Gun IQ

[beasley]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Well said Tom. It's also nice to see another MST3K fan.

[zukiphile]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Not all revolver cylinders rotate the same way, BTW

[Brian Pfleuger]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

EDITED. I completely mispoke. Disregard my statement.