Help Me Understand So I Don't Be A Fudd

[splithoof]

DT, I have to agree with you about the LEO's on ranges. Seen a few bullets that struck legs, butts, backs, feet, etc.
I've seen more bad gun handling on agency ranges than at my private club.

 

[Twiki357]

Arizona eliminated the permit requirement for CCW about 7 years ago. Based on news reports, it doesn’t seem as though there have been any problems with it. Almost all of the gun related shootings that have hit the news have remained at the hands of prohibited persons and/or law enforcement.

I have kept up my CCW because it allows me to carry legally; 1. In places that serve alcohol and are not posted, 2. Avoid waiting for an NICS check to go through, and 3. I gun free school zones (The 1,000 foot BS) as long as I don’t go on the actual school property.

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.

As for the “Proper” training for a CCW… When I qualified, the guy next to me had gone through a 50 round box of ammo and was buying another, but had still not put more than two of the 10 required rounds in the target. I would personally prefer that HE did not carry with or without a CCW.

And as for the comparison of driver training required for a drivers license, HOW’S THAT WORKING OUT FOR YOU?

 

[kwguy]

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.

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.

 

[llwsgn]

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.

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.

 

[Red Wind]

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

Here is a link.

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/...deaths-outpaced-car-accident-deaths/12756651/

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.

 

[Twiki357]

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.

How about training by Biden? Stick a 12 guage out window and let’er rip. Or, I’m sure that Obama or Holder could develop some effective training mandates. Wouldn’t that be just great (insert sarcasm)?

 

[barnbwt]

"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."
By golly you're right, that's a problem in search of a solution! And teaching people how to use guns safely is the solution. In fact, it's the only solution. Because the only alternative is to keep guns away from dangerous/untrained people, which is impractical on its face.* If only we had an institution specifically intended to convey important information to citizens that would help them mature into responsible members of society...

"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."
Yup. Whatever merits the idea may have, we burned that bridge when we did away with the poll taxes (which themselves had some crucially important potential benefits that can never be realized in any form for society). Like most things that can be abused, they were, which is why the taxes were disbanded. Same as is the case with carry permitting in way too many places in the nation, which is why they need to go, too.

"I've seen more bad gun handling on agency ranges than at my private club."
When you don't want to carry a gun, but your stupid job/boss forces you to in order to continue drawing a paycheck, it is understandable that not much mental/emotional effort will be applied to the task. You'll skimp on practice, on technique, on safety, on discretion. I imagine a lot of the abuses we hear about where guns are used improperly are due to gun-averse officers not taking the importance of lethal force seriously, simply because they are disinclined to think about it.

TCB

*I say "on its face" because this is a gun forum. Anywhere else, would obviously require tedious explanation of insurmountable challenges posed by law, enforcement, history, technology, and basic human nature.

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

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.

Working with people and observing their judgments in action for over 30 years illustrate to me that a large percentage of our population is woefully ignorant and incapable of making realistic judgments, but somehow we seem to survive and advance as a society.

 

[thirty-ought-six]

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.

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.

 

[orionengnr]

You, my friend, are lacking a lot of knowledge. A Freshman-year class in Logic and Argument would help you to understand quite a bit.

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.

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.

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.

And that is okay with you?

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.

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.

If people don't think standard common sense should not apply to "rights", they have no common sense themselves.

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.)

 

[Red Wind]

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.

Only 2 states have rules against bank carry: Nebraska and Montana. That is far from most.

 

[thirty-ought-six]

Only 2 states have rules against bank carry: Nebraska and Montana. That is far from most.

Michigan has a whole host of "pistol free areas", including Schools, Hospitals, Casinos and some taverns.

 

[JBrady555]

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...

This point should be the end of the entire debate.

 

[Sol]

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.

Where would we get this training? The government, Comrad?

 

[Red Wind]

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.

You've certainly given us the 2 possibilities with this posting Energizer Bunny. At the moment, to give the benefit of the doubt, I'll go with your first premise.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Well!..................lol

This has been amusing to read. I don't think I need to get in on the dogpile, as even though I have plenty to say, it's all pretty much been said by others.

'll just point out that it seem Berettaprofessor isn't the Fudd in this thread. Not by a long shot................

 

[thirty-ought-six]

Lets look at the government for a second...

The first amendment says "freedom of speech", however even the supreme court ruled that is is not "absolute".

It does not cover:

-Fighting words
-True threats
- National Security
-Child pornography.
-Etc.

So there you have it folks, our own government added a list of "but's" to the amendment, freedom of speech, but not when it comes to threats, national security, etc.

So why is it OK for the people of this forum, who have no governmental power whatsover to say "there can be no but's" when it comes to the 2A?

The list of "but's" is common sense. Ok, don't blab about stuff that is a matter of security, don't threaten people, etc.

 

[pintler]

FWIW, I just checked WISQARS for 2013 unintentional deaths.

Drowning: 3391
Pedal Cyclists: 925
Firearms: 505

So, just looking at those numbers as an engineer, when I start thinking about what should be carefully licensed, I'm thinking first backyard swimming pools and boats, then bicyclists, then gun owners.

 

[splattergun]

Sorry, but I have to ask. 30-06, where did you get your extensive training?

 

[barnbwt]

"How can we be "responsible", if we can't even prevent out our own obesity, as in putting down the spoon?"
The only reason obesity in adults and children has spiked is because, yes, the nanny-state has made smoking darn near illegal. Look up a correlation sometime; it's shockingly obvious what happened. Unintended consequences. Obesity isn't as tragic as smoking cancers (so far), but it was an unexpected side-effect nonetheless. Couple that with a tech-based modern industrial model and urbanization that leaves less and less opportunity for physical activity, and Bob's your uncle, fat people everywhere. Beaucoup bucks in subsidies for ag-companies growing all that corn syrup and corn starch, and corn gluten, and corn-fed milk, though (beaucoup subsidies for all the jobless idlers feasting on the same, to boot)

"Unlimited freedom does not exist, it won't ever, either."
"Unlimited freedom" is not freedom, un-intuitively enough. A society without boundaries has no law, and is merely the rule of force; quite the opposite of "freedom" for those lacking intimidation. A society which respects and organizes its members personal freedoms so as to avoid conflict and provide a means for resolution in the event of conundrums/abuses is the way to attain maximal opportunity (or "freedom" if you will) for everyone involved; collectively and individually.

"Some people here feel like all common sense should be thrown out..."


"Common sense dictates that giving someone who "isn't right in the head" access to a deadly weapon, is sheer stupidity."
Please define every single object, noun, and verb in that sentence more clearly. Our entire gun control scheme has so far been unable to pin down any of those things effectively; perhaps you will have better luck?

"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."
Oh, I think I just realized where your screen name came from...Texan, right?

"If people don't think standard common sense should not apply to "rights", they have no common sense themselves."
Hmm, rapid proliferation of Those Two Words in Succession...

"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"."
Exactly how does one enforce "common sense" as you define it without doing exactly that? Worth mentioning that we have some 28000 "do and don't" items on the books across the nation already...

"Maybe they should of wrote something called "How not to be an idiot".
Ooh, or How I Beat the Strawman, or How to Simplify Through Hyperbole?

-----------------------------------------------------------------

"So why is it OK for the people of this forum, who have no governmental power whatsover to say "there can be no but's" when it comes to the 2A?"
Please go on and equate any one of the items in your list of nasty things to anything being proposed by gun rights advocates. We're waiting.

"The list of "but's" is common sense. Ok, don't blab about stuff that is a matter of security, don't threaten people, etc."
Even those two things are open to very vibrant debate these days, national security especially.

TCB

Okay, I was gonna chastise Steel Horse Rider for being harsh on a newer poster, but then 30-06 followed up with that diatribe...

 

[barnbwt]

"So, just looking at those numbers as an engineer, when I start thinking about what should be carefully licensed, I'm thinking first backyard swimming pools and boats, then bicyclists, then gun owners."

To be fair, our society doesn't do a much better job educating people in swimming or cycling than it does in teaching firearms safety...

TCB

 

[barnbwt]

"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."

It's all good in either case; many of us have been in that exact place. I, myself, was once a supporter of handgun bans. Proper application of skull-meat to the premises of the problem at length resolved it handily. Human nature can't be changed, and because of that you can safely make predictions about what is likely and possible when thinking about policy that can organize our motivations, as opposed to jumping at every hair-brained feel-good concept that comes to mind.

TCB

 

[thirty-ought-six]

It is very clear to me that reading over this thread again, that people won't agree on things, and that's fine, we could debate for 153 pages and not accomplish anything.

Instead of us disagreeing on things, let's find things to agree with.

I think that if a state was to have permit-less carry, that states should have a mandatory firearms education program in high school.

That way no one is "limited" on when they can have a gun, and they can have a gun as soon as they are 18 like everyone else.

In fact, one could agree that such a program might bring more new hunters, plinkers, and gun carrying persons to the world of guns.

 

[kwguy]

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.

I think common sense is great. I just don't think the .gov is the source of it, nor should it be the ones who dictate what it is. You might want the .gov to tell you what common sense is, for you and for others, but I think if the founders wanted that, they might have written a 'common sense will be dictated' clause into our constitution.

 

[thirty-ought-six]

The issue with that is there are so many things that do infringe on the 2A, such as:

In some states, you must be 18 or 21 to own a gun depending on the type.

Scotus rules you are born with rights.

Then you would have a group of people spouting "hey, let's lower that age to 12". After all. nothing in the 2A defines an age, right?

Nothing in the 2A says you can't take a loaded gun into your place of employment, yet tons of places WILL NOT let you take a loaded gun with you to work.

Everything comes with limits, you can't drive 120 mph in a 65mph zone. You can't drive with a BAC over .08 in my state.

Now I'm not saying "let's add limits to the 2A", but there are currently a list of limits that are legally set in place. Why aren't people complaining about those?

Why can't I take my loaded gun in my pocket to work?

Why did I have to be 21 to buy my gun?

Why can't I take my gun into my local bank?

Why can't I shoot a deer with my gun out of my car?

All of those infringe the rights by the 2A.