Irresponsible gun owners…

[Yarome]

I kinda want to win…I’m a good packer!

That's a very disturbing mental image.... but you do you!

Eww... that's even worse!!

(See what I did there?)

 

[solv3nt]

That's a very disturbing mental image.... but you do you!

Eww... that's even worse!!

(See what I did there?)

Whatever floats your boat.

 

[Flopsweat]

Whatever floats your boat.

And your little dog too!

Oh wait, thats...

Eh, whatever.

 

[Dirty-30_lever]

Hey the dog doesn’t deserve that, he didn’t do anything lol

 

[Xaevian]

Hey the dog doesn’t deserve that, he didn’t do anything lol

Just a little jealousy cuz it is flexible enough to sack lick.

 

[Dirty-30_lever]

Dog wins!

 

[RedRover]

An emotion based retort. Ah... Eugene. That explains a lot.

Yeah, whatever.. You can't even get your tropes right.

Educating someone on the importance of properly securing firearms is not at the same level of berating a food-service worker because they got an order wrong.

Perhaps, I view it a bit differently than you. I have a young kid.
If someone did something as stupid as leaving a loaded unsecured firearm in my bathroom, they would be disinvited from my house forever.

People that aren't capable of maintaining control of their firearms at ALL times, probably ought naught carry.

As for the idiots that believe otherwise, Karma does indeed have a way of catching up to 'em.

 

[Jay Walk]

If only this fine upstanding citizen would have had some of that required training.

 

[Flopsweat]

If only this fine upstanding citizen would have had some of that required training.

Looks like dad and daughter both made poor choices.

 

[Kruel J]

Thread cleaned, let's keep this on topic.

 

[Knobgoblin]

I actually did run out of coffee. I have a sick sense of humor, but I would never joke about coffee

 

[front_sight]

We should vote on a common sense law that requires training before anyone can buy a gun. Everyone can agree that will save the lives of all the children of the world and we'll have whirrled peas. Oh wait......!

This probably should be a separate post - and probably is somewhere. I was born and lived in Texas for 62 years before I moved to western WA. I carried concealed before Texas "legalized" it with the permit process, and was one of the very early permit holders in the first few months. To get a CCW license we had to take 10 hours of classroom learning, followed by a written test. There was not 10 hours of course material and a few hours was listening to the instructor talk about whatever he wanted to talk about involving guns - some relevant and some not so much. Years later the state reduced it to 8 hours I believe. But the written test made sure you were listening to and understood the important parts that the instructor went over more than once.

From there the class went to the range and you had to shoot a qualification. 50 rounds from literally 3 to 15 yards, within a time period. If you scored well at 3 and 7 yards you almost didn't have to shoot the rest of the qualification. But you at least had to demonstrate you could load and fire your weapon and hit what you were aiming at if it was close. Most of us in this Forum could score a perfect 250 without too much trouble. The woman shooting next to me scared the holy crap out of me, with her target looking like a 5-round, 80-yard buckshot pattern (with half the projectiles missing the target completely).

So then I moved to WA and as soon as I had a (temporary) driver's license I went to apply for my carry permit. No classroom time. No range qualification. As I recall I had to read a booklet. I don't even remember taking a test.

Now I am all about accessibility and social "fairness". I don't believe the permitting process should be exclusionary in either cost or cultural bias. I don't think I am being "elitist" when I say I believe applicants for a CCW license should be able to read the rules. But I also don't think everybody who wants one should have a license. I believe you should have to demonstrate some level of knowledge of the rules and responsibilities of carrying and using a firearm. I also believe an applicant should have to demonstrate that they can use that firearm safely and at least effectively to not pose a danger to others should they have to use it (ie - they can hit the target). This doesn't mean you have to shoot 2" groups at 25 yards. It means the majority of your rounds fired must not miss the person-sized target at reasonable distances.

When I was dining in a restaurant in Dallas I felt pretty secure that the other CCW people in the restaurant could probably stop a threat without spraying the room. And that most of the CCW carriers on the street knew when and in what situation they could draw and use their weapon. I have to tell you that I don't feel the same way here in WA. I think any state issuing licenses should require a certain level of education and proficiency and that it would not hurt us in the community to help make that happen.

 

[titsonritz]

I find it humorous people believe this a training issue to be solved by an 8-10 hour CCW class with all the weapons left in bathrooms and/or on top of vehicles by LEOs who presumably have substantially more training.

I'll also mention there is zero mention of training in the below text:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

[JRuby]

I do not believe everone has the mental capacity to safely own and use a gun. The problem as I see it is an objective defining line between those that can and those that cannot. Should a burgaler that's a repeat offender have a firearm. What about a pedophile? The guy that is so drugged up he can't tell you which state he is in? I believe that law abiding citizens should automatically be have the right to have and carry a firearm from birth. But then again my it's only my opinion.

 

[front_sight]

I find it humorous people believe this a training issue to be solved by an 8-10 hour CCW class with all the weapons left in bathrooms and/or on top of vehicles by LEOs who presumably have substantially more training.

I'll also mention there is zero mention of training in the below text:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I guess I should have been more clear that my post was off-topic and not intended as a solution for the problem in the original post.

To your other point, "the people" mentioned in that amendment didn't need training because they got it from their parents or other people in their life and village. Just like breathing or taking a piss, it was assumed those who could bear arms already knew about how to do so. Not like "the people" now, who have learned most of what they know and adopted their value system from TV and modern culture, and what they don't know from YouTube, and are self-absorbed, internally focused, and everyone else be damned.

I don't know why we can't seem to understand the language of the second amendment as it was used at the time it was written and the actual words they used. It doesn't say "because everyone has a right to self defense, everyone should be allowed to carry a weapon". It starts off by stating the premise that it is necessary that the people have their own army (militia) to insure that they can respond to tyranny from the government. There is not even a period after that. There is a second, connected statement that says nothing should infringe on the right of people to have arms, and "bear" them when necessary. The fact that those two statements are connected in the same sentence clearly says that while personal self defense may be a very important and legitimate secondary benefit of owning arms, it was defense of the free state that was intended to be safeguarded by the wording of the 2A.

I get that many feel the 2A means no laws or license are required to carry a firearm.

But there are LOTS of really stupid and just plain evil people. They are everywhere. The world is full of people who don't think any rules of decency or logic apply to them. This is why we have speed limits for instance. So that the idiots don't kill the rest of us. It is also why even with the 1st amendment, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater (if anyone went to theaters anymore). Because some idiot would think it was funny and do it, and then someone gets hurt in the stampede.

I think some degree of education and proficiency testing simply keeps the terminally stupid and incompetent from doing something that energizes the already hostile press and public, and hurts the pro-gun community in the long run.

 

[titsonritz]

I do not believe everone has the mental capacity to safely own and use a gun.

Most likely not.

The problem as I see it is an objective defining line between those that can and those that cannot.

There are tens of thousands of firearm laws on the books, you really don't think that has not been covered ad nauseam?

Should a burgaler that's a repeat offender have a firearm.

Covered, who's stopping them?

What about a pedophile?

They should be execute but that is another subject.

The guy that is so drugged up he can't tell you which state he is in?

Again covered, who's stopping him?

I believe that law abiding citizens should automatically be have the right to have and carry a firearm from birth. But then again my it's only my opinion.

It is not "only your opinion" it is a constitutional right.

 

[Flopsweat]

This probably should be a separate post - and probably is somewhere. I was born and lived in Texas for 62 years before I moved to western WA. I carried concealed before Texas "legalized" it with the permit process, and was one of the very early permit holders in the first few months. To get a CCW license we had to take 10 hours of classroom learning, followed by a written test. There was not 10 hours of course material and a few hours was listening to the instructor talk about whatever he wanted to talk about involving guns - some relevant and some not so much. Years later the state reduced it to 8 hours I believe. But the written test made sure you were listening to and understood the important parts that the instructor went over more than once.

From there the class went to the range and you had to shoot a qualification. 50 rounds from literally 3 to 15 yards, within a time period. If you scored well at 3 and 7 yards you almost didn't have to shoot the rest of the qualification. But you at least had to demonstrate you could load and fire your weapon and hit what you were aiming at if it was close. Most of us in this Forum could score a perfect 250 without too much trouble. The woman shooting next to me scared the holy crap out of me, with her target looking like a 5-round, 80-yard buckshot pattern (with half the projectiles missing the target completely).

So then I moved to WA and as soon as I had a (temporary) driver's license I went to apply for my carry permit. No classroom time. No range qualification. As I recall I had to read a booklet. I don't even remember taking a test.

Now I am all about accessibility and social "fairness". I don't believe the permitting process should be exclusionary in either cost or cultural bias. I don't think I am being "elitist" when I say I believe applicants for a CCW license should be able to read the rules. But I also don't think everybody who wants one should have a license. I believe you should have to demonstrate some level of knowledge of the rules and responsibilities of carrying and using a firearm. I also believe an applicant should have to demonstrate that they can use that firearm safely and at least effectively to not pose a danger to others should they have to use it (ie - they can hit the target). This doesn't mean you have to shoot 2" groups at 25 yards. It means the majority of your rounds fired must not miss the person-sized target at reasonable distances.

When I was dining in a restaurant in Dallas I felt pretty secure that the other CCW people in the restaurant could probably stop a threat without spraying the room. And that most of the CCW carriers on the street knew when and in what situation they could draw and use their weapon. I have to tell you that I don't feel the same way here in WA. I think any state issuing licenses should require a certain level of education and proficiency and that it would not hurt us in the community to help make that happen.

The right to bear arms is not conditional. You have the right, uninfringed, to have and carry a gun. If you want to promote quality firearm safety courses and offer them free of charge, that's fine. If you want to require it, that's not OK. The "public safety" excuse has been abused far too much for us to accept it as a rationale. The Supreme Court eliminated it as an excuse in Bruen. Accidental shootings have been decreasing for decades, most likely because of voluntary training, which has increased over those same decades. It may not be happening fast enough to suit some of us, but societal changes happen slowly, and in a free society, they are not brought about by force.

 

[Knobgoblin]

Freedom isn't supposed to feel comfortable.

 

[Flopsweat]

Freedom isn't supposed to feel comfortable.

It's supposed to be scary and difficult. Weak people can't be expected to defend it. Comfort and convenience are the siren call of communism.

 

[Knobgoblin]

Yup , and it doesn't begin at 25 either. You're either free from birth ,or you never will be.