So, Whose responsibility is gun safety

[coelacanth]

Dr. Dickie nailed it...

Do not confuse the responses you got in your previous thread with the issue of gun safety. Any resentment you picked up from your last thread was not related to the issue of gun safety per se but to the idea that pediatricians are somehow the sole repository of knowledge regarding the well being of our children. Asking a child or the child's parents if there are guns in the home and then launching into a canned pitch about "dangers of guns in the home" does little to promote gun safety. Safety is a mindset regardless of circumstance be it gun show, pre flight checklist, label reading at the drug store or anything else. The responsibility for insuring our safety in any situation lies with each of us.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

That being said, I wouldn't doubt that there would be a percentage of people who'd object to say a state mandated firearms safety course requirement before being allowed to purchase a first firearm. Don't think that I'm in favor of more government bureaucracy either because I think the less government in our lives, the better. The only reason I mention it though is due to the fact that I know shooters in a lot of states (mine included) that are also hunters (me included) had to under go a firearms safety and shooting course in order to get a hunting license in the first place. It doesn't guarantee an accident free environment but it's a better start than a lot of non-hunters get. (And yes, obviously, military & LEO training are other good places to form a foundation for safety.)

BTW: In NY (I had to) and probably other states, you also undergo other training when you go for your pistol license.

Bob, you are correct. I, for one, would object. I am not saying that an education course isn't a good idea. If the states wish to establish such and make them available on an optional, voluntary basis to those who wish to take it, I would be all in favor of that.

But, as a direct descendent of one of the dudes who set up the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I am what some call an "originalist" and what others call a "strict constructionist." The 2nd Amendment says that the right "of the people" to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. It does not say that the right "of those people who have taken a mandatory state class" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. You really can't have it both ways. Either you accept the 2nd Amendment as the open-ended, all-encompassing statement that it is, or you become just like the anti-gun groups and all you can argue about is how much of an infringement you are willing to tolerate.

Having to take a class before being allowed to purchase a firearm IS an infringement. Having the take out a license/permit before carrying a concealed handgun IS an infringement. That's the bottom line. Regardless of what judges and politicians try to tell you today, the 2nd Amendment does not make any mention of "subject to reasonable restrictions." A restriction is an infringement. We must keep this point firmly in mind. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say that the RKBA "shall not be unreasonably infringed," it says that it shall not be infringed. Period.

But (I hear you asking), how do we know the Founding Fathers didn't intend for the 2nd Amendment to allow for "reasonable" restrictions (i.e. infringements)? Simple -- they didn't say so. They were educated men, and they could string words together into coherent sentences. In discussing the right of the People to be secure against government intrusions into their privacy, they wrote that the people shall be secure against "unreasonable" search and seizure. See, that proves they knew the word. Thus, if they had intended for the 2nd to say that the RKBA should not be "unreasonably" infringed, it's is "reasonable" from the black-and-white evidence that they knew to word to suppose that, had they so intended, they would have used the word "unreasonable" in the 2nd Amendment. They did not. This tells us that they did not intend for the 2nd to be subject to "reasonable [infringements].

 

[BobMcG]

Preaching to the choir here

But (I hear you asking), how do we know the Founding Fathers didn't intend for the 2nd Amendment to allow for "reasonable" restrictions (i.e. infringements)?

You don't hear me asking anything of the sort. Please read my post carefully. I don't want any more government in my life than the too much that is already there.
I did play devil's advocate and bring the subject of safety classes up though (figured someone would) to point out that things could head down the same road as elsewhere where firearms are concerned. (Like it or not.) Kind of similar to the way other safety rules have been forced down out throats, like it or not, IE: seatbelt, motorcycle helmet, headlights w/wipers, cell phone use & driving laws.

 

[KingHugh]

Ultimately the responsibility lies with the person holding the gun, or has control of it. They should ALWAYS be in somebodies control. These tools are not a mystery, people know what comes out of the business end. If the person doesn't have a complete mastery of the safe usage of the weapon then they shouldn't touch it. Plus, the person who has control should be taking steps to make sure that is isn't available to be touched by those who don't have a mastery.

You had an issue with the guy at the range "sweeping" you. As you should have, but I would have also taken issue with him even touching the weapon without my permission. Anybody who knows me knows they can look at any of my guns, but I'll clear it first, and show them how to confirm clear (if they don't know) before they handle it.

As for reminders about safety....anybody can forget. Bruised ego is a hell of a lot better than a hole in the head. Put on your big boy pants and deal with it.

 

[hankpac]

Mine, and yours.
One of the reasons I don't go to unmanaged or open ranges, is the severe lack of firearm discipline. The varied levels of safety, and the lack of uniform methods is downright chilling. I decided that I CANNOT count on anyone else to take at least the same level of caution as I. So I shoot with no one else except my party, and I make it clear before we go that I am the range master. I conduct the range exactly the way I was taught. Anybody disagrees with that, I leave immediately.
I would not have responded the least bit politely if someone had swept my pregnant wife (YDMF!,GTG! Don't you roll your eyes at me, I'll knock your f'n eyes right out of your head". I would have my left hand on the firearm the whole time, and my right on my pistol.). BUT, since safety is my responsibility, I would not have permited anyone to pick up my firearm. I'll pick it up, clear it, and hand it to them, and I won't let go until I have said, "keep it pointed down range". And I stand close enough to re-direct the muzzle.
The range is a deadly place. The range is ANYPLACE you are going to shoot. This is no place to F around, and any and all accidents are by definition negligent. Tighten up, and insist on discipline.

 

[physics]

All I know is that it is MY responsibility to ensure that any situation involving firearms is safe. Whether it is educating the first time shooter, or firing at the psycho who's shooting up the mall, or even just making sure your buddies aren't screwing around. Technically, it is everyone's responsibility to be safe with guns, but I am not going to assume that everyone is. All I can say is pay attention, and don't ever let your guard down.