Guns and sanity

[erinslion]

Before we get to the link, let me assert a few points.

I don't like labels and I don't like to describe myself as a "liberal" since in our bi-polar nation you are one side or the other, and both sides seem to despise the other, at least in the loudest majority (of liberals AND conservatives), however... Many of my views can reasonably be described as left of center. If that makes me a liberal and the target of conservative scorn, well, screw the sort of person who has to break everything down into an "us or them" mentality.

The reason I want to make clear my political affiliations is that what I say next will seem contrary to that, at least until I get a bit further in to it at which point I expect I will just be another typical liberal.

I am not anti-gun. Period. I was raised with guns, I've owned a great many and when the expendable cash comes along I intend to own a few more (I have always wanted a mini-14 and I'd love to own another Ruger Mark II...)

I am as adamant about the right to bear arms as I am about freedom of speech, freedom of religion (including the freedom to be an atheist) and keeping government out of religion AND religion out of government.

I have always felt though that there ought to be MANDATORY training for anyone who wishes to possess a firearm. And that's where I become just another liberal again I suppose because the word "mandatory" gets under a lot of people's skin. Mandatory means a choice is being taken away (from some people's point of view...) Mandatory means the gubbamint is making you do something.

But here is why... Every time someone does something stupid with a gun the first thing I hear from those of you who fear your guns are in constant threat of being taken away is "responsible gun owners don't do that."

Exactly. Responsible gun owners don't do that. So what constitutes a responsible gun owner? There are some of you I know personally, Goomba and OSRB for instance, and I KNOW you are responsible gun owners. I'd swear to it. I'd go further and assume that every cop on here is likewise a responsible gun owner. Ex-military? A little less clear there, you OUGHT to be but having spent twenty years of my life at Ft. Knox I can tell you that while there are noble, intelligent, responsible soldiers, there are more than a few complete dumbasses too. Still, one could give ex-military the benefit of the doubt that you have at least been trained to handle weapons responsibly. But what about the thousands of people standing behind you who all categorize themselves as responsible gun owners? Are they? How do you know? How do I know? As far as I know, if you have the money and no felonies you can purchase a gun anytime you like, safety training is then up to you (scouts honor I guess...)

So yes, I think a gun safety course ought to be mandatory in conjunction with owning a gun and I DON'T think that is Nazism, or a government plot to keep track of who owns a gun (they already know that anyway as long as you bought it legally, don't they?) I realize the Bill of Rights doesn't say anything about "mandatory safety classes" but I haven't found where it says felons can't own guns either. I have heard the response that "That's just one more thing to make it harder to own a gun!" but if learning how to use one properly is too hard, jesus man, maybe you don't need to own one in the first place.

Just a thought people, just an expression from someone who thinks you ought to be able to own a gun if you choose, but that there is a certainly responsibility that comes with gun ownership and no mechanism in place to ensure that the average Joe even fully understands what that means.

I said all that to set up this article, one in which a "responsible" gun owner with "informal training from her dad" committed a faux pas that I think ought to invoke the scorn of those of you who are indeed responsible gun owners and probably scares the piss out of people who are genuinely afraid of guns.

On a side note, I had a personal experience similar to this at a pawn shop on Brainerd road several years ago. I was looking for a gun for a young woman I was dating at the time (she would have purchased it, not me, I was just window shopping...) The new thing at the time were these mini-revolvers that held four or five shots I think, fired .22 magnum bullets, and were small enough to be completely concealed in the palm of a grown man. Completely. The fellow behind the counter was trying to sell me on one, suggesting this would be a good weapon for personal defense, I disagreed (it seemed like nothing but a very, very dangerous and bad idea), and he demonstrated his point by directing my attention to the tiny bulge in his pocket (the other tiny bulge) whereupon he produced the tiny revolver that he had been pointing at me as a demonstration of it's "effectiveness". No, really, that was his selling point, he had it pointed at me and I didn't even know. To this day I do not know if the weapon was loaded, but loaded or not the bastard had no business pointing it at me. Understanding that I was looking for a gun for a woman for self-defense he then directed me to the selection of what I think were "Kel-Tec" brand pistols in the prettiest colors you've ever seen (including pink...) When I said, "Those look like toys" he said, "That's the point. See, if someone breaks in to your house and you point a chrome .357 at them, they might run off. You point this baby at them, they think it's a toy and keep coming and then you pull the trigger..."

Is this the gun safety lesson we can count on from licensed gun dealers? For many people, that's going to be all they get. Those of you who love your guns instead of berating "them dumb liberal pussies" who are afraid of weapons might be better served trying to allay their fears by cleaning up garbage like that and a mandatory safety class would be a strong step in that direction I think...

Anyway, here's the article:

(and OSRB, just because it comes from HuffPo doesn't mean it didn't happen...)

For the love of all that's holy, if you are a self-described "champion of gun rights" how can you possibly be this stupid?

www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/11/lori-klein-arizona-gun-control-reporter-giffords_n_894973.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

[Justin Thyme]

Years ago I worked at a local hospital that had its own security force. Due to the location of the hospital crime in the area became more and more of a problem. At first the security personnel were armed only with a radio and a nightstick. At some point mace was added to their arsenal. After one of them had his nightstick taken away from him and was beaten fairly severely with it the decision was made to arm them with guns. Each man attended two weekend training courses with the captain taking a much longer training course. Six months after the guns were issued there was an incident where a weapon was accidentally discharged in the security office between shift changes. No one was injured but the officer responsible was suspended for a week and then had to put up with being razzed by quite a few people for another week. Everyone, including him, still carried a gun. About three months later a safety fair was being conducted with each department having a booth. The security captain, the one with the extensive training, operated a gun safety booth. While demonstrating the proper and safe way to load, hold and fire the weapon, supposedly with spent shells, the captain fired a round off into the wall with the ladies locker room on the other side. The guns were immediately taken up and gotten rid of. The officers then went through tazer training.

Training is good and a responsible gun owner will seek out training. However, training, no matter how much, isn't going to prevent people from doing stupid things. Mandatory training is going to be marginally effective for people who resent being made to take it.

[erinslion]

a mandatory safety class would be a strong step in that direction I think...

Didn't say it would fix the problem, I suggested it could help.

No argument from me that even with mandatory training stupid people will do stupid things or that smart people will make mistakes, but training has got to offer an advantage over no training (unless you suggest that mandatory training in basic firearm safety would make people *more* dangerous...) How much of an advantage? I don't know, I don't have the resources to estimate that, neither do you, therefore your suggestion that it would be "marginally" helpful is pure supposition.

The fellow at the Pawn Shop wasn't suggesting I seek any training, had I been an average person with no gun experience at all I might have bought that mini-revolver from him with no idea why such a small weapon with such a fairly powerful shell for it's size might not be the thing to carry in one's front pocket. I couldn't say what the statistics really are, this is only based on my own anecdotal evidence but a shocking number of people carry firearms without ever having received a concealed carry permit. Almost every (*almost*) bar owner I have ever worked for packed a pistol *and* kept a shotgun within easy reach of the bar. One even explained to me that "If I shoot someone I'll be in trouble for carrying this gun, but I'm only going to shoot someone if my life is threatened and that's worth more than a fine or jail time..." She never mentioned why she wouldn't consider a relatively inexpensive class to get a permit to carry it legally. Perhaps if she had been required to take a class in the first place before purchasing the gun she might have understood the importance and value of a permit and that she would have been just as capable of defending herself without the fear of serious repercussions.

[pompey]

There is currently no apetite for legislation designed to promote gun safety, much less restrict access to firearms in any way.

Not even among so-called "liberals", who paranoid right-wingers insist are hell-bent on some "anti-gun agenda", despite clear evidence to the contrary.

The fact of the matter is that, aside from a few fringe-element hippies, the so-called, "left" doesn't truly give a flip about "gun control". Why? Because guns are merely a fetish among paranoid members of the right wing. In terms of "countering government power", guns are wholly impractical and ineffective. You can have a small arsenal in your house, but it's no match for a predator drone. The notion of guns as a counter to government tyranny is by now completely anachronistic.

[JC]

Training does not make responsible gun owners. Responsible people make responsible gun owners. There's no training for that.
Your logic on this is ridiculous.

[pompey]

Jul 12, 2011 10:25:20 GMT -5 JC said:

Training does not make responsible gun owners. Responsible people make responsible gun owners. There's no training for that.
Your logic on this is ridiculous.

If you don't like erinslion's proposal, then how do you propose that we, as a society, ensure that gun owners are responsible and don't pose a threat to those that are around them?

[JC]

I'll do that as soon as driver education gives us responsible drivers. Or, as soon as sex education gives us responsible parents.

[osrb]

I do believe in training for people who want to carry. Not necessarily for purchase. Even with the best training people do dumbass things because the get complacent. When I was getting my firearms training and my training on fixing aircraft one of the biggest lessons that was pounded into us was "complacency kills". People get too comfortable with with anything they stop thinking about the dangers involved. This rep in the story was a total dumbass. You NEVER point a firearm at anything that you do no intend to shoot.

A firearms is always loaded.

Three rules of firearms:
1)safety
2)safety
3)safety


Case in point.

[pompey]

Jul 12, 2011 11:04:44 GMT -5 JC said:

I'll do that as soon as driver education gives us responsible drivers. Or, as soon as sex education gives us responsible parents.

Do you think that standards for training and testing drivers produces more or less safety on our roadways?

Your analogy between gun ownership and sex is specious beyond words.

[JC]

osrb, you just proved the point that you can not train "responsible gun owners".

I'm sure that agent took mandatory gun training regularly. Least couple times a year.

Looks like orsb, pompous, and the op demands mandatory weekly training for gun owners because there are some irresistible criminals amongst us.
That's fine, but I also demand mandatory weekly training for car owners since there are irresponsible drivers out there.
I should not have to live in a reckless world with drunk drivers when driver training would fix stupidity. We all have a moral responsibility to pound common sense into the minds of the stupid criminals.

[Justin Thyme]

No argument from me that even with mandatory training stupid people will do stupid things or that smart people will make mistakes, but training has got to offer an advantage over no training (unless you suggest that mandatory training in basic firearm safety would make people more dangerous...) How much of an advantage? I don't know, I don't have the resources to estimate that, neither do you, therefore your suggestion that it would be "marginally" helpful is pure supposition.

I won't suggest that mandatory training will make people more dangerous but unless the student is motivated to learn the best you can expect is that they will pick up what knowledge is required to pass any exit exam and you shouldn't expect any retention of that knowledge past handing in the test. People have to be motivated to learn or they just don't.

This isn't limited to firearms training, talk to any certified trainer and they will tell you that until a student is motivated to learn you can't expect any training to be effective. So for any mandatory firearm safety class to be effective the class would have to be designed to first motivate the student to want to learn. That is no simple task.

My dad put me through informal firearms safety training beginning when I was six. I had a formal class in firearms safety training, or hunter's safety when I was twelve. I had another through the JROTC department of my high school before being allowed to use the firing range at the school. I went through another when I started shooting trap and skeet. The last one was close to 35 years ago. If I were going to carry a gun I would take a refresher course but that's just me. I understand the importance of the training. I'm just questioning the effectiveness of mandatory training in anything for someone who isn't motivated to learn.

[JC]

Jul 12, 2011 11:43:42 GMT -5 pompey said:

Jul 12, 2011 11:04:44 GMT -5 JC said:

I'll do that as soon as driver education gives us responsible drivers. Or, as soon as sex education gives us responsible parents.

Do you think that standards for training and testing drivers produces more or less safety on our roadways?

Your analogy between gun ownership and sex is specious beyond words.

Neither. Idiots drive. A two minute trip in traffic confirms that. Everyone is required to take "training" to obtain a DL. That doesn't help.
Most high schools have driver training to teach kids how to drive responsible. That doesn't help.
Most high schools have crash simulations to teach kids the dangers of speeding and drinking. That doesn't help.

Why do these programs not help? Because you can not teach common sense to people.

[pompey]

Looks like orsb, pompous, and the op demands mandatory weekly training for gun owners because there are some irresistible criminals amongst us.

Please show me the exact post language in which I demanded, "mandatory, weekly training".

Thanks.

[osrb]

JC you are incorrect on my point. No matter how much training one gets there will always be a time in which one did not think things though. I too have had my dumbass moments and I still kick myself for that. I try to use them as a learning experience. No I will not get into specifics. People get complacent just look at the drivers on the road. How many accidents are cause by people just not thinking? Even the most responsible people have dumbass moments. Mandatory training for people who want to carry just makes sense. Just because someone has a firearm does not mean they know how to use it or in what instances one can use it.

[pompey]

Jul 12, 2011 12:06:10 GMT -5 JC said:

Jul 12, 2011 11:43:42 GMT -5 pompey said:

Do you think that standards for training and testing drivers produces more or less safety on our roadways?

Your analogy between gun ownership and sex is specious beyond words.

Neither. Idiots drive. A two minute trip in traffic confirms that. Everyone is required to take "training" to obtain a DL. That doesn't help.
Most high schools have driver training to teach kids how to drive responsible. That doesn't help.
Most high schools have crash simulations to teach kids the dangers of speeding and drinking. That doesn't help.

Why do these programs not help? Because you can not teach common sense to people.

So since "common sense" is paramount, should the driver licensing process whereby candidates are required to pass competency tests be eliminated altogether? Should 14-year-olds who have, "common sense" be allowed to drive without demonstrating competency through training and testing processes?

[JC]

You're an idiot, chicken little.

Hey, I have an idea... Maybe we should demand English language usage training for forum debates.

[JC]

Jul 12, 2011 12:15:50 GMT -5 pompey said:

Jul 12, 2011 12:06:10 GMT -5 JC said:

Neither. Idiots drive. A two minute trip in traffic confirms that. Everyone is required to take "training" to obtain a DL. That doesn't help.
Most high schools have driver training to teach kids how to drive responsible. That doesn't help.
Most high schools have crash simulations to teach kids the dangers of speeding and drinking. That doesn't help.

Why do these programs not help? Because you can not teach common sense to people.

So since "common sense" is paramount, should the driver licensing process whereby candidates are required to pass competency tests be eliminated altogether? Should 14-year-olds who have, "common sense" be allowed to drive without demonstrating competency through training and testing processes?

show one example of a dl test keeping unsafe drivers off the road. Show one example of an unsafe driver who's dl was suspended and it kept them from driving

[pompey]

Jul 12, 2011 12:20:39 GMT -5 JC said:

You're an idiot, chicken little.

Hey, I have an idea... Maybe we should demand English language usage training for forum debates.

Well, I can safely say that, if a logic test were required, your posting days would rapidly come to an ignominious end.

[goomba]

It's amazing that people have completely overlooked JiT's last post. I would suggest that you re-read his post.

On the subject of MANDATORY training. while I am a HUGE proponent of training. making it mandatory will not work. too many people will feel that it is an infringement upon their rights. with that said, if you look at Justin's post, he tell's where he learned gun safety. First from his father, Hunter safety, and JROTC in high school.

The problem that has occurred is that gun ownership has been so vilified by politicians that you no longer have safety courses easily available at the local level, and even then it is geared to the outdoors man.

so many people suffer from Hoplophobia (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoplophobia) that it nearly impossible to offer a basic safety course, in an area that is not considered 'rural'. The NRA, NSSF and several other associations offer basic safety courses. but if your not interested guns, or you believe that you can learn everything on the internet, then you are not going to take the few minutes to see what courses are out there.

there are, and there always will be people that believe they know how to safely handle a firearm. there are others that know how to safely handle a gun, and become complacent. you can debate the difference of an accidental discharge vs. a negligent discharge.

Just b/c someone has a car and has their license and even though they have taken a drivers ed or drivers safety course, that alone does not make them a good driver. Just b/c you love your children and will do anything for them, does not mean you are a good parent. any comparison is relevant as long as you are willing to look at it with an open mind.

The best thing that you can do is start to understand that we are a country that is rooted in a 'gun culture'. from there you need to teach the culture which includes teaching gun safety. that needs to begin in the home, the church, and the school.

boys used to be able to ride their bikes down the street with a 22LR to go squirrel hunting. they were responsible, and nobody thought anything bad would happen. so why is it that from the times of our grandparents to now, that we are no longer considered capable of being responsible?

perhaps we should look at ourselves before we start forcing our personal views on the rest of the country.

[Tsavodiner]

Jul 12, 2011 10:41:54 GMT -5 pompey said:

Jul 12, 2011 10:25:20 GMT -5 JC said:

Training does not make responsible gun owners. Responsible people make responsible gun owners. There's no training for that.
Your logic on this is ridiculous.

If you don't like erinslion's proposal, then how do you propose that we, as a society, ensure that gun owners are responsible and don't pose a threat to those that are around them?

I'm going to recommend to my Congressman and Senators that we immediately commence responsibility training for those proposing to be parents.

I'll insist on a three-year preparatory course prior to anyone being issued a driver's license.

Any professional license holder will attend political training to ensure they're not a threat to to others before being permitted to practice.

Do you see the problem with these? Can you apply these to firearms owners?

The problem's the same whether it comes from the Left or Right:

"Where does Government END, and You BEGIN?"

The answer lies with the Constitution.

[BlackFox]

Jul 12, 2011 15:45:07 GMT -5 goomba said:

The problem that has occurred is that gun ownership has been so vilified by politicians that you no longer have safety courses easily available at the local level, and even then it is geared to the outdoors man.

Horse. Shit.

[Tsavodiner]

Horse. Shit.

Black. Fox.

education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/synonym

[erinslion]

My logic is ridiculous JC?

I thought this could make a worthwhile topic for debate, and there are many factors that would determine whether my situation would bear fruit or not (hence the debate you see...) In particular there is the question of whether such a program would be cost-effective, would it do enough good to merit what it might cost, and there is the "blow-back" factor of resentment from people that don't like being "told what to do" even if it's education and these points have been raised by people like Goomba, who is as close to an expert on the matter as I know. Again, that's the point of debate.

But to offer a two-sentence aphorism that wouldn't even make a decent bumper sticker and then call my logic ridiculous only serves to demonstrate your shaky grasp of what the word "logic" means.

But thanks for the useful and glib input.

[erinslion]

>>boys used to be able to ride their bikes down the street with a 22LR to go squirrel hunting. they were responsible, and nobody thought anything bad would happen. <<

Goomba, all you're saying is nobody THOUGHT anything bad would happen, not that nothing bad ever happened. Moreover, when and where did boys ride down the street on their bicycles with .22 rifles?

I used to go out in the woods behind my house with a .22 all the time (a Marlin from Western Auto with a squirrel and rabbit carved into the stock) but that has a lot to do with living in a rural area where no one noticed. It's not that it was legal or even safe necessarily, honestly I just got away with it...

Not being argumentative with you buddy, but everytime I hear a nostalgic "good old days" anecdote (there is an absolutely ridiculous one floating around facebook now) I think of things like thalidomide, lead paint, Jr. chemistry sets that included seriously dangerous components. et. al. The reasoning is usually "WE had that stuff and WE turned out fine" which should be pretty obvious since you are here to say so, the people who were maimed, crippled, injured or killed may not be here to offer the other side of the story.

I'll grant you, sometimes unreasonable paranoia or fear-mongering plays a role (I still wish they hadn't banned Jarts --lawn darts--) but that doesn't negate that sometimes society is slow to figure out what might be a bad idea or that societal changes make what was once an acceptable idea a dangerous one now.

[goomba]

Here is the senator's side of what happened.
thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/07/daniel-zimmerman/senator-lori-klein-gives-ttag-her-side-of-the-story/#more-55080

[pompey]

Jul 13, 2011 9:40:17 GMT -5 goomba said:

Here is the senator's side of what happened.
thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/07/daniel-zimmerman/senator-lori-klein-gives-ttag-her-side-of-the-story/#more-55080

Shorter Klein:

"He stood in front of my gun."

If that crazy person pointed her gun at me, let's just say that I'd disarm her and she'd need to hire a proctologist to get it back.

[JC]

Jul 13, 2011 6:58:41 GMT -5 erinslion said:

My logic is ridiculous JC?

I thought this could make a worthwhile topic for debate, and there are many factors that would determine whether my situation would bear fruit or not (hence the debate you see...) In particular there is the question of whether such a program would be cost-effective, would it do enough good to merit what it might cost, and there is the "blow-back" factor of resentment from people that don't like being "told what to do" even if it's education and these points have been raised by people like Goomba, who is as close to an expert on the matter as I know. Again, that's the point of debate.

But to offer a two-sentence aphorism that wouldn't even make a decent bumper sticker and then call my logic ridiculous only serves to demonstrate your shaky grasp of what the word "logic" means.

But thanks for the useful and glib input.

I only needed two sentences to show how ridiculous your logic is.
I mean, seriously. You're saying that mandatory gun safety training is going to stop all crime. Get real.

I do appreciate you calling me"glib", though. You remind me of that idiot Tom Cruise with your big word to sound intelligent during a debate.
Here's a tip for ya... it didn't work for him, either

[pompey]

I mean, seriously. You're saying that mandatory gun safety training is going to stop all crime. Get real.

That's a strawman argument. erinslion did not assert that mandatory gun safety training "is going to stop all crime".

You might want to be read a bit more carefully before you start assaulting others' logic.

[wheels]

Jul 13, 2011 7:23:07 GMT -5 erinslion said:

(I still wish they hadn't banned Jarts --lawn darts--)

i don't know, dude... a friend of mine had a humiliating and painful experience w/ one of those.

[duke]

Does not mandatory training as well as permitting turn a 'right' into a 'privilege' to be revoked at will by some arbitrary authority?

The whole concept is that government always knows better how to run your life while failing to efficiently run its own functions.