That's What Katanas Are For

[Crazed Rabbit]

Only people properly trained should be allowed to use firearms, the general public are not safe with those things.

Hmm, in Washington state anybody over 21 with no felonies can get a CPL - which allows them to carry a concealed pistol. No training required.

And yet the results have been quite safe.

CR

[Lemur]

Hmm, in Washington state anybody over 21 with no felonies can get a CPL - which allows them to carry a concealed pistol. No training required.

Point in favor for the West Coast, then.

But that said, shouldn't some sort of firearm safety training be mandatory? Exemplum gratum: Everyone should know that you don't point a firearm at anything you don't intend to shoot. And yet I was at a party recently where a rightwing OB-GYN was showing off his new 10mm Glock. And he pointed the ******* thing at me, which ******* me off immensely. I reminded him, as gently as possible, that you don't do that. He continued to point the gun at me as he explained how it worked, how much it cost, etc.

Eventually I put my hand over his, pushed the gun so it was pointing at the wall, and allowed him to continue his monologue. Really irritating, though, and really unsafe.

I'm all in favor of the right to bear arms, but some minimal level of training should be required.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Point in favor for the West Coast, then.

But that said, shouldn't some sort of firearm safety training be mandatory? Exemplum gratum: Everyone should know that you don't point a firearm at anything you don't intend to shoot. And yet I was at a party recently where a rightwing OB-GYN was showing off his new 10mm Glock. And he pointed the ******* thing at me, which ******* me off immensely. I reminded him, as gently as possible, that you don't do that. He continued to point the gun at me as he explained how it worked, how much it cost, etc.

Eventually I put my hand over his, pushed the gun so it was pointing at the wall, and allowed him to continue his monologue. Really irritating, though, and really unsafe.

I'm all in favor of the right to bear arms, but some minimal level of training should be required.

Right on.

I've thought this as well. It's extremely frustrating, and I know how you feel, although I know I've been guilty of imperfect handling myself.

And I really think it's horrific that the government doesn't SUPPORT firearms training! It is knowingly and willfully endangering the general public, and it makes me sick.

They tell people to leave a room with a gun in it. This is just terrible. Because every day, somebody without training comes into contact with a firearm. And often, this results in injury. I know a guy who's very experienced with firearms, and the way he put it is that he'd prefer to have a drunk guy (who understands firearms) with a gun rather than someone with no experience.

I mean, it's like shoving people in the driver's seat with no instruction. Sick.

Sadly, it's a real catch-22. You can't require firearms training, because it's a right. But the gov't could at least support it and tell people they should, although I don't think that fits in to their agenda.

You may notice that people who are familiar with guns are not scared of them. Well, if everybody knew guns and wasn't scared of them, the dems might lose some political capital, since they make quite a bit on firearms fear-mongering.

Furthermore, not training people means there are more accidents. More accidents means you can make a better argument to ban guns entirely. Sick, twisted, disgusting, but I wouldn't be surprised.

So in the end we have to promote training in a personal, community, grass-roots sort of way.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Point in favor for the West Coast, then.

But that said, shouldn't some sort of firearm safety training be mandatory? Exemplum gratum: Everyone should know that you don't point a firearm at anything you don't intend to shoot. And yet I was at a party recently where a rightwing OB-GYN was showing off his new 10mm Glock. And he pointed the ******* thing at me, which ******* me off immensely. I reminded him, as gently as possible, that you don't do that. He continued to point the gun at me as he explained how it worked, how much it cost, etc.

Eventually I put my hand over his, pushed the gun so it was pointing at the wall, and allowed him to continue his monologue. Really irritating, though, and really unsafe.

I'm all in favor of the right to bear arms, but some minimal level of training should be required.

If you want to own a firearm you should be able to demonstrate a military-level competancy on the drills for your chosen weapon, including loading, unloading, stoppages and making safe; also correct cleaning and maintainance.

You should be required by law store your weapon and ammunition in two seperate locked safes.

Anyone found to be carrying a chambered weapon without a VERY good reason should be fined and have their license suspended, subject to re-testing. Ditto anyone doing something stupid like pointing a weapon at a living being.

Competancy tests should be retaken every six months, failure to comply should automatically result in suspension of license. Seperate licenses should be issued for every weapon.

As to your own incident, Lemur, I've had a rifle in my back (which REALLY upset me), in your situation I'd be tempted to pistol whip him, except the idiot might have it loaded.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

You still haven't responded to my posts.

If you want to own a firearm you should be able to demonstrate a military-level competancy on the drills for your chosen weapon, including loading, unloading, stoppages and making safe; also correct cleaning and maintainance.

You should be required by law store your weapon and ammunition in two seperate locked safes.

Anyone found to be carrying a chambered weapon without a VERY good reason should be fined and have their license suspended, subject to re-testing. Ditto anyone doing something stupid like pointing a weapon at a living being.

Competancy tests should be retaken every six months, failure to comply should automatically result in suspension of license. Seperate licenses should be issued for every weapon.

As to your own incident, Lemur, I've had a rifle in my back (which REALLY upset me), in your situation I'd be tempted to pistol whip him, except the idiot might have it loaded.

Why?

I'm serious.

Show me evidence that this would be a good thing.

Obviously, it's a massive restriction to gun ownership. And not because people are incompetent; because people don't like to jump through millions of hoops.

Furthermore, it's been pointed out again and again statistically that civilians are not that much of a liability with firearms.

I made the point about car accidents. You brushed it off because cars aren't "meant" to kill.

Yet they kill more people than guns do! 43,300

And since they're not made for it, nor can they be used for self-defence, I'd say that cars are even WORSE for it!

[drone]

You should be required by law store your weapon and ammunition in two seperate locked safes.

This invalidates the firearms use for self-defense in the home.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This invalidates the firearms use for self-defense in the home.

Not really, you can have both safes next to each other in your bedroom and wear the keys around your neck. It just stops you from keeping a loaded weapon within reach of children, or stops an idiot child picking up and loading Daddy's gun.

You still haven't responded to my posts.

Why?

I'm serious.

Show me evidence that this would be a good thing.

Obviously, it's a massive restriction to gun ownership. And not because people are incompetent; because people don't like to jump through millions of hoops.

Furthermore, it's been pointed out again and again statistically that civilians are not that much of a liability with firearms.

I made the point about car accidents. You brushed it off because cars aren't "meant" to kill.

Yet they kill more people than guns do! 43,300

And since they're not made for it, nor can they be used for self-defence, I'd say that cars are even WORSE for it!

Those are pretty much the requirements militaries place on their soldiers. It's called TOET, Testing of Elementary Training. If you don't check the safety catch before picking the weapon up. This isn't a "massive restriction", it merely weeds out those who don't really want a gun or aren't safe with one. Surely it's better in your eyes than blanket bans for certain types of weapons.

In principle, no one should handle a weapon they are not certified on. To go back to your car comparison, you don't let someone drive without a license, do you?

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Surely it's better in your eyes than blanket bans for certain types of weapons.

Still bad and unnecessary.

During the inquisition, they offered to strangle you to death rather than burn you if you signed a confession.

But, frankly, I don't see much about strangulation to be happy about. ;) Get my drift?

Not really, you can have both safes next to each other in your bedroom and wear the keys around your neck. It just stops you from keeping a loaded weapon within reach of children, or stops an idiot child picking up and loading Daddy's gun.

Respond to my other posts, will ya?!? Do I have to repost them or what?

Anyways, yes, really.

That is an insane restriction. You seem to think that you have all the time in the world to react when you're house is broken into.

Man, a criminal can be in and OUT in a matter of minutes. Usually the police are too late.

So don't tell me that from the time you actually realize someone is in your house, you can get up, fumble with your keys, open TWO safes, get everything out, assemble it, and be all set.

Rediculous. We are talking about SECONDS' worth of time here, not minutes.

And guess what you can do to stop an idiot child from picking up and loading Daddy's gun?

TRAIN 'EM, DANGIT!!! Yes, personal responsibility!!! You cannot legislate personal responsibility! It doesn't work.

To go back to your car comparison, you don't let someone drive without a license, do you?

Driving is a priviledge, not a right. ;) And driving is not a means of self-defense, as guns are.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Remember, posts #136 and #138. And #150.

Thankee kindly.

[Hooahguy]

This invalidates the firearms use for self-defense in the home.

indeed.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Point in favor for the West Coast, then.

But that said, shouldn't some sort of firearm safety training be mandatory?

No. You shouldn't have to take classes to exercise a right. I wouldn't be opposed to some basic training in schools though.

Exemplum gratum: Everyone should know that you don't point a firearm at anything you don't intend to shoot. And yet I was at a party recently where a rightwing OB-GYN was showing off his new 10mm Glock. And he pointed the ******* thing at me, which ******* me off immensely. I reminded him, as gently as possible, that you don't do that. He continued to point the gun at me as he explained how it worked, how much it cost, etc.

Eventually I put my hand over his, pushed the gun so it was pointing at the wall, and allowed him to continue his monologue. Really irritating, though, and really unsafe.

I'm all in favor of the right to bear arms, but some minimal level of training should be required.

Yes, there are idiots. You probably handled that the best way possible. I still think classes in school are better than mandatory training. Heck, the government could subsidize classes for adults as well. But I can't agree to requiring training.

Anyone found to be carrying a chambered weapon without a VERY good reason should be fined and have their license suspended, subject to re-testing. Ditto anyone doing something stupid like pointing a weapon at a living being.

Why? I do it all the time safely.

Seriously? Guns, particularly handguns, have only one purpose; it isn't to help you compensate.

For my inability to throw small bits of lead at killing velocities?

CR

[Lemur]

You shouldn't have to take classes to exercise a right. I wouldn't be opposed to some basic training in schools though.

Well, free speech is also a right, and our government forces children to learn to read and write coherent sentences. I don't see why some mandatory firearm safety training infringes on the right to bear arms any more than public schooling infringes on the right to free speech.

I should not be free to run through a building shouting that there's a bomb about to go off. That's inciting a panic, and people could get hurt for no good reason. Likewise, idiots like the OB/GYN I know should be forced to learn some basic firearm handling principles. Simple enough. Nobody's saying he can't arm himself, nobody's trying to take his gun away.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well, free speech is also a right, and our government forces children to learn to read and write coherent sentences.

They don't require you to pass an English exam before you can speak in public.

I don't see why some mandatory firearm safety training infringes on the right to bear arms any more than public schooling infringes on the right to free speech.

Gee, maybe because no schooling is required to be able to practice free speech?

I should not be free to run through a building shouting that there's a bomb about to go off. That's inciting a panic, and people could get hurt for no good reason. Likewise, idiots like the OB/GYN I know should be forced to learn some basic firearm handling principles. Simple enough. Nobody's saying he can't arm himself, nobody's trying to take his gun away.

Police don't prevent you from speaking until you can prove you've passed an exam about whether or not you can shout 'fire' in a movie theater. Being prevented from shouting 'bomb' is different from requiring firearms training. Shouting 'bomb' is a harmful act in and of itself. Not taking a firearms training class is not.

And you are saying he can't arm himself until he passes your test. And there's many who would make the test as onerous as possible if they could, to prevent people from being able to own guns.

CR

[Lemur]

And there's many who would make the test as onerous as possible if they could, to prevent people from being able to own guns.

Well, that's the real root of your objection, isn't it? A worry that a safety test/course would not be designed or administered in good faith. And it's not unrealistic but ...

... that said, I'd love to see some basic level of competence among firearm owners.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Upon receipt of warning that my recent posts have been rather pointed, I have reviewed said post and indeed I was out of line.

Apologies, all, and of course to Philipvs.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well, that's the real root of your objection, isn't it? A worry that a safety test/course would not be designed or administered in good faith. And it's not unrealistic but ...

... that said, I'd love to see some basic level of competence among firearm owners.

As would I. But I think the better method would be instruction in school. It's useful knowledge, after all, and that way is more constitutionally compatible. Plus more people will be educated, and it'll help the people who don't own guns but have friends who do.

CR