Common Sense, reasonable regulation, etc...

[Lakeland Man]

I read, in another thread, the "polite and civil discussion" about common sense equaling reasonable regulation, etc.

My opinion on it is this. I think it is reasonable and prudent to expect a potential CCW holder to have at least a minimum of knowledge on how to handle their firearm and the laws surrounding its use. Training is NEVER wasted, if it is good training. I have personally known several people who shouldn't even be in the same county as a firearm, let alone be allowed to carry one. (because they're dumber than rocks)

I have worked as a LEO and I've seen many people who have legally carried a firearm and they've been careless or ignorant about that very grave responsibility.

Years before, I worked at a gun shop/public shooting range. I witnessed customers bringing their guns into the range and watched them shoot holes in partitions, ceilings, and floors because they were completely clueless about how their new weapon worked. In every case, I exercised my right as the range master and took the firearm away from them and suggested (in the strongest possible terms, and with a minimum of profanity) that they take a course and learn which end the lead comes out before returning to MY range.

I know some of the poster here will state their position that there shouldn't be ANY requirement that someone be trained or regulated in order to carry a firearm. That is their position and I respect that. I just happen to disagree with them. As I said, training is never a bad idea.

Ready on the right?
Ready on the left?
Ready on the line?
The flag is up, commence firing!

 

[fuhr52]

I agree. You don't issue a drivers license without some driver training or proving to someone you can drive. A car is a big weapon. A gun is like any other tool, if you don't know how to use it get some training or stay away from it.

 

[S&W645]

Just like driver's ed, gun ed should be required in school. Gun control is being able to handle a gun safely and hit the target.

 

[Midnight]

I agree. You don't issue a drivers license without some driver training or proving to someone you can drive. A car is a big weapon. A gun is like any other tool, if you don't know how to use it get some training or stay away from it.

The difference is that driving isn't protected as a Constitutional Amendment. Give them an inch, and they'll take a mile. We've seen the kind of unintended consequences that "reasonable regulations" can cause. Besides, cars cause more deaths per year than guns do, but you don't hear about people wanting to ban cars.

I, for one, believe people should be able to purchase and carry any kind of firearm they want with no restrictions whatsoever.

 

[eaccents]

Common Sense and Reasonable Regulation

The difference is that driving isn't protected as a Constitutional Amendment. Give them an inch, and they'll take a mile. We've seen the kind of unintended consequences that "reasonable regulations" can cause. Besides, cars cause more deaths per year than guns do, but you don't hear about people wanting to ban cars.

I, for one, believe people should be able to purchase and carry any kind of firearm they want with no restrictions whatsoever.

Correct me if I am wrong, but more people own cars than own guns, so statistically it seems about right that cars would cause more deaths than guns. No?

I believe that the world inhabited by the Founding Fathers was very different from the world we live in now. They were visionaries, and their wise words apply to much of American life now--over 200 years later! Our Founding Fathers were smart enough to know that they were not "all seeing," and that is why there was a purposeful allowance for change/amendments.

I do not think that the Founding Fathers would object to removing a musket from the hands of someone who might willfully use it to harm others instead of to defend their homes or nation. I also think that upon receiving your first musket, someone somehow taught you how to load and shoot it, they taught you why you needed to keep your powder dry, and they told you that your musket was for hunting and/or for defense of your home or nation.

The 2nd Amendment is about the "right of the people to keep and bear arms." Personally, I believe that the words "people" actually mean "the populace, with regard to the greater good." To me, it did not mean each individual person.

I'm sure that there are those who would argue with me, but giving someone a weapon without teaching them how to use it safely, and finding out if they have the mental wherewithal to use it prudently is like putting a gun into the hands of a child...

Does the 2nd Amendment really mean we should put guns into the hands of children or the mentally ill just because they are American?

Even today, when we give weapons to national leaders, there is a system of checks and balances to make sure that the weapons are utilized wisely and for the good of the people. There is a responsibility that goes with controlling a weapon--any weapon--and the more powerful the weapon the more we scrutinize when and how it is used.

I think common sense aka reasonable regulation is fine. It may prevent the likes of Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech), Jared Lee Loughner (Tucson, AZ), Nidal Malik Hasan (Fort Hood), etc from giving gun owners a bad reputation.

Thanks to all for the thought-provoking discussion.

 

[Kasper]

Correct me if I am wrong, but more people own cars than own guns, so statistically it seems about right that cars would cause more deaths than guns. No?

I believe that the world inhabited by the Founding Fathers was very different from the world we live in now. They were visionaries, and their wise words apply to much of American life now--over 200 years later! Our Founding Fathers were smart enough to know that they were not "all seeing," and that is why there was a purposeful allowance for change/amendments.

I do not think that the Founding Fathers would object to removing a musket from the hands of someone who might willfully use it to harm others instead of to defend their homes or nation. I also think that upon receiving your first musket, someone somehow taught you how to load and shoot it, they taught you why you needed to keep your powder dry, and they told you that your musket was for hunting and/or for defense of your home or nation.

The 2nd Amendment is about the "right of the people to keep and bear arms." Personally, I believe that the words "people" actually mean "the populace, with regard to the greater good." To me, it did not mean each individual person.

I'm sure that there are those who would argue with me, but giving someone a weapon without teaching them how to use it safely, and finding out if they have the mental wherewithal to use it prudently is like putting a gun into the hands of a child...

Does the 2nd Amendment really mean we should put guns into the hands of children or the mentally ill just because they are American?

Even today, when we give weapons to national leaders, there is a system of checks and balances to make sure that the weapons are utilized wisely and for the good of the people. There is a responsibility that goes with controlling a weapon--any weapon--and the more powerful the weapon the more we scrutinize when and how it is used.

I think common sense aka reasonable regulation is fine. It may prevent the likes of Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech), Jared Lee Loughner (Tucson, AZ), Nidal Malik Hasan (Fort Hood), etc from giving gun owners a bad reputation.

Thanks to all for the thought-provoking discussion.

Look back at the danger our troops were in in Africa. Kids 8 years old with ak 47s. So don't go saying that guns are hard to learn to shot you just point the barrel and pull the trigger. Most of the danger was from our troops not wanting to kill kids and the dictators in charge knew this and used it to their advantage.

As most people can confirm the training you take to get a drivers license is pathetic. After the driving test and you obtain your drivers license most of what they taught goes out the window.

The other problem you will face with making people get training before owning a gun is someone suing you for the training you gave the person who shot them instead of the bad guy.

Training only works when the person wants to learn. Look at all the police officers who get training but still end up missing their target and hitting bystanders.But because they had training I am suppose to be ok with it? Even though the results of the training are poor.

So while I agree people should get training for the firearm they want to carry, I don't agree with forcing them to get training before they can own a firearm.As the police officers I mention before are forced to do the training and most only do enough to pass then forget about it till it is time again. While others want to better their skills and seek classes to help improve their skills. I wish all police officers where like that but they are not some just see it as forced training that they have to pass to keep their job so they do as little as necessary to pass.

 

[nogods]

The difference is that driving isn't protected as a Constitutional Amendment. Give them an inch, and they'll take a mile. We've seen the kind of unintended consequences that "reasonable regulations" can cause. Besides, cars cause more deaths per year than guns do, but you don't hear about people wanting to ban cars.

I, for one, believe people should be able to purchase and carry any kind of firearm they want with no restrictions whatsoever.

The problem is that possession of a gun for purposes other than self defense in one's home is not a constitutionally protected right under present law. So it is exactly like driving - a privilege.

We may wish it was otherwise but it is not.

 

[NavyLCDR]

The problem is that possession of a gun for purposes other than self defense in one's home is not a constitutionally protected right under present law. So it is exactly like driving - a privilege.

We may wish it was otherwise but it is not.

Interesting theory that does not hold water. Let's look at D.C. v. Heller. Did Heller CREATE the Constitutional protection of the right to keep and bear arms in homes in Washington D.C.? NO. Heller did NOT create the protection. Heller APPLIED the protection that ALREADY existed. The US Supreme Court did not change the 2nd Amendment, they applied the 2nd Amendment.

McDonald v. Chicago.... did McDonald CREATE the Constitutional protection of the right to keep and bear arms in homes outside Washington D.C.? Again, NO. McDonald did NOT create the protection. McDonald APPLIED the protection that ALREADY existed via both the 2nd Amendment and the 14th Amendment. The US Supreme Court did nothing to change the 2nd or 14th Amendments, they merely applied them.

Neither case CHANGED any rights at all. What both cases did was beat down the government regulation that infringed upon the protection ALREADY offered since the day the 2nd Amendment was ratified. And that's why this argument that carrying a firearm in public for self protection is not a Constitutionally protected right is false. The 2nd Amendment has no wording in it about "in one's home" does it?

The right is ALREADY Constitutionally protected.... the problem is government's infringement upon that right, which hopefully will be beat down, just like Heller and McDonald did.

 

[fuhr52]

The difference is that driving isn't protected as a Constitutional Amendment. Give them an inch, and they'll take a mile. We've seen the kind of unintended consequences that "reasonable regulations" can cause. Besides, cars cause more deaths per year than guns do, but you don't hear about people wanting to ban cars.

I, for one, believe people should be able to purchase and carry any kind of firearm they want with no restrictions whatsoever.

I agree cars kill more people every year than guns do and who knows how many cars are used as weapons to murder. But I for one am not comfortable with people carrying guns that don't have a clue of how to use them. I have been on too many scenes where people are careless with guns.

 

[Lakeland Man]

The difference is that driving isn't protected as a Constitutional Amendment. Give them an inch, and they'll take a mile. We've seen the kind of unintended consequences that "reasonable regulations" can cause. Besides, cars cause more deaths per year than guns do, but you don't hear about people wanting to ban cars.

I, for one, believe people should be able to purchase and carry any kind of firearm they want with no restrictions whatsoever.

Your comparison of guns to cars is a specious one. You're comparing apples to monkey wrenches. While I admit that cars can be very dangerous in the hands of idiots, they are not designed as weapons. They may be used as one, but so may a rock or a hammer. Comparing a gun to a crossbow would be more appropriate.

As I stated in my original post, I see nothing wrong with some kind of training being required before owning a handgun. (This is the trigger. Don't pull it unless you want to put holes in something.) While stating that drivers training is ineffective or useless, it does serve a purpose. Once someone has been trained, they can and must be held accountable for their actions. They can't use the arguement "I was never told about that." (Though they DO try.)

Would you put a gun into the hands of someone if you thought that their first act with it was to shoot you accidently, simply because they didn't know how to use it properly? By the logic of some here (you guys know I luv ya, right?) it would be ok with them because they feel its everyone's right to own a firearm without any restriction or requirement whatsoever.

I'm not advocating restricting the right to keep and bear arms. However, a right as important as that should be safeguarded by requiring that the bearer be trained first. We, as gun owners and carriers, should do whatever we can to make sure that left-leaning wackos have no ammunition that they can use against us. An untrained, armed populace is a ripe breeding ground for that kind of ammo. A trained, armed populace is a much better defense against liberal totalitarianism.

Fire at will.

 

[NavyLCDR]

I'm not advocating restricting the right to keep and bear arms.

Seems to me like you would like to restrict the right to keep and bear arms to only those persons who possess some training.

 

[Treo]

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Georgia, Indiana, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, Wyoming And others I am sure Require no training what so ever before issuing a permit.

No blood in the streets that I am aware of

 

[Treo]

Seems to me like you would like to restrict the right to keep and bear arms to only those persons who possess some training.

And only training that he approves of

 

[NavyLCDR]

I still would like to see facts that prove the public is any less safe in all of the states that require no permit to carry a gun, or require no training in order to obtain the permit. Your opinion is fine and dandy.... just realize that it is based upon emotion rather than facts. I see Treo beat me to it!

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Georgia, Indiana, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, Wyoming And others I am sure Require no training what so ever before issuing a permit.

No blood in the streets that I am aware of

Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Kentucky, Virginia, Colorado (except Denver) and North Carolina require no permit for open carry, and, therefore, no training required to carry a gun, only to conceal it. So far we have 19 states where the general public must be in danger from untrained persons carrying guns.

Sorry, I just don't see the danger manifesting itself.

 

[NavyLCDR]

They were visionaries, and their wise words apply to much of American life now--over 200 years later! Our Founding Fathers were smart enough to know that they were not "all seeing," and that is why there was a purposeful allowance for change/amendments.

I do not think that the Founding Fathers would object to removing a musket from the hands of someone who might willfully use it to harm others instead of to defend their homes or nation

First... as you said in the first paragraph.... if the American majority does not like the 2nd Amendment, then they should repeal it. That is the proper course of action allowed by the founding fathers. Legislating it away was not in the plan of the Founding Fathers - that's the whole entire purpose of the Constitution, is to prevent government from legislating away the rights of the citizens.

Second, in your second paragraph, the idea that the Founding Fathers "would not object to removing a musket from the hands of someone who might willfully use it to harms others" is absolutely ludicrous. They most certainly WOULD object. Why? Because the justice system of this country, the foundations of which are laid in the Constitution, is based upon the presumption of innocence. A person is innocent until PROVEN guilty. So this whole idea of "might" do something in the future as a basis for a punishment or restriction just doesn't make sense.

 

[Lakeland Man]

And only training that he approves of

Where did I say that the training had to be what I approved. Until I become King, you have nothing to fear from that. But when I DO become King, women between the ages of 18 and 30 will be required to be topless. So let it be written. So let it be done.

I base my opinion (and that is exactly what this is...my opinion) on my LEO experience, my years of dealing with the bottom 10% of society, and simple proven fact. Good training improves safety! Simple as that.

I will refrain from personal attacks here. I would ask that you do the same.

 

[NavyLCDR]

and simple proven fact. Good training improves safety! Simple as that.

So, then, you will be able to share these facts that the general public is in more danger in the 19 states listed above that do not require training to carry a gun in public?

 

[Lakeland Man]

So, then, you will be able to share these facts that the general public is in more danger in the 19 states listed above that do not require training to carry a gun in public?

Can you prove that they're safer without training?

 

[S&WM&P40]

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Georgia, Indiana, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, Wyoming And others I am sure Require no training what so ever before issuing a permit.

No blood in the streets that I am aware of

Well Vermont does not count becasue they have no permit system. Anyone who lives in the state or who enters it is allowd per state law. To carry apon them a loaded firearm, open or concealed. Till the prove they are unable to handle carrying the said firearm.

New Hampshire does not require training to carry open or to carry concealed. I cant think of one time it has been a problem. Other when crack/meth heads are playing with firearms.

If our government wants to pay to send me to front site,gun site, sig academy etc.. Then by all means I'll take training classes till I'm blue in the face.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Here's something rough from the CDC Wonder database

Link Removed

Link Removed

Query Criteria:
Title:
Age Group: All
Gender: All
Hispanic Origin: All
ICD-10 113 Groups: All
ICD-10 Codes: All
Infant Age Groups: All
Injury Intent: All
Injury Mechanism & All Other Leading Causes: GRINJ-006 (Firearm)
Race: All
Regions: All
States: All
Urbanization: All
Year: 2007
Group By: State
Show Totals: True
Show Zero Values: False
Show Suppressed: False
Calculate Rates Per: 100,000


Funny how training required to carry a firearm just doesn't seem to reduce the incidents of gun related deaths....