want to have to face that situation ever again. During that same incident, as I watched a man clearly intent on killing one of my fellow agents, I realized I was going to have to shoot to stop him. In my own case, having seriously pondered the issue in depth, I had a very different psychological response. All emotion fell away and an odd coldness came over me. I positioned myself where my rounds would not endanger innocents and I remember seeing my sights with preternatural clarity as they centered on the suspect and I began to press the trigger with full intention and commitment to terminating the threat. In the split second before the weapon would have fired the subject finally responded to my verbal warnings and looked at me. We locked eyes and he instantly surrendered, throwing himself on the ground and wailing for me not to shoot him. I got off the trigger, confused, because the subject had been completely unimpressed by having a gun pointed at him by one agent, so why would he so abruptly cease his aggressive actions by having another one pointed at him? I still remember looking over my shoulder, wondering if a tactical team had shown up behind me, before I moved forward to cuff the suspect and take him into custody. In a discussion the subject had with another agent as he was being processed, he openly stated he had known immediately that the first agent wasn't going to shoot him "but that big dude was gonna kill my ass!"

So, what was the difference? The one agent had never honestly considered the possibility of having to shoot someone. He had all the best and honorable intentions in the world when he joined law enforcement; genuinely wanting to contribute to making the world a better place... and choosing to believe he could do that without ever having to kill someone. He even told me after the fact, when he told me he was going to resign, that he'd always believed he could just point his gun at someone and they would simply have to surrender because who in their right mind would accept being shot? He was the nicest guy in the world... but he had never honestly asked himself if he could ever shoot someone even if he needed to, and that was a choice.

Continuing the thought, a good friend of mine served with the Marines overseas, and he'd had a family history of military service and once he chose to follow that tradition he was sat down by two uncles and his father and, again, given a firm talking to about the realities of combat. He was told, just as I was, that you had to make the CHOICE to evaluate yourself and your own character to decide before the fact whether you had it in yourself to face the facts of what you were entering into. One of his uncles actually told him he hadn't thought about facing killing someone so much as being committed to never letting his buddies down when it mattered... and that thought was enough to keep driving him forward even when he was so scared he could barely breathe. Many who join the military do so with a commitment to service and dedication to doing the right thing, but who make the choice to never really think about the reality of what they were entering into... and when thrust into the maelstrom of battle find themselves collapsing psychologically. There are exceptions of course; my Marine friend recalls a man who everyone in the unit thought of as the prototypical Marine, highly decorated, with plenty of courageous combat experience already under his belt... who found himself in a firefight thoroughly unmanned by fear and terror and unable to move! Why? He'd just found out his wife had given birth to their first child, a son, hours before, and now under fire he was scared to the point of paralysis by the thought of leaving his family without a husband and father. Fortunately, one of his teammates saw what was happening and fought his way to his friend's side and managed to drag him out of the line of fire; which triggered the Marine's instincts and he got back into the fight and survived his tour to make it back home to his family. Sure, anyone can be paralyzed or freeze in the face of a deadly situation.... but a properly trained and dedicated person can make the CHOICE to fight past it if they have made the choice to honestly face the realities of what they have chosen to prepare for.

There are a laundry list of choices we make every day regarding everything we do. I choose to be aware and alert when I'm in public. I don't play with my cell phone or look at my feet as I walk; I'm constantly scanning my surroundings, making eye contact with the people around me, evaluating people to analyze their intentions based on their body language and expression. Part of it is simply interest; I find the study of human behavior fascinating. But I'm also doing it in anticipation of the moment when someone might be targeting me, and I've made eye contact with people who visibly stiffen and avert their eyes and duck around corners on darkened streets when they realize I've spotted them. I've even had an instance after having a nice romantic dinner with my wife when, while walking back to the car, two guys I spotted coming up behind us made eye contact with me and smiled wolfishly...only to have the smiles vanish off their faces when I smiled back and took up an appropriate position of cover clearly ready for whatever they had in mind, and they suddenly remembered appointments elsewhere.

In the end, all of that is a convoluted way of stating that everything we do in life is a choice, even how we prepare for everyday life and the threats we potentially face. Some people choose to believe that any preparations are paranoia... and when attacked or faced with a life-threatening situation that choice renders them into terror-induced paralysis. Some people make the choice to make rudimentary preparations without really looking at the realities of it and tell themselves they're "prepared" and "trained", but when faced with the realities of a crisis they also freeze, overwhelmed by the full weight of the situation. Then, there are those who train and prepare honestly, and make the choice they are not going to be helpless and are going to do everything they can to respond effectively should they be faced with that crisis or conflict. These people respond and respond well more often than not. They might stumble, and sometimes they fail, but they never, ever, stop trying.

 

When you meet Predators in the street, often, they size a potential victim up, the victims comfort level and nature is assessed, a good candidate looks flustered and confused when asessed and ready to flee.

A potential attacker sees a potential victim looking too comfortable and smiling back, like Charles Bronson in Death Wish, and is more than likely to seek another victim.

 

Why do you assume homosexuals are not big strong men?
Why do you assume homosexuals do not have the mindset to act in their own self-defense?

 

Those that advocate for greater firearm-related restrictions, arguing that such is necessary to protect the homosexual community from hate crimes, are a strong indicator of such.

 

Its just a hunch. I'm talking about a significant section of the community, not all of them. I would guess that this would apply particularly to gay nightclub patrons as they are obviously openly gay most likely, however, the big macho guys are more in the closet aren't they? I just don't think they'd be much of a fighting force, on the whole.

 

I'm sorry, but I just don't buy this.

I have known some gay men, friends and acquaintances. I have known those who were stereotypical flamboyant and those who no one would have picked up on them being gay. Ironically, one couple were diametric opposites; one was almost stereotypical, over-the-top gay while his partner was a Marine Corps combat veteran who had stayed in the closet until after his enlistment was up. They were both members of the Pink Pistols LGBT firearms rights group, and the Marine had taught his partner basic hand-to-hand skills and they both were better than average pistol shots. They had made the choice they were not going to be vulnerable. Being gay doesn't automatically equate to being helpless.

Sadly, people too often wrap their entire life philosophy around their politics. They think if they're politically liberal and support things like same-sex marriage then they have to support gun control. Fortunately, there are some that make more nuanced choices in their lives.

 

Is -that- how you explain your homophobic negative stereotyping of gays in your corner of the world?

 

That is quite a load of Bigotry.

 

Is it realistic that a girl takes on an armed terrorist? Regarding the majority of gays not fighting, that's not bigotry, that's me making a hypothesis on a survey if it were conducted. I have included the definition of 'bigotry' below for your review. You can tell me in your reply how my post constitutes your revised understanding of 'bigotry.'

Bigotry:
intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.

 

No, its how I explain my hypothesis on a survey if it were conducted. Nothing to do with homophobia, but perhaps you can tell me how it is.

 

I wasn't saying that gays can't use guns and I am assuming that nobody in the nightclub was armed. Its a very different story when people aren't armed. I'm confident that if they were all armed that night, then many of them would've been able to blow the f*cker away. We can thank the ridiculous gun free zone law for that scenario never being realistic. Even some gun owning gays, I'm sure will still obey the ridiculous law and not bring their gun, as much as they don't like it. I guess it would be difficult to disguise a gun from security.