Sick and Tired of Seeing Idiots With Guns

[flippycat]

Quote flippycat:
I don't think you include criminals in your" idiots with guns statement".

Maybe you should try reading the rest of the posts on this thread:

Quote:
I also think that something like this could prevent a lot of whackos and gang bangers from legally buying guns

I did read them ..if the whackos and gang bangers can legally buy a gun then they do not seem to be criminals or am I on the wrong track on that.. ?


Quote:
lol I understand your plight..but a little self absorbed imo.

I don't too much appreciate this comment and I'd like you to back it up, first time I can remember being called "self absorbed".

The way you direct the need for these higher measures of scrutiny for all purchases it has a tone your more inclined to know what is better for all especially with your accompanying test. I think it highlights a need that is not really needed unless being compared to something....*....IE the tone in which makes me believe by reading your post that your standards of safety and handling are far superior and should be used as a baseline for all others.


The real issue which has always been the issue, there are some who always feel they know what is better for others. Me personally do not feel I should be impacted by someone elses ideals of what they think is best for me ...ESPECIALLY when my actions have no bearing on them whats so ever.

I am law abiding, safe and live in a great state that does not scrutinize firearm owners to some unrealistic standard.

Though, for EXAMPLE only someone recently thought it was a great idea to make my cigarettes firesafe (maybe someone with stock in bic as I have to relight the same cigarette 2-3 times sometimes) . WHY? I do not fall asleep with my cigarettes, I use an ashtray and I am of legal age to purchase them and have never started a house fire due to neglectful cigarette handling.

I see what you would like as the "new" qualifications similar to the example above. I am a safe and a law abiding owner, though would be subject in the future to some weird qualification when nothing has changed on my end, only someone thinking they know what is best for me.


IMO what your looking to do actually goes against or at the very least add's another giant firewall to the second amendment you know by heart for those looking to exercise their right.

My

self absorbed

statement was a little strong and I do apologize if I used it out of context to an extent.

 

[Buffalo Wing]

Tom,

When I say "safety culture" I mean the fact that everything from coffee pots to chainsaws to airsoft and real guns are lawyered-up and have "safety" warnings all over them. Things like this and multiple-choice tests don't seem to do much to stop people doing stupid things (and I think you can attest to that yourself), they just do them anyway.

I've never had a loaded gun pointed at me (unless a BB gun counts). Let's hope it stays that way. What I meant is what you said afterwards. It has to be an interaction based, personal thing. No one learns how to be safe with something dangerous by living in today's "lawyered" safety society or by taking a quick test. I like the idea of more "gun safety" - but not in the form of a little question and answer test. People need to have good instruction.

Restricting a right because they don't - well, it just doesn't sit right with me. Just like the old "literacy" tests for voting. I think we're all pretty much in agreement on that.

 

[Tucker 1371]

vranasaurus: Asking anyone question number two shows that you should not be allowed to own a gun. A "bullet" is what comes out the end of a barrel and a cartidge is what goes in the chamber of the gun. I expect you to take all of your firearms to your local police station and declare yourself unfit to own them.

The last four deal with proficiency and not safety. Not being proficient is different than being unsafe.

**edit (I got the questions out of order, I am tired and coming off of finals week plus I am waking up at 6 every day and running a PFT, not making excuses I'm just saying the fatigue is getting to me, my apologies. And don't worry I'm not going to pick up a gun until I'm a little less fatigued).

Ok, yes I made a terminology error, bullet vs round, I was typing a little fast, go see how many of those I have made in the past. At least I don't say clip, assault weapon, or gat :barf:.

The second one is also not always common sense, while I haven't seen it myself I have heard stories of guys in boot camp loading all the rounds into their magazine backwards.

And to be quite honest I don't give a rip what you expect, I'm not out to earn brownie points from internet friends, there's people online that I like and people online that I don't have an opinion about.

As for your last one I'll agree with you on the 1st three of the last four but some malfunctions (like rounds with bad primers) do hold an element of risk. Others, like stovepipes, are only dangerous in SD situations and topics like that can be covered in further training, not on something like I am suggesting.

I know a great many shooters who couldn't state to you the four rules but they do follow the rules or handle firearms in a safe manner. Should they be excluded because they can't recite the "rules"?

Valid point, no they should not. But it wouldn't be like if you failed you were forever forbidden to own a gun, just brush up and come back in an hour or even less. This isn't anything unreasonable to ask and I believe it would do a lot to kill the negative image that a significant portion of the population has of gun buying in this country, take a little wind out of the Brady's sails no?



Ok, so this blew up, kind of like I expected. Yes there are flaws with any type of measure like this. Yes I agree it would definitely weaken the 2nd amendment, IF it came from the government. That's not what I'm suggesting, maybe just a little more emphasis on the basic stuff printed in every firearms manual is all, and 10 or less questions (not even necessarily written ones) just to make sure someone's not going to treat a gun like a toy, or load .357s into a 9mm backwards. Part of it is so that people know they are not just making a purchase but taking on a responsibility as well. It's also so that people who don't care to be safe with a gun have a harder time getting one.

I did read them ..if the whackos and gang bangers can legally buy a gun then they do not seem to be criminals or am I on the wrong track on that.. ?

I am saying that maybe they haven't been caught yet, maybe they haven't committed a crime yet but maybe that's what they intend to use a firearm for. Either way it would be an obstacle for them and a minor inconvenience to someone who was serious about being a responsible gun owner.

IE the tone in which makes me believe by reading your post that your standards of safety and handling are far superior and should be used as a baseline for all others.

I did not mean that, in reality the four rules are really all that is needed, the rest can be found in the manual, I just thought maybe it would be beneficial to take some of those things and make it common knowledge for every new firearm owner, just in case they're not the manual reading type.

And thanks Tuttle.

 

[vranasaurus]

You obviously didn't get it.

You want people to explain why you can't just put any "bullet" in a gun. We don't put "bullets" in guns we put cartridges or rounds in a gun.

Cartridges go in, bullets and casings come out.

Since you want to give people competency tests I would at least expect you to know the difference between a bullet and a cartridge.

Be careful trying to implement competency tests because they could be used against you.

 

[Tucker 1371]

**edit (I got the questions out of order, I am tired and coming off of finals week plus I am waking up at 6 every day and running a PFT, not making excuses I'm just saying the fatigue is getting to me, my apologies. And don't worry I'm not going to pick up a gun until I'm a little less fatigued).

Ok, yes I made a terminology error, bullet vs round, I was typing a little fast, go see how many of those I have made in the past. At least I don't say clip, assault weapon, or gat .

Couldn't get my edit in before your post. No, I get it. Everyone makes mistakes. Bullet/round, you're nitpicking. And it's not a competency test and it's not from the government. I'm suggesting we make sure everyone knows and respects the rules we tend to preach in the gun community. As for the last four those were merely suggestions, my exact words were "Something along the lines of" I figured that would imply some degree of flexibility, guess some don't see it that way. The four rules should be a basic minumum, I wasn't even allowed to touch a loaded gun before I could say them back to my grandpaw, if a seven year old can do it then it shouldn't be too hard for everyone else.

Anyway, I just felt like this was a way to further secure our 2A rights for the future, partly to detract credibility from the anti's "Guns are too easy to get" line and simultaneously decrease the disrespect and clowning around that goes on with a fraction of gun owners.. It has become plainly obvious to me that the 2A is little deterrent to some antis and that scares the bejeezes out of me, I just thought this might be helpful but alas it is too complicated an issue to tackle with too many exceptions and hangups for it to be feasible or effective.

 

[44 AMP]

The past is another country, they do things differently there

I can tell from your posts that you are a passionate young man. Nothing wrong with that, as long as you don't let your passions rule you, entirely.

Half a century ago, we had high school rifle teams in many parts of our country. Gun safety was taught in school!

Attending a Hunter Safety Course was a requirement before you could get your first hunting license.

AND, personal responsibility was considered the basic underlying princple of being an adult.

Now, not everyone did this, but a lot more people (percentage wise) did then than they do today. Sure, a person should know the basic safety rules, and proper operation of guns before they buy one. This used to be something taught in the early teen years, if not before. Kids used to grow up with guns, and not be forbidden to ahave anything to do with them until age 18/21.

Of course, kids never used to have 24/7 tv teaching them the worst ways to handle guns. They never had realistic video games teaching them to shoot everything in sight for points. Lots has changed. And not all of it for the better.

 

[omega]

However well intended, the thought that "government should protect us", is an ideology that comes straight from liberal and humanistic thinking. Bah.

At one point, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) made perfect sense to the average citizen. The government should protect us from bad things. But just consider the extremes to which such liberal thinking has evolved. Just the other day, the EPA proclaims that it - the agency WE granted powers to as the government's pollution watchdog - will now regulate CO2.

No, GSUeagle1089, we don't need point-of-sale instructions to regulate the firearms purchase, all in the name of consumer safety.

 

[alloy]

Whatever rationale you might think antigunners use against us, will easily be replaced by another as soon as there are no idiots with guns, and from thier point of view we are all idiots for not seeing thier superior humanity. There is always a most dangerous on any list they ponder, once removed from the list there is another. Of course idiots with guns are bad for everyday business, but don't kid yourself. Give them alot of ammo or none, they will still view guns and owners the same. A list to be sorted, a most dangerous to be purged from it, wash/rinse/repeat, ad infinitum.
Serenity now is my mantra.

 

[Tom Servo]

Anyway, I just felt like this was a way to further secure our 2A rights for the future, partly to detract credibility from the anti's "Guns are too easy to get" line and simultaneously decrease the disrespect and clowning around that goes on with a fraction of gun owners.

There have always been clowns with guns. That will never go completely away. The difference is that, in the the old days, they'd go shooting in a quarry or in their back yard, and we wouldn't see them.

Nowadays, laws and zoning regulations have forced everyone into using public ranges, and we're all seeing them. Exasperating as this may be, it is up to us to police our own. I used to have conversations like this all the time:

"That guy swept me with his muzzle!"

"Which one?"

"The one who just left. It was, like, twenty minutes ago."

"Well, did you talk to him about it?"

"No...but...well, someone should do something!"

"You were right there. Why didn't you?"

<insert waffling excuses>

As far as making us appear more appealing to the "anti's," good luck. They've got their own irrational, pre-formed opinions of us, and catering to them won't in any way impress them.

 

[Uncle Buck]

The problem I see with this is there is no way to ensure continuing competency. (sp?)

I used to be a fair to good student of Algebra while I was in school, could even do a little calculus, but no more. Does this mean I would lose my calculator? (Sorry, I had to bring a little levity to the post)

I would imagine that if you brought the point up and they ridiculed it, they probably thought about it anyway. When testosterone is questioned, it tends to go on the defensive and never admits it makes a mistake. I am sure your roommate and his buddy had a little of that going on.

 

[Tucker 1371]

44 AMP: The past is another country, they do things differently there

I know... it just saddens me to believe that we are always going to live in a world that has no respect for gun ownership or the right to self defense.

omega: However well intended, the thought that "government should protect us", is an ideology that comes straight from liberal and humanistic thinking. Bah.

I'd like to ask you to go back and read, I was suggesting we make changes internally within the gun community and industry, rather than having the government force us to. I am libertarian, therefore I believe the Gov needs to get their grubby little hands out of nearly everything.

Tome Servo: As far as making us appear more appealing to the "anti's," good luck. They've got their own irrational, pre-formed opinions of us, and catering to them won't in any way impress them.

I wasn't really concerned with the anti's opinions, they will obviously (short of some miracle) never change. I'm more interested in people who know and care nothing about guns not developing bad opinions about them. My uncle is one of those people and he believes there should be some type of simple test like this. I know he is only one individual but I believe he is very representative of the majority of people with this mindset. The difference between us (besides the fact that I am a gun person) is that he doesn't care whether or not it comes from the Government; that is precisely what I don't want.

Uncle Buck: I used to be a fair to good student of Algebra while I was in school, could even do a little calculus, but no more. Does this mean I would lose my calculator? (Sorry, I had to bring a little levity to the post)

I'm not suggesting we snatch any guns, period. That is an idea that horrifies me. The humor is appreciated though , God knows we need it

 

[Atroxus]

Personally I don't think it would do much good, but it couldn't hurt if gun sellers went over the 4 rules with every sale. This thread reminds me of a guy near where I live that shot and killed his daughter awhile back. Apparently he thought the gun was empty, was trying to scare her and shot her in the head. People this stupid in my experience are generally not very "teachable", but even a small chance that things like this could be prevented would IMHO be worth the effort of educating new gun owners at point of sale.

 

[mavracer]

I used to be a fair to good student of Algebra while I was in school, could even do a little calculus, but no more. Does this mean I would lose my calculator?

no, but I would like to rap it across your knuckles how are you to help your nieces and nephews with their homework Uncle Buck.
Sorry but I just finished Chuck Norris' book Blackbelt Patriotism.
I belive there should be gun safety tought in school and I'm not sure you should have all the rights that come with American Citizenship without a HS diploma.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Let's operationalize it.

On the Black Friday weekend, we went to Cabela's. Horders of gun buyers!! They had to give out numbers. The same at Academy.

It takes long enough to do the 4473's.

Are you going to add a test?

What if they don't pass? Who is going to tell them - NO GUN FOR YOU!

In what languages will you have the test? Depending on the part of the country, very legit folks are not that literate in English (no immigrant bashing here !!). So are you going to have tests in many languages?

What about the crowded gun show - same issues? See the nice weird folks at the gun show - tell them - NO GUN FOR YOU! Then they go to the other table.

Thus, it won't work in a practical sense.

Do you expect small gun stores to lose business?

You might get the NSSF or the gun retailers organizations to come up with a safety handout that is presented with each gun. That's about it.

Of course, Ruger might engrave it on the barrels!!

 

[rburch]

I've been in a small gun shop where the owner had a "Test"

If somebody wanted to look at one of the guns, he'd hand it to them without checking it...

If they didn't take it, or checked it themselves, avoided sweeping anyone with the muzzle, and kept their finger off the trigger, they passed. If they didn't do those things, he wouldn't sell to them.

Now he could do this, because he was the only person that worked there, kept everything locked so nobody but him could get to it, and checked every weapon when before he opened each morning, and before he placed it back on a shelf. (He only kept about 150 guns in stock)

So for his case the risk was lessened, but I wouldn't like to work that way with a larger shop and more than one person working there.

 

[Tucker 1371]

I agree with that last statement rburch, it seems feasible in a small shop but not somewhere like Cabelas on Black Friday.

I guess if nothing else I would like to see the 4 rules being posted in gun stores in very obvious places with a sentence at the end that says something to the extent of "if you refuse to follow them you will not be allowed to purchase a firearm and be asked to leave the store". It just presents a much better image to the non gun owning public which would hopefully in turn take a little heat off of us in elections to come.

Gun safety was taught in school!

That is what I would really like to see, but that's a pipe dream.

 

[orangello]

A basic proficiency test is appealing, but would almost certainly end up being used as a way to prevent lawful gun ownership. I seem to recall the wording "shall not be infringed" from the second amendment; i would consider a test an "infringement".

Didn't they use "tests" to discourage black people from voting at one point in this country's history?

 

[Tucker 1371]

A basic proficiency test is appealing, but would almost certainly end up being used as a way to prevent lawful gun ownership. I seem to recall the wording "shall not be infringed" from the second amendment; i would consider a test an "infringement".

Didn't they use "tests" to discourage black people from voting at one point in this country's history?

READ. THE REST. OF THE THREAD. I would NOT want this to come from the government but rather from gun sellers themselves, I think I have repeated this about 5 times in two pages. You can call a test infringement if it is mandated by the government but if I remember correctly the private sector can sell or not sell to whomever they choose.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

You can call a test infringement if it is mandated by the government but if I remember correctly the private sector can sell or not sell to whomever they choose.

One major problem would be law-suits. You've got to KNOW that the first person of "X" race with a chip on his shoulder that was denied a purchase would sue for discrimination.

Besides that, I've never heard of a private seller denying a sale based on the knowledge base of the consumer. I'm sure somebody has done it but I can't think of any examples. Like I said before, you don't need a drivers license to buy a car. You don't even need a pilots license to buy an airplane.

You might get the NSSF or the gun retailers organizations to come up with a safety handout that is presented with each gun. That's about it.

Of course, Ruger might engrave it on the barrels!!

That's funny right there!

Unless you own a Ruger.

 

[HiBC]

I raised a daughter,and please trust me,I'm not trying to leave out girls,but this is different.
Was a time most kids grew up with a father in the house,and a Grandpa nearby,and there were maye some uncles.

And at some point,these men would take the boy away from his mother,to the realm of men.

The young men wanted to demonstrate good judgement and maturity to gain the trust of older men.

And then,there might be a .22,or a shotgun,and inclusion.

Note,this was not about 6 year olds,but boys becoming young men.

It was indeed also true that firearms were a respected part of mainstream America,and we did have indoor ranges at schools and YMCA's.

I did get a hunter safety course through the public schools.

There was a peer/parent/school/friend montoring.Loss of privilidge was avoidedby good practice.

No old man? Read Ruark's "The Old Man and the Boy" till you can close your eyes,anywhere,any time,and relive a chapter.

Government cannot do that.It must be cultural.What government can do is not suppress,but encourage the responsible culture.JFK actively supported the Director of Civilian Marksmanship programs through Junior NRA competition

I was there,shooting his free ammo through the provided Remington target rifles.

It is far less simple than making a rule or a law.

The Swiss still have a firearms culture.It has to grow,and stay healthy,like a tree.

Now,not to sidetrack the thread,but I test logic by applying it in a different venue.

There is no Bill of Rights protection for cell phones or driving.

In my town,not so long ago,an 8 year old girl riding a bicycle was killed by a driver using a cellphone.

Contrast how the legal system handles a "normal" person who "tisk tisk" is only talking on the phone while driving a dealy vehicle.The driver got a $300 fine,community service,and had to write a letter.

I cannot see any difference what so ever if a drunk ran her over or if an idiot with a firearm killed her.

A few years back,I recall reading that National Safety Foundation statistics,if you factored out young people murdering each other on the streets,that buckets were responsible for more childhood accidental deaths than firearms.

Yes,be safe with firearms,remember,"What we tolerate,we teach" Tell your buddy when he doesn't clear or sweeps you.Take kids shooting and teach them right,and create a certain treasure of your trust.

But,if what we really want is a safe world,make having a loaded cell phone in the passenger compartment of a car a felony(What???Not MY cellphone!!!)

Or require bucket registration and safe storage.

William Blake wrote:"All attempts at foolproofing are folly,as the genius of the fool is infinite.Progress is illusion,as each solution brings new problems" That was back in the 1700's