If you served in the military, you can own a gun. Otherwise it's illegal to own one.

[Mr. David]

Know where?

Israel.

[Scootaloo]

1. I'm not sure what your point is, exactly... n/t

[CaliforniaPeggy]

5. I suspect his point is that if that were true here, fewer folks would own guns than do now.

[anomiep]

8. Israel has a military service requirement, does it not?

[CaliforniaPeggy]

12. I believe so, yes.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

2. hardly much of a point

in a country where military service is compulsory...

sP

[mick063]

4. I think it is valid

In the military, you are taught how to use, maintain, secure, and respect guns. You are taught the threshold for when lethal force is authorized (rules of engagement). You are taught that taking prisoners supersedes unnecessary death in accordance with international law.

Military service is an excellent prerequisite for gun ownership.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

6. police are taught those exact same things

and they fuck up all the time. and while i agree that military service is a great way to learn about weapons it should not be a prerequisite. some form of training should be, though... maybe even offered by the State for free for people who wish to own but cannot afford fees that might be associated with the class.

sP

[Mr. David]

11. Like I said. I'm fine with LEO's and military people owning a gun - they are regulated militias.

Idiots like George Zimmerman should not own a gun.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

13. i think if people obtain the proper training

a weapon should be an option for them...

sP

[NaturalHigh]

17. Who gets to decide...

who is worthy of owning a firearm? You? Somehow that doesn't comfort me a lot.

[cherokeeprogressive]

28. Not a whole lot of gun training in the Navy or Air Force. Disallow their veterans 2A rights?

In fact, the ONLY time I picked up a gun in 9 years of Naval service was in boot camp.

Generalizations are never good arguing points...

[mick063]

47. Perhaps your argument isn't an "end all" argument

Perhaps qualifications earned in the service could extend to civilian life?

If a person receives extended training in the service, they do so with respect to qualification standards.

This was the intention of my post. If one does not receive instruction on the use of a gun, or was not trained in rules of engagement, then that individual does not meet the standards I wrote about. These standards all are reflected with documented qualification. Those qualifications are a subset of being a member of the military.

Understanding rules of engagement will at least cause a person to be cognizant of when to engage. It is commonly an "all or nothing" affair. In other words, if you do not engage, then you avoid, or at a minimum survey from safe distance. One of the biggest arguments against Zimmerman is that he violated the wishes of the 911 dispatcher. The dispatcher should have certainly been more forceful than using the words "We don't need you to do that" as those weak words likely influenced Zimmerman as well as the jury. Forceful words like "cease and desist now" may have had different impact on the jury as well as on Zimmerman himself.

[cherokeeprogressive]

49. "Those qualifications are a subset of being a member of the military." What utter bullshit.

Not too many opportunities to get shot at or shoot at an enemy on the fucking flight deck, slick. So I guess I don't meet your qualifications to possess a firearm, even though I was discharged honorably from military service at the rank of E-6.

Fuck your "qualifications" drivel. Subset my ass.

[mick063]

50. I served in the Navy from 1984-1990

I was a sonar technician in Weapons Department.

I was stationed on a small Frigate. A ship not big enough for a Marine contingent.

Because of that, sailors comprised the ship's security force. I drilled for security alerts regularly. I practiced at the Marine shooting range weekly when in port. I qualified with .45 side arm, M14 rifle, and M60 machine gun as well as with various pyrotechnics.

Not everyone was stationed on a "bird farm" like you. Your experience in the Navy isn't equal to everyone's experience in the Navy.

It is my turn to call bullshit.

[MADem]

53. And your experience doesn't equal everyone else's either.

The fact of the matter is that Naval personnel, unless they are working in security positions--and most do not do this--don't routinely use weapons. The ship is the weapon, and it's a pretty formidable one, too, often as not.

But getting down to "bullshit," this thread is absurd. Israel is a nation that employs conscription, so everyone, save the disabled, mentally ill, those with religious exemptions, and Druze (arabs) are required to join the military for a period of two or three years, depending on gender.

[mick063]

56. I aptly qualified my post.

The word qualification was bolded for a reason. That emphasis clearly differentiates various experiences in the service and doesn't even come close to suggesting that my experience is equal to anyone else. In fact, it means the opposite of what you suggested.

Comprehend?

[MADem]

57. Well, this whole imbroglio started with "Not a lot of training in USN and USAF" and that IS true.

You do realize that you are the exception and not the rule?

[mick063]

58. There were 17 frigates assigned to my squadron.

Each and every one of them used sailors for their security force. It sure as hell was common.

[cherokeeprogressive]

60. Your notion that some veterans are qualified to possess firearms

And some aren't is misguided IMO.

I'm sorry I was rude.

[mick063]

62. You aren't giving me a warm fuzzy that you should own one.

That is for sure.

[MADem]

64. There's no need to be uncivil when discussing this topic. You should edit and apologize. nt

[cherokeeprogressive]

65. For you.

[MADem]

68. You are a good person.

Thanks for doing that.

[MADem]

63. There are 23 frigates of fewer than 300 ships in service right now.

There are just under 320K active duty Sailors in the USN, and slightly less than 110K reservists, most of whom never served on a frigate, and most of whom never will.

I can guarantee you that most of them did not share your experience.

I don't deny that you had the experience, I am simply saying that your experience is not the paradigm.

[mick063]

66. What I am saying is that comprehending rules of engagement is important

That is what I am saying.

Knowing them isn't exclusive to military experience, but military experience instructs it, if such qualifications are gained in the military.

All gun owners should be subjected to such training. People that have had this instruction are more apt to think clearly with a loaded gun in their hands. I believe that.

I'm sorry that a lot of folks didn't get to play with a gun in the Navy. Honestly, it wasn't all that exciting.

[MADem]

67. I don't disagree with that, but there are plenty of folks who received firearms training in boot

camp, OCS, ROTC, or Academy training, and never picked up a weapon ever again, for any reason, during the course of very long careers.

My only points are that military firearms training does not necessarily translate to a memory of it (particularly for those in initial entry training, where everything is a blur) and it does not necessarily translate to any sort of actual "experience" with firearms. A day or two at the range does not a proficient gun owner make.

Your last paragraph, if you look at it dispassionately, is really pretty jive. Why do you have a need to get snarky? I'll bet the USN folks who were not exposed to the joys of "playing" with a gun on a regular basis didn't miss it in the slightest--ergo, you've no need to feel "sorry" for them at all.

[Ilsa]

3. So what conclusion are you trying to drive the readers to?

That only current and former military people should be armed?

That Israel has a better handle on gun control since most people serve in the Israel Defense Forces at some point, even briefly?

Something else? What's your point?

[Mr. David]

9. My point is that these people have been trained to handle guns through military training

compulsory as it may be, but if you do not have the required military training, you should not be able to own a gun.

That is what the Second Amendment is all about - having the right to bear arms in a regulated militia.

Israel has the right idea.

[Scootaloo]

23. Well, there are a few odd factors to consider...

As others have mentioned, military service in Israel is compulsory - save for the Arab minority (and until just a few weeks ago, the ultra-Orthodox as well.) While not barred from volunteering service, there are hurdles to doing so - entrenched discrimination, the relationship between Israeli Arabs and the Palestinians that are the main target of IDF operations, and the plain reality of most people not wanting to sign up for a job where they'll be shot at. It could be taken as a system whereby rights are masked as "privileges" and denied to an undesired racial caste because of these hurdles. Think of it sort of like the "civics tests" that many states had as a requirement to voting before (and sometimes even after) the Voting Rights Act. It wasn't a sign saying "no blacks," but the difference of circumstances - and of course any prejudices of those giving the test - amounted to a pretty effective way to disenfranchise nonwhites.

I get your point about training and such, but I think your specific example might actually be a bad one when the details are considered.

We also must consider that, whatever your criticisms or admirations of Israel, they don't have the sort of "gun-culture" we have. While on the subject of military, look at IDF advertisements, then look at US military advertisements. You'll find portraits in IDF advertisements, they talk about the people taking service, highlight pilots or engineers or whoever, talk about duty to the society as a whole, etc. With the US military, you'll find a much stronger emphasis on the equipment being used, including the weapons, while the people using these pieces of gear are stoic and indistinct - ironically often paired with a message targeting the individual aspect ("an Army of One" for instance, or "Be all you can be.&quot

There's no real enshrinment or fetishization of the gun in Israel. It's not a cultural artifact for them as it is in the United States. I think this goes a long way towards the low rate of private gun ownership in Israel... There are apparently ~500,000 privately-owned firearms in Israel, a nation of more than 7.7 million people. That's about fifteen guns for every hundred people. Compare to eighty-eight guns per hundred people in the United States!

I think that the lack of gun culture - and the correspondingly low ownership rate of firearms - has more to do with the lack of gun crime in Israel, than the arguably discriminatory policy of favoring military service when considering ownership of a firearm in that country.

[Ilsa]

35. There are other ways to get

excellent training besides in the military. Private lessons, for one. In fact, a friend got private lessons after leaving the military, where she had earned several ribbons for marksmanship. She told me that her private instructor had given her the best lessons.

That being said, I think testing and safety/ handling proficiency should be tested before anyone is allowed to purchase a firearm. If anyone is going to be gifted a weapon, they should be required to go through that testing within a certain timeframe or turn in/refund the gun.

I appreciate the fact that you looked externally for answers, though. We don't have a monopoly on best solutions in the US on a number of tough issues.

[kestrel91316]

22. Only people with proper training can own a gun. Works for me.

I'd prefer serious consequences for gun owner negligence as well, such as children "accidentally" getting ahold of Daddy's loaded pistol. Like Germany has. Their laws have teeth.

[Ilsa]

37. I'd like that as well. Huge fines or jail

for leaving weapons out which hurt children.

[BigL]

7. Actually

Serving in the military reduces the age to own a firearm from 27 to 21.

[Mr. David]

10. And gets the proper training on handling a firearm.

Now check the murder rates and gun deaths. Compare it with other countries that have gun violence.

[BigL]

15. And?

I am not making any political statement here, just stating a fact. You made an incorrect statement. Personally, I have little problem with firearms training courses as the second amendment does account for regulation.

[JohnnyBoots]

14. Know where not?

The United States of America. That is never going to change.

[NaturalHigh]

16. I have served in the military...

and I think that's a stupid idea.

Pfft...

[arely staircase]

18. that's everybody in Israel no? Or almost so? nt

[MADem]

54. You are correct. nt

[madville]

19. That would be like

The USA saying only military members could own firearms and then only allowing white people to serve in the military. Do they let Muslins or Palestinians serve in the IDF?

[former9thward]

25. Of course Muslims serve in the IDF.

You would not know that from Israel haters. http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=5727

[LuvNewcastle]

20. I don't have a problem with people keeping guns at home.

I don't see this country ever passing a law that makes that illegal. However, it makes no sense to me for people other than cops to be carrying their guns around in public. If you don't feel confident enough in public, take some self defense classes. We don't need everybody to have guns around all the time. Seems like common sense to me.

[HockeyMom]

21. In your own home is fine

I object to them walking the streets with them. While I am not happy, or safe, living in a gun household, if they are locked up away from me, his right. I object being on public streets with guns around me, his or strangers.

[spin]

32. Out of curiosity have you ever had a bad experience with a person ...

who was licensed to carry a firearm? I believe you live in Florida and if so you are surrounded by almost 1,000,000 Florida residents who have concealed weapons permits.

[HockeyMom]

33. Knife and male, yes

Gun, no. Although a 68 year old neighbor (female) gun owner went on a rampage and shot up her house and killed her 72 year old invalid husband in his wheelchair last March. Thankfully, she did that in her own home and not on the street or in our clubhouse. She was a legal gun owner too. Didn't know her but everyone said she was such a NICE person.

No, I do not like walking around knowing there are so many gun toting strangers. I think about that all the time. Just one reason I don't go outside much.

[spin]

36. Did your 68 year old neighbor have a concealed weapons permit? ...

Statistically people with carry permits commit crimes far less than unlicensed gun owners.

You didn't give details about the incident involving a knife and a male and of course you don't have to. Did this individual have a concealed weapons permit? (In passing it is called a "concealed weapons permit" in Florida as it allows the licensed person to carry other weapons than a firearm such as a concealed knife or billy club.)

I should note that I am not saying that all people who have carry permits are angels.

[spin]

31. That may work for you but will it work for a 100 pound woman, ...

an elderly citizen or a person who is handicapped?

I have had martial arts training in jujitsu with an emphasis on self defense. Much of the class time involved techniques to take away a gun or a knife from an attacker. You learn quickly that while it can be done it is difficult. If you are attacked by an individual with a knife you can expect to get cut and perhaps seriously cut. Your chances of disarming a person armed with a handgun at more than five feet from you is at the best 50/50.

Since legal concealed carry became common across our nation there have been a large number of instances where an attacker fled once he realized that his victim was armed. Often the encounter ends without any shots fired and no one ends up in a hospital or six feet under.

The mainstream news media has an intense dislike of firearms and especially legal carry by civilians. Stories where a person with a carry permit misused their firearm or had an accidental discharge often make nation news while reports of successful use of a concealed handgun to stop a crime are usually only reported locally. Those incidents where the victim shows he is armed and the predator flees never make any news report.

I will agree that anyone who wishes to obtain a carry permit should be required to pass a course that involves gun safety and legal issues involving self defense and legitimate use of lethal force. They should also and be required to show proficiency with a firearm on a range. Of course they should also have to pass a comprehensive background check.

[HockeyMom]

38. I guess you aren't an NRA member

They talk about that all the time, especially some little old woman or man with a gun. Years ago I had a friend who was a Sensi. She was about 5 feet and around 110 lbs. I was with her when she threw a 6 foot man who tried to grab her. You may have had training but this woman was a 2nd degree Black Belt. No difference?

Knife? The key with that one is to not let them get up close and personal with you. I had a man come at me in a store with a knife. He was about 5 feet away when I threw a hot steam iron and ironing board at him. That woke up the Doberman who came out after him. You have a knife but would you want to stick around after all that? "Crazy" woman and snarling dog after you?

In Florida, you need what you said to carry a gun, BUT you don't need any of that to buy a gun to keep in your house, or even your car. You could be totally clueless on it's use, or the law, to just own it.

[spin]

42. It takes years of training to become a 2nd degree Black Belt. ...

I'm glad to see that it paid off for your friend. My instructor taught the class a number of techniques to use if your were grabbed and they were quite effective. He also mentioned that many predators use a knife or a gun. He taught disarming tactics with the warning that when you fought a person with a knife it was quite possible that you would get cut and when you tried to disarm a person with a gun you had an excellent chance of getting shot.

You reacted properly in the incident where you were attacked by a man with a knife. Predators use weapons to intimidate and when they encounter someone who refuses to be scared into submission they often flee. They are usually neither brave or intelligent.

Is this the man with the knife that you mentioned in reply #32. If so, I seriously doubt that he had a carry permit. My question was if you had ever had a bad experience with a person who had a concealed weapons permit.

It appears that you have largely had bad encounters with thugs, not honest citizens who are licensed to carry a firearm.

[REP]

44. I've had zero formal judo training and I can throw just about anyone

And have; the last time I was attacked, I threw my much taller, much maler attacker (I'm a 5'3" woman with very bad arthritis). Throws are very easy, and being short is an advantage. You use their momentum and guide it to the ground, using your leg to trip and your body as the 'vault horse.' I can do this, even with crippling arthritis in both shoulders. It's a great technique everyone should have in their repertoire!

[LuvNewcastle]

40. It's ridiculous for all those people to carry around guns

just on the off chance that someone will try to kill them. If someone robs you, give them your money. It can be replaced. It's overkill for someone to carry a gun in case they get mugged. People who insist that they be able to carry guns in public are mostly paranoid and obsessed with crime. People need to calm down. There's no need to make a big drama over walking down the street. Most of the people who think they need guns so much don't really need guns. They need therapy.

[spin]

43. Your advise is excellent, however ...

there are rare times when you can comply with a predator and he will still kill you.

Let's assume I am walking down a street and my situational awareness fails me and I find myself facing an armed thug who demands my wallet. I will appraise him and make a decision on how I should respond.

If he appears to be rational, I will assume that all he wants is my wallet. I will give it to him as I can replace my money, my ID and my credit cards far easier than I can my health or my life.

If he appears irrational or extremely angry and aggressive I will have a much harder decision to make. If I seriously believe that he intends to put me in the hospital or six feet under no matter what I do, I will draw my handgun and attempt to stop his attack.I have little or nothing to lose.

If I give the bad guy my wallet and he attacks me, I will attempt to draw my weapon and stop his attack.

What do you advise a woman do if she finds herself attacked by a rapist?

[LuvNewcastle]

45. I don't know how to handle a rapist.

I have no expertise on that subject, but there are people who do and they could give the proper advice. Are we going to arm all women just because there's a slim chance they will be raped? People in law enforcement and other occupations that deal with rape victims can give advice on rape prevention -- how to keep from being a target and that sort of thing. Too many people think that they'll be protected by a gun and don't know of other ways to avoid rapists and other criminals. I can understand why a woman would want to carry a gun for such situations, but I wonder if she would be just as secure with a can of mace. Sure, it can be a dangerous world, but we can't let fear run our lives so much that we have to carry guns with us everywhere we go.

[spin]

52. I am not suggesting arming anybody. ...

However if a person is willing to take a course of gun safety and the law concerning the use of lethal force, undergo a background check, show proficiency with a handgun on a range and meet all other requirements -- I see no reason why they should not be allowed to carry a concealed firearm.

[former9thward]

24. Pretty much everyone serves in the military.

So what is your point?

[hunter]

26. I put this in my journal...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2752619

I think anyone who owns a gun ought to be required to do a six week military boot camp, adapted to their physical abilities, but mentally and physically challenging in every way. Anyone who drops out, gets kicked out for anger issues, being a racist asshole, whatever... sorry, no gun license and three years before you can try again.

In addition gun owners would be required to do six weeks of national service every other year, not necessarily related to military or police types of duty, but working closely with a diverse sampling of the entire U.S. population -- white, black, young, old, immigrant, Christian, Muslim, Atheist, wealthy, poor, urban, rural, LBGT, etc. These gun owners would also be on call for military service at all times.

Licensing requirements for a very limited variety of hunting rifles and shotguns would not be so strict, but still require training, exams, and license renewals, rather like a driver's license.

Possessing a gun without a license would result in a mandatory one year prison sentence.

[ileus]

27. Glad I don't live in Israel.

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. Why? Their ownership is well...low

Oh that's why, I am sorry.

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. And it s still highly regulated

Nowhere automatic

[Half-Century Man]

34. My 2.8 cents (inflation)

I think we should pick a number, say 3, 6 (a six shooter), or 8 (8 is nice) and allow fire arms which hold (or CAN hold) this much ammunition at the level of ownership rights we have now. This keeps hunting and target shooting within easy reach. Self defense is also covered by a less...humongous level of ammo (I'd say your chances of being attacked by a platoon is not that good, too many bad guys to split the booty with).
Guns which hold more than the base, or have a replaceable magazine; military style weapons [one thing. Pistol grips, bayonet lugs, folding stocks, lights mounted, are all bullshit. Firepower is the issue] should require training, documentation, secure storage systems, or common civilian armories. If the government suddenly goes bad. We will have warning. Sheer numbers mean they can't get all of us at once.

Did you know convicted felons can own guns?....single shot muzzle loading black powder hunting rifles.


Oh yeah, one more point. If someone is concerned about having to fight a new American revolution with out modern military style rifles. Please think, 300,000,000 armed citizens (300 million firearms in hand) vs 1,200,000 service persons (providing, All of them follow orders to attack their families.).
After the first 2 minutes, there will be modern military rifles available.

[Rex]

39. So what they have a defense service law.

Which makes your point moot.

[galileoreloaded]

41. Yay PTSD. This op is mentally challanged.

[badtoworse]

46. Even if true, so what?

[otohara]

48. In Japan You Have to Register A Sword

my honey's family has one that's over a hundred years old. The government knows about it.

[MADem]

55. You have to register your US Navy ceremonial sword, too! nt

[MADem]

51. Well, damn near EVERYONE in Israel serves in the military--so that's just silly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Israel

Conscription exists in Israel for all Israeli citizens over the age of 18, although non-Druze Arab citizens of Israel are exempt; other exceptions are made on religious, physical or psychological grounds (see Profile 21). The normal length of compulsory service is currently three years for men and two years for women.

[Rex]

59. That's what I thought too.

So at one time or another, more than likely, you are going to get the chance to own a firearm as an Israeli citizen.

[DeSwiss]

61. Some Israeli's kids have figured it all out....

....for the load of shit that it is. Greedy, stupid men fighting over stupid things because they're barbarians and can't stop themselves.

- They want neither the wars, the military that fights it, nor the guns they use to wage their idiocy.

http://december18th.org/