<abbr title="Yet Another <abbr title="Gun Wars 2">GW2</abbr> Topic">YAGT</abbr>
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
And there's the strawman argument you love.
You don't even know what a strawman is, do you? I was making a side observation.
@Lorne_Kates said:
And only a True Scotsman would not use Reasonable Precautions. Gotcha.
Wow, i'm impressed, in a way, with your indefatigable attitude.
@Lorne_Kates said:
Not in Idaho. Where the incident in question occurred. Because they don't have mandatory classes to get a concealed carry.
You are a liar, sirrah.
"Idaho law requires a license to carry a concealed weapon."
http://www.idaho.gov/laws_rules/firearm.html@Lorne_Kates said:
16-hour class and a comprehensive test afterwards isn't actually unreasonable.
As a person who has actually taken and passed a concealed carry class, one whose contents were approved by the State Police of the state in which I lived and took the class, I am qualified to unequivocally state you are full of shit on this issue.
@Lorne_Kates said:
Have an instructor run someone through from assembling the gun, demonstrating safe handling, loading, firing, unloading and putting it away.
Snort. You don't take the gun apart except to clean it, nimrod. All the rest of it is covered by a CCW class.
A new gun will come with an instruction manual, just like everything else, although I'm sure you'll daintily snort about how nobody reads those, but you'd be wrong, because I did with my first gun.
@Lorne_Kates said:
I bring up the actual number of gun deaths, and ask how many of them are acceptable. The maximum is 100%, which is limited to the number of dead bodies on the ground
Yes, and you're the guy who's going to take away everyone's car to stop a relative handful of drunk drivers, too, so we already know your answer is 0%, which is why we tend to ignore you.
Are you ready to fill in every pool in the world, too, to save a couple hundred kids a year from drowning? Will you ban sharp knives to keep people from killing each other with them?
@Lorne_Kates said:
We'll have to factor in how many injuries and murders they'll CAUSE by having the gun.
My guns have never killed a person or animal, and, if I kill someone in self defense, it's not a murder, by definition, but keep up with those ad hominems. I bet you do believe in the evil rays that guns emit, that cause people to go on shooting sprees. Maybe you could talk with Uncle Joe Stalin about restarting the New Soviet Man project.
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
Sorry, dear, but the adults are trying to have a discussion about facts.
We were, yes. Who the hell let you in the room?
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
Given the cost of a gun, and that it's a lifetime investment, $800, 16-hour class and a comprehensive test afterwards isn't actually unreasonable. It's pretty much on par with what you'd get from a driving course and driving deaths are on par with gun deaths in your country. A smaller written test but a longer practical test would be more appropriate. Have an instructor run someone through from assembling the gun, demonstrating safe handling, loading, firing, unloading and putting it away.
FFS, I have to spend more than that in terms of money, time and knowledge demonstration to be certified in fucking VB.Net.
What's really funny is that a concealed carry course where I live, and where I used to live, doesn't cost more than $200. I forget how much it was back in Arizona when my parents got theirs, but it definitely was less than $200, and here in Texas, it's only $60.
-
"Idaho law requires a license to carry a concealed weapon."
Requiring a class != requires a license.
-
. I forget how much it was back in Arizona when my parents got theirs, but it definitely was less than $200, and here in Texas, it's only $60.
Man, where are you? I haven't seen them generally be cheaper than a bit less than triple that in Dallas, not that I've looked all that hard.
-
Requiring a class != requires a license.
Really? Really? Right there, on a link from the I previously linked, is this:
(9) The sheriff may require the applicant to demonstrate familiarity with a firearm and must accept any one (1) of the following as evidence of the applicant's familiarity with a firearm:
(a) Completion of any hunter education or hunter safety course approved by the department of fish and game or a similar agency of another state;
(b) Completion of any national rifle association firearms safety or training course or any national rifle association hunter education course or any equivalent course;
(c) Completion of any firearms safety or training course or class available to the general public offered by a law enforcement agency, community college, college, university or private or public institution or organization or firearms training school, utilizing instructors certified by the national rifle association or the Idaho state police;
(d) Completion of any law enforcement firearms safety or training course or class offered for security guards, investigators, special deputies, or offered for any division or subdivision of a law enforcement agency or security enforcement agency;
(e) Evidence of equivalent experience with a firearm through participation in organized shooting competition or military service;
(f) Is currently licensed to carry concealed weapons pursuant to this section, unless the license has been revoked for cause;
(g) Completion of any firearms training or safety course or class conducted by a state certified or national rifle association certified firearms instructor; or
(h) Other training that the sheriff deems appropriate.
-
subsections e and h are both entirely possible to satisfy without taking a single gun training course, and f might be, too, if there's another state that doesn't explicitly require a training course of some sort to get a CCW license.
-
Remember you're dealing with a person who, as I already observed, is willing to take the cars away from everyone to stop drunk drivers. I bet he wouldn't see any limit as too far.
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you weren't an exaggerating extremist nutbar, but I guess I was wrong. You are one of the people who can only see black and white. Arguing the merits of self-driving cars is "OMG THEY'RE GOING TO BAN CARS AND TAKE THEM AWAY JUST LIK THE GUBMIT IS TAKING OUR GUNS". It must be sad to only see the world in black and white.
You're the classic guy unwilling to be moved from his position that guns're bad mmkay
lol. Tell you what. I'll put $1 into a paypal account. If you can find a quote of me, in these discussions, saying "guns should be banned for everyone", I'll transfer it to you. Heck, I'll make it $1.30 to cover the Paypal transfer costs. Go ahead. I'll wait.
And then I grew up and started paying attention to the actual facts
And then came here and started ignoring facts.
Oh, wait, did you mean "facts" as in biased, out of date questionable statistics from pro-gun websites? Okay, yes, you are paying full attention to those. My mistake.
You are a liar, sirrah.
"Idaho law requires a license to carry a concealed weapon."http://www.idaho.gov/laws_rules/firearm.html
And you're a fucking idiot, because I quoted that exact law earlier in the thread, pointing out the law says that you do not need to take ANY sort of test or prove any proficiency or knowledge of firearm safety-- or even that you know what constitutes a legal concealed carry. In fact, it's RIGHT THERE ON THE SAME PAGE YOU QUOTED YOU MORON:
Do I have to take a test in order to obtain a concealed weapons permit? No, you do not have to take a test. Usually an education course is required, however there are exceptions. See the Attorney General's Concealed Weapons License FAQ. ... in the faq, emphasis mine: ... You **may** demonstrate familiarity with the firearm. **Usually,** one of the following courses is required:
Do I have to take a test in order to obtain a concealed weapons license?
#No, you do not have to take a test.However, you must meet the requirements described in the answer above. (which, again, are not mandatory)
As a person who has actually taken and passed a concealed carry class, one whose contents were approved by the State Police of the state in which I lived and took the class, I am qualified to unequivocally state you are full of shit on this issue.
What state, what course, what was your previous experience with firearms? because, as we can see above, the requirements are different per state, and even per person
Snort. You don't take the gun apart except to clean it, nimrod. All the rest of it is covered by a CCW class.
And car enthusiasts say doing an oil change should be on the driver's test. Say, what happens if you don't take proper care of your gun, and it gets all dirty? Is it (careful, loaded word coming up here) dangerous?
A new gun will come with an instruction manual, just like everything else, although I'm sure you'll daintily snort about how nobody reads those, but you'd be wrong, because I did with my first gun.
Okay, you've proven at least one person reads the gun's manual. Since we're arguing about idiots with deadly weapons, I'm not giving you that point. I'm pretty sure the manual also says "DON'T CARRY THIS LOADED IN YOUR PURSE WITHIN REACH OF YOUR KIDS, IDIOT" (paraphrased).
Yes, and you're the guy who's going to take away everyone's car to stop a relative handful of drunk drivers,
THEY'RE TAKIN UR GUNS!!!!
Hey, let's go back to that CDC report again for a minute, shall we?
Motor vehicle traffic deaths: 33,804. Almost body-for-body with gun deaths.
You know what ever single one of those deaths involved? A fallible, slow-reacting, inherently flawed meat CPU behind the wheel. You're the only one bringing up "because of drunk driving". That is one of the causes. But humans being completely unsuited to reliably control a vehicle is the main crux. A computer can do it faster, safer, cheaper-- and then you can drink and text all you want behind the wheel. Or sleep. or fuck. Or get trained, licensed, and drive your death machine safely amongst the commuters.
Can we go for a record number of misquotes in a single post? There may be a badge in it for you.
My guns have never killed a person or animal, and, if I kill someone in self defense, it's not a murder, by definition, but keep up with those ad hominems.
Ah, another misquote. Thank you. Please point out where I said you would murder someone. As in you, specifically, FrostCat. I'll deposit another dollar into PayPal for you. (Here's a hint, you're more than likely instead come across the post where I point you that you and Mot555 are more likely NOT to do harm, because you have already demonstrated care in handling and owning them, and have effectively been socially trained to respect the deadly weapon and treat it as such).
You're the only one ad hommimomomomoming, with your attacks on me instead of the data. THAT'S what an ad hominem is.
And since you seem incapable of reading my point, let me spell it out:
- You have a rape victim, let's say.
- You go back in time, and give her a gun
- There is x% chance she will successfully use that gun defensively and prevent the rape. Let's even make it a legit defense-- she is attacked, the rape is inevitable, and her drawing the weapon scares off the attacker, or she shoots him and the injury is sufficient to stop it. X is not 100%.
- There is also a y% chance that, if she is not sufficiently trained with the weapon, she can cause a death. It may be suicide, or letting the gun get into the wrong hands, or by accident, or missing her target during the attack and hitting an innocent bystander, or the gun may even escalate the attack to be deadly to her. There is a y% chance. y% is not 100%
- There is a z% chance that she WILL be sufficiently trained, and still cause a death. It is my hypothesis, and fairly well backed up by everyone else here in so many different words, that z << y (z is significantly less than y). z is not 0%.
So in this hypothetical theoretical rape situation, what values of x, y and z have the best payout? Does arming every civilian reduce x, but massively increase y? Who knows, it's all hypothetical! We can all make up numbers.
OR we cal look at CDC's stats of real, actual deaths...
here in Texas, it's only $60
That's because Texas is a liberal hippy commune. In real america (Idaho), it's only $20
Requiring a class != requires a license.
Idaho requires a license, but not a class to get the license.
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
Idaho requires a license, but not a class to get the license.
Precisely. I'm agreeing with you, shit. Maybe you are grouchy after all. Have a snickers.
-
subsections e and h are both entirely possible to satisfy without taking a single gun training course, and f might be, too, if there's another state that doesn't explicitly require a training course of some sort to get a CCW license.
I would be inclined to consider "evidence of equivalent experience with a firearm" as roughly equivalent to a course. You will probably find that that requires, like h, a sheriff's discretion. If there's a corrupt cop involved, I mean, what can I say? We can't catch that always and probably never will be able to.
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you weren't an exaggerating extremist nutbar, but I guess I was wrong. You are one of the people who can only see black and white. Arguing the merits of self-driving cars is "OMG THEY'RE GOING TO BAN CARS AND TAKE THEM AWAY JUST LIK THE GUBMIT IS TAKING OUR GUNS". It must be sad to only see the world in black and white.
What's it like, looking in that mirror when you're talking. You yourself said repeatedly...no, wait, I'm not going to waste any more time with you.
-
I would be inclined to consider "evidence of equivalent experience with a firearm" as roughly equivalent to a course.
As far as I know, most shooting competitions do not require evidence of a course, however. You could be purely self-taught (wrongly or otherwise) and compete in a competition, and as long as you didn't shoot anyone, would have technically competed in a shooting competition.
-
As far as I know, most shooting competitions do not require evidence of a course, however. You could be purely self-taught (wrongly or otherwise) and compete in a competition, and as long as you didn't shoot anyone, would have technically competed in a shooting competition.
Idaho allows reciprocity with approximately half the states in the union. You could plausibly call up a rural county ask ask them about the subsections that seem to bother you. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that you'd get told "sonny, I wouldn't approve of someone under those subsections unless I knew the specific situation". Possibly even in Boise, which Wikipedia says the surrounding 5-county "metro" area of only has about half a million people.
-
I wouldn't be surprised to find out that you'd get told "sonny, I wouldn't approve of someone under those subsections unless I knew the specific situation". Possibly even in Boise, which Wikipedia says the surrounding 5-county "metro" area of only has about half a million people.
I wouldn't, either, but I also wouldn't be surprised to find that I wouldn't get told that.
-
We have a safety briefing at the start of every competition I've ever attended, and it's generally equivalent to any NRA basic gun safety course. Gets real old by about the third repetition. Dunno if USPSA/IDPA actually require it or if it's up to the match directors.
-
As far as I know, most shooting competitions do not require evidence of a course, however. You could be purely self-taught (wrongly or otherwise) and compete in a competition, and as long as you didn't shoot anyone, would have technically competed in a shooting competition.
Ima suggest that if you do IDPA and sweep people, and a sheriff later calls the local org and asks about your experience with the club, he'll get told exactly what the experience was, and you ain't'a gonna git approved. Capisce?
I don't know why I wrote that paragraph that way.
-
We have a safety briefing at the start of every competition I've ever attended, and it's generally equivalent to any NRA basic gun safety course.
Every gun range I've ever been to makes you take a short safety briefing before letting you out back, that covers things like the four rules, wear your eyes and ears, DON"T FUCKING POINT YOUR GUN ANYWHERE BUT DOWNRANGE, etc., etc.
-
I don't know why I wrote that paragraph that way.
I don't, either, and I'm not sure I want to.
-
I'm not sure I want to.
Well, too bad, because now I'm going to tell you. Originally I was sort of channeling the kind of country sheriff you might see in a cheesy Western, then I just thought it was funny so kept on doing it without worrying about verisimilitude.
-
Every gun range I've ever been to makes you take a short safety briefing before letting you out back, that covers things like the four rules, wear your eyes and ears, DON"T FUCKING POINT YOUR GUN ANYWHERE BUT DOWNRANGE, etc., etc.
Short safety briefing != 16-hour training course, though.
I think it's reasonable to require a short safety briefing before being allowed to purchase a gun. Lorne, likewise, seems to think that it would be reasonable. But you guys are acting like we're saying you should be required to take an overpriced 16-hour course.
-
A lot of states do require a course of specific length, and it's unnecessarily long. Missouri has a required 8-hour course. However, there really isn't 8 hours worth of material, so everything gets covered in the first 60 minutes, maybe another 30 - 60 minutes worth of questions if there are newbies in the group, then six or seven hours worth of BS just to pad time and follow the law.
The issue is the politicians who wrote the law are ignorant of the very topic their legislating. Most of the legal CCW requirements are designed to be a scheduling and financial disincentive for people to actually get the license, because (in my experience, anyway) anyone who's taking the course already knows everything that's going to be covered in the course so the course itself is completely impractical except for meeting an arbitrary legal requirement.
-
Short safety briefing != 16-hour training course, though.
Well, no, but I wouldn't expect a sheriff to count that, then, and anyway, that's not really intended to be an example of something that would have been acceptable under subsection whatever. I mainly mentioned that because there's a certain loon in this thread who probably thinks gun ranges are just fine with letting people swagger around in gun ranges and shooting in any old direction.
-
I forget how much it was back in Arizona when my parents got theirs, but it definitely was less than $200
Here in Arizona, course cost varies by instructor, but they generally run around $100-120. Then you have to pay for the permit, which costs $60.
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
I'm pretty sure the manual also says "DON'T CARRY THIS LOADED IN YOUR PURSE WITHIN REACH OF YOUR KIDS, IDIOT"
Checked the manual for my GLOCK 19. Nothing like that phrase in there.
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
FFS, I have to spend more than that in terms of money, time and knowledge demonstration to be certified in fucking VB.Net.
And it means just as much as what you propose, which is nothing. I have known a few people who were MCSE and couldn't turn on a server.
-
Not to mention VB is far, far more complicated than any firearm, so it's no surprise that more training is required.
-
I think it's reasonable to require a short safety briefing before being allowed to purchase a gun.
So add another 5 minutes to every gun purchase? I'd rather have the 8-hour class, TYVM.
A lot of states do require a course of specific length, and it's unnecessarily long. Missouri has a required 8-hour course. However, there really isn't 8 hours worth of material, so everything gets covered in the first 60 minutes, maybe another 30 - 60 minutes worth of questions if there are newbies in the group, then six or seven hours worth of BS just to pad time and follow the law.
Man, I really feel bad for you guys. Here in AZ, you generally spend about 2 hours in an 8 hour class on the range.
-
So add another 5 minutes to every gun purchase? I'd rather have the 8-hour class, TYVM.
Okay, how about just every time you purchase a different type of firearm (handgun, rifle, shotgun, etc.) from a vendor you've never purchased it from before, then. If they've already given you the spiel about how to handle and store a handgun or how to operate a shotgun, they don't have to tell you again. Hell, I think we're on to something the gun store owners can get behind; it would encourage repeat customers.
-
If they've already given you the spiel about how to handle and store a handgun or how to operate a shotgun
Sadly, gun store clerks can be some of the most belgium individuals out there. There are lots of "Tales from the Gun Store" type stories out there. Fortunately those types don't get many repeat customers anyway.
- "AK-47's can shoot M16 ammo but M16's can't shoot AK-47 ammo."
- "All you need to do to make it fully-automatic is file down the firing pin a bit!"
- "Anything less than a .45 will just bounce off your target."
- "The Army let me keep my M249 when I was discharged."
Also, the gun store I frequent is more than happy to show me the ropes if it's a model I'm unfamiliar with.
-
Good point. I guess it would have to be some sort of standardized spiel to prevent them from supplying misinformation like that.
-
Okay, how about just every time you purchase a different type of firearm (handgun, rifle, shotgun, etc.) from a vendor you've never purchased it from before, then
That's stupid, for a few reasons:
- Safety rules don't change based on firearm type don't change based on the type of firearm. If you can properly store a shotgun, you can properly store a rifle or a handgun.
- Why would a store bother keeping track of who they had sold what kind of firearms to? They'd just give the schpiel to everyone because it's easier for the store.
- I have a CCW. I know how to handle a firearm. I know how to store a firearm. Why should I sit through a lecture just because I want to purchase a new firearm? I'd rather have the one time class instead of the lecture whenever I go to a new store.
-
- Some dumb shit is going to be like "well, my new rifle won't fit in my locking handgun case, so I guess I'll just leave it leaning up against the fireplace"
- It could be fairly easily automated into their sales system, probably.
- Then CCW licenses could exempt you from annoying spiels.
-
What's it like, looking in that mirror when you're talking. You yourself said repeatedly...no, wait, I'm not going to waste any more time with you.
Yes, it is hard arguing with facts. Thanks for playing.
-
Questions for @FrostCat, @mott555 and @Polygeekery
I get that you guys want to own guns. I also get the impression, from what you have written here, that you are responsible gun owners who treat guns with the appropriate amount of respect. I don't get the impression that you would do something stupid like leave a loaded handgun in a bag or leave a loaded shotgun where someone not fit to use it could get their hands on it.
If all gun owners behaved this way it would follow that there would be a reduction in the numbers of deaths that people misusing guns caused.
I've also read on here some vague language, which varies state-by-state, stating what constitutes a required level of training/licensing to own a gun.
My question is: Do you think it would make sense to have a more formal, standard requirement for training prior to being allowed a gun? Something along the lines of the requirement to drive a car. In Australia we have different classes of driving license with restrictions. "L" is learner and one restriction is that you are not allowed to drive without a qualified driver i.e. someone with an "Open" licence. One step up from learner is provisional ("P"). You can drive unaccompanied on "P" plates but it still has restrictions such as zero level of alcohol. From there you progress to an open licence which has no restrictions outside of vehicle class (e.g. an open car licence doesn't allow you to drive a crane etc.)
As we are talking hypothetically we can ignore cost. What would you think to a similar licensing scheme being applied to firearms? Learners can only use the gun in the presence of a someone on an "open" licence. Once proficiency in use is demonstrated then the owner has more freedom.
-
Checked the manual for my GLOCK 19. Nothing like that phrase in there.
So a GLOCK has less warning and safety material than my griddle? Wow.
So @FrostCat 's argument that the people read the manual-- even if I buy that at face value-- still doesn't matter since there isn't sufficient safety instructions in it.
I have known a few people who were MCSE and couldn't turn on a server.
The "S" is for Software. A server isn't software VMs don't count
Not to mention VB is far, far more complicated than any firearm, so it's no surprise that more training is required.
But VB is far, far more harmful than a firearm. Well, to one's sanity and overall mental health and faith in the intelligence of their co-workers.
Okay, how about just every time you purchase a different type of firearm (handgun, rifle, shotgun, etc.) from a vendor you've never purchased it from before, then.
The idea's on the right track, but I don't think the gun vendors are the right person to give the lecture. It's not a value-add service to them, so there's no profit. Being a gun vendor does not make you a good teacher / instructor. And someone "passing" that lecture, test, whatever is a
to 
. So all the cards are stacked in favor of skip it/fake it/leave the answers to the standardized test on the counter.A separate agency who is incentivised (sp?) to lower gun death rates in their domain AND keep them low is a much better idea.
And since this line of reasoning usually comes up: except in cases of extreme negligence, laws that punish the gun vendor for a gun they sell being used in a crime / negligently is a horribly bad idea. Not only will it encourage buying/selling guns without paperwork-- it's the exact argument idiots use for "sue Google because they enable copyright infringement". It shouldn't be up to a gun vendor to play psychologist, either. I mean sure if someone comes in and says "I need a gun to go shoot my wife in the head with", maybe don't sell them a gun. But I don't think that's a common case.
I have a CCW. I know how to handle a firearm. I know how to store a firearm. Why should I sit through a lecture just because I want to purchase a new firearm?
Nope, you shouldn't. Make that proof of knowledge be obtaining the CCW. Then show it to the clerk who goes "hey, look, someone who knows what they're doing". Unless that CCW is just $15 and a wink to the sheriff.
(wtf... we don't have a Potato emoticon? How else shall I mock Idaho now?!?).And ever standard spiel ever invented sounds like this "blahah blah blha... things... mwwwblah blah". The person saying it doesn't care. The person hearing it doesn't care. That's a fail.
Do you think it would make sense to have a more formal, standard requirement for training prior to being allowed a gun?
Why are you insisting on banning guns and taking their guns away.
Okay-- that one was below the belt. But for some strange reason, my backspace key isn't working. Must be Discourse.
-
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
The "S" is for Software. A server isn't software VMs don't count
Kidding, or not?
Blah, had that mixed up with a different cert. Never mind. JOKE RUINED.
-
Do you think it would make sense to have a more formal, standard requirement for training prior to being allowed a gun?
My answer would be, it depends.
In the USA, we have a lot of people who would rather that no one owned firearms and such a system could be very easily abused to make sure that no one does.
I suppose if any such system had to be vetted by an external agency for suitability before being implemented, I could be for it. But, the only group I can think of for that would be the NRA. And...yeah...a lot of people would see that as leaving the fox in charge of the hen house.
But there would have to be adequate systems in place to guarantee that it could never be a threat to the second amendment.
-
My question is: Do you think it would make sense to have a more formal, standard requirement for training prior to being allowed a gun? Something along the lines of the requirement to drive a car. In Australia we have different classes of driving license with restrictions. "L" is learner and one restriction is that you are not allowed to drive without a qualified driver i.e. someone with an "Open" licence. One step up from learner is provisional ("P"). You can drive unaccompanied on "P" plates but it still has restrictions such as zero level of alcohol. From there you progress to an open licence which has no restrictions outside of vehicle class (e.g. an open car licence doesn't allow you to drive a crane etc.)
I completely disagree with licensing. It would be a ton of overhead, extra paperwork, extra laws, more federal oversight, etc. I also think it is completely contrary to the intent of the Second Amendment, but that's another subject tangential to our discussion.
For training, I don't believe it should be mandatory, however I strongly support the idea of elementary schools having a class on firearms safety, perhaps around fifth grade or so. Teach the four rules, teach some practical knowledge (action types, stance, grip, etc), have some hands-on experience with dummy firearms, and that's all that's necessary. Maybe have a field day with pellet guns.
My school did this though it was in the context of hunters' education. The firearms portion only took up a couple hours at most, the rest of the curriculum had to do with first aid, wilderness survival, game-specific laws, how to field dress an animal, and a bunch of other stuff that applies to hunting but not firearms at all.
-
In the USA, we have a lot of people who would rather that no one owned firearms and such a system could be very easily abused to make sure that no one does.
Given the inertia, I'd say that's impossible. If someone has the pull and power to completely ban guns in the US, they probably already own the Secret Lizard Cabal already.
I suppose if any such system had to be vetted by an external agency for suitability before being implemented, I could be for it. But, the only group I can think of for that would be the NRA. And...yeah...a lot of people would see that as leaving the fox in charge of the hen house.
I'd welcome the NRA's involvement. They do have the unfortunate PR of being way at the end of the "guns for all and don't come for them" spectrum, but that can be so easily turned around. They probably have the most knowledge per-capita of gun safety. And if they play it right, they can turn the PR around in a big way-- the savior of Gun Rights by finally getting anti-gun people to shut up... and the savior of Gun Control by finally increasing the safety of firearms.
Pair them up with the right oversight agency, and you're golden.
But there would have to be adequate systems in place to guarantee that it could never be a threat to the second amendment.
I keep hearing about how knives are SO DANGEROUS (from pro-gun people who bring up knife attacks whenever guns are mentioned).
Seriously, though, if an enemy force comes marching, do you really think the army isn't going to stop them? A well armed populace is nice and all, but a fucking army armed to AMERICAN-ARMY LEVEL arms is probably good enough. Even if every man, woman and child in China marched on the US (somehow), you've got the force multiplication, home-soil advantage to stop the invasion.
And if it's for "corrupt government", well-- they already managed to defeat that possibility with bread and circuses. But let's just say for the sake of argument, the government needs to be shot. Here's how it will go:
Vendor: Howdy.
Customer: I need a gun because the government is forming those death camps and Baby Kicking Leagues.
Vendor: Wow, you're right. Let's top the government.
Customer: Okay! I'll buy one Guns please
Vendor: Sorry, but you can only buy Guns with Official Permits.
Customer: Really? According to who?
Vendor: According the governme--- ohhhhhhhhhh. Right. Here is your Guns.
Customer: And here is your Monies Dollar. Power to the people!
-
Something I might have touched on but haven't really hit home yet is that firearm safety and handling training only takes 1 - 2 hours. It isn't difficult, it's actually quite common sense, and most people I know who have been through such courses found them to be a waste of time. My little sister, who had maybe an hour's worth of actual hands-on experience with firearms and had never touched one until a week before, took the CCW course and had no problems at all qualifying at the end. In fact, she thought it was a waste of time and money because the information presented was so obvious even to a complete newbie like herself.
I'm not against training for those who want it, but the simple fact is most people do not need it. Creating a huge federal oversight to handle training and licensing and subjecting over a hundred million people to it for the sake of the roughly ~200 annual accidental gun deaths when our budget is already imploding for a bunch of other reasons would not be wise.
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
I'd welcome the NRA's involvement. They do have the unfortunate PR of being way at the end of the "guns for all and don't come for them" spectrum, but that can be so easily turned around. They probably have the most knowledge per-capita of gun safety. And if they play it right, they can turn the PR around in a big way-- the savior of Gun Rights by finally getting anti-gun people to shut up... and the savior of Gun Control by finally increasing the safety of firearms.
Pair them up with the right oversight agency, and you're golden.
The NRA gets a lot of undeserved bad press. They are all ready the de facto oversight organization for training. The vast majority of CCW classes are handled using the NRA's curriculum, and even a large amount of police training and qualification is handled by NRA instructors.
@Lorne_Kates said:
I keep hearing about how knives are SO DANGEROUS (from pro-gun people who bring up knife attacks whenever guns are mentioned).
I've accidentally cut myself with my knife far more than I've ever been injured by a firearm.
-
It isn't difficult, it's actually quite common sense, and most people I know who have been through such courses found them to be a waste of time.
something something common sense isn't so common something...
Driving analogy: ask a random stranger about parallel parking.
The NRA gets a lot of undeserved bad press.
It doesn't help when some of their most vocal members are the exact stereotype people fear the NRA is. That being said, it would be unfair to mislabel an organization and all its members because of some fringe members. Kinda like Muslims. (Should I Jeff to the Infinite Flamrewar thread?)
I've accidentally cut myself with my knife far more than I've ever been injured by a firearm.
I've never chopped a watermelon with a gun.
-
-
Well then, you haven't lived!
What he said! And it doesn't even have to be as new fangled as .500 S&W. A 12 gauge slug from 25 yards is enough to give Gallagher an erection.
-
@mott555 said:
Well then, you haven't lived!
What he said! And it doesn't even have to be as new fangled as .500 S&W. A 12 gauge slug from 25 yards is enough to give Gallagher an erection.
Somehow I should have known there'd be YouTubes.
Filed under: Won't someone PLEASE think of the Watermelons?
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
Filed under: Won't someone PLEASE think of the Watermelons?
I'm more of a pumpkin guy myself. Right after Halloween when the retailers are dumping their pumpkin inventory is the perfect time. I can fill my pickup truck with pumpkins on about $30! All natural and biodegradable. (Dunno if they're gluten-free, nor do I care.)
-
I'm more of a pumpkin guy myself. Right after Halloween when the retailers are dumping their pumpkin inventory is the perfect time. I can fill my pickup truck with pumpkins on about $30! All natural and biodegradable.
And an endless supply of cool one-lines.
"Looks like Linus is going to miss you again this year-- but I won't." BANG
"Don't give me the innocent eyes. This here look kinda-- seedy" BOOM
"Feel like shooting a game of squash?" KABOOM
"Umm--- one liner, one liner--- FUCK YOU PUMPKIN SHITFACE!" BANG
(Dunno if they're gluten-free, nor do I care.)
They are, and you shouldn't.
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
So a GLOCK has less warning and safety material than my griddle? Wow.
Nah, it comes with this on the carrying case:
-
My question is: Do you think it would make sense to have a more formal, standard requirement for training prior to being allowed a gun? Something along the lines of the requirement to drive a car.
Probably wouldn't work here. Those standards also vary state to state, and the requirements to get licensed may vary according to age. Similarly, gun licensing would be considered the purview of the state's and we'd end up with a horrid assortment of mismatched requirements. Oh, wait, we already have some of that. It's probably a bad idea to even drive through California with a gun in your vehicle. There are cases where people have had guns in their checked bags (legally) and had a connecting flight delayed for raisins to the point that they were told to retrieve their checked bag. Being a responsible gun owner, they indicated that they had a firearm in the bag, but it was not a gun friendly state, so they were arrested for something beyond their control.
Good idea in theory. In practice? Nearly impossible to do right.
