Sick and Tired of Seeing Idiots With Guns

[Tom Servo]

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".

Lots of shops have signs like that. People don't heed them. I've been in shops that are posted prohibiting patrons from carrying loaded guns, and I've seen customers pull loaded guns from holsters to display to staff or friends.

One local shop that's posted "no loaded guns" recently had a customer negligently discharge his carry weapon on the salesfloor.

To quote Terry Pratchett, "If you put a large switch in some cave somewhere, with a sign on it saying 'End-of-the-World Switch. PLEASE DO NOT TOUCH' the paint wouldn't even have time to dry."

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.

Not really. If I walked into a restaurant and saw a sign that said, "please refrain from spitting on the floor," I'd stop and wonder what kind of place it was if it needed such a sign.

As far as "heat," what heat? From where I see it, the next few elections will result in more gun-friendly politicians gaining seats and some of the most vocal antis losing theirs. We don't have to make any sort of gestures of appeasement.

Trust me, I lived through the unpleasantness of 2nd Clinton administration. The "heat" back then was a greasfire; things are far different now.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

To quote Terry Pratchett, "If you put a large switch in some cave somewhere, with a sign on it saying 'End-of-the-World Switch. PLEASE DO NOT TOUCH' the paint wouldn't even have time to dry."

That reminds of my youth. We had a movie theatre that used to be a grand vauderville show place. Sculpture, frescos, heavy velvet curtains, etc. In the men's room, there was reproduction of Michangelo's David in bronze. All the statue was dark with patina - except for one part. If you know the statue, you can figure out what was bright and coppery.

Another point is that our OP says he wants the gun industry to do that - not the government. However, think of this - if the gun industry decides to do a semi-mandatory test for get a gun, how long before the antigun forces in government say:

Hey, even the gun industry says most gun owners are ignoramuses and dangerous. Thus, shouldn't this be a law!!

Ain't going to work and I would advise the OP in the fire of youth that when counter-evidence or reasoning doesn't support your position, think deeply and not emotionally. You should abandon positions that don't work. Don't get entrenched and start to rant.

Peetza - yep, my Rugers have lots of engraving on them.

Glenn

 

[orangello]

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.

My bad, i guess that part didn't sink in for me. Of course, "government" doesn't just include the federal government of the U.S.A. I consider a Home Owners Association to be a governmental entity, limited in scope and "voluntarily" formed by the members of that neighborhood, but a governmental entity nonetheless. As an accountant in a public practice, i can assure you that regulations by such groups can be remarkable similar to federal or state laws, especially in their failings. For example, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (a private organization indirectly steered by the Securities and Exchange Commission amongst few others) has been pushing public accounting in a direction that very few U.S. public accountants, U.S. bankers, U.S. corporate accountants, or other U.S. users of financial statements and information support (namely "internationalization of U.S. accounting standards & statements). This same group can and has limited the "right" of privately owned and operated accounting firms to sell their services to whomever they wish.

If such a test or rules limiting who is "qualified" to purchase a firearm were to be proposed or mandated by a similar trade group for FFL's, it would be coming from a "government", just not from the federal government of the United States of America just from the "government" adopted/formed by FFL's. Such industry rules or requirements would almost certainly be challenged in court & would then become fairly equivalent to the "law of the land". This would introduce great influence from various state and federal government entities.

I do not support an expansion of government power/regulation in the area of firearms; it still seems like an infringement of my second ammendment rights, regardless of whether it comes directly from the U.S. government, a State government, or a trade group that will undoubtably be moderated by other relevant government agencies.

 

[BlueTrain]

I'd like to get in a little jab here about government. Personally, I think that all of you who think government has no business doing whatever are anarchists and don't realize it. Why on earth would you support anyone for public office who believes government is the problem. After all, government is the only thing that gives you a vote. Yeah, I know if you don't like Wal-Mart, you can drive on down the street to K-Mart but somehow that doesn't seem to have the same direct effect. And another thing, some recently elected government office holders seem to believe they are only there for the benefit for those that supposedly voted for them and everyone else is on their own. Of course it works the other way, too. Some voters think that if their candidate didn't win, they own the government nothing. So much for solidarity. Why don't we just split the country down the middle and have everyone move either to the left or to the right. There will be no middle. It shouldn't be that bad an idea because in Europe they seem to do that in varying degrees every few generations and it seems to improve things.

Now on to the subject at hand. You realize of couse that all these proficiency things are exactly what is done in some European countries and they are ones with fairly good hunting and shooting traditions. I think Hitler instituted practices like that in Germany.

Seriously though, I've been in a couple of gun shops where some of their potential customers (I personally have much more potential than customer in me) looked a little too much like people that some folks might not like to have firearms. I don't know what the people in the shop think and it's never occurred to me to ask. But clearly some shops would sell to anyone because, supposedly, a rather higher percentage of guns used in crimes get traced back to those particular places. It's a good issue, all right, and I don't know how I would deal with it were I a shopkeeper.

 

[Ditto_95]

I have to agree that the OP is self absorbed.
Shall we trample everyones right to apease the one who wants to protect us from ourselves?

Sorry, just because someone doesn't meet your standard, they shouldn't be denied the right to defend themselves.

 

[Tucker 1371]

I have to agree that the OP is self absorbed.
Shall we trample everyones right to apease the one who wants to protect us from ourselves?

Sorry, just because someone doesn't meet your standard, they shouldn't be denied the right to defend themselves.

No, no I am not sir, you have failed to thoroughly read this thread. I have made it clear that all of the points in my OP are flexible, they were suggestions. We have already established that I am NOT self absorbed. The insults against my character had better stop soon or I will show you my true character flaw.

FOR THE LAST TIME: READ THE &^(% THREAD BEFORE YOU *#&%^@* POST, ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE GOING TO COMMENT ON MY CHARACTER.


breathe...


Now that that is out of the way...

I do not support an expansion of government power/regulation in the area of firearms; it still seems like an infringement of my second ammendment rights, regardless of whether it comes directly from the U.S. government, a State government, or a trade group that will undoubtably be moderated by other relevant government agencies.

I can definitely see where you are coming from, I guess if nothing else I would like to see two things:

A) Some type of push to increase the general public's knowledge of gun safety through any media available. The NRA/ILA or GOA would be excellent in facilitating this.
B) Gun shop owners being a little more discerning about who they sell to.

 

[SwampYankee]

The Four Rules
Be able to explain why you can't just put any bullet in any gun
How to use the sights
How to properly load a gun
How to maintain a gun
How to deal with malfunctions

This is actually the case in the State of Rhode Island. Before you can purchase a handgun (not sure about a rifle), you must take a test which comprises many of the items you list. The DEM grades it and sends you back a "Blue Card". With it you can make purchases. Without it, you cannot. The only real flaw is that the exam is given by gun store owners. I won't detail where the Conflict of Interest lies here, but the test does exist.

 

[Tucker 1371]

SwampYankee,

Honestly now that I've put a little more thought into it that's not what I would like to see, especially if it's government mandated. Just a little more common sense and respect towards firearms is really what I am getting at.

 

[SwampYankee]

Yes, I realize you had suggested it be employed by dealers and manufacturers. But it is state mandated where I live. And frankly it is a joke if you know anything about firearms. But perhaps that really is the point? To ensure that people who don't know what they are doing are at least educated before they put a hole in someone else?

I don't necessarily support it, nor any additional government control of firearms, but this particular case has turned out to be relatively innocuous. What really ticks me off is the state ban on any and all NFA items.

 

[Tucker 1371]

And frankly it is a joke if you know anything about firearms. But perhaps that really is the point? To ensure that people who don't know what they are doing are at least educated before they put a hole in someone else?

Bingo.

 

[old bear]

Firearms, especially handguns are the only tools; I can think of whose main purpose is to kill or injure a living creature. Yet sadly all to often firearm owners treat them as one more adult toy, and I for one am sick and tired of this kind of behavior.

If you have to flame away if you must, but remember the term “gun nut” is no longer a good-natured descriptor but a far from flattering term with the emphasis on nut. We as responsible firearm enthusiasts need to be aware of this and conduct ourselves accordingly

 

[jammin1237]

i am all for mandatory hunting safety courses before you can hunt, even for adults... there is no reason why you should not require any adult or minor to pass a basic test in order be able to use or own firearms(maybe a NRA test and certification card or something attached to your drivers license)... this means you would at least be able to read and write, and have gone through minimal training of safety/operation... and that is coming from me, one of the bigger anti-gov anti-big-brother people you will ever find...

promote personal responsibility so the rest of us wont suffer from loss of freedom....


cheers

 

[mavracer]

OK how about we forget the test,just have a 10-15min safety video and then we hold people responsible for negligent discharges.

 

[Tucker 1371]

OK how about we forget the test,just have a 10-15min safety video and then we hold people responsible for negligent discharges.

Sounds good, make sure at the end of the video you let them know that. It still should come from within the gun industry and not from the Federal or State governments.

 

[Tommy Vercetti]

Every day some moron driving a car tries to kill me.

maybe it's not them, maybe it's you

 

[HiBC]

Is it not possible that a gun shop owner who refuses to sell a gun to someone based on appearances might find themselves in the same trouble a restaurant who refuses to serve based on appearances?

I am asking,what does someone have to look like to be denied?

Sure,I can look and say"Man,I do not like the idea of that guy buying that AK-47" but there are problems with trying to profile people.

You know,folks cut themselves horribly trying to slice Bagels.I think,before they can buy a bagel,or a knife,they must be able to demonstrate proficiency at bagel slicing.Because that is my agenda,and ,by golly,we ought to do things my way.
And do not attack me!!!

 

[DanimalFL]

Have you read all the posts were people say people who run gun stores are rude or condesending this is exactly were it comes from it starts like this and evolves into anybody who is not a LEO or some sort of expert is not qualified
to own a firearm and the gun store doesnot make enough money and goes under

 

[Tucker 1371]

I am asking,what does someone have to look like to be denied?

I was thinking more along the lines of words and actions rather than appearances. If someone asks to see a gun off the rack and then muzzle sweeps everyone in the store that would be a red flag to me. At that point I would ask them to either watch a video on gun safety as was suggested earlier or not be allowed to purchase a firearm.

Have you read all the posts were people say people who run gun stores are rude or condesending this is exactly were it comes from it starts like this and evolves into anybody who is not a LEO or some sort of expert is not qualified
to own a firearm and the gun store doesnot make enough money and goes under

... Punctuation is our friend

 

[HuntAndFish]

Okay, this is a little OT but it is related. Why is it that the political Left thinks teaching our kids about sex will not cause them to have sexual relations, but teaching them gun safety will make them into little murderers?

My answer is to teach a mandatory gun safety class in high school. Make it a semester long for one of the 4 years and make them shoot some guns and learn safe gun behavior.

Yeah, not going to happen.

 

[Tom Servo]

i am all for mandatory hunting safety courses (...) there is no reason why you should not require any adult or minor to pass a basic test in order be able to use or own firearms (...) this means you would at least be able to read and write, and have gone through minimal training of safety/operation

Tread very carefully. We've had that sort of setup before.

Tell me (without Google) how quickly you can answer these questions:

If the president does not wish to sign a bill, how many days is he allowed in which to return it to Congress for reconsideration?

In what year did the Congress gain the right to prohibit the migration of persons to the states?

The power of granting patents, that is, of securing to inventors the exclusive right to their discoveries, is given to Congress for the purpose of ____________

Correct answers to all of those questions were once required before one could vote.

In that spirit, here's the form that such a quiz would become if it were applied to buying guns. All answers must be correct, or no guns for you.

1) If the second half of a cartridge's name specifies case length, what is the case length of a .30-06?

2) Why are .357 and .38 Special cartridges compatible if they are different calibers?

3) Susan was convicted of possession of .58 ounces of marijuana and an unregistered NFA weapon in North Dakota. How long must she serve before she is eligible for parole?

4) Specify point blank range for the .25 Ackley Krag loading.

Sure, it would start out simple. Then, as all regulations do, it would get more and more stringent until we reached a point where the tests were similar to the questions above.

And wouldn't that be convenient? After all, it's not a ban on guns at all, is it? It's just a basic test to ensure everyone's safety.

No thanks.

OK how about we forget the test,just have a 10-15min safety video and then we hold people responsible for negligent discharges.

I've been to a range that has that. It's death for business because experienced shooters find it inconvenient and patronizing. The manager even acknowledged this after we'd just had a lengthy talk about firearms history. I still had to sit through it; it was policy.

Several other people were there, and two were obviously bored to tears. They watched the same video, then proceeded to violate three range rules and two cardinal gun safety rules. The video didn't stop them from behaving like ignoramii and placing others in danger.

What stopped them was having the range master put them out on their (metaphorical) butts.

Do we need to be vigilant and police our own? Yes. Do we need impediments like tests, pamphlets and videos? No. Those things, while seemingly innocent, will be an annoyance to good shooters and will be ignored by irresponsible ones.

I fully understand the OP's concerns, and I empathize. I've had the "you have failed to convince me that you have the proper mindset to handle firearms responsibly" conversation more times than I can count.

But it goes with the territory.

My answer is to teach a mandatory gun safety class in high school.

In 1996, I made that suggestion at a dinner party of academics that included several members of the state board of education. It was like something out of Borat. The room went dead silent for about five seconds, then people started lambasting me. One person called me a sociopath for suggesting such a thing. Funny thing? He was a professor at GSU. Small world