Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yep numbers of 20 years ago......who knows what it would have been without Gun Control....maybe the digusting figures the US has !!!!!!!! steve"As says your discredited NRA who were kicked out of Australia years ago as UNDESIREABLES ........ after the buy back the crime rate with Guns went down.so your point was ???? steveYou do know the crime rate is UP since you went to single shots. Oh and the ILLEGAL importation of firearms by and to criminals is also up.Australia...ISSo you would argue that a communist society IS a "civilized society?"
Gun control is designed to stop people from killing each other, at least that’s what we are always told. Let’s take a look at the data:
United Kingdom: The UK enacted its handgun ban in 1996. From 1990 until the ban was enacted, the homicide rate fluctuated between 10.9 and 13 homicides per million. After the ban was enacted, homicides trended up until they reached a peak of 18.0 in 2003. Since 2003, which incidentally was about the time the British government flooded the country with 20,000 more cops, the homicide rate has fallen to 11.1 in 2010. In other words, the 15-year experiment in a handgun ban has achieved absolutely nothing.
Ireland: Ireland banned firearms in 1972. Ireland’s homicide rate was fairly static going all the way back to 1945. In that period, it fluctuated between 0.1 and 0.6 per 100,000 people. Immediately after the ban, the murder rate shot up to 1.6 per 100,000 people in 1975. It then dropped back down to 0.4. It has trended up, reaching 1.4 in 2007.
Australia: Australia enacted its gun ban in 1996. Murders have basically run flat, seeing only a small spike after the ban and then returning almost immediately to preban numbers. It is currently trending down, but is within the fluctuations exhibited in other nations.
Plain and simple. Gun control has no significant impact on murder rates. Removing firearms does not typically create massive lawlessness. It is a moot point. These figures aren’t a secret. Why would the governments of these nations want a disarmed populace? For the answer, it is best to look at a nation that has had long-time gun bans that is currently relaxing their laws. Russia recently relaxed its firearms laws. For the first time in recent memory, a Russian citizen can carry a firearm. The prohibited items speak volumes about what a government’s motive behind disarming the population is. Russia has allowed“smoothbore long barrelled guns, pistols, revolvers, and other firearms, as well as Tasers, and devices equipped with teargas.” That’s almost everything, what is still banned? Rifles. So the Russian government has made it clear that the real objective is to remove rifles from civilian hands. The reasoning is pretty clear: you need rifles to overthrow a government.
The Facts That Neither Side Wants To Admit About Gun Control
Speculation fallacy."We are constantly told that if you carry a gun you are afraid."
And that may very well be the case for some; for others, not.
Carrying a concealed firearm does not in of itself mean someone is afraid, but clearly there are those who indeed carry a gun because they are afraid.
Other than the fear of something bad happening to you, why would you carry one? A fashion statement?
Yep numbers of 20 years ago......who knows what it would have been without Gun Control....maybe the digusting figures the US has !!!!!!!! steve"As says your discredited NRA who were kicked out of Australia years ago as UNDESIREABLES ........ after the buy back the crime rate with Guns went down.so your point was ???? steveYou do know the crime rate is UP since you went to single shots. Oh and the ILLEGAL importation of firearms by and to criminals is also up.Australia...ISSo you would argue that a communist society IS a "civilized society?"
Gun control is designed to stop people from killing each other, at least that’s what we are always told. Let’s take a look at the data:
United Kingdom: The UK enacted its handgun ban in 1996. From 1990 until the ban was enacted, the homicide rate fluctuated between 10.9 and 13 homicides per million. After the ban was enacted, homicides trended up until they reached a peak of 18.0 in 2003. Since 2003, which incidentally was about the time the British government flooded the country with 20,000 more cops, the homicide rate has fallen to 11.1 in 2010. In other words, the 15-year experiment in a handgun ban has achieved absolutely nothing.
Ireland: Ireland banned firearms in 1972. Ireland’s homicide rate was fairly static going all the way back to 1945. In that period, it fluctuated between 0.1 and 0.6 per 100,000 people. Immediately after the ban, the murder rate shot up to 1.6 per 100,000 people in 1975. It then dropped back down to 0.4. It has trended up, reaching 1.4 in 2007.
Australia: Australia enacted its gun ban in 1996. Murders have basically run flat, seeing only a small spike after the ban and then returning almost immediately to preban numbers. It is currently trending down, but is within the fluctuations exhibited in other nations.
Plain and simple. Gun control has no significant impact on murder rates. Removing firearms does not typically create massive lawlessness. It is a moot point. These figures aren’t a secret. Why would the governments of these nations want a disarmed populace? For the answer, it is best to look at a nation that has had long-time gun bans that is currently relaxing their laws. Russia recently relaxed its firearms laws. For the first time in recent memory, a Russian citizen can carry a firearm. The prohibited items speak volumes about what a government’s motive behind disarming the population is. Russia has allowed“smoothbore long barrelled guns, pistols, revolvers, and other firearms, as well as Tasers, and devices equipped with teargas.” That’s almost everything, what is still banned? Rifles. So the Russian government has made it clear that the real objective is to remove rifles from civilian hands. The reasoning is pretty clear: you need rifles to overthrow a government.
The Facts That Neither Side Wants To Admit About Gun Control
Most stores at least the major ones have kits in their employee areas.No it's not. You don't take first aid kits into the grocery store.Not the same.You have health insurance?
Car insurance?
get an annual flu shot?
Spare tire in your car?
First aid kit in your house?
locks on your doors?
Do you have those because of fear?
or because you like to be prepared?
actually, it is.
So not "most" stores.
You know the liberal argument is strange. Now we SHOULD be able to agree on ONE thing. Criminals commit 100% of crime. So why are we NOT banning criminals on American streets?Cars accidentally are responsible for, 35,369 deaths.
Guns in 2013..... 505
Yet there are no calls for banning cars.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf
Cars, Accidental deaths 2013......35,369
I usually stay out of the gun debates but I do recognise that both sides would like to see an end to the gun violence. It just happens that the answer for both are at opposite sides of the spectrum. There are stats available to help and hurt both sides. If we knew for sure that getting rid of all guns would help, I'm sure we would destroy them quickly as possible. If we knew for sure that more guns meant more protection, then we would all make many gun manufacturers very rich. We also know the problem goes beyond gun control. Mental, social, racial, cultural and economic issues hang in the balance also. We have to remember that all of us, want more than anything, for the violence to end.
I usually stay out of the gun debates but I do recognise that both sides would like to see an end to the gun violence. It just happens that the answer for both are at opposite sides of the spectrum. There are stats available to help and hurt both sides. If we knew for sure that getting rid of all guns would help, I'm sure we would destroy them quickly as possible. If we knew for sure that more guns meant more protection, then we would all make many gun manufacturers very rich. We also know the problem goes beyond gun control. Mental, social, racial, cultural and economic issues hang in the balance also. We have to remember that all of us, want more than anything, for the violence to end.
Exactly. The fear that is evidenced by the increase in gun sales is not supported by any advantage to carrying a gun. It is supported by the constant rhetoric of the gun industry through the NRA.
I have a friend who is the police chief in a small town and on Saturdays he gives CC classes. He tells us that police like to see civilians carry guns whether they are open carry or CC. What the libs here don't realize is that legal gun carriers have many, many rules they have to abide by. You can't go waving a gun around or threaten people and a gun can only be used to protect a life, whether it be yours or a citizens. You can't shoot someone who robbed a store or a bank. If you do, you'll be arrested. The only time you can shoot is if a life is threatened. It would do the non-believers here to read up on their states gun laws. The first rule is, if you talk to a policeman or if he confronts you or stops your car, you have to immediately inform him you have a concealed weapon. People here are running off at the mouth and have no idea what they're talking about. It's pathetic."We are constantly told that if you carry a gun you are afraid."
And that may very well be the case for some; for others, not.
Carrying a concealed firearm does not in of itself mean someone is afraid, but clearly there are those who indeed carry a gun because they are afraid.
Other than the fear of something bad happening to you, why would you carry one? A fashion statement?
Are you saying that crime never happens?
Crime does happen, but I don't cower in fear at the possibility.
I don't either....but if I run into a criminal, attacking me or possibly someone else, like the woman hacked to death with the machete...I think I would have a better chance of stopping it than you would...(especially if there are more than one attacker...like the guy at the gas pump who was attacked by 3 guys, one with a gun....and he drove them off by shooting one of them, the other two ran off.......)
There wouldn't be much you could do since you would be unarmed........
Not really on the other side but I would like to tackle this issue. First of all I'm saddened by these events. The girl at the campus, was she also not allowed to carry mace or pepper spray? I have heard these have adverted attackers in the past. Also somebody who is very paranoid carrying a weapon might discharge at someone who was just about to ask for directions or an individual pulling a stupid prank by trying to scare here. Anyone who approaches a scared woman in the dark could run the risk of accidentally getting shot. This has also happened in the past. Also the rapist might have killed her when he noticed she had a gun.To the other side....can you answer this question...
The real world example.....
The woman who was raped on her college campus, 50 feet from the campus police station...who had to leave her gun at home because the campus was a gun free zone...and raped at gun point because the rapist brought a gun into the gun free zone....
Was she paranoid because she wanted to bring her gun with her to the campus that night?
And Suzanah Gratia Hupp......who left her gun in her truck when she went to dinner at Luby's Cafe...because it was a felony to carry a gun in her purse.....
Was she paranoid to want to carry her gun into the restauarant........even after the guy drove his truck into the restaurant and murdered her parents and a bunch of other people....
Were these women paranoid for wanting to carry a gun on them?
this is in the CDZ because it gets a little old when some start talking sex organs and guns.....
soooo....
We are constantly told that if you carry a gun you are afraid.
Is this true.
No.
Carrying a gun for self defense is a rational response to the reality that even though I know where I live is ver safe, there are still criminals out there and that you never know when one will target you. These things happen every day, in every state, in every country.
How much fear goes into carrying a gun...for me....there is about as much emotion to carrying a gun as there is carrying my cell phone.
Now....the other side...the one that is constantly accusing my side of being afraid.....I believe that fear is what they feel....especially about guns. The don't like people, but they hate guns in the hands of people.
For example.
There are over 3,700,000 AR-15s in private hands in this country.
Each year maybe, maybe, 2-3 are used in any type of crime or even a mass shooting.
With those numbers, those who I believe fear guns want all AR-15s banned from private hands. To me, that is real fear. The numbers show that the odds of being a victim of a violent attack by an attacker with an AR-15 are so remote...you would actually have more of a chance of running into Big Foot and Elvis having Lunch with Aliens.....
And yet, they call for all AR-15s and other rifles like it to be completely banned.
And yet even if AR-15s are completely banned, there is not one crime that is committed on those rare occasions where an AR-15 is used that cannot be done to the same effect with a pistol, shot gun or other rifle or a combination of those......
Yet we are called scaredy cats for wearing a gun like we wear a cell phone or buckle our seat belts.
To a rational person....who sounds more afraid of guns...who sounds more filled with actual fear...?
You're kidding, right? If both sides of the gun debate wanted the violence to end, we'd commit to ending it. Gun manufacturers care about gun deaths about as much as cigarette manufacturers care about the cancer they cause. Tobacco companies are simply not nearly as successful as the gun industry at deluding the public that they have their best interests at heart.I usually stay out of the gun debates but I do recognise that both sides would like to see an end to the gun violence. It just happens that the answer for both are at opposite sides of the spectrum. There are stats available to help and hurt both sides. If we knew for sure that getting rid of all guns would help, I'm sure we would destroy them quickly as possible. If we knew for sure that more guns meant more protection, then we would all make many gun manufacturers very rich. We also know the problem goes beyond gun control. Mental, social, racial, cultural and economic issues hang in the balance also. We have to remember that all of us, want more than anything, for the violence to end.
I completely agree with you Emily....Law Enforcement,The Military and some Proper Gun Clubs should have the ability to carry a Gun......but NO ONE else,steve but I can't see it happening in the US,so many folk think it's safer to carry a Gun.........Which is Totally Mental when you think about it,just sayinALL GUNS ARE WRONG IN A CIVILIZED SOCIETYthis is in the CDZ because it gets a little old when some start talking sex organs and guns.....
soooo....
We are constantly told that if you carry a gun you are afraid.
Is this true.
No.
Carrying a gun for self defense is a rational response to the reality that even though I know where I live is ver safe, there are still criminals out there and that you never know when one will target you. These things happen every day, in every state, in every country.
How much fear goes into carrying a gun...for me....there is about as much emotion to carrying a gun as there is carrying my cell phone.
Now....the other side...the one that is constantly accusing my side of being afraid.....I believe that fear is what they feel....especially about guns. The don't like people, but they hate guns in the hands of people.
For example.
There are over 3,700,000 AR-15s in private hands in this country.
Each year maybe, maybe, 2-3 are used in any type of crime or even a mass shooting.
With those numbers, those who I believe fear guns want all AR-15s banned from private hands. To me, that is real fear. The numbers show that the odds of being a victim of a violent attack by an attacker with an AR-15 are so remote...you would actually have more of a chance of running into Big Foot and Elvis having Lunch with Aliens.....
And yet, they call for all AR-15s and other rifles like it to be completely banned.
And yet even if AR-15s are completely banned, there is not one crime that is committed on those rare occasions where an AR-15 is used that cannot be done to the same effect with a pistol, shot gun or other rifle or a combination of those......
Yet we are called scaredy cats for wearing a gun like we wear a cell phone or buckle our seat belts.
To a rational person....who sounds more afraid of guns...who sounds more filled with actual fear...?
Dear theliq
I would agree with you that the purpose and best use of arms
is for defense and deterrence, where ideally they don't have to be used at all.
I have met many police and peace officers who carry guns for dangerous situations that may require that,
but they don't depend on that, and do most of their deterrence and police work
by breaking up confrontations or preventing them completely CIVILLY.
You are right, for the most part the guns are not used but are there so they won't have to be!
That's the way it should be.
However, can you show a me a civilized society
that didn't still have criminally aggressive people who were effectively deterred by police carrying guns?
Because society and people aren't perfect, and there are still criminal people who
don't get help in advance, but are only discovered after they cause threats or problems to people,
then guns are still necessary in case of emergencies.
As we progress, and we can diagnose treat and cure the causes of criminal illness and behavior,
we can do more and more of the correctional work in advance and by civil means.
We won't have to rely so much on the point of confrontation with police,
or wait until after someone has stalked and killed people and is going to prison
BEFORE we get sick people help at the first sign of criminal abuse or dangerous addiction.
Until then, guns are still necessary, but in the right hands
of trained officers, they won't necessarily need to be used.
I completely agree with you Emily....Law Enforcement,The Military and some Proper Gun Clubs should have the ability to carry a Gun......but NO ONE else,steve but I can't see it happening in the US,so many folk think it's safer to carry a Gun.........Which is Totally Mental when you think about it,just sayinALL GUNS ARE WRONG IN A CIVILIZED SOCIETYthis is in the CDZ because it gets a little old when some start talking sex organs and guns.....
soooo....
We are constantly told that if you carry a gun you are afraid.
Is this true.
No.
Carrying a gun for self defense is a rational response to the reality that even though I know where I live is ver safe, there are still criminals out there and that you never know when one will target you. These things happen every day, in every state, in every country.
How much fear goes into carrying a gun...for me....there is about as much emotion to carrying a gun as there is carrying my cell phone.
Now....the other side...the one that is constantly accusing my side of being afraid.....I believe that fear is what they feel....especially about guns. The don't like people, but they hate guns in the hands of people.
For example.
There are over 3,700,000 AR-15s in private hands in this country.
Each year maybe, maybe, 2-3 are used in any type of crime or even a mass shooting.
With those numbers, those who I believe fear guns want all AR-15s banned from private hands. To me, that is real fear. The numbers show that the odds of being a victim of a violent attack by an attacker with an AR-15 are so remote...you would actually have more of a chance of running into Big Foot and Elvis having Lunch with Aliens.....
And yet, they call for all AR-15s and other rifles like it to be completely banned.
And yet even if AR-15s are completely banned, there is not one crime that is committed on those rare occasions where an AR-15 is used that cannot be done to the same effect with a pistol, shot gun or other rifle or a combination of those......
Yet we are called scaredy cats for wearing a gun like we wear a cell phone or buckle our seat belts.
To a rational person....who sounds more afraid of guns...who sounds more filled with actual fear...?
Dear theliq
I would agree with you that the purpose and best use of arms
is for defense and deterrence, where ideally they don't have to be used at all.
I have met many police and peace officers who carry guns for dangerous situations that may require that,
but they don't depend on that, and do most of their deterrence and police work
by breaking up confrontations or preventing them completely CIVILLY.
You are right, for the most part the guns are not used but are there so they won't have to be!
That's the way it should be.
However, can you show a me a civilized society
that didn't still have criminally aggressive people who were effectively deterred by police carrying guns?
Because society and people aren't perfect, and there are still criminal people who
don't get help in advance, but are only discovered after they cause threats or problems to people,
then guns are still necessary in case of emergencies.
As we progress, and we can diagnose treat and cure the causes of criminal illness and behavior,
we can do more and more of the correctional work in advance and by civil means.
We won't have to rely so much on the point of confrontation with police,
or wait until after someone has stalked and killed people and is going to prison
BEFORE we get sick people help at the first sign of criminal abuse or dangerous addiction.
Until then, guns are still necessary, but in the right hands
of trained officers, they won't necessarily need to be used.
In answer to your last paragraph, Emily, that's what NRA is all about along with gun range instructors. Military people learn about guns and gun safety and it sticks with them for life.I completely agree with you Emily....Law Enforcement,The Military and some Proper Gun Clubs should have the ability to carry a Gun......but NO ONE else,steve but I can't see it happening in the US,so many folk think it's safer to carry a Gun.........Which is Totally Mental when you think about it,just sayinALL GUNS ARE WRONG IN A CIVILIZED SOCIETYthis is in the CDZ because it gets a little old when some start talking sex organs and guns.....
soooo....
We are constantly told that if you carry a gun you are afraid.
Is this true.
No.
Carrying a gun for self defense is a rational response to the reality that even though I know where I live is ver safe, there are still criminals out there and that you never know when one will target you. These things happen every day, in every state, in every country.
How much fear goes into carrying a gun...for me....there is about as much emotion to carrying a gun as there is carrying my cell phone.
Now....the other side...the one that is constantly accusing my side of being afraid.....I believe that fear is what they feel....especially about guns. The don't like people, but they hate guns in the hands of people.
For example.
There are over 3,700,000 AR-15s in private hands in this country.
Each year maybe, maybe, 2-3 are used in any type of crime or even a mass shooting.
With those numbers, those who I believe fear guns want all AR-15s banned from private hands. To me, that is real fear. The numbers show that the odds of being a victim of a violent attack by an attacker with an AR-15 are so remote...you would actually have more of a chance of running into Big Foot and Elvis having Lunch with Aliens.....
And yet, they call for all AR-15s and other rifles like it to be completely banned.
And yet even if AR-15s are completely banned, there is not one crime that is committed on those rare occasions where an AR-15 is used that cannot be done to the same effect with a pistol, shot gun or other rifle or a combination of those......
Yet we are called scaredy cats for wearing a gun like we wear a cell phone or buckle our seat belts.
To a rational person....who sounds more afraid of guns...who sounds more filled with actual fear...?
Dear theliq
I would agree with you that the purpose and best use of arms
is for defense and deterrence, where ideally they don't have to be used at all.
I have met many police and peace officers who carry guns for dangerous situations that may require that,
but they don't depend on that, and do most of their deterrence and police work
by breaking up confrontations or preventing them completely CIVILLY.
You are right, for the most part the guns are not used but are there so they won't have to be!
That's the way it should be.
However, can you show a me a civilized society
that didn't still have criminally aggressive people who were effectively deterred by police carrying guns?
Because society and people aren't perfect, and there are still criminal people who
don't get help in advance, but are only discovered after they cause threats or problems to people,
then guns are still necessary in case of emergencies.
As we progress, and we can diagnose treat and cure the causes of criminal illness and behavior,
we can do more and more of the correctional work in advance and by civil means.
We won't have to rely so much on the point of confrontation with police,
or wait until after someone has stalked and killed people and is going to prison
BEFORE we get sick people help at the first sign of criminal abuse or dangerous addiction.
Until then, guns are still necessary, but in the right hands
of trained officers, they won't necessarily need to be used.
Hi theliq
What is wrong with training security guards and other citizens
using the same process, including screening, required of police and military?
That's like training more people to do CPR or use a defibrillator,
instead of only the professional EMS, doctors and nurses.
Anyone can take lifeguard training, but there ARE certain steps you do and don't do.
The safety precautions HAVE to be followed, such as not letting a drowning person take you under.
Same with CPR and other first aid / first response procedures that have to be followed,
such as not moving a person with a possible head/spinal injury.
It doesn't make the training any less rigorous just because the person isn't a paid professional.
Why can the training, oath and screening required of officers and militaries
be offered to (or required of) ALL citizens who want this same responsibility for using arms for defense?
You're kidding, right? If both sides of the gun debate wanted the violence to end, we'd commit to ending it. Gun manufacturers care about gun deaths about as much as cigarette manufacturers care about the cancer they cause. Tobacco companies are simply not nearly as successful as the gun industry at deluding the public that they have their best interests at heart.I usually stay out of the gun debates but I do recognise that both sides would like to see an end to the gun violence. It just happens that the answer for both are at opposite sides of the spectrum. There are stats available to help and hurt both sides. If we knew for sure that getting rid of all guns would help, I'm sure we would destroy them quickly as possible. If we knew for sure that more guns meant more protection, then we would all make many gun manufacturers very rich. We also know the problem goes beyond gun control. Mental, social, racial, cultural and economic issues hang in the balance also. We have to remember that all of us, want more than anything, for the violence to end.
No .....A Gun is not the same as training someone to save lives in the sea or pool......the less people who have Guns the better.my opinion only of course..steveI completely agree with you Emily....Law Enforcement,The Military and some Proper Gun Clubs should have the ability to carry a Gun......but NO ONE else,steve but I can't see it happening in the US,so many folk think it's safer to carry a Gun.........Which is Totally Mental when you think about it,just sayinALL GUNS ARE WRONG IN A CIVILIZED SOCIETYthis is in the CDZ because it gets a little old when some start talking sex organs and guns.....
soooo....
We are constantly told that if you carry a gun you are afraid.
Is this true.
No.
Carrying a gun for self defense is a rational response to the reality that even though I know where I live is ver safe, there are still criminals out there and that you never know when one will target you. These things happen every day, in every state, in every country.
How much fear goes into carrying a gun...for me....there is about as much emotion to carrying a gun as there is carrying my cell phone.
Now....the other side...the one that is constantly accusing my side of being afraid.....I believe that fear is what they feel....especially about guns. The don't like people, but they hate guns in the hands of people.
For example.
There are over 3,700,000 AR-15s in private hands in this country.
Each year maybe, maybe, 2-3 are used in any type of crime or even a mass shooting.
With those numbers, those who I believe fear guns want all AR-15s banned from private hands. To me, that is real fear. The numbers show that the odds of being a victim of a violent attack by an attacker with an AR-15 are so remote...you would actually have more of a chance of running into Big Foot and Elvis having Lunch with Aliens.....
And yet, they call for all AR-15s and other rifles like it to be completely banned.
And yet even if AR-15s are completely banned, there is not one crime that is committed on those rare occasions where an AR-15 is used that cannot be done to the same effect with a pistol, shot gun or other rifle or a combination of those......
Yet we are called scaredy cats for wearing a gun like we wear a cell phone or buckle our seat belts.
To a rational person....who sounds more afraid of guns...who sounds more filled with actual fear...?
Dear theliq
I would agree with you that the purpose and best use of arms
is for defense and deterrence, where ideally they don't have to be used at all.
I have met many police and peace officers who carry guns for dangerous situations that may require that,
but they don't depend on that, and do most of their deterrence and police work
by breaking up confrontations or preventing them completely CIVILLY.
You are right, for the most part the guns are not used but are there so they won't have to be!
That's the way it should be.
However, can you show a me a civilized society
that didn't still have criminally aggressive people who were effectively deterred by police carrying guns?
Because society and people aren't perfect, and there are still criminal people who
don't get help in advance, but are only discovered after they cause threats or problems to people,
then guns are still necessary in case of emergencies.
As we progress, and we can diagnose treat and cure the causes of criminal illness and behavior,
we can do more and more of the correctional work in advance and by civil means.
We won't have to rely so much on the point of confrontation with police,
or wait until after someone has stalked and killed people and is going to prison
BEFORE we get sick people help at the first sign of criminal abuse or dangerous addiction.
Until then, guns are still necessary, but in the right hands
of trained officers, they won't necessarily need to be used.
Hi theliq
What is wrong with training security guards and other citizens
using the same process, including screening, required of police and military?
That's like training more people to do CPR or use a defibrillator,
instead of only the professional EMS, doctors and nurses.
Anyone can take lifeguard training, but there ARE certain steps you do and don't do.
The safety precautions HAVE to be followed, such as not letting a drowning person take you under.
Same with CPR and other first aid / first response procedures that have to be followed,
such as not moving a person with a possible head/spinal injury.
It doesn't make the training any less rigorous just because the person isn't a paid professional.
Why can the training, oath and screening required of officers and militaries
be offered to (or required of) ALL citizens who want this same responsibility for using arms for defense?
