Thirty-ought-six: I'm all for open and concealed carry, I just think it's stupid to let someone have a loaded gun without any training.
Do we let one man's tragedy define how our Constitution shall be implemented? Do we accept that the possibility that mandatory training might have changed that outcome is more important than loosening restrictions on an enumerated freedom? When do we say risk of harm overrules the unfettered rights of citizens? Knotty questions.
However, we can fall back -- again -- on the truth that rates of accident and rates of negligence and rates of criminality ARE NOT HIGHER in states that do not require these things.
We can fear, and make decisions out of that fear. Or we can SEE and make decisions based on what IS.
I was wondering if that wasn't a baited hook. While you are correct about the advantages of country living. I fail to see the connection to US citizens lawfully carrying, and the ratio of gun toting crazies vs garden variety. I'm remaining skeptical as always to comments of that type.YUP! To think otherwise is folly. Unless of course one lives in the sticks.
If in fact there were so few bad guys with illegal guns there would be no reason for the good guys to carry.
See how that works.
poco loco said:Do you have a link for that stat Tinpig? I have a feeling I might need it soon.
The Health Department data indicated nearly all the gun deaths in Vermont are the result of suicides. In 2011, just four of the 78 gun deaths were homicides. In 2010, two of the 70 gun deaths were homicides.
Kwguy: How much training is needed? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? It's different for everyone. Who should mandate the training? The individual should mandate it for themselves, as a responsible person, not some nanny entity.
Sorry, but that argument doesn't hold a teaspoon of water.Exactly. Part of the cost of freedom is being responsible enough to exercise that freedom, and to take that in as a personal responsibility. Sure, training is needed for almost any technical endeavor that we as humans engage in, carrying and using firearms is not different. But don't tell me that the .gov should be the ones to mandate what training we need, and then tax and license it and call it a right.
And what will that training consist of? And who has the right to tell another whether they are trained or not. Even on this board, you have some who think that learning to load their firearm is adequate, and others who think that unless you compete in IDPA, you are not qualified to carry in Walmart. Pretty presumptuous.
How much training is needed? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? It's different for everyone. Who should mandate the training? The individual should mandate it for themselves, as a responsible person, not some nanny entity.
Nobody...and i do mean nobody...is making that argument. Period. That is a straw man argument, and would be explained in the class I described above. If you don't want to take the class, look up the term...I don't have the time to explain it to you, and it is becoming increasingly clear that it would be a waste of my time and effort.Some people here feel like all common sense should be thrown out, and every person on the face of the US should be allowed to have a gun, no matter if they are a crazed lunatic, or just got out on parole for being in prison 30 years for chopping up their family.
And that is okay with you?While were out it, why don't we look at the 1st Amendment, Freedom of speech?
People get locked up all the time for saying stuff, utter a racial slur at a person, and see how that goes, even though your "protected" by the 1st Amendment.
You are lacking any sense of history. Life in the "Wild West" was not a movie. There was no "blood in the streets". People did not go around shooting each other for fun. You are buying into a fallacy.I really think some people here feel that we should live like we did in the wild west, where fewer laws existed, and every Tom Dick and Harry had a gun.
Let me give you a pearl of wisdom. Whenever someone uses the term "common sense legislation" you can be certain that the term is being used to poison the well (another term that would be covered in that class. Again, if you don't want to spend a semester, look it up.)If people don't think standard common sense should not apply to "rights", they have no common sense themselves.
thirty-ought-six said:In most states you cannot carry a gun in a bank or a school, even though that directly steps on the toes of the 2nd amendment.
Michigan has a whole host of "pistol free areas", including Schools, Hospitals, Casinos and some taverns.Only 2 states have rules against bank carry: Nebraska and Montana. That is far from most.
Further: Kansas is a "traditional" Open Carry state. In other words, KS requires NO permit or training or any other hoop-jumping to carry a gun openly.
What is it about draping the hem of your shirt over your gun that makes you suddenly need special training and a government certification? Is that what this really is? You want the government to vet people before they drape their shirt tail or jacket a certain way? That's the only difference...
Sorry, but that argument doesn't hold a teaspoon of water.
Our obesity rates in the US are some of the highest in the world.
How can we be "responsible", if we can't even prevent out our own obesity, as in putting down the spoon?
Unlimited freedom does not exist, it won't ever, either.
In most states you cannot carry a gun in a bank or a school, even though that directly steps on the toes of the 2nd amendment.
Some people here feel like all common sense should be thrown out, and every person on the face of the US should be allowed to have a gun, no matter if they are a crazed lunatic, or just got out on parole for being in prison 30 years for chopping up their family.
While were on it, why don't we look at the 1st Amendment, Freedom of speech?
People get locked up all the time for saying stuff, utter a racial slur at a person, and see how that goes, even though your "protected" by the 1st Amendment.
I really think some people here feel that we should live like we did in the wild west, where fewer laws existed, and every Tom Dick and Harry had a gun.
If people don't think standard common sense should not apply to "rights", they have no common sense themselves.
I don't think the point of the constitution was for them to write something down followed by 300 pages of "do's and dont's".
Maybe they should of wrote something called "How not to be an idiot".
Common sense dictates that giving someone access to a DEADLY WEAPON, without any prior training, is sheer stupidity.
I can attest to the fact I've seen dozens of hours of youtube videos, and news stories, that show VERY BAD THINGS happen when people are allowed guns without training.
Common sense dictates that giving someone who "isn't right in the head" access to a deadly weapon, is sheer stupidity.
Common sense dictates that giving someone access to weapons that got out of prison after being locked up for 30 years for shooting a girl in cold blood, is sheer stupidity.
I don't think you will find any of the above in the constitution, as our founding fathers felt that most people would use COMMON SENSE.
Steel Horse Rider said:If you read thirty-ought-six's posts it would seem that he is an absolute novice in gun ownership as well as being low on the maturity level so take his comments and arguments from the perspective that he has little experience or that he is a progressive troll trying to stir up problems.
I don't think you will find any of the above in the constitution, as our founding fathers felt that most people would use COMMON SENSE.