New Georgia gun law...

[Wyowanderer]

I'm talking about increasing skill and instruction for owners, which would in return empower the 2nd Amendment, make owners more efficient when it comes to application, and save lives

Once again, you evade the question of WHO makes sure the training is done. If not the government, then who, pray tell?
And shall we make it condition of firearm ownership?

I say no. Period. I'll do my own training under the tutelage of honorable men, not those who would require it of others- you know, control freaks.

 

[Hill Bill E.]

I'm talking about increasing skill and instruction for owners, which would in return empower the 2nd Amendment, make owners more efficient when it comes to application, and save lives

Once again, you evade the question of WHO makes sure the training is done. If not the government, then who, pray tell?
And shall we make it condition of firearm ownership?

I say no. Period. I'll do my own training under the tutelage of honorable men, not those who would require it of others- you know, control freaks.

Well put!

HB

 

[Outback]

no it's not the end of discussion

again, you're confusing the subject.

Automobiles are intended for transport, it's an inappropriate analogy. Apples and oranges, do you understand why?

who said guns scare me?

I'm talking about increasing skill and instruction for owners, which would in return empower the 2nd Amendment, make owners more efficient when it comes to application, and save lives

no one is talking about government or how or what they think about it or taking rights away, read the thread please

it sounds like you're a responsible owner and have taken the kind of precautions I think all owners should take, good job!

no one is engaging the issue. I have not heard one reasonable argument against increasing education and safety awareness for owners. this isn't about the Bill Of Rights or the Constitution, it's about safety training and promoting correct and skillful application and the use of guns -

it's about responsibility and putting deadly power in the hands of people who had no discipline or education to acquire it.

which leads to negligence and operator error. I'm not talking about criminals, that is a DIFFERENT subject. people will commit crimes whether they have instruction or not - this is about minimizing operator error and promoting safety - think of it like sex ed. the more you know, the better off you are

Look. I agree with you that anyone who chooses to have a firearm "should" seek training. BUT The fact is the the Right to Bear Arms is a RIGHT. Therefore no additional training is requiered to have that Right. Now. back when the Constitution was created a gun in the house was as common as a toilet in a house "now"! Everyone grew up with them. Everyone had one (until the British started to take them away for "safety reasons"). But never the less its a Right. To me anyone who has a gun should seek higher levels of training. Since I use to teach firearms training amongst other things I can see that it is indeed a good thing. Now listen to this. Anyone who seeks a Concealed carry permit is requiered to meet specific training requierments and pass certain tests before they would be issued a permit, not to mention a background check by th local Law Enforcement Agency. Yet now I hear that us CCW permit holders are being targeted by the loony left! When will it end? Here you talk about more training should be mandated and when people get it they become the targets of the Left. For me its clear that people like you will never be satisfied until every gun in America is gone. Thats the plain and simple Truth! If that day ever comes then all hope will be lost and we will be slave to those who hold the power.

 

[Z O O R O P A]

Look. I agree with you that anyone who chooses to have a firearm "should" seek training. BUT The fact is the the Right to Bear Arms is a RIGHT. Therefore no additional training is requiered to have that Right. Now. back when the Constitution was created a gun in the house was as common as a toilet in a house "now"! Everyone grew up with them. Everyone had one (until the British started to take them away for "safety reasons"). But never the less its a Right. To me anyone who has a gun should seek higher levels of training. Since I use to teach firearms training amongst other things I can see that it is indeed a good thing. Now listen to this. Anyone who seeks a Concealed carry permit is requiered to meet specific training requierments and pass certain tests before they would be issued a permit, not to mention a background check by th local Law Enforcement Agency. Yet now I hear that us CCW permit holders are being targeted by the loony left! When will it end? Here you talk about more training should be mandated and when people get it they become the targets of the Left. For me its clear that people like you will never be satisfied until every gun in America is gone. Thats the plain and simple Truth! If that day ever comes then all hope will be lost and we will be slave to those who hold the power.

lol

I hear ya and those are good posts

I am not challenging the Right though, I support it

what makes you think I want guns taken away? I'm an owner and user and enjoy the security/enjoyment they provide just like you

as to the question who would do the training, I have no idea, I was merely suggesting that it makes sense to raise the bar and why it makes sense. maybe retired military?

people in general won't do the diligence of acquiring information on their own volition - even when it is in their interest unless there is money at stake. when it comes to discipline people tend to look for short cuts or assume they know enough

there is as much a loony right as there is a loony left, so consider maybe there aren't huge divisions just a wide spectrum of different beliefs which were arrived at by individuals for different reasons. Not everyone's experience is the same, that's life

There is more in common usually among people than what separates them. I try and stay away from defining people because of one single remark or another, that's a short sell and usually inaccurate

I certainly don't have the answers but considered it a plausible idea, especially if it saves innocent lives and gives gun owners a better chance of success if something unfortunate occurs

some of yall are so touchy about it you escalate the conversation immediately into polarizing groups without a second thought. that's a bad habit in my view but I understand its source

I enjoyed the conversation as this is an experienced and intelligent group from a wide range of places. I still think it is a good idea despite a lack of specifics for certain questions but I understand the unrelenting inflexibility behind touching the 2nd or what precedents that could set

thanks to everyone for sharing their opinion

here is a follow up:

what are your opinions on the Colt 38 Super - I like its ballistics, it's recoil, and weight. Ammo is a little pricey but I'm OK with that

 

[Outback]

Well at least we have a common belief in the Right to Own. I agree if you decide to own a gun, any gun then you should seek training in its safe operation.

As far as the 38 Super Its a very accurate round but pretty much resigned to competition use. Of course you could use it for defense but there are much better rounds for that.

 

[cnynrat]

I understand you'd be afraid of setting precedents that might limit the 2nd Amendment but show me an example where education concerning a deadly object was not a great and beneficial idea

First off, I'm all for training and frequent practice. First thing I did when I decided to become a firearm owner was go take some training, and I continue to practice those skills regularly.

To your question above, one example might be an instance where the training requirements were defined in such a way as to limit the practice of our 2A rights to a subset of the population that can afford the time and or money to acquire such training. It's far from out of the question that governments might construct those requirements in such way as to deliberately limit the ability of people to exercise their 2A rights. To see an example that goes well beyond simply imposing training requirements, you need look no further than the recent laws passed in Chicago in response to the the ruling in McDonald v. Chicago. If the underpriviledged can't get the required training due to unaffordability, inability to spend time away from work, or inability to travel to a location where training is available, the very people who arguably may have the greatest need to own a firearm for self defense may effectively be denied that right. It's for this very reason that our jurisprudence places high barriers in the way of preconditions to exercising rights deemed to be fundamental, as is now the case with the 2A.

I'd also note while training would clearly address issues associated with firearms accidents (a good and worthy goal), it would have no effect on the far greater issue of criminals using firearms in the commission of crimes. The gangbanger doesn't shoot the store owner because he neglects to follow one of the 4 rules of firearms safety.

 

[AYIAPhoto]

To your question above, one example might be an instance where the training requirements were defined in such a way as to limit the practice of our 2A rights to a subset of the population that can afford the time and or money to acquire such training. It's far from out of the question that governments might construct those requirements in such way as to deliberately limit the ability of people to exercise their 2A rights.

Much like Chicago has done in the wake of the USSC ruling as you mentioned, but also as they have put out a list of banned "unsafe" firearms. If you read the list they issued it is a whos-who of low cost guns. The same tactic used by southern democrats("saturday night special" laws) to prevent ownership of defensive tools by blacks during the "jim crow" days. Sure you have the right to own it, but can you afford it?

While training is important, guns are not incredibly complicated. 4 simple rules cover any situation:
1 All guns are loaded
2 Be sure of your target and what is behind it
3 Never point a gun at anything you are not willing to destroy
4 Booger hook off the bang switch until you are ready to fire

The argument of guns vs cars can go on for days but the fact is cars are much more complicated to operate. While their are drivers ed classes most 15 year olds learn how to drive from mom/dad. Why should a firearm need an entire federal bureaucracy to teach what dad could?

Now to keep this travel related...I'm ecstatic that I can now enter a business that serves alcohol(over 50% receipts) in Georgia while carrying on my FL non-resident permit.

 

[Hill Bill E.]

lol

people in general won't do the diligence of acquiring information on their own volition - even when it is in their interest unless there is money at stake. when it comes to discipline people tend to look for short cuts or assume they know enough

People in general? So you are an expert on all gun owners now?

Gun owners are not "People in general" And the ones I know do seek out the training.

Talk about a condesending "I'm above you" view and generalization.

Thanks to you, I need to go back and change my "Is ExPo getting Snobby?" vote.

I am not challenging the Right though,

Maybe not.

What you ARE doing, is being an internet troll, doing you best to get people riled up.

I for one have had my fill of you. You are not engaging in a civil discussion of the matter, but doing what you can to get people irate, then belittle thier views.

Have fun on that pedastal you've put yourself upon, I'll be with the 'people in general', doing things the cheap and easy way.

HB

 

[Z O O R O P A]

People in general? So you are an expert on all gun owners now?

Gun owners are not "People in general" And the ones I know do seek out the training.

Talk about a condesending "I'm above you" view and generalization.

Thanks to you, I need to go back and change my "Is ExPo getting Snobby?" vote.




Maybe not.

What you ARE doing, is being an internet troll, doing you best to get people riled up.

I for one have had my fill of you. You are not engaging in a civil discussion of the matter, but doing what you can to get people irate, then belittle thier views.

Have fun on that pedastal you've put yourself upon, I'll be with the 'people in general', doing things the cheap and easy way.

HB

I think you may have misinterpreted the above HB

the "people in general" is a reference to human behavior, you know, how people will avoid "work" if they can, avoid additional research if they feel they can get by on what they know. The "do as little as possible but as much as required" philosophy

wasn't meant to be sanctimonious. I've never claimed to be above anything, especially making an error, so chill out.

I think I kept my remarks civil, polite, and abstained from castigating anyone. That wouldn't be productive to the goal of discussion. I find if you want people to participate you don't insult them. In return it has been a good thread overall

you sure changed your tune quickly, bad day?

I think gun owners are people in general, what else would they be?

trying not to digress too much here . . .

Culturally speaking I don't think we celebrate being overly thorough and as can be seen above a lot of people think guns are pretty straightforward. Which I agree they are but that is assuming everyone has had the same exposure and intelligence to figure that out, or the same technical prowess, you understand?

not everyone is good at skiing, or riding motorcycles, or skating on ice, or offroading, or computer savvy, or academics

people have different talents but it is safe to say if at all possible a majority of people will not take the time to do additional skills development if they can enjoy or use what they have without doing the extra "homework"

a kind of lazy approach to mediocrity

hope that helps

 

[Wyowanderer]

While training is important, guns are not incredibly complicated. 4 simple rules cover any situation:
1 All guns are loaded
2 Be sure of your target and what is behind it
3 Never point a gun at anything you are not willing to destroy
4 Booger hook off the bang switch until you are ready to fire
QUOTE]


It's pity there aren't more like you, and that we're not neighbors.

 

[cnynrat]

Zoo-

1. It might help the discussion of you could quantify the magnitude of the problem you are proposing to address with this training requirement. It would be great if you could cite your sources.

2. What proportion of firearms caused injuries/deaths do you think a training requirement would eliminate? Recall that as I pointed out a few posts ago, the criminal doesn't shoot his victim because he neglected to follow one of the 4 rules of firearms safety. It's a deliberate action.

3. Do you think the average criminal would avail him/herself of training even if it was required? Why?

4. If your answer to #3 is yes, how much training do you want the average criminal to have? Exactly how good a marksman do you want him to become?

There are many really good reasons why we don't establish preconditions that must be satisfied before people are allowed to exercise a fundamental right in our society. There is a long history of such preconditions being used to effectively bar certain classes from being able to exercise their rights. As an example relevant to this discussion, the long and sordid story of gun control has it's roots in the racism of the south, and in particular the desire by some to prevent freed slaves from having the right to own firearms.

You may want to spend some time reading about the Slaughterhouse case (1873), U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), and Justice Thomas' concurring opinion in McDonald v. Chicago (2010).

 

[Z O O R O P A]

Zoo-

1. It might help the discussion of you could quantify the magnitude of the problem you are proposing to address with this training requirement. It would be great if you could cite your sources.

2. What proportion of firearms caused injuries/deaths do you think a training requirement would eliminate? Recall that as I pointed out a few posts ago, the criminal doesn't shoot his victim because he neglected to follow one of the 4 rules of firearms safety. It's a deliberate action.

3. Do you think the average criminal would avail him/herself of training even if it was required? Why?

4. If your answer to #3 is yes, how much training do you want the average criminal to have? Exactly how good a marksman do you want him to become?

There are many really good reasons why we don't establish preconditions that must be satisfied before people are allowed to exercise a fundamental right in our society. There is a long history of such preconditions being used to effectively bar certain classes from being able to exercise their rights. As an example relevant to this discussion, the long and sordid story of gun control has it's roots in the racism of the south, and in particular the desire by some to prevent freed slaves from having the right to own firearms.

You may want to spend some time reading about the Slaughterhouse case (1873), U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), and Justice Thomas' concurring opinion in McDonald v. Chicago (2010).

Cnynrat,

You make excellent points and I appreciate your candor. You've brought up some ideas I did not consider and I'd like to continue talking about it. Let start by saying I think you're right, it wouldn't work because it would leave a large demographic at a huge disadvantage which just won't work - it would be a catch 22 and wholly unfair to certain people

1) the magnitude of the problem is really about attempting to minimize accidents caused by negligent discharge or operator error. The training would be an attempt at prevention to eliminate some of those accidents - potentially

2) If training saved one life it would be enough. I think that it would. As far as criminals go, they do what they want regardless of the absence of law or its enforcement. Remember back when AIDS hit the scene, the 80s/early 90s, wide spread fear, it was epidemic and costly. Schools decided to make condoms available in school and require sex education as part of the curriculum. The theory was if that prevented one person from getting AIDS, it was well worth ruffling a few feathers who thought actually discussing sex ed would promote promiscuity. So if a skills training course for gun owners avoided some accidents or saved some lives at the risk of arming some future criminals, it would be worth while - that was the idea

3) I think anyone can become a criminal. I think the average criminal will continue to weigh the odds of getting caught not the consequences. So do I think criminals with gun training will prove to be more dangerous? If that is the question then yes, I do think that is a part of the product of wide spread training. On the other hand do really dangerous people who decide to be criminals already engage in post purchase instruction? I don't know but if they do the training program would be a moot point right? But the average offender? I'd say no probably not

Look at a place like Savannah GA, it's about 200-250K people, last I looked ( 10 years ago or more ) they averaged about 1.5 murders a week. That's high for that size city. Many of those are random muggings turned into murder by druggies. In a place like Savannah I think the citizens would benefit greatly from gun instruction and familiarizing themselves with areas of the city to avoid at night. Guns are popular in Savannah culture and for good reason

You can minimize some crime by correct and effective enforcement of some laws but others rise and fall for different reasons. Like petty theft, murder, home entry, rises with the influx of things like addictive drugs, heroin, meth, etc. The economy might see petty crime and domestic violence rise, training courses might help the average law abiding Jane and Joe be better prepared for some unfortunate circumstances as opposed to just handing them a weapon and hitting the streets.

Remember there are no limits on what a gun training course could use as part of it's content - what is lawful when it comes to defense, what risks, etc how about just some good commonsense strategies that cops and savvy experienced instructors might teach about identifying potentially dangerous behaviors/people/etc. I don't know, just thinking off the top of my head

at the end of the day you're right, what began as a practical idea really starts looking more like bureaucracy at the end of the day and is prohibitive to certain people for various reasons

what do you think?

 

[SunTzuNephew]

What is the death and injury rate for 'accidental' firearms injuries? Pretty darned low: The CDC reported 613 'unintentional' deaths from firearms in the US in 2007 (the last year figures are reported). http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html - plug in various causes, etc and see for yourself.

The vast majority of firearms deaths are caused by criminal activity, either criminal on criminal (the largest group), criminal on victim, or law enforcement involvement (some half of all-cause firearms deaths are by law enforcement shootings).

As far as your claim that training will help, it doesn't seem to. As I said earlier extensive training and licensure is required to drive a vehicle in the US, the similar death statistic is 43,945. In fact, there were more deaths of bicyclists (820) than accidental firearms deaths.

Neither driving a motor vehicle or riding a bicycle is a right. However, defending yourself from attack is a human right, a civil right, and a right that the Constitution guarantees (although it is a natural, God-given, right).

It's apparent that depending on law enforcement to protect one from criminals is a fools bet. In fact, the DC Court of Appeals (the second most important court in the US) found in Warren v. DC, it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9108468254125174344&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr Read about that case, where the DC police were told of the attack these women were going through, and for 14 hours did nothing - legally.

So, to be able to protect themselves from a criminal (and as you claim anyone can be a criminal) something to equalize the disparity of strength and force needs to be done - or the victims remain victims. Firearms provide that equalization of force. As the saying goes, "God created all men, Col. Colt made them equal".

You continue to advocate for a required safety course, using the argument that it has to be a good idea...... Yet, it provides a simple method for a government to prohibit firearms ownership for everyone simply by not making such 'approved' courses available. Hawaii used to have such a policy (the course was offered once a year by the state police, in Honolulu, and class size was very limited). Here is a link to the current law in Hawaii http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol03_Ch0121-0200D/hrs0134/HRS_0134-0002.htm, it wouldn't take much of a change in the law (delete all of paragraph g except g2, and then don't offer the classes) to prohibit lawful ownership. In fact, Chicago is doing that now, effectively: Their application form requires a class from a state-licensed instructor and that the instructors license number be entered on the form. One problem: The licenses don't have a number....but the police will take your money and keep it, and after 6 months or more reject your application as being incomplete. http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2010/07/13/chicago-pd-permit-process/

The Second Amendment Foundation and attorney Alan Gura (the winners in the Heller and McDonald cases) are now going after both New York and N. Carolina http://saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=331 for their arbitrary requirements to exercise your rights - which can easily be manipulated by unscrupulous civil authorities to deny those rights to you (as happened here, as well:http://www.desmoinesregister.com/ar...8/Judge-rips-sheriff-for-rejecting-gun-permit). While the Iowa case was eventually correctly decided it took several years before the sheriff was slapped down for his illegal denial of an individuals rights.

If you want to advocate for firearms safety classes, great. Become a firearms safety instructor and offer lots of classes. Mandating the classes as a condition of exercising your human/civil/Constitutional rights is a threat to those rights you say you support. After all, all genocides in the 20th century started out with victim disarmament, all done legally and in the name of safety or civic order: http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm#chart

 

[SunTzuNephew]

And here is a link I just found, with more racist roots of gun control - but this time not the usual suspects:


http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/article554333.ece/Black-gun-association-to-sue-government

 

[Z O O R O P A]

that's good info ST

thx for posting it up

how about those pics of Big Sky?

I was surprised by some of those numbers