TW Scott said:
What I object to is the premise licensing falls under and what implications it brings. A license implies privilage. Making it a privilage implies that it can be revoked.
Fine. Whatever. Call it "certification" or "registry". It is not an abridgment of your rights to demand that you know how to use the damn thing.
Now you may not agree, but gun ownder ship and carraige is a right. It's our second amendment, just after Freedom of Expression and Religious Freedom. So important our forefather worte it in it's own amendment and denied our government the ability to abridge our right to weaponry in any way.
And that includes criminals. Hmm. Complication. However, if we read the Second Amendment according to what it says, we can justify regulation as part of the security of a free state. You know, the Second Amendment? Then again, I must bear in mind that gun-advocacy rhetoric doesn't generally care about the security of a free state.
As for standardized education, that is fine. I believe that EVERY America should be taught the basics of firearm safety and use. Why? Well aren't we all taught not to go near powerlines, or to avoid drinking bleach, to report a gas leak when we smell it, and so on.
You know, in my public school, they did teach firearm safety equivalent to not going near powerlines: Stay away from guns. Beyond that, your proposition of teaching the basics to every American only indoctrinates people into the culture of gun violence. Which seems to be your goal: the more guns, the merrier.
Teaching everyone how not to misuse a gun will save the lives of gun accident victims.
And it's fairly easy: Stay away from guns.
By your agenda, "Teaching everyone how not to misuse a gun" is a disingenuous characterization. You're advocating teachng children how to shoot. With public money. The government should keep its hands off your weapon, right? Unless, of course, it's handing one to you? Selfish and hypocritical. You're welcome to your paranoid fantasies and lethal force, but I find it offensive that you would use state money to indoctrinate my child into that world.
Well, first when designing an actul syllabus only people who have an actual functional knowledge of gun safety, operation and use will be allowed to have input. People with no experience and are geneally ignorant can watch but must reamin silent. If you think this is harsh think of it this way, would you listen to a person who has never seen a horse in person about Riding safety. Would you trust a person who has never ridden a motorcycle to teach you to ride? Would you let a man who can't read write a users manual? No, you'd go to someone who knows what they are doing and you ignore the others. Same thing here.
Neither would I let a paranoid person teach safety. If you think this is harsh, consider your own inconsistency:
First we take the approach of teaching children what a gun is and what it does. This can be applied to adults as well. We teach children that the gun is not a toy, it is a tool. It needs to be used properly. We teach them that if they find an unattended gun they should leave it where it is and fetch an adult. If no adult is available the child must be made to understand not to touch, move, and if possible not be in the same area as a gun.
This is what is, or at least was twenty-five years ago, taught in schools. At least it was at mine. It sounds to me like you're complaining for no reason. Of course, with the damage conservatives have done to the curriculum during that period, things could have changed.
But it is inconsistent with what you wrote earlier in your own post. And as I've noted, it's a ridiculous and offensive proposal to use public money to indoctrinate children in the methods and philosophies of gun violence.
That is the most ridiculous bullshit I have ever seen.
Good. That was the point. It's almost as ridiculous as taking children away from parents who don't want their kids forcibly trained in the operation and use of firearms.
I do not expect you to teach her about condom use, but how about alerting you if your neighbor has been touching her inappropiately? How is that different than teaching your daughter to come fetch you if she finds a gun in your lawn?
It hardly constitutes teaching her how to operate and use the effing gun. Truly, Mr. Scott, that was the point I was wondering about, and when you wrote that every American "should be taught the basics of firearm safety and use", you demonstrated how ridiculous your proposition is.
You keep harping about improper use of weaponry when I keep agreeing that is a problem.
You keep shying away from what constitutes proper use. Answer me a question, please:
Is every person who calls themselves a "responsible gun owner" responsible?
I would think we could actually agree on the answer, but I'll wait for your two cents. Because I don't see why you're so afraid of a standard to describe responsible use.
Besides like I said, proper knife use is acquired skill and you have to pray that your opponent even semi trained or is big enough that a single stab is only going to piss him off.
Er ... okay. Whatever you say. (That sentence doesn't make enough sense for me to attempt to interpret.)
There goes that math dyslexia again, or perhaps you are a masochist.
No, I'm simply not frightened of every possibility.
Are you kidding? i wasn't bitter. I was condescending. You are thick.
So ... you're condescending for no reason at all? You're a sad joke.
Well, in my book as well as in most peoples, if you don't start shit you're pretty responsible. Now of course there is also the way you respond how the shit getting started. If you meet a challenge with the minimal amount of violence to end the confronttation then you are responsible.
Neither that nor your examples are much of an answer. Besides, you left out a possibility. You could be disarmed and shot with your own weapon.
Hey, I have seen how some people ask for direction. It ain't pretty.
And I've seen what some people consider a threat. It ain't necessarily pretty, and it ain't necessarily smart. Your oversensitivity, for instance, I would hope is limited to your online experiences.
Just about every one is capable of using a gun, Tiassa, that's the beauty of it as a weapon. Even the infirm can protect thmselves against the predators of our world.
Just about everyone is capable of using a gun, Mr. Scott, and that can be scary. Even the stupid can protect themselves against imagined threats.
What I have a problem with you notion that weapon carraige is a privilage. It isn't, it's a right and one we should not forsake. As for gun education, would you rather your daughter play with a gun she finds in her friends house, or would you prefer she knows that such things are not toys. As for shooting, later in life she should know becuase between 15 and 50 she is militia same as you are.
Carrying a gun at all times because you're frightened of your neighbor is not the right outlined in the Second Amendment. If regulating a well-regulated militia is too much to ask, perhaps you should consider the wisdom of exercising this particular right of yours.
Licensing works like that. It's a method of abridging the rights of the poor, or are you too thick to realize that.
My driver's license isn't what I would call "expensive". Insurance is more about the poor, and I'll skip the question about how thick you are.
Okay, so you are stupid, good to know. I was merely adressing your claim that automatic weapons are for multiple targets.
Answer the question: Is replacing training with number of rounds conducive to security?
Plus you try to claim I am indostrinating kids by teaching them gun safety. I guess in your opinion, it is indoctrination to teach them reading, writing, math, honesty, and so on.
There is a difference between teaching reading, writing, math, honesty, &c., and teaching children how to shoot. Try an honest comparison sometime, Mr. Scott.
God I feel like I have come to a battle of moronity unarmed.
Well, "unarmed" is certainly a fair word for it, at least.
The statistic also lumps when the abused shoots the abuser in with involved in domestic violence.
Yes, because it is domestic violence. So much for the minimal-violence response, eh? Consistency, Mr. Scott, would help reduce your appearance of dishonesty.
Now it does not add in intruders scared off or wounded.
I came across a bit yesterday where someone was bitching about the infamous 43:1 ratio, pointing out that the statistic only counted when the intruder was killed or wounded, and did not account for the number of times simply flashing a weapon sufficed. Interestingly, the gun advocates tend to shoot down any "last resort" rhetoric by flashing their guns dozens of times because they've scared themselves so badly.