PDA

View Full Version : Gun IQ


roy reali
April 26, 2009, 11:11 AM
This is sort of a continuation of another thread. It has to do with gun knowledge, or lack of it. How gun savvy should a person be before they purchase a firearm? If a minimal gun knowledge standard should be in place, how would it be determined? Should dealers be pickier on who they sell to?

I have mixed feeling about this. If someone goes into a gun shop and buys a Ruger 10/22, then purchases a pack of Crossman, 22 caliber pellets to test his new toy, I would have serious reservatons about being in the same county that he chooses to shoot in. This fellow probably should not have a gun, at least without further guidance and instruction. But, if gun knowledge is legislated you get into that slippery slope deal.

Should a person with no gun knowledge, no understanding of basic gun safety, be allowed to have a gun? A car is also dangerous, therefore a driver must pass tests to determine his ability to operate one. However, I am unaware of any major movements to ban cars. Many states now require hunters to pass a course prior to getting their first license. Statistics seem to indicate that it has cut down on accidents. Concealed carry permits also require instruction in most jurisdictions. There are no such requirements for buying guns. Yes, there is a background check, but that proves nothing as far as gun IQ goes.

I am uncertain of this issue.

What do you all think of this?

Matt19
April 26, 2009, 11:20 AM
Always encourage the person to seek competent training. Especially the newbie.

People will always do stupid things and nothing will change that.

deadcoyote
April 26, 2009, 11:20 AM
I live in CA where we have the required handgun safety exam to be allowed to purchase a handgun. Oh yeah, its only good for 3 years after you pay the 30 bucks to take it. It is incredibly simple and im fairly certain My wife could pass it (she knows nothing of firearms). I feel it does nothing to prevent imbeciles from aquiring weapons.

overkill556x45
April 26, 2009, 11:23 AM
Most responsible retailers will either not sell or offer to train newbies. My local FFL mom&pop gun store has an acreage out back and will gladly give you safety and marksmanship instruction. You just bring the ammo and a good attitude.

The most dangerous combination is ignorance and refusal to accept training. If you see someone in need of instruction, offer, but do not be condescending about it. Once upon a time, shooting was not my kung fu. But I had mentors who cultivated my interest and taught me well. Everyone should be so lucky.

A "Gun IQ" test is advocated most adamantly by the gun grabbers who would use such an instrument to bar ownership by you and I. It is a dangerous step down a slippery slope. For instance, they could ask you how to disassemble an M2 machinegun and set it up for left-hand feed. If you don't know how to do that, you don't get a license. Maybe they will ask "general knowlede" questions about how to calculate bullet drop according to atmospheric pressure and temperature. What? You don't know how? Well you're obviously too stupid to own a gun. :rolleyes:

There are mental midgets out there who own guns, but it should be motivation for you to help them out instead of try to take their guns away.

KLRANGL
April 26, 2009, 11:28 AM
Ive always said gun safety starts at age 8, not age 21... Teach your kids to be safe and responsible and they will be.

As for legislative action to force responsibility, haha all I can do is laugh :D

COYOTE JLR
April 26, 2009, 11:31 AM
I agree that this is a difficult topic to weigh in on. And my feelings are mixed.

I come from a family that didn't like guns, didn't want guns, and didn't know a darn thing about them. Luckily for me I had friends who helped me to learn and get into the sport. I didn't get my first gun until after I had taken a hunter safety course and I'm thankful for that. My parents were supportive of my decision and actually bought my first rifle for me.

Over the years I've managed to get most of my younger siblings into shooting and it is a joy and makes me proud. I have a sister who constantly begs me to buy a gun for her, but I won't do it. I did however make a deal with her. She goes out and takes hunter safety and I will buy her a gun or give her one of my own. I think this is appropriate and reasonable. I know I won't always be there to keep an eye on her and remind her to do this differently and whatnot so the only way that I would feel safe in letting her have her own weapon is if she has been certified.

Now I guess the question should be, "do I think this is something that should be federally mandated?" And while I would want to say yes, I can't bring myself to do that. If we lived in a more reasonable society where I didn't worry that at some point our right to keep and bear arms could be taken away or that they may be infringed upon I would probably be ok with it, but as things stand now I wouldn't be willing to give antis an opening to latch on to. I think it is perfectly reasonable to expect people to know about guns and gun safety before they own of fire a weapon.

I've been out with people before whom I would never, ever go shooting with again simply because I don't think they could pass hunter safety if they tried. I would like to know that people like that aren't wandering around in the woods like I am, but if we were to mandate testing I think over time the tests would become more difficult and complex as more and more concessions were made until we reached a point where it was very difficult to make it through the system.

I don't think there is any other way to say it. I wish I could feel safe in supporting something like that to increase everyone's safety, but I fear that the chances of abuse of that system are far too high to ever allow it to be passed. Just my .02.

Hkmp5sd
April 26, 2009, 11:37 AM
Should a person with no gun knowledge, no understanding of basic gun safety, be allowed to have a gun?

Yep.

Do you have to know how to operate a computer before you buy one? A chainsaw? Lawmower? Should you be allowed to go to Home Depot and buy a ceiling fan without an electrical license? Should you be allowed to vote with an room temperature IQ?

Yep.

It is not YOUR place to make decisions for OTHER people.

roy reali
April 26, 2009, 11:37 AM
Thank you for the great reply. You actually expressed my thoughts better then I did.

I have run into other hunters that made me very nervous. Nothing says gun accident quite like a half empty bottle of Jack Daniels. However, I agree with you in that if this was ever mandated, it wouldn't take long for some lawmakers to make gun ownership require a college degree of passing something similar to the Bar Exam.

KLRANGL
April 26, 2009, 11:40 AM
I don't think there is any other way to say it. I wish I could feel safe in supporting something like that to increase everyone's safety, but I fear that the chances of abuse of that system are far too high to ever allow it to be passed. Just my .02.
Your whole post is a sentiment many people feel, but its all based on fear. Why do we have more fear in today's day and age, while statistically speaking we are all much safer?

And I dont even trust the government with my money, much less telling people who can and who cant have weapons. Sound good in theory, but would never ever work...

roy reali
April 26, 2009, 11:44 AM
Do you have to know how to operate a computer before you buy one? A chainsaw? Lawmower? Should you be allowed to go to Home Depot and buy a ceiling fan without an electrical license? Should you be allowed to vote with an room temperature IQ?


You are comparing apples and oranges. If a person tries to install an electric fan without any knowledge, it probably won't affect my health. A dumb lawn mower operator isn't going to accidentaly kill my dog on a nature hike. A dummy with a gun might cause harm to me or others. I am not saying that this is a good reason to mandate gun knowledge, but to show that your comparisons are invalid. Now, comparing gun ownership to to flying an airplane makes some sense. An idiot flying an airplane endangers not only himself, but innocent folks on the ground. Also, anyone that decides to work on electrical devices in a public venue must be licensed because his screw up can put others in danger. By comparison, if a single digit IQ'd individual wants to buy a 12 gauge shotgun, nothing but the common sense of the gun dealer would prevent it.

See, this is an interesting topic!

kraigwy
April 26, 2009, 11:52 AM
shall not be infringed

Infringed = to encroach or trespass
to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgressan
encroachment or intrusion.

Hkmp5sd
April 26, 2009, 11:57 AM
Good old apples and oranges.

It still comes down to YOU wanting to impose YOUR wishes on other people so that YOU feel safe.

Fine. To qualify for a CCW, I think you should have to come in the top 3 in any IPSC match. To qualify for a hunting license, you need to place in the top three at a Camp Perry High Powered Rifle match.

That would make me feel safe for you to have firearms.

roy reali
April 26, 2009, 12:03 PM
Please find any reference I made saying that I feel gun knowldege should be mandated. I have started this thread because i find this to be an interesting topic. I do think idiots shouldn't have guns, or cars, or even alcoholic beverages. But I don't want the "man" more involved in our lives then he currently is. I wonder if there is a happy medium ground to this issue.

44 AMP
April 26, 2009, 12:08 PM
By comparison, if a single digit IQ'd individual wants to buy a 12 gauge shotgun, nothing but the common sense of the gun dealer would prevent it.

Providing He can sign his name and meets all the legal requirements.

HOWEVER,
If a 150 I.Q. tenured professor decides to go and shoot someone, you can't do anything about that either!

Sure, untrained individuals are a risk, but like a lot of things, the risk must be balanced against the benefits. There should be no restraints on buying and owning the gun. Using it in public, is another matter, and one that requires some education. For generations, hunter safety courses filled this need, teaching basic gun safety, along with hunting rules and guidelines. Or children got taught at home, by parents and family members.

The basic problem with giving the govt. the authority to determine who may exercise their natural rights, particularly when the right is specifically listed in the Constitution as "shall not be infringed", is that the people in govt are never satisfied. Nothing is ever enough. They always keep increasing the complexity of the rules and requirements, either due to a personal agenda against gunownership, or the all too common bureaucratic desire to be seen as "doing something".

You may have one set of rules for many years, and things are working fine, but then, a new administration comes in, a new guy gets into the office, and in order to justify his being there, he makes new rules, so things will work "better". Trouble is, usually, the only place things work "better" is in his own mind.

roy reali
April 26, 2009, 12:17 PM
Your point about owning a gun versus using one in public is a good one. But, how would you mandate the person shooting his gun in public has at least rudimentary safety knowledge? At least a hunter should have had a basic course in safety. A CCW'er probably had to complete some sort of course. But there is nothing in most areas to stop a moron from taking his 22 into the woods to "plink".

overkill556x45
April 26, 2009, 12:27 PM
I wonder if there is a happy medium ground to this issue.

No. There is not. A law used to disarm the "dangerous" types will inevitably be used to disarm the rest of us. Government intervention is government intervention.

If you meet a person in need of training, then train them, do not disarm them. How do you know it is "stupid" and not "untrained" that is their problem? You can't fix stupid, but you can sure fix "untrained".

alloy
April 26, 2009, 12:39 PM
Not much on trying to regulate everything, particularily Darwinian selection. Motorcycles, chain saws, ladders, etc. Maybe in a perfect George Jetson world. Till then, they usually come with bright red warnings and safety instructions.

Al Norris
April 26, 2009, 12:49 PM
No one, I repeat - No One, has a right to feel safe, let alone a right to safety.

It's a cold cruel world out there. It's not safe at all.

It's even less safe when everyone has liberties that can't be abridged. You face scorn, derision, shunning, every time you take a step out of your front door. You might get run over by a drunk; a person talking on their cell while driving; someone just in a hurry.

Every society tries, but stupidity and morality simply can't be legislated.

Most States require some type of Drivers Ed before you can get a drivers license. Hasn't stopped stupid drivers.

Most States require Hunters Ed before you can get a hunting license. Hasn't stopped stupid hunters.

And on and on and on... Anyone could (and they have) compile the stats, and make an argument for either direction.

We have laws that punish people for their actions, after the fact. That's the deterrent. That should be enough.

Why saddle people with new mandates before they purchase a firearm? It won't stop stupidity. Never has, never will.

You won't actually be any safer, no matter how you feel. All you will have accomplished is to burden your fellow citizens with yet another regulation.

COYOTE JLR
April 26, 2009, 01:02 PM
Your whole post is a sentiment many people feel, but its all based on fear. Why do we have more fear in today's day and age, while statistically speaking we are all much safer?

And I dont even trust the government with my money, much less telling people who can and who cant have weapons. Sound good in theory, but would never ever work...

I don't know that I could say that we're any safer today than we were 50 years ago. Crimes still happen, and humans are still as fallible as ever. I would say in the way of firearm safety we might be less safe than we were 50 years ago. I don't think that as many people are properly trained any more. And I'm not talking about formal training as much as I am referring to having our fathers and grandfathers take us out at a young age and teaching us what is right and proper and safe. I think that makes a huge difference.

Now don't get me wrong here. I try not to buy into fear. I'm not out stockpiling ammunition or rushing to buy an "assault rifle" or anything like that. I'm waiting for it to blow over and I'm trying not to add to the panic and scramble. I am very careful when I'm out in the woods and when I hear gunfire I make sure to identify where its coming from and to keep well clear of it. Do I allow it to stop me from going out? Not by any means. I am wary though. And I would be lying to say I'm not a little nervous at times. Just a couple of weeks ago a friend and I were shot "at" while out on the logging roads. The person didn't know we were there and we fired a couple of rounds up in the air when branches started falling down around us and the person stopped and the person stopped, but the guys didn't use a proper back stop or even think to use one. Once we spoke with them for a couple minutes and gave them a better spot to go shoot, things were great. It was still a far closer call than I like though.

I would love to see everyone with a gun pass hunters safety. I think as far as things are concerned that's as much as one could expect. Would I support mandating it? Heavens no, but I would be happy if people did it of their own accord. I think we just need to be careful and try to teach our kids and grandchildren and brothers and sisters safety and respect of firearms along with anyone else that may need some advice.

I wish I could more eloquently impart my thoughts, but (for me at least) its difficult to say anything in an absolute fashion. The one thing I know is that as much as I wish everyone was properly trained I would not and could not support or allow the government to have that control.

Harry Callahan
April 26, 2009, 02:04 PM
I think gun safety should be taught in school, which we all know will never happen:rolleyes:. Let's face it, there are alot of guns in this country and I wouldn't have it any other way. However, after alot of thought I think making a safety course mandatory before buying a gun may have some merit. I have friends who are otherwise very trustworthy who own guns legally but do not practice good gun manners occasionally. I sometimes have to correct them, which can be a bit awkward, but might save me from getting my head removed! So, yes, I think a prospective gun owner should have to prove proficiency with a firearm for the good of everyone around them. You cannot just assume that simply by someone being able to legally own a firearm they practice gun safety. One friend told me that he was "joking around with one of his buds" by running out of a dark room waving an unloaded shot gun in the friends direction. His friend just about soiled himself but they had a laugh afterward. I told him it's a good thing he didn't do that to me or he'd be missing several teeth.

grymster2007
April 26, 2009, 02:17 PM
If a 150 I.Q. tenured professor decides to go and shoot someone, you can't do anything about that either! I know a lot of tenured professors and would guess not too many exceed 'bout 130. There are certainly exceptions though.

beasley
April 26, 2009, 02:31 PM
Bearing arms is the right of those who are free. It is not a privilege but a right. We should encourage people to learn gun safety and be knowledgable about firearms but we have no right to create laws that infringe on their constitutional (God given) right to bear arms.

Harry Callahan
April 26, 2009, 02:44 PM
I understand and agree it is a right and once a gun safety course has been completed I believe it should be mandatory that a person with no criminal record, no drug or alcohol problems, or history of mental illness should be able to buy a gun, immediately. Seems like common sense to me.

Bud Helms
April 26, 2009, 02:56 PM
Rereading the original post, This probably needs to be in L&CR.

Watch your Ps & Qs over there.

Moving ...

Playboypenguin
April 26, 2009, 03:09 PM
I would say that the sales person should just have to have a dialogue with the purchaser that goes something like...

Salesperson: "You know this is a real firearm, right?"
Purchaser: "Yes."

Salesperson: "You know which end the bullets come out of right, right?"
Purchaser: "Yes."

Salesperson: "You know you should never point it at anything you do not want to kill, right??
Purchaser: "Yes."

Salesperson: "You know what caliber of ammo it takes, right??"
Purchaser: "Yes."

Salesperson: "You know enough to buy a firearm."

beasley
April 26, 2009, 03:12 PM
I understand and agree it is a right and once a gun safety course has been completed I believe it should be mandatory that a person with no criminal record, no drug or alcohol problems, or history of mental illness should be able to buy a gun, immediately. Seems like common sense to me.

If its a right then you can't put the condition of a safety course on a person owning a gun. I feel very strongly about gun safety too, I'm saying making a law that places those sort of conditions is unconstitutional. Back in 1805 they had no gun safety courses and still managed to handle it.

teeroux
April 26, 2009, 03:20 PM
Should a person with no gun knowledge, no understanding of basic gun safety, be allowed to have a gun?

Yes, just cause a person is inknowledgable doesn't mean they will not become so. Ownership of a gun is their right same as any other right, and as I look around the internet I find lots of ignorant people(none here of course), with bad grammer, spreading lies, starting arguments, insulting folks in a manner which one would be shot if face to face, and yet not once have I ever herd someone say there should be a license to prove you can speak out within someones likeing or should have a permit to a keyboard.

HiBC
April 26, 2009, 03:31 PM
I support the 2nd ammendment ,recognize the bill of rights are there to limit the powers of the fed govt,and I do not support jumping through any hoops the gov't may require.

Having said that,the price of freedom is responsibility.There is a competency responsibility a citizen must live up to if we are to protect our freedom from fearful people.It is in the best interests of all of us for the trade,market and fellow shooters to help beginners and young folks learn.

When ,as a young one,I wanted to buy a .22,my older brother insisted I join the YMCA Junior NRA 50 ft .22 rifle club,and learn to shoot first.

He also took me skeet shooting for some more training.Then he had a war to go to.

When Colo first went to the Hunter Safety card,they took a few days of PE class in the public schools,and the Colo Div of Wildlife came in and gave all of the students a Hunter Safety course.

Now without making this political,it would seem to me there was some clear thinking going on.

If the schools teach essential competencies to get through life.including such activities as basketball,volleyball,cooking, sewing, singing,making pinhole cameras and developing black and white film,and so on

It would seem a foundational knowledge of the Bill of Rights and the core competencies of living with that Bill of Rights,(like voting and basic firearms competence) might be a reasonable expectation for publicly funded education.

I do not suggest infringing on the second ammendment,I suggest re-establishing safe,responsible shooting as the cultural norm.It was so,back in the 60's,before the Gun Control Act of 68 began to drive firearms out of mainstream and into the shadows.

Back when most kids could look forward to a .22 and the experiences in the book "The Old Man and the Boy" and a cop show was Matt Dillon keeping the peace,or even Palladin the hired gun,Steve McQueen,bounty hunter,all were gun based but with values

rather than the deranged picture of a saggy shorts punk coward gangbanger with a sideways Glock,or the angry white man with a sniper rifle or Mac-10 or Scorpio the psyco that Callahan had to whack.
Now,the image of a citizen with a firearm is used as a polarizing political agenda.Us,and them.

When was the last time you saw anything on a TV program,a Hollywood movie,in the newspaper etc that said anything good abput the average citizen with a gun?

Only the elite,like CSI and NYPD can do right with a gun,evryone else is a dangerous moron or a psycho,right?

This insidious propaganda has two effects.

One,it encourages the harmful behavior.(For many tube influenced minds,"Normal is what's on TV)

And,for the non shooting public,it re-enforces a fear of people with guns,and encourages voting for the political platform that pursues the antigun agenda.

beasley
April 26, 2009, 03:38 PM
I'm fine with all you say. I would make my own children, siblings, etc learn gun safety. What I wont do is make a law that makes a right afforded by the Constitution contingent on a mandatory class. The fact that it is a right means that any law abiding citizen own gun with no stipulations other than being a law abiding citizen. Freedom means some people will have the right to be fools.

Harry Callahan
April 26, 2009, 04:06 PM
Freedom means some people will have the right to be fools.

Yes, but if a member of my family is hurt or killed because of someone being a fool, I have a problem with that.

Dragon55
April 26, 2009, 04:19 PM
I know we need to keep guns from BG's.... yeah right like they can't get them huh?

Anyway I guess I just don't get the great emphasis on firearms in general as something that needs to be regulated very much at all because of some of the obvious statements in earlier posts.

Fact is I have a six shooter or two that I had to give my name and other info to obtain.

But I also have a lot of other stuff that I didn't have to divulge any identification to obtain that is at least as dangerous or maybe even more so.
--2 bows and various arrows
--ammonium nitrate, diesel fuel, Tide
--nifty little blowgun
--several different styles of swords
--various knives
--an axe........
-- etc etc etc

Point is I agree that a nut can't be stopped simply by taxing and regulating the heck out of everyone else.
So, no ...... no proof of firearm IQ required.
I guess it's just the Libertarian in me.

roy reali
April 26, 2009, 04:38 PM
Have you been to an airport lately? There are signs everywhere that impinge on your 1st Amendment rights. Should those signs forbidding certain speech be removed? Where in the US Constitution is there a mandate for the Federal Government to be involved in educating kids? Does No Child Left Behind ring a bell? How about regulating the legal age for drinking, someone please point out the section of the US Constitution that this power originates from the feds! I'm sorry,but some here rightfully worry about our rights being trampled, I hate to tell you, they have already been run over by a Mack Truck!

HiBC
April 26, 2009, 04:58 PM
I have loved ones,too.Not long ago,I experienced hearing of a second young person in my family circle being murdered by firearm.

There is a difference between a fear in the imagination,and experience.

Evil exists.Always has,always will.Bad things happen to good people.

The loss of Liberty is the ultimate triumph of evil.

Please do not support the notion that any person should need permission from the government to have the means to confront evil and stop it.

Until these people you fear act,it only exists in the mind.We cannot make laws against our own fears.

You know,Harry,I'm comfortable with your handle and post-script signature on your thread.Its great by me.But there are those who would be afraid you were a crazed Dirty Harry wannabe walking the streets with S+W29 drawing down on folks who put catchup on a Hot Dog.You might be OK,but thay might be afraid of what you write.They might say the Right to Bear Arms is OK,jut not OK for folks who like Dirty Harry movies.

Who Decides?

Brian Pfleuger
April 26, 2009, 05:37 PM
Yeah, because those courses the government comes up with are so testing of ones knowledge.

Question from NY state hunters safety course:

You are walking in a line with 2 other hunters, one behind you, one in front of you. Of the following options, which is the best direction to point your firearm?
1) Forward
2)Backward
3)To one side


I'm not kidding. That's a real question. The worst part? People fail that test.


Besides the government incompetence question is the obvious argument of the second amendment not including a knowledge test, which others have stated and with which I agree.

beasley
April 26, 2009, 07:19 PM
I have a problem with that too. But the fact is I have a bigger problem with the Constitution not being adhered to. Freedom is more important than safety. The same fool who would endanger his children because of carelessness with a gun will endanger them in many ways without one. Freedom is worth more than life, that's what this country was founded on and that's the central proclamation of the Constitution. I don't mean the freedom to be evil but certainly the freedom to be (possibly) foolish.

Tom Servo
April 27, 2009, 01:55 AM
I grew up shooting. At age sixteen, I was shooting an M16 in the woods behind a friend's house. The only government response was a guy from the Army Corps of Engineers, who wanted to be sure I had a suitable backstop.

Try THAT nowadays.

The difference now is that guns are stigmatized. It's been going on for decades, but it really took a fine point in the 1990s, when "militia" came to mean "domestic terrorist." Teaching firearms safety in school? Good luck. I was once screamed at by a woman because I offered to teach her ten-year-old son to shoot after he showed some curiosity in the hobby (the word "psychotic" was used).

People are growing up to be simultaneously fear and fetishize guns. As adults, they're unprepared to handle them. Frankly, if you're waiting until your 30's or later to take up shooting, you've got catching up to do, and it doesn't come overnight.

Now, does this mean these people should be denied the right to own a gun? No. Just as they're expected to take responsibility in the excercise of their other freedoms, they should do so with guns.

I have a real problem with people buying guns and skimping on training, but asking the government to regulate it? Look at how poorly ANY endeavor is run when the government's involved.

The solution lies where it always has, with US. I've gotten where I am because more experienced shooters than myself have given their time and experience freely. I think most of us here have had the benefit of that. We repay that sort of thing in kind, by guiding new shooters.

beasley
April 27, 2009, 02:06 PM
Well said Tom. It's also nice to see another MST3K fan.

zukiphile
April 27, 2009, 04:20 PM
Do you have to know how to operate a computer before you buy one? A chainsaw? Lawmower? Should you be allowed to go to Home Depot and buy a ceiling fan without an electrical license? Should you be allowed to vote with an room temperature IQ?
You are comparing apples and oranges. If a person tries to install an electric fan without any knowledge, it probably won't affect my health. A dumb lawn mower operator isn't going to accidentaly kill my dog on a nature hike. A dummy with a gun might cause harm to me or others. I am not saying that this is a good reason to mandate gun knowledge, but to show that your comparisons are invalid. Now, comparing gun ownership to to flying an airplane makes some sense. An idiot flying an airplane endangers not only himself, but innocent folks on the ground. Also, anyone that decides to work on electrical devices in a public venue must be licensed because his screw up can put others in danger. By comparison, if a single digit IQ'd individual wants to buy a 12 gauge shotgun, nothing but the common sense of the gun dealer would prevent it.


As it should be. Intelligence is overrated if the conduct of some very intelligent people is any guide.

That the modern state views all sorts of activities as an opportunity for tax collection and nannyism does not indicate that a nannyism arising from a fear of remote harms is reasonable. A dumb mower operator could amputate his own leg, leaving society with his medical bills and support, so that has a sort of certainty of affecting you personally.

Words can be at least as destructive as guns. I've seen apparently stupid people, often members of the US congress, do great damage with very silly speech. Would you feel comfortable with a federal public speaking license? I don't think you should.

We allow people to do more or less as they please not because they will do no harm, but because much greater harm is to be found in telling what to do.

JMHO.

Csspecs
April 27, 2009, 05:19 PM
Fact is most people don't buy a gun just because they woke up that day and thought it was a good idea.

Most have a friend or family member that is going to help them out or they plan to get lessons. You still can't fix stupid and nothing ever will.

Tom Servo
April 27, 2009, 07:02 PM
Fact is most people don't buy a gun just because they woke up that day and thought it was a good idea.
Actually, that does seem to be the case since November, to a frightening extent. I've had well over twenty conversations with people who ran out and bought guns because of "Obama."

This includes people, who if you'd asked them a year ago, would've told you they'd never consider owning a gun. They're a vocal bunch now, even if it's a little misguided.

These are the folks who buy .32 caliber pistols in anticipation of fighting the "revolution," should it come. Thing is, I'm not seeing any of these folks in classes, or at the range.

Words can be at least as destructive as guns. I've seen apparently stupid people, often members of the US congress, do great damage with very silly speech.
Frank Lloyd Wright: "I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters."

Webleymkv
April 27, 2009, 09:43 PM
Should a person with no gun knowledge, no understanding of basic gun safety, be allowed to have a gun? A car is also dangerous, therefore a driver must pass tests to determine his ability to operate one. However, I am unaware of any major movements to ban cars. Many states now require hunters to pass a course prior to getting their first license. Statistics seem to indicate that it has cut down on accidents. Concealed carry permits also require instruction in most jurisdictions. There are no such requirements for buying guns. Yes, there is a background check, but that proves nothing as far as gun IQ goes.


The comparison to cars brings up an interesting point. It is often pointed out that while cars are arguably as dangerous as guns, we licsense people to drive so why not licsense them to own a gun. The problem with that analogy is that guns are already more severely regulated than cars. Anyone can buy any type of car they can afford and operate it in any way they wish, they only need a licsense to operate it on a public road way. In addition to the fact that most states require some type of licsense to carry a gun in public, there are numerous regulations on who can buy a gun and what type of gun they can buy. Likewise many areas have regulations on how that gun can be used, be it on public property or private. Not that every gun law is a bad one, certain ones are quite sensible, but applying the same regulation as to cars would actually represent a significant amount of de-regulation.

While ensuring that a purchaser has at least a rudimentary knowledge of firearms wouldn't be a bad thing, the degree of regulation that would be neccessary to accomplish such a goal would be unacceptable. The first problem would be who gets to decide what level of knowledge is sufficient to own a firearm. A politician from rural Texas and one from Boston will probably have drastically different ideas of what constitutes a sufficient amount of knowledge, but one has just as good a chance as the other of being the one who decides. Secondly, just like anything else the government becomes involved in, the more stringent the regulation the more likely it is to be abused by the regulators. We've all heard about places where a CCL or NFA CLEO signoff is basically impossible to get without a good deal of money and/or political connections, it is not at all out of the realm of possibility that obtaining the right "credentials" to even own a firearm would devolve into a similar situation.

As Mike Irwin already noted, it is impossible to guarantee safety. There will always be evil people, crazy people, and plain old imbeciles that for whatever reason end up injuring or killing an innocent person. This has been going on throughout the history of man and even the most extreme attempts have been unable to stop it. As Mike pointed out, all you can really do is punish the evil/stupid/irresponsible people and take your chances.

chucksolo69
April 28, 2009, 11:55 AM
The California gun safety certificate is good for 5 years, not the three years that was previously mentioned. There are many people here in California who are new to guns and have taken the handgun safety test after reading the testing material in preparation for taking the test. Also, here in California it is required that the new handgun owner be given and then repeat a manual handgun proficiency handling demonstation before he/she takes the gun home.

grymster2007
April 28, 2009, 02:18 PM
Also, here in California it is required that the new handgun owner be given and then repeat a manual handgun proficiency handling demonstation before he/she takes the gun home. The last time I saw that test conducted, the gun store dude handed the buyer a snap cap and told him to place it in the revolver cylinder, then position the cylinder such that the round would be the next one fired. Guy got it wrong. Gun store dude asked him to repeat the test, bearing in mind the cylinder turns the opposite direction from the buyer's first guess. Guy gets it right, that was it, test over, take your gun home.

Given enough tries, I think I might pass that test. :)

stilettosixshooter
April 28, 2009, 02:49 PM
This includes people, who if you'd asked them a year ago, would've told you they'd never consider owning a gun. They're a vocal bunch now, even if it's a little misguided.

Adding my noob voice to the chorus, that is true :) Although, I have already had several informal "instruction" on basic operation/handling by responsible gun aficionados, go to the range regularly, and plan on taking a 5 hour personal protection class this summer - and then take the CC class to get licensed.

Not all new gun owners are incapable of or uninterested in learning the basics of gun safety/operation quickly. Even though I am a total novice, my #1 priority was to seek out the advice of friends, family, gun shop owners, and message boards to build my knowledge :)

It is our responsibility as members of the gun community to make it "uncool" to be ignorant about or reckless in the handling of firearms. That is far more effective, in my opinion, than any law requiring a certain amount of gun know-how. My .02. We're collecting quite a bit of change as this threat progresses. :rolleyes:

Not all revolver cylinders rotate the same way, BTW :D

Brian Pfleuger
April 28, 2009, 02:58 PM
Even though I am a total novice, my #1 priority was to seek out the advice of friends, family, gun shop owners, and message boards to build my knowledge

Oh God! You're doomed! You'd be better off to stay ignorant!!


(Just kidding, I couldn't resist;))

44 AMP
April 28, 2009, 08:28 PM
Should a person with no gun knowledge, no understanding of basic gun safety, be allowed to have a gun?
changed to read...
Should a person with no child knowledge, no understanding of basic child safety, be allowed to have children?

Kind of upsetting, that idea, isn't it? People all over would be screaming that you have NO RIGHT to decide for them about what they do in their lives!


And why would you believe you have the right to interfere with one decision, and not the other?

Bottom line: Do you believe that you (through the agencies of government) ought to restrict people's decisions based on fears of what they might do?
and how far should that power extend? Which decisions are you comfortable with letting people make on their own, without having to meet some arbitrary standard to prove to you (again through the angecies of government) that they should be allowed to choose their own destiny?

I say hands off. Run the risks, and if needful, pay the price. Nothing in this world is completely safe, not even the grave. Punish people for what they do, when it is wrong, but not before then.

roy reali
April 28, 2009, 10:16 PM
The government already decides which drugs are alright to use and which ones are not. Alcohol and nicotine fine, marijuana not so fine. Why base anti-marijuana laws on something that a person may or may not do under its influence?

The government dictates which words you may or may not utter at an airport. Why the worry over mere words?

I have news for you, the "man" already has a lot of say over our lives.

Tom Servo
April 28, 2009, 10:29 PM
Although, I have already had several informal "instruction" on basic operation/handling by responsible gun aficionados, go to the range regularly, and plan on taking a 5 hour personal protection class this summer - and then take the CC class to get licensed.
Good for you! Welcome to the fold.

Now it's your duty to pass on what you've learned.

bob.a
April 29, 2009, 12:06 PM
In my state (MD) they make you watch a video. Makes sense to me. Most guns are not too complicated; when I was a kid I messed around with a single-shot .22 with a neighbor kid. We never croaked anyone, though we might have drilled some holes where the adults wouldn't have approved.

Later at about 19 I got my hands on a 9mm auto owned by my future father-in-law. I had enough sense to remove the mag and cycle the action while pointing the thing in a safe direction. Seemed pretty intuitive at the time. (I should point out that my family was pretty anti; I had to pick up any info however I could. So far so good, after forty years as a gun owner).

Gun handling is not rocket science. Keeping guns out of the hands of fools, however, is probably impossible, given the speed at which they multiply.

HondaMasterTech
April 30, 2009, 10:31 PM
EDITED. I completely mispoke. Disregard my statement.