Does any gun control make sense?

[SHR970]

When around the general public, I would hope someone knows a shoot/no-shoot situation and has the sense of mind to be aware of what is BEHIND his target.

Do you mean like the recent episode where LAPD / Torrance PD opened up on two different vehicles that didn't meet the description of the one that they were looking for in a Torrance Ca. neighborhood? One had two women in it that were delivering newspapers. The other one had a guy in it that had just come from being stopped by other LEO's. These were both done by multiple trained LEO's.

How about looking for the video of the LEO in the classroom with small children who was "trained", unholstered his loaded duty weapon, made a statement about being the only person 'professional enough to carry a gun and proceeded to shoot himself in the foot. You can find this on youtube.

The "What If's" gone wrong presented are done too frequently by those who are "trained", have "limited immunity", and are required to qualify once or twice a year. The average CCW holder knows that they have no immunity from civil suits. There is a reason why the bad LEO shootings vs. bad non-LEO are the difference between the Major league and the Pee Wee league. LEO's are supposed to look for trouble, non-LEO's try to avoid it as a general rule.

When the Los Angeles Riots happened in 1991, law enforcement was no where to be found in my area. When Christopher Dorner was on the loose, law enforcement was bunched up in certain areas leaving the rest free for all zones. I can tell (show) you which Torrance neighborhood they were bunched up in......a good friend of mine live only a couple of blocks from there and I was within 2 miles of it. The first incident I described was directly in the course of Chris Dorner. LAPD shot up a blue truck with two hispanic women, Torrance PD rammed and shot up a black truck with a white man. Neither of the vehicles nor the occupants came close to fitting the description.

The supposed training that some people feel should be required and proctored by the local government is a joke. Speaking for California, Security Guards and Police go through the same range qualifications. The in class difference is that Security Guards are told repeatedly that they have NO PROTECTION under the law other than what any other citizen has. Gun Card compliments of the Bureau of Consumer Affairs: that's who issues them for Security Guards, Armored Car Guards, Private Investigators, etc.

I don't understand why people feel like driving is such a privilege.

Because the DMV tells us it is. They will happily tell you (so will the courts) that they can revoke that privilege. I can have zero to drink but if I refuse a sobriety test I can / will lose my license without having gone to court. A DMV hearing is all that is needed. The Drivers License analogy is pure twaddle.

 

[stephen426]

As it stands right now, most states have NO live fire requirements and NO competency requirements at all. Add to that no requirement for any safety courses required to own a gun. I guess your trust in your fellow gun owner is far more than mine. Even hunters are required to take a hunter safety course in most states. You might see this as a form of taxation, but I see it as an attempt to reduce accidents. This means teaching people to not shoot at anything that moves and to be aware of their target and what lies beyond.

My comments about someone having a gun in their house versus being in the general public was a reduction in collateral damage. If you can't see the difference, I guess I can't help you understand my view point. Maybe you don't care to understand my view point, which is fine with me as well. Opinions may differ.

 

[stephen426]

@SHR970,

Your anecdotal evidence of trained professionals acting improperly does not do anything to sway my opinion. Cops are people too and prone to errors just like the rest of us. I believe that their tactics and actions were completely excessive and irresponsible in the case you mentioned and that they should be held criminally liable for them. There should be no carte blanche for police officers who shoot first and ask questions later. If a no knock warrant was accidentally performed on your house and the police did not announce themselves (or clearly identify themselves with police uniforms), how many of you would use lethal force to defend yourself?

As for the cop that pulled a Plaxico Burris in front of the students, he should have been suspended without pay or even possibly terminated. His actions were dangerous and irresponsible. You are using exceptions to argue your point. Are there statistics to demonstrate that police officers are more prone to accidents than the average citizen especially since they are around firearms a lot more frequently? Now that might have some correlation.

 

[JimDandy]

How exactly does having an apartment above, below, and to three sides of you result in less collateral damage than two people, one of which you're actually shooting at in an empty convenience store at night?

It's a pretty simple question. If you can answer it, somebody's going to understand.

Hunting is also a privilege. That's why they can charge so much for an out of state tag. Try sticking with voting, speech, religion, and so on.

Do you trust your fellow citizens to vote once, and once only per election?

If your fellow citizen shouts fire in a crowded theater, do you trust that there actually is a fire, or will you doubt them?

Do you suspect everyone in that Boston Catholic parish is secretly a member of the IRA?

While driving isn't a right, travel is. Do you trust your fellow citizens to walk, drive, fly, and so on safely? Or do you have some plan to require they take your class, pass your test, and carry your card? Will you enforce it yourself?

Access to the courts is a right, covered by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution. Do you feel people who engage in this should have some sort of required legal coursework first? Or do you trust they'll only bring suit YOU feel they really need to?

Edit to add:

Are there statistics to demonstrate that police officers are more prone to accidents than the average citizen especially since they are around firearms a lot more frequently? Now that might have some correlation.

Well a simple Google search will bring up quite a few news stories on the subject. For example the police chief who shot himself accidentally. At least TWICE.

 

[stephen426]

@Jim Dandy,

One more thing...

What exactly does being fingerprinted and paying an extra 50 bucks do to prevent this? Your state may require training but mine doesn't. And there's some evidence the neighboring state of Oregon doesn't get any safer by requiring training for their permit. Their accident rates are about the same last I heard.

That is my point exactly. A stupid class that doesn't teach anything and is inconsistent is absolutely useless. A well prepared class, maybe even put together by the NRA, that teaches safe gun handling and good marksmanship IS valuable.

By the way, I am from Miami, FL and not Oregon. I have had my permit for about 18 years. All it took was to sit in a 2 hour class at a gun show and pay $40. That class did cover some shoot/no-shoot scenarios and when lethal force can be used. Other than that, it was pretty vague. I have since renewed my permit at least twice without having to demonstrate I know a damn thing about guns or gun safety. I am glad that is okay with you though.

 

[JimDandy]

I am glad that is okay with you though.

Well, we can't all know what's best for everyone. Especially when it's none of our business.

So you want a consistent class that's good for all 50 states and DC, and the legal systems of each jurisdiction?

I didn't know where you're from, I wasn't suggesting you were from Oregon. Oregon and Washington are neighbors, both are Shall Issues. One requires training, one does not. And the numbers just aren't that different. Oregon's class syllabus does sound an awful lot like that Hunter's Ed class you were talking about earlier.

And I'm lost.... what was your point exactly? That the permits I'm talking about as pointless aren't pointless because you feel there should be some training requirement that isn't there in the vast majority of jurisdictions? In other news, Justice League of America membership cards aren't useless, because people should go through the same training regimen as Batman as soon as they get one. Then build a Batmobile and Batsuit.

 

[SHR970]

You are using exceptions to argue your point.

NYPD may disagree with that. Execptions can be found here for one major department. Total shootings for 2011 by NYPD officers; unintentional discharges included.

No FBI statistics as it seems unintentional / negligent discharges don't even register.

Are there statistics to demonstrate that police officers are more prone to accidents than the average citizen especially since they are around firearms a lot more frequently? Now that might have some correlation.

I would love to see the rate for Armed Security vs. LEO in California as both carry daily so the variable of "around firearms more frequently' is mitigated. Armed Security is the Average Citizen. Considering the numbers of both you would have a good sample set. As the state doesn't have these numbers 9and we are a big state) one might surmise that it doesn't happen all that often.

You may wish to do some reading of the research by Gary Kleck. He has documented the most information on firearms use / misuse by anyone that I know of.

@ Jim Dandy

How exactly does having an apartment above, below, and to three sides of you result in less collateral damage than two people, one of which you're actually shooting at in an empty convenience store at night?

It's a pretty simple question. If you can answer it, somebody's going to understand.

First of all, you are assuming that the only scenario is an EMPTY convenience store. It could also be at a crowded restaurant or a crowded mall. We don't all live in the sticks ya know . You might live in a crowded apartment complex so for your neighbors' sake, I hope you handle your guns safely. If people are unsafe with guns at home, then maybe they shouldn't have them either.

Hunting is also a privilege. That's why they can charge so much for an out of state tag. Try sticking with voting, speech, religion, and so on.

Why is hunting a privilege? Didn't people have to hunt for food before? I guess you have decided to just surrender those liberties and resign yourself to store bought food. I understand about conservation and what not, but hunter safety has nothing to do with that.

Do you trust your fellow citizens to vote once, and once only per election?

Absolutely not. I am a huge proponent for showing ID for voting. I don't really care if people call that racist or exclusionary. You can't get a job without ID. Oh wait, maybe those who claim requiring ID to vote don't have jobs.

If your fellow citizen shouts fire in a crowded theater, do you trust that there actually is a fire, or will you doubt them?

Falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded building is illegal and NOT protected by free speech since it creates a hazard. I am not a panicky person by nature so I would look for flames and smell for smoke rather than simply rushing off in a random direction.

Do you suspect everyone in that Boston Catholic parish is secretly a member of the IRA?

Nope. We have the DHS and CIA for that. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China anyways?

While driving isn't a right, travel is. Do you trust your fellow citizens to walk, drive, fly, and so on safely? Or do you have some plan to require they take your class, pass your test, and carry your card? Will you enforce it yourself?

You are getting absurd here. How is someone walking going to pose a life threatening danger to me? I live in South Florida so NO, I don't trust people to drive safely around me. It's called defensive driving and constantly watching out for all the idiots behind the wheel. As for flying, pilots go through extensive training and airplanes (and flying) are highly restricted. Have you flown lately? You practically have to strip down and subject yourself to quite a bit of scrutiny to take a flight.

You claim that these are [MY] classes, tests, and cards. You fail to recognize that WE, as law-abiding, responsible gun owners have a voice in government. So many members on here make this seem like a "us verse them" anytime the government is mentioned. If you take that mentality, we are already losing the battle.

If there was a law that required I re-qualify on a regular basis, I would comply with it. I don't have time to practice as often as I would like, but I do practice with pellet guns and Airsoft guns. I believe that we should be responsible for EACH AND EVERY SINGLE ROUND that leaves our guns. To me, that means maintaining a level of proficiency so I greatly reduce my chances of hitting an innocent bystander. Maybe you are the selfish one who believes that your right to self defense trumps an innocent bystander's safety since a required training class is too much to ask.

Access to the courts is a right, covered by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution. Do you feel people who engage in this should have some sort of required legal coursework first? Or do you trust they'll only bring suit YOU feel they really need to?

Comparing apples to orangutans. We are not discussing lethal force here. Our legal system is NOT really fair. While just about anyone can sue anyone, the cost of defending yourself in court can be extremely high. Our business has had to respond to EEOC claims that have cost us tens of thousands of dollars to fight. This is despite that fact that of the 7 restaurants I own, I have 3 African American GMs, 2 Hispanic GMs, 4 African American AMs, and 2 Hispanic AMs. I myself am a minority. While I probably could have settled for a fraction of the legal fees, it was a matter of principal and I sure a hell was NOT about to set a precedent. If you think our legal system is fair, try taking on big corporations who have an army of lawyers on their staff. See how fast you get slapped with counter suits that will have your head spinning. How about THEM APPLES?

That is my point exactly. A stupid class that doesn't teach anything and is inconsistent is absolutely useless. A well prepared class, maybe even put together by the NRA, that teaches safe gun handling and good marksmanship IS valuable.

Now who is arguing exceptions. Most states that issue CCW's require classes. The base format is usually dictated by the state.

Want to see the content of California training for guards: Ca. DoCA Manual As was stated by others before me, so you want the government to mandate the training? This is the required material for the 8 hour course. BTDT. and as I stated before, the qualification shoot as well as the requalification is the same as it is for Law Enforcement.

More and more I fail to see your point.

Edit to add: with ~13% of the US population this one state does make for an interesting potential data pool.

@Jim Dandy

And I'm lost.... what was your point exactly? That the permits I'm talking about as pointless aren't pointless because you feel there should be some training requirement that isn't there in the vast majority of jurisdictions? In other news, Justice League of America membership cards aren't useless, because people should go through the same training regimen as Batman as soon as they get one. Then build a Batmobile and Batsuit.

I believe that I have supported (or at least attempted to support) my position with reasoning and logic. I have also tried to remain as civil as possible. I'm happy you have your Justice League of America membership card and that you are getting the same training as Batman. Maybe you can get an exception from the ATF and DMV for your Batmobile.

If you have anything valuable to add, I'm listening (or reading).

@SHR970,

Now who is arguing exceptions. Most states that issue CCW's require classes. The base format is usually dictated by the state.

Want to see the content of California training for guards: Ca. DoCA Manual As was stated by others before me, so you want the government to mandate the training? This is the required material for the 8 hour course. BTDT. and as I stated before, the qualification shoot as well as the requalification is the same as it is for Law Enforcement.

When I say "require a class", I mean a live fire class to demonstrate some basic level of competence. The link you shared contains some interesting information. It seems a bit more in depth than should be required for a concealed permit holder. At least there is range time involved as well as basic firearm safety.

I will reiterate that the intention is not to deny anyone a right to self defense or attempt to strip anyone of their ability to do so. The underlying reason is to prevent unnecessary deaths caused by accidents and allowing unrestricted access to mentally unstable people. As I have also stated, statistics about reduced gun violence don't mean a damn thing to those who have recently lost loved ones.

 

[JimDandy]

First of all, you are assuming that the only scenario is an EMPTY convenience store.

I'm assuming relatively reasonable circumstances. I have yet to see a whole lot of security video of a convenience store being robbed while 40 people are waiting in line for their Mars Bar and fuel fill-up. Criminals tend to rob places that aren't filled with witnesses.

There is no second set of rights for apartment dwellers.

So, yeah, I'm still waiting. What makes shooting at one person with one innocent bystander in a convenience store result in less collateral damage with a CCW, than an apartment building with apartments on 5 sides without one? Hey, this is your reasoning. The logic should work. I'll wait. Longer. Again.

Why is hunting a privilege?

Because the courts have said it is for years and years now? While you're staying civil, somehow, it's been a privilege for far longer that I've been alive. But thanks for laying the it's-never-been-a-right-decline-to-privilege at my doorstep. Your much touted Hunter's Ed says so too. And the Law School at Marquette University Go Golden Eagles!

Falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded building is illegal and NOT protected by free speech since it creates a hazard. I am not a panicky person by nature so I would look for flames and smell for smoke rather than simply rushing off in a random direction.

Which doesn't answer my question. Do you believe the call is false, and everyone who yells fire is doing so just to get good seats, the dirty law breakers- Or do you believe the call is true, and people generally obey the law.

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China anyways?

So we've finally found a right you trust people to exercise on their own without your approval? But if you're going to trust DHS and CIA for that, shouldn't they really have to go to some sort of a class to know what they're looking for, so you can trust them to do their job right?

Have you flown lately? You practically have to strip down and subject yourself to quite a bit of scrutiny to take a flight.

I'm sorry, some of us have recently visited people who live in the sticks. And can fly without stripping down to their skivvies. While you applying some sort of urban/rural bias you just accused me of is entertaining it's a distraction from the fact that you didn't answer the question.

You are getting absurd here.

No, I'm comparing rights and rights. A concept you seem to have difficulty with.

You claim that these are [MY] classes, tests, and cards. You fail to recognize that WE, as law-abiding, responsible gun owners have a voice in government.

They're YOUR classes because YOU'RE advocating for their equivalent. What YOU fail to recognize is that we as a society have established certain things as rights beyond extensive interference from the government or other citizens who feel they know better acting through the government.

Maybe you are the selfish one who believes that your right to self defense trumps an innocent bystander's safety since a required training class is too much to ask.

And Civility reigns supreme.

How about THEM APPLES

What apples are those? The ones where you didn't quite say outright that you think people only have a right to bring suits YOU agree with? Or that while protesting how un-racist you are, you appear to only allow 3 managerial spots to Caucasians, and Asians? That really has nothing to do with the fact that access to the courts is a right, and a right that you appear to feel some sort of entitlement to exercise your approval and value judgments over whether you're party to it or not.

For all your stigmatizing over my "complacency" allowing a hunting right that never was to become a privilege, you continue to try and treat the right to keep and bear arms AS a privilege.

For the record, I don't mind snark, but find it a bit hypocritical to claim civility while slapping people around verbally.

 

[gyvel]

As it stands right now, most states have NO live fire requirements and NO competency requirements at all. Add to that no requirement for any safety courses required to own a gun.

I have stated before that there are some people who shouldn't be allowed to have guns, and the road signs riddled with bullet holes comes to mind when I say that.

 

[JimDandy]

While I'm thinking about this... you folks who are all in favor of required competency tests that don't infringe on someone's right to self defense. What do you plan on doing about the nearly blind guy who has no intention to ever shoot anyone unless and until he's in direct physical contact with whoever is assailing him? http://blogs.lawyers.com/2013/09/blind-carry-concealed-weapons-in-iowa/

I have stated before that there are some people who shouldn't be allowed to have guns, and the road signs riddled with bullet holes comes to mind when I say that.

Assuming that's a felony or qualifying misdemeanor you'd be right. When and if it can be proven. And more power to whoever does.

 

[stephen426]

@Jim Dandy,

Seems like a wonderful waste of time to continue this banter, but I will attempt to respond to your points before I call it a night.

So, yeah, I'm still waiting. What makes shooting at one person with one innocent bystander in a convenience store result in less collateral damage with a CCW, than an apartment building with apartments on 5 sides without one? Hey, this is your reasoning. The logic should work. I'll wait. Longer. Again.

Walls and floors offer some level of protection in an apartment. While they may not stop a bullet, they will reduce its effectiveness. If that is your only qualm, I did mention that people who are unsafe with guns should not own them no matter where they live, and especially in thin walled apartments.

Regarding hunter education classes, do a quick Google search and see how many states claim a significant reduction in accidents since the classes were implemented. My hope is that firearm safety classes for new gun owners will reduce accidents and senseless deaths. Besides, a standardized class is much more consistent that just anyone teaching a new gun owner. There may be great teachers and there may be horrible teachers. A consistent guide will reduce the variability in the teaching.

Which doesn't answer my question. Do you believe the call is false, and everyone who yells fire is doing so just to get good seats, the dirty law breakers- Or do you believe the call is true, and people generally obey the law.

If you read my previous answer, I use my senses and determine whether or not there is a real threat and react accordingly. We have fire alarms go off all the time in the malls. I have never seen a mass panic where everyone starts running for the doors.

So we've finally found a right you trust people to exercise on their own without your approval? But if you're going to trust DHS and CIA for that, shouldn't they really have to go to some sort of a class to know what they're looking for, so you can trust them to do their job right?

What right is that? Being part of the Boston Catholic Parish? As I already mentioned, there is no physical risk to others so I have no issue with whatever religion someone chooses to practice. Last I checked, there is extensive training for DHS, FBI, and CIA. Do I trust them unconditionally? Not really. That is why there is oversight.

I'm sorry, some of us have recently visited people who live in the sticks. And can fly without stripping down to their skivvies. While you applying some sort of urban/rural bias you just accused me of is entertaining it's a distraction from the fact that you didn't answer the question.

I'm not sure how you feel that your question was not answered. The scrutiny and security that has been implemented in the airport make my trust of other passengers a non-issue. There is plenty of TRAINING AND REGULATIONS for commercial pilots so there is a level of trust there.

No, I'm comparing rights and rights. A concept you seem to have difficulty with.

As mentioned earlier, the main difference between gun rights and other rights is that unsafe and untrained gun owners are a liability, potentially to themselves and others.

They're YOUR classes because YOU'RE advocating for their equivalent. What YOU fail to recognize is that we as a society have established certain things as rights beyond extensive interference from the government or other citizens who feel they know better acting through the government.

Last I checked, there are plenty of gun laws on the books (which I had nothing to do with). Why the need for carry permits (in all but a few states)? Why the creation of the NICS? I'd love to see the useless laws taken off the books. The main difference here is that you don't seem to believe that any laws or regulations would reduce gun violence or accidents.

Regarding this comment

Maybe you are the selfish one who believes that your right to self defense trumps an innocent bystander's safety since a required training class is too much to ask.

There is a reason I put the word "maybe" in there. I'm not sure what other reason you would have for trying to improve gun safety (not to be confused with gun grabs or gun control).

Regarding my business, I guess you would know exactly how many managers I run. For the record, I am Asian. I also have 2 Caucasian GMs, both females, 1 white AM, and a mixed AM. I take pride in the fact that I have a diverse work force and that I am able to promote minorities. The break down was for the purpose of prima facie evidence that there is not grounds for discrimination in my hiring practices as alleged by my former employee. Furthermore, the whole reason for going into that discussion was that the legal system is not really as fair as you make it out to be.

People have the right to sue whoever they want provided they can find an attorney to take the case. While it is important that the "little guy" can have his day in court, to claim he is on equal ground when going against much larger companies (except in class action suits) is false.

While the Second Amendment grants us the right to keep and bear arms, the high number of accidental shootings and recent uptick in mass shootings indicates (at least to me) that something needs to be done. I'm guessing that you are fine with the number of accidental shootings and mass shootings since you feel that no action is needed.

For the record, I don't mind snark, but find it a bit hypocritical to claim civility while slapping people around verbally.

I was just responding in kind. Regardless of our disagreeing, I still feel there has been a moderate level of civility (based on the absence of moderator intervention).

Feel free to declare yourself the winner in this debate if that was your objective. I have answered your questions to the best of my ability and feel any further response to you would be an exercise in futility. Have a nice day.

 

[stephen426]

@Jim Dandy,

Since you posted this before I finished my response, I would like to quote from the article you shared.

Pointing to the fact that 80 percent of people who are legally blind have some ability to see, Kopel notes that they often have special reasons to be concerned for their safety and to carry guns. “Persons who have visual impairments may be more likely to be targeted by violent criminals,” he says.

There is a difference between legally blind and totally blind. The legally blind still have sight and corrective lenses may allow them to see fairly well. I had a friend in high school that was "legally blind" but he was still a great artist (painting and drawing) and was allowed to drive with corrective lenses. I am not quite sure that I would feel safe with a totally blind person having a gun since they have no clue what lies beyond their target. That is in total violation of one of the most basic safety rules. I would also have a serious issue with a totally blind person operating motor vehicles as well.

With that, I'm done. Stick a fork in me.

 

[JimDandy]

I would like to quote from the article you shared.

Well as long as we're cherry picking I'd like to point out this section:

“The vast majority of defensive gun uses are at distances of just a few feet,” he adds. “A woman who may not be able to read a street sign 50 yards away may still have sufficiently good vision to shoot a predator two feet away who is attempting to rape and strangle her. Moreover, a person who is totally blind can still identify the center of mass of a person who is trying to beat him to death.”

have a serious issue with a totally blind person operating motor vehicles as well.

Still confusing rights and privileges I see.

Walls and floors offer some level of protection in an apartment. While they may not stop a bullet, they will reduce its effectiveness. If that is your only qualm, I did mention that people who are unsafe with guns should not own them no matter where they live, and especially in thin walled apartments.

Which again only serves to mitigate the danger, and breaks the conditions of my question. The given in the hypothesis was that someone is trusted to be safe and legal in their home. You continue to try and extend that to people who should't have firearms. While your definition of that, and the legal definition are different, as this is a discussion on the legal pros and cons of a concealed carry permit, we'll have to stick with the legal definition. So let's try this again-

Why is someone who is allowed to have firearm in the first place, and thereby trusted to possess it, while obeying all laws on when and when not to shoot, not trusted with it 50 feet away on the street in front of their home without paying another 50 bucks and getting fingerprinted for a little paper card? Can you please answer this WITHOUT attempting to twist the original status of this Everyman into a danger in their own home, but being OK with that?

As mentioned earlier, the main difference between gun rights and other rights is that unsafe and untrained gun owners are a liability, potentially to themselves and others.

I would postulate a number of people think those who exercised their right to vote in an administration that allowed Benghazi and IRS targeting might consider that right a liability to themselves and others. Quite a few more might contend Marshall Applewhite's first amendment rights of speech and religion were a liability.

The main difference here is that you don't seem to believe that any laws or regulations would reduce gun violence or accidents.

I'm guessing you've missed earlier posts in favor of prohibited person criteria? There certainly are bad laws on the books, but to the best of my recollection the only one I've mentioned here as not making sense is the requirement for law abiding folks to pay extra money and get finger printed to get a little paper card that says they're Extra Trusted, to not only carry a handgun around their home, but on the street. Because somehow that little piece of paper is all that keeps a potential spree shooter from shooting up a public location rather than their home.

I'm guessing that you are fine with the number of accidental shootings and mass shootings since you feel that no action is needed.

Have you got a source for that claim, or do you just plan on giving me my talking points as well as continuing to change the ones I came up with on my own like the question at the top of the post that I've asked repeatedly?

 

[Tom Servo]

Have you flown lately? You practically have to strip down and subject yourself to quite a bit of scrutiny to take a flight.

Yes, and that's a good example. Have we caught any terrorists that way? Have we stopped any bombings? The people those regulations are supposed to stop have simply chosen other means of pursuing their goals. The net result is a vast inconvenience to the general public with no net benefit.

At the risk of sounding like an elitist, I would prefer that people demonstrate some kind of proficiency and demonstrate safe handling if they are to be carrying a firearm in public. That is merely my opinion, hopefully of which I am still entitled to have on this forum.

It depends on how we define elitism. You're certainly entitled to your opinions and preferences, but when you expect to see them enforced on the rest of us, it becomes just that.

I have seen plenty of immature gun owners to assume they would take the prudent course of action.

And yet these Rambo incidents you warn us about don't seem to be happening. You want regulation based on things you don't think is right, despite the inability to prove any real harm it would address. I've been to this rodeo before.

I don't care if I get booed off the stage. I don't care if I sound elitist. If you can't drive worth a damn, stay off the roads.

Spare us the persecution complex. You win or lose an argument here on facts, not opinions or emotional appeals.

Incidentally, I'm in more real danger from a soccer mom weaving across three lanes of traffic while she's trying to text someone than I am from a CCW holder on the street. And she's had mandatory training and licensing.

 

[44 AMP]

Although civil for some time, this one is devolving, and is skirting perilously close to personal attacks, and so we're done with this one.

CLOSED