Jackson Free Press

It so happens that in the past few weeks, a number of people with ties to the Jackson Free Press—staff and former staff—have encountered the same piece of advice from Jackson Police Department officers. The advice: Buy a gun.

Thoughtful gun advocates and detractors alike can agree on a few things. First, guns are deadly force, not human remote controls, and as such, require a willingness on the part of the gun-toting victims to kill their assailant. Second, guns require training and experience in their use; a gun in the wrong hands can be deadly to the holder and to other unintended victims. Third, situations involving crimes and guns are high-stress, high-adrenaline experiences that can slow down reaction times and muddle decision-making.

The Crime Lab at the University of Chicago (an academic lab making a strong case for evidence-based gun discussions) warns that guns "intensify violence" in property-crime situations leading to more homicides. Communities with widespread gun ownership correlate with an increased number of guns in the hands of youth and felons. Widespread gun ownership does not correlate with a decrease in burglaries, nor does it convey a "public benefit" in reducing property crime, in part because the presence of guns makes for valuable "loot" in a burglary.

It's your call whether you wish to purchase a legal gun, train extensively in its use and take responsibility for its safe storage (including locks that keep it secure from children and in the case your home or car is burglarized successfully).

But we feel strongly that Jackson Police Department officers should not make a suggestion to Jackson citizens that lacks precision or empirical evidence that guns make a community safer as a whole.

When reached for comment, Jackson Police Chief Rebecca Coleman said, however, that it is not JPD's policy to tell residents to purchase guns for safety. The department's Quality of Life and Crime Prevention units give safety presentations and tips on what citizens should do in potentially dangerous situations. As an alternative to guns, Coleman suggested that citizens secure their vehicles, be aware of their surroundings and park vehicles in well-lighted areas.

We encourage Chief Coleman to ensure that officers under her command know and follow JPD's policy and increase education when it comes to gun ownership and gun safety. Let's have an empirical, evidence-based approach to this problem.

Also see Jackblog post: Guns: A Public Health Issue?

Update: This piece was written by the JFP Editorial Board, not by Donna Ladd. - T.S.

Previous Comments

ID

165225

Comment

I am just thankful that we live in a nation that still allows private ownership of firearms. "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." James Madison

Author

bill_jackson

Date

2011-10-20T12:10:02-06:00

ID

165227

Comment

The most important thing about owning a firearm is quality training. Get trained by a professional on all aspects of firing, carrying, reloading, cleaning etc. Gives you a leg up too whenever you want to get your conceal carry waiver.

Author

RobbieR

Date

2011-10-20T14:02:57-06:00

ID

165228

Comment

Bill- Me too. I would listen to the cops before an paper by two anti-gun authors. The cops know they can't protect you, it's up to you do to do that for yourself.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2011-10-20T15:20:52-06:00

ID

165229

Comment

I think that in the event of a natural disaster or other such event that the police will be stretched thin and it's better to be armed than not. I have taught my sons about firearms safety and handling, just as my Dad with me when I was young, and we go to the range at least once a month. Target shooting is just good clean family fun.

Author

bill_jackson

Date

2011-10-20T19:02:04-06:00

ID

165231

Comment

Oh yes, the topic of firearms. I will say this, it is your right in this country to own one and I believe that if it is your right, it should not be taken away from you. However I do believe in moderation. If you own one, then one is enough. Being a black male and seeing how they have affected my life personally, I do not care for them - AT ALL. They are simply magnets for trouble. When you mix in alcohol, drugs and ready access to firearms, they do more harm than good. I do not sell drugs, deal in prostitution or in any other types of illegal activity and I do not run around wild at night - so I don't feel the need to have one. Simply put, they are magnets for trouble. If you feel you need one, then by my guest.

Author

Duan C.

Date

2011-10-21T07:25:07-06:00

ID

165232

Comment

Just one, Duan? Let me hip you to something, you can't hunt for deer and ducks with the same weapon.

Author

bill_jackson

Date

2011-10-21T08:12:43-06:00

ID

165240

Comment

@ Bill Jackson - let me reinterate, one handgun, one rifle, one muzzleloader then. You don't need a 9mm, .45 cal, desert eagle, 30R6, shotgun, a berretta, a glock, etc. etc.

Author

Duan C.

Date

2011-10-24T11:03:18-06:00

ID

165242

Comment

Well, Duan, that is certainly an interesting take. It creates a myriad of problems, however. For example, my oldest son is not of age to legally own a rifle, so his is registered in my name. They are both the same caliber and very similar models. Under your proposed law, would I need to go turn one in to the authorities, and we could take turns hunting? Also, the firearms I inherited from my Dad and GrandDad have some "crossover" calibers/types. Does Uncle Sam get those as well?

Author

bill_jackson

Date

2011-10-24T14:34:56-06:00

ID

165243

Comment

@ Bill Jackson - your alright with me fella. In my honest opinion, they should go to uncle sam if you already own one of each caliber? lol!!!! If your son is not of age to legally own a weapon for himself, then he shouldn't be using one in the first place - plain and simple. I'm not going to lie to you Bill Jackson, I'm a yankee, was born in Cleveland, OH and raised in Chicago, but lived some of everywhere else in between. But I know down south, hunting is a rite of passage and most kids are taught to use a firearm right out of their mothers womb. Its a gun culture down here, the gun shows the deer processing centers, you can go into Wal-Mart, Academy Sports and a few other places and buy a gun whenever you want. I have a co-worker who has 40+ guns, lives in Madison County (where it is "super safe") and is deathly afraid of everything that is different from him. It scares me to know he has that many weapons, but he made it well known he has them, why - I do not know, but I will not assume just for the sake of assuming why he does. But like I said Bill, if you have 40+ guns - its your money, its your life and it's your right to have them. I just think its more dangerous than safe, for a person to have that kind of power in their hands and their is no way to check their mental stability to own a firearm. Once you pull that trigger, there is no turning back. You can't go back and save someone after they are killed. If a legit person has easy access to a firearm, then just imagine how easy it is for a criminal? They are nothing but magnets for trouble.

Author

Duan C.

Date

2011-10-24T16:21:48-06:00

ID

165245

Comment

So by your way of thinking, people under the age of 18 should be able to go hunting? I have been a gun owner since I got a .22 rifle for Christmas when I was 11. I have acquired a few more since, and have not noticed ant "trouble magnetism" in the 37 yrs since. But then again I was trained in the safe handling of guns by my Dad. And please don't discount the kind of family bonding between boys (and girls!)that occurs when teaching your kids about hunting and the outdoors. As Mississippians we are blessed with an abundance of public lands to enjoy, and as for my sons and I, we will continue to do so. If you don't care to be a firearm owner, that is your call, but don't denigrate those who choose to start or maintain a collection that can be handed down from generation to generation.

Author

bill_jackson

Date

2011-10-24T17:29:27-06:00

ID

165246

Comment

Just catching up y'all after vacation. Only one comment: sigh. We have an issue full of big-idea and evidence-based information about fighting and preventing crime, and some of you only care about any thoughts about telling fewer people to get themselves a gun. And I guess it hasn't occurred to some of you the lunacy of police officers telling young people that without talking about safety or considering the potential (and costly) liability to the city if one of those young people goes and gets him/herself killed with their new gun on the advice of JPD officers (which would likely cost the city more, Bubba, than finally putting Medgar Evers' whole name on the airport, despite sudden concerns from certain folks about the costs; funny how many of the same ones don't care how much money voter ID is going to cost us, considering that it wouldn't actually target the real fraud). I really hope the chief has nipped this dumb practice in the bud by now. BTW, my byline is on the above column, which is an error. For one, I didn't write it, although I agree with it. And for another, editorials are unsigned.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2011-10-24T18:34:17-06:00

ID

165247

Comment

Duan C- You're a Yankees,that explains a lot. LOL Your lack of knowledge about guns, hunting and shooting sports is plain to see. If you knew more you would see how your "owning one of each caliber" doesn't work for people who hunt and are involved in shooting sports. You can have a few rifles of the same caliber, all for a different purpose. One for hunting, one for target shooting, one for shooting long range matches, and one for just going to the range and plinking. Then you can have bolt action,semi auto, single shot,lever action all in the same caliber. Same caliber, different rifles with different purposes. I won't even get into handguns and shotguns. Why does your co-worker owning 40 guns scare you? I don't understand what you have to fear.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2011-10-24T20:48:06-06:00

ID

165249

Comment

Guns for safety. Fighting wars for peace. Sex to achieve virginity. (Black is white. Up is down. War is peace.)

Author

Tre

Date

2011-10-25T08:25:22-06:00

ID

165250

Comment

To get back on topic, let me add that when the cops tell you to buy a firearm, well, that speaks volumes.

Author

bill_jackson

Date

2011-10-25T09:15:39-06:00

ID

165251

Comment

Why does your co-worker owning 40 guns scare you? I don't understand what you have to fear. Because they don't handle adversity and stressful situations well, TRUST ME - I see that person 5 days a week.

Author

Duan C.

Date

2011-10-25T09:26:54-06:00

ID

165253

Comment

I would guess that it is a small percentage of people who own stockpiles of guns are actually using them for hunting AND shooting competitions AND long range matches AND every other shooting "sport" imaginable. Most people that stockpile weapons have some irrational need to keep themselves "safe" from something that is trying to get them. What scares me about these types of people are the facts. More preschoolers are killed by guns than police officers are killed in the line of duty. Those guns didn't make anybody safer. Most suicides victims decided to kill themselves on an impulse less than an hour before they do it. That handy little gun didn't make anybody safer. All four guns used in at Columbine were purchased at gun shows without background checks. Those guns didn't make anybody safer. A gun in the home is more likely (22 times more) to be used in an unintentional shooting, assault, suicide or homicde than to be used in self defense. That doesn't make anybody safer. More Americans were killed by guns than by war in the 20th Century. I feel safer now! Taxpayers will pay half of the medical cost of injuries and deaths from guns. That's half of $20 billion! Toy guns have more federal regulation than real guns! Wow! I don't feel so safe anymore.

Author

Tre

Date

2011-10-25T10:28:31-06:00

ID

165256

Comment

"More preschoolers are killed by guns than police officers are killed in the line of duty. Those guns didn't make anybody safer." Are those guns legal or illegal? I'd bet a dollar to a donut the majority of the above referenced deaths from firearms are a result of illegally owned weapons and not those attained via the legal procedures. The police are telling people to legally purchase firearms. Apples to oranges, in my opinion.

Author

RobbieR

Date

2011-10-25T12:29:08-06:00

ID

165258

Comment

Tre made a key point - A gun in the home is more likely (22 times more) to be used in an unintentional shooting, assault, suicide or homicde than to be used in self defense. That doesn't make anybody safer. more likely, 22 more times, in an unintentional shooting Bubba! I've seen it happen over and over again, we had those young kids in the Queens. A former employee at one of othe places I worked with, shot himself cleaning his gun and forgot the thing was loaded. Magnets for trouble, plain and simple. Like I said - if you got to have one - be my guest. This is one of those topics, I wish I was wrong about. But guns do more harm than good. If you like to go hunting - and need 10 different rifles for each animal you hunt, ok then fine. All I ask is that your careful out there when you have one in your posession and let me know when you have it, so I can avoid you at all measures! yes indeed!

Author

Duan C.

Date

2011-10-25T12:53:53-06:00

ID

165260

Comment

"A former employee at one of othe places I worked with, shot himself cleaning his gun and forgot the thing was loaded. " I tend to look upon instances such as that as proof that Darwin was right #thinningtheherd

Author

bill_jackson

Date

2011-10-25T14:03:06-06:00

ID

165261

Comment

DuanC- I have no sympathy for someone who shoots himself cleaning a gun. He broke the first rule of owning a firearm. Treat every gun as loaded gun, check if it's unloaded and recheck. I can quote numbers too. Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. That's 6850 times a day. 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse Why would you want to avoid me just because I have a gun? Unless you're gonna try to harm me or my family, you're as safe as you can be. Anti-gun always say stuff like that, when you don't realize just how many people you are around everyday that are concealed carrying. This IS one of those topics you are wrong about. :) I outta this now, nothing you say will change my mind and nothing I say will change yours.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2011-10-25T15:27:42-06:00

ID

165263

Comment

In addition to BubbaT's numbers from the same evidence based scientific research paper: In sum, measures that effectively reduce gun availability among the noncriminal majority also would reduce DGUs that otherwise would have saved lives, prevented injuries, thwarted rape attempts, driven off burglars, and helped victims retain their property. Since as many as 400,000 people a year use guns in situations where the defenders claim that they "almost certainly" saved a life by doing so, this result cannot be dismissed as trivial. If even one-tenth of these people are accurate in their stated perceptions, the number of lives saved by victim use of guns would still exceed the total number [Page 181] of lives taken with guns. It is not possible to know how many lives are actually saved this way, for the simple reason that no one can be certain how crime incidents would have turned out had the participants acted differently than they actually did. But surely this is too serious a matter to simply assume that practically everyone who says he believes he saved a life by using a gun was wrong. This is also too serious a matter to base conclusions on silly statistics comparing the number of lives taken with guns with the number of criminals killed by victims. [100] Killing a criminal is not a benefit to the victim, but rather a nightmare to be suffered for years afterward. Saving a life through DGU would be a benefit, but this almost never involves killing the criminal; probably fewer than 3,000 criminals are lawfully killed by gun- wielding victims each year, [101] representing only about 1/1000 of the number of DGUs, and less than 1% of the number of purportedly life-saving DGUs. Therefore, the number of justifiable homicides cannot serve as even a rough index of life-saving gun uses. Since this comparison does not involve any measured benefit, it can shed no light on the benefits and costs of keeping guns in the home for protection. ARMED RESISTANCE TO CRIME: THE PREVALENCE AND NATURE OF SELF-DEFENSE WITH A GUN by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (Northwestern) Guns and Violence Symposium,vol. 86, no. 1, 1995: 150. http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz1.htm Above DGU = "Defensive Gun Use"

Author

WMartin

Date

2011-10-25T17:56:59-06:00

ID

165264

Comment

@DonnaLadd, you should ask the Attorney, Jackson resident and downtown dweller Curt Crowley if gun ownership for personal protection is lunacy. He recently foiled a burglary and captured the criminal with his own personal firearm. Oh, and lots of errors lately and little news. What's going on down there?

Author

WMartin

Date

2011-10-25T18:08:23-06:00

ID

165266

Comment

"Are those guns legal or illegal? I'd bet a dollar to a donut the majority of the above referenced deaths from firearms are a result of illegally owned weapons and not those attained via the legal procedures." How is this "apples to oranges?" A gun in the home is more likely to shoot somebody unintentionally than it is to shoot someone in self defense - whether it's purchased legally, like the guns used in the Columbine shootings, or illegally, like buying a gun in your name for a minor. If you want a gun, that's your business, but the police shouldn't be telling anybody to buy guns.

Author

Tre

Date

2011-10-26T07:39:41-06:00

ID

165265

Comment

"Are those guns legal or illegal? I'd bet a dollar to a donut the majority of the above referenced deaths from firearms are a result of illegally owned weapons and not those attained via the legal procedures." How is this "apples to oranges?" A gun in the home is more likely to shoot somebody unintentionally than it is to shoot someone in self defense - whether it's purchased legally, like the guns used in the Columbine shootings, or illegally, like buying a gun in your name for a minor. If you want a gun, that's your business, but the police shouldn't be telling anybody to buy guns.

Author

Tre

Date

2011-10-26T07:39:43-06:00

ID

165267

Comment

"whether it's purchased legally, like the guns used in the Columbine shootings" There was NOTHING legal about those transactions. Please get your facts straight.

Author

bill_jackson

Date

2011-10-26T08:02:54-06:00

ID

165268

Comment

How is this "apples to oranges?" A gun in the home is more likely to shoot somebody unintentionally than it is to shoot someone in self defense @Tre~ Because you are comparing two dissimilar things. A gun used defensively is rarely used to shoot at the offender. From the study I cited earlier, Only 24% of the gun defenders in the present study reported firing the gun, and only 8% report wounding an adversary. ARMED RESISTANCE TO CRIME: THE PREVALENCE AND NATURE OF SELF-DEFENSE WITH A GUN by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (Northwestern) Guns and Violence Symposium,vol. 86, no. 1, 1995: 150. Why shouldn't the police tell people to get a gun for protection? When the evidence shows that if you are the victim of a crime and you use a gun to defend yourself, you are less likely to lose property (only 11% of people who defended themselves with a gun reported losing property) and less likely to be injured, only 5.5% of defenders reported being injured by their attacker.

Author

WMartin

Date

2011-10-26T09:43:45-06:00

ID

165269

Comment

Thanks for spelling it out, WM.

Author

RobbieR

Date

2011-10-26T10:50:23-06:00

ID

165270

Comment

"Why would you want to avoid me just because I have a gun? Unless you're gonna try to harm me or my family, you're as safe as you can be." Hey Bubba, that doesn't mean you won't say - "oops, I thought he was trying to harm me and my family?" lol!!!!!!!

Author

Duan C.

Date

2011-10-26T11:00:31-06:00

ID

165271

Comment

@ Bill Jackson - I'm not trying to deinigrate or degrade owners of firearms, but I am trying to show a different perspective. Now that your child has learned how to use a firearm, do you honestly feel that if your son was dealing with a bully at school, that he could not beat in a fist fight, and the bully was to continue to harass him - what is to say your son wouldn't pick up a firearm while headed out the door and decided to pump that bully full of lead - as a means to stop the harassment at school? Just curious to what your answer will be to that question?

Author

Duan C.

Date

2011-10-26T11:04:52-06:00

ID

165272

Comment

First of all, my kids are way too level headed to do anything like that. Secondly, if it did come to that, he would more than likely use something more like a baseball bat. It seems as if you are of the belief that all gun owners are one step away from going off the deep end and going all mass murdery on society.

Author

bill_jackson

Date

2011-10-26T11:13:12-06:00

ID

165273

Comment

DuanC- I will answer this one even though I said I was out of this. Yes honestly feel my children if they were being bullied at school would NOT use a firearm to stop it. Reasons why. They have been taught to respect someone else's life, they have been taught you don't settle petty disputes like bullying with guns. They know a good kick to the nads will bring any bully down to where you can deal with them. If it get to the point they can't deal with something themselves, they know all the have to is tell me and I will deal with it. I guess you being from Yankeeland it was different,but when I was in school, every truck in the parking at school had a shotgun or rifle in it. There were plenty of fights and bullying and no did or ever would have thought of using a gun. We were raised better.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2011-10-26T13:02:34-06:00

ID

165274

Comment

"Why shouldn't the police tell people to get a gun for protection? When the evidence shows that if you are the victim of a crime and you use a gun to defend yourself, you are less likely to lose property (only 11% of people who defended themselves with a gun reported losing property) and less likely to be injured, only 5.5% of defenders reported being injured by their attacker." Most people who steal aren't looking to kill or shoot somebody, they are looking to take something they can sell for cash. Common sense tells me that if I am getting robbed, and I pull out a gun, my chances of getting shot go way up because now the bad guy thinks it is shoot or be shot. So then it's me and a robber having a gun battle. What happens if another person walks up and decides to help out with his gun? Who does he shoot? Now, three of us are shooting it out, and the police come up. Who do they shoot? What if I didn't have a gun? What are the chances the thief would have taken my stuff and just left? How many of all thefts end in shootings? I would guess it's a low number. There is one area where I totally agree with Bubba. "Nothing you say will change my mind and nothing I say will change yours." So, I am done with this topic too. Peace.

Author

Tre

Date

2011-10-26T14:24:32-06:00

ID

165276

Comment

Actually Bubba - I'm a 70's baby, so we settled issues on the football field, basketball court and on the wrestling mat (we had sanctioned wrestling in Illinois) I've never owned a gun, now my father and grandfathers were all owners of numerous weapons - but all of them were abusers of alcohol and women and that's what turned me off to firearms. And BOTH of my parents are from the south! But like a lot of blacks, took part in the great migration to get away from racism and look for jobs in the plants up 'yonder. I'm glad you have faith in your childrens ability to refrain from using fire arms to settle a matter.

Author

Duan C.

Date

2011-10-27T08:23:10-06:00

ID

165277

Comment

DuanC- I was talking to my 10th grader yesterday asked if her if she was being bullied really bad at school and couldn't handle it by talking or physically would she even think about using a gun, she looked like I had lost my mind and said "No, that's stupid. I have no problem going the Principal's office to get help,and if that didn't work I would come to you." Personally I think if a child has to resort to using a gun to settle a matter at school or anywhere else,it's not a problem with guns, the problem is the school and his parents. The school for not stopping the bulling and the parents for not teaching them to respect other people's life,that there's a huge difference in an argument,fight over a girl/boy,being bullied etc. and a life threatening defensive situation,that guns aren't toys,you don't use a gun to settle a petty matters and not supporting them in general. Your child has to know you would knock on the gates of hell and call out satan for them. I think you have a lot of misconceptions about firearm owners. Most aren't abusers of alcohol or women, most are appalled idea of having to use a firearm to defend themselves but would if came down to saving their life or to protect their family. There is a huge difference between most firearm owners and a person who takes a gun out to a club,deal drugs, and engages in other illegal activities. Most go out of their way not to put themselves in a area or situation that they might have to protect themselves. Not saying there aren't wacky jobs and Rambo types that own guns, but there are very few, when compared to number of other gun owners. You are more than welcome to come to the range, we are there almost every weekend shooting matches or just plinking. Watch,meet typical gun owners,ask questions, shoot our guns, if you want. Come see most gun owners aren't bloodthirsty,mentally off, evildoers wanting to kill someone.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2011-10-27T10:31:35-06:00

ID

165287

Comment

@ Bubba - well said and well thought out. You seem like a responsible gun owner. But I will pass on meeting you out at the range. Yes indeed! lol!!!

Author

Duan C.

Date

2011-10-28T10:46:42-06:00

ID

165310

Comment

http://www.wlbt.com/story/15930484/2-children-injured-in-shooting

Author

Tre

Date

2011-11-03T07:11:11-06:00

ID

165531

Comment

I hear some trial lawyers out there are taking exception to the idea that JPD officers shouldn't suggest to random crime victims that the answer is just to "get a gun!" Could this be a tad self-serving considering the liability problem with such advice without accompanying warnings about safety, training and such? Kinda transparent, no? Fortunately, when called by a reporter here, the police chief was a bit smarter than that and recognized the potential minefield, pardon the expression, of her officers going around randomly telling people to "get a gun."

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2011-12-07T10:47:59-06:00

ID

165542

Comment

A little in the same vein, if police should not tell people to buy guns, why are there all of the legal exceptions for judges to carry concealed firearms on their person at all times if they so desire? Our law officers carry firearms while off-duty. Judges carry firearms on- and off-duty. I am willing to bet that most of our representatives and senators also carry concealed weapons on a day-to-day basis as they work in the Capitol, around the Capital city, and throughout the state. Judges, the legal bastions of our time and protectors of our sovereignty, have created laws for their own carry of firearms. Surely, these same people would give the same advice as the police officers you have encountered because they have obviously deemed them useful in personal safety. JFP, would it be possible to do a quick poll of our legislators and/or judges to see how many carry some sort of firearm on a regular/daily basis? Or maybe how many have a concealed weapons license? No names would need to be reported, simply the numbers. Check the Mayor, the Governor, Lt. Governor, Secretary of State, District Attorney, and the Jackson City Council members while you are at it. That would be an interesting statistic to put into your big upcoming gun issue/article.

Author

myndtheef

Date

2011-12-07T19:05:09-06:00

ID

165546

Comment

The poll sounds like a very interesting idea, mynd. Will put it on the story plan for the gun issue. Thanks! I welcome other ideas as well, especially questions that we should find peer-reviewed research to answer, or try to answer. It'll be great to get beyond politics on this. Excited about it. As for elected officials giving the "same" advice, I sure would hope none of them would flippantly say to a crime victim to "get a gun!" If you haven't noticed, it's an insulting way of abdicating all responsibility (for helping put policies in place that attack roots of crime, increase safety, etc.), as well as dangerous advice, when offered without safety warnings attached. Any public official who would do such an irresponsible thing should be run out of office. It's one thing for a joe-schmo gun nut, who isn't charged with being concerned about public safety, to just rant for everyone to GET A GUN! without concern about training or safety, but quite another for public servants to do so. Now, considering some of the public servants I've met in this state, I wouldn't be surprised if some of them were that irresponsible. I also assume the difference between a trained gun owner carrying a concealed-carry permit and the same person quipping to a bunch of young crime victims to GET A GUN without safety precautions is clear to you, mynd? Even the NRA is pretty clear on these safety points. It's kinda scary to think that some citizens would even criticize the need for public servants to include safety warnings in their advice. Wacky, really.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2011-12-08T10:38:00-06:00

ID

165583

Comment

I do understand the difference in a trained person and an untrained person carrying a weapon. I was not raised a gun person when I was young. I had almost no contact with firearms except for target shooting with a .22 rifle at summer camp in North Carolina under NRA certified, and very strict, adult supervision. Because of that I have a firm foundation in the basics of gun safety. I became a gun person later in life in my early 20's. I have a hunter's safety course certification. I target shoot or skeet shoot primarily, but I do hunt on occasion for some deer meat. I became a concealed-carry civilian after I had a pistol shoved in my face at the Waffle House on Northside Dr. while two guys were robbing the place. About five years later I joined the Active Duty Army and spent nearly 6 1/2 years in the Infantry with 27 months of deployments under my belt. I have been trained to protect myself and people around me with a firearm; many different types of firearms, actually. I would say that I have a firm understanding of gun handling and safety pretty well covered. While I like having my concealed carry permit in Mississippi, the one aspect I would change is an addition of a firearms safety class that also requires an active-shooting component to the training. Mississippi currently does not require that component. I obviously approve of the right to carry a firearm, but I also figure what can it hurt to train the general public to a basic level of competency? Add $50 to the license and you could hire a teacher and buy a box of ammunition for each person in each class to shoot. Mississippi already reciprocates concealed-carry status with 19 other states. If we had the training component I'm sure we would add quite a few others to that list. You end up with a more knowledgable and safe community of gun owners in the nation. Guns are not the answer to most of the problems in peoples' lives. They are just another tool on the belt. That's why police officers carry pepper spray and tazers. Lethal force is not always the answer. My close friends know that I carry concealed, but even they do not usually know whenever I am or am not carrying.

Author

myndtheef

Date

2011-12-12T17:11:13-06:00