Help Me Understand So I Don't Be A Fudd

Status
Not open for further replies.
My own personal observations are that people are generally stupid and careless. This is my OPINION, based on:
23 years in public safety for a large agency, of which many responses deal with automobile/motorcycle crashes;
AND, observing folks handling firearms at ranges, hunting expeditions, etc.
I have seen too many negligent discharges that resulted in tragedy, but do not know what the solution is other than good training. What is good training? That is also a major debate, but our constitution seems to rule that out. So the trainloads of idiots who are careless, stupid, and ignorant of safe gun handling cause bad things to happen that all the rest of us must bear the brunt of. That, my friends, is the cost of a free society.
Do we need licensing? I"ll leave that to my neighbor to answer, as he remembers his seven year old son who was killed as a result of another's ignorance.
 
Do we need licensing? I"ll leave that to my neighbor to answer, as he remembers his seven year old son who was killed as a result of another's ignorance.
Click to expand...

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.
 
And for every accident and tragedy that happens at the hands of somebody with a gun, millions of non-events occur with people carrying guns.
 
^^^True. Like I said, it's the cost of a free society. Some will pay a heavy price for our freedoms. I just pray that it is not me or my children. That's part of the reason I became a RSO.
 
I live in a state where no training is required to get the basic permit. Lots of people have them. No problems with accidents, accidental or unwarranted shootings, or general idiocy over and above the way it was before concealed carry was legalized. Distilled down to its essence, it's not really that complicated; don't use it until you have to. Most people have common sense, and if it were as it should be it's their decision (guaranteed by the 2A) whether they are capable of carrying a firearm.
 
And don't forget the whole "slippery slope" argument against required training or other "reasonable" restrictions on carrying. Sure, today it's only an 8-hour class that costs $100 and is offerred once a month, but tomorrow some bureaucrat could decide that it's now a 24-hour class that costs $1,000 and is offerred only twice a year and in a city that is a 4-hour drive from anyplace civilized......

And on and on.

The pro-2A and pro-carry communities have been giving up inches for decades, and a lot of those inches have been expanded to feet or miles without ever coming up for a vote.
 
According to a study released this week by the Violence Policy Center in Washington D.C., Vermont had 78 gun deaths in 2011, compared to 54 fatal car accidents as reported by the Governor's Highway Safety Program.
Click to expand...

74 of those 78 reported gun deaths were intentional suicides not accidents or homicides. It's a totally misleading "statistic" which is exactly what you'd expect from the VPC.

Tinpig
 
Now, I'm of the opinion that if he's out on the streets running around free, then he should have the rights and privileges afforded all free people here in the USA, but seeing as our society doesn't work quite that way, I don't see the point in dragging the argument off into this particular patch of weeds.
Click to expand...

And because our society doesn't work this way is the very reason to go to this particular patch of weeds.

Here in Indiana one needs no license to own a handgun in the home, only to carry, in whatever manner they deem necessary. No training required. Cost $25.00 total IIRC, for 4 years. Lifetime I believe is $100.00.
 
So what training do you, .30-06 et. al, think should be required to exercise freedoms guaranteed in the rest of the bill of rights? Let's train and license reporters. See how that goes.
 
As a Texas resident, we (finally) have a Governor and LT Governor who strongly support Constitutional Carry, and we may see it happen soon. I look forward to it.

As to the repercussions outlined in your post:

a) I believe that you (and I ) can still get a non-resident Utah, Florida, etc...permit, which will allow the reciprocity you desire.

b) I don't know what the "training" requirement for your state is, but for mine it was 8 hours (recently reduced to 5) including the range "test". Said "range test" was pretty inconclusive...I'm not saying a blind person could pass it, but I'm not NOT saying it, either...

I agree (in principle) that anyone who carries "should" receive meaningful training, but the difference between "should" and "shall" is a significant one. I know what the Constitution says (and what it implies), and I support it 110%.

c) We will see what we will see. If I have to continue buying a CHL in order to bypass the NICS check, I will. But some, who do not buy and sell, and just want to carry legally without "being infringed" will determine whether that fee is worth it for them.

All in all, I am encouraged to see more states moving in the Constitutional Carry direction. Five years ago, I thought I'd have to move to VT or AK in order to exercise my rights as the Constitution states. Things are looking better, and in the short term, even more so.

Let me ask you this, Sam. Would you feel the least bit safe driving in downtown Chicago during rush hour if Chicago decided 10 years ago, no one needs a license to drive?
Click to expand...
Leaning OT, but have you driven in Chicago lately? I lived there 10 years ago, and even then, there were A LOT of people who drove around without a license (and insurance). I would bet a fair sum of money that it hasn't gotten better since then.

Unfortunately, that is not limited to Chicago--many large cities have been cowed into not asking for a driver's license or proof of insurance, and have been sued for being "racist" when they do. Including cities you might not expect, like my adopted home of Dallas.
 
Last edited:
I have seen women purchasing handguns at a gun show that had no idea how to load the gun let alone how to use it.

Training needed, you make the decision.
 
jcwit said:
I have seen women purchasing handguns at a gun show that had no idea how to load the gun let alone how to use it.

Training needed, you make the decision.
Click to expand...

That was me in 2007, I've managed not to kill anything or shoot my couch.
Instructions* are included for a reason, how un-manly it is to admit it, I read them and learned basic operations. Safety on the other hand was more common sense than instruction.

*Unless buying used, and even if that is the case, there are sources to learn the operations.
 
I remember when Arizona went to Constitutional carry. While I agreed with the politics of it I was a little concerned with what the results would be. It turned out to be no difference. In the face of no evidence to support opposing it I don't see how anyone could be against constitutional carry. Its just another foundless "there will be blood in the streets" arguments.
 
To everyone who's claiming 'some' training should be required, I'll put it this way (as I have in the past-sorry for the repetition):

I have several hundred hours of formal firearms training. I think it takes about 100 hours of documented, formal training to become a 'good' shooter/gunhandler.

Anyone with less than 100 hours shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun.


See how that works? It's a case of 'pull up the ladder, I'm aboard.' Everyone is willing to put up hoops for OTHER PEOPLE, with the tacit implication that THEIR RIGHTS won't be impacted; they always speak from a position of, "Well, I'M fine, but those other guys...."

And splithoof; having been an LEO, I can honestly say the scariest ranges I was ever on were police ranges; as a group, I'd take 100 IDPA shooters over 100 cops to be around loaded guns every single time. Again, the 'I'm fine, but THOSE GUYS...' attitude.

Freedom only works if we're just as meticulous in granting it to others as we are for claiming it for ourselves, fellows.


Larry
 
Do you have a link for that stat Tinpig? I have a feeling I might need it soon.

For an answer to Berettaprofessor, all I can do is repeat what the other Arizonans are telling you. We made this change in our CCW law with zero problems. It just has not been an issue in this state and I can't really see why it would be there.

However, we were subjected to howls of worried anguish up to the day it was implemented.

Blood will run in the streets and people will be dying like flies because people suck and are too stupid and malignant to handle carrying a gun unlicensed and concealed.

Never mind that here, like apparently there, anyone who wants to and is not a prohibited possessor could already carry without training and a license, they just couldn't let their tee shirt cover it.

I think you will discover it really doesn't change crime rates or accidental shooting rates if your Leg. passes C.C.
Honestly, the same argument is used for every carry law, it just hasn't been right yet :D
 
"I know permitless carry is, in theory,always a step towards personal freedom, but I have the following reservations about supporting this bill in the interests of societal freedom"

Step one, avoid self-contrdicting statements like this. Personal freedom is all there is. 'Society' is invariably the government, in practice.

Step two, if Kansas adopts unlicensed carry, there is no reason they could not also have an optional Carry Certification to keep intact all permit-based benefits (so long as they remain needed)

Step three, nearly everyone interested in carry is interested in shooting, and by extension, practice and perform safe handling. Carry is a pain, especially concealed, so unless it is a job requirement (see cop gun ineptitude) lazy/careless people will tend to avoid it. Lazy/careless folks who will still carry are too lazy/careless to apply for a permit beforehand, anyway.

TCB
 
To everyone who's claiming 'some' training should be required, I'll put it this way (as I have in the past-sorry for the repetition):
Click to expand...

So the lady doesn't need to be shown/trained how to load the piece?????????????????

Out the door and on her way. By golly she's got a gun and a box of ammo and no idea what to do with either, but she thinks she's safe!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
Alabama 2nd Amendment Win!
Replies
6
Views
431
CherokeeGunslinger
CherokeeGunslinger
A
  • Locked
North Dakota to allow concealed carry without a permit.
Replies
6
Views
939
Shed
Shed
M
  • Locked
Vitter To Introduce Concealed Carry Reciprocity
2 3
Replies
57
Views
3K
M1911
M
M
  • Locked
Kansas: Permitless Carry Law Takes Effect Today (July 1 2015)
Replies
11
Views
1K
Miked7762
M
R
  • Locked
Missouri & Some Other States Will Recognize Illinois CCL
Replies
9
Views
944
Hurryin' Hoosier
Hurryin' Hoosier
Back
Top