Obama win triggers run on guns in many stores

[natty bumppo 297]

I don't have a problem with people having guns, as long as there is a thorough background check. I also like the idea of mandatory training for gun owners, similar to say open water training for divers (certain people, like military & law enforcement, would be exempt from this requirement). The last thing we need is a criminal or untrained individual with a gun.

care to define "thorough background check" for me? there's already in place a name check on the buyer.

and this mandatory training - is that a pass/fail class or what?

National background check... pretty simple. As for the test it would be standardized, just like the open water diver example or a driving test.

I don't have a problem with people having guns, as long as there is a thorough background check. I also like the idea of mandatory training for gun owners, similar to say open water training for divers (certain people, like military & law enforcement, would be exempt from this requirement). The last thing we need is a criminal or untrained individual with a gun.

care to define "thorough background check" for me? there's already in place a name check on the buyer.

and this mandatory training - is that a pass/fail class or what?

I'll call the part in bold part B.S. I've witnessed too many people with this type of "training" as dangerous in their firearm handling skills and/or proficiency with a firearm.

That's not due to lack of knowledge, it's due to being careless. There isn't a way that I know of to eliminate stupidity... as long as people exist stupidity will exist.

in part a lack of knowledge, part careless, and also a big part pure arrogance. Geez ... can't tell you how many times I've heard "I once fired a weapon in basic some odd years ago" or "please work with me, I need to re-qualify".

the stupidity part ... no amount of legislation will correct this as the world will simply produce a better quality of stupid idiots.

[cdn_in_wa 1]

There is no perfect answer... you could have someone with no criminal background who is an expert with a firearm go bezerk one day & kill a bunch pf people. All I am saying is that if you eliminate criminals from getting a firearm & give firearm owners a basic level of training you are taking reasonable precautions.

No amount of regulation will do this.

Take for example, Canada.

All handguns have been heavily regulated for years. The average gun owner just doesn't have a handgun. Twenty years ago, I had to get a firearms permit just to buy a shotgun (full on check by the local police with fancy wallet card as outcome). Recently, they enacted stricter licensing and mandatory registration for all long guns.

Is crime involving guns on the decline now? Of course not. Do the criminals in Canada not have guns now? Of course they do. Regulation and registration don't matter to people intent on committing crime.

Despite these bold attempts to curtail gun ownership, Canada is not safer.

If you take guns away from honest people, only criminals will have guns.

[Ban Hammer 14,569]

There is no perfect answer... you could have someone with no criminal background who is an expert with a firearm go bezerk one day & kill a bunch pf people. All I am saying is that if you eliminate criminals from getting a firearm & give firearm owners a basic level of training you are taking reasonable precautions.

No amount of regulation will do this.

Take for example, Canada.

All handguns have been heavily regulated for years. The average gun owner just doesn't have a handgun. Twenty years ago, I had to get a firearms permit just to buy a shotgun (full on check by the local police with fancy wallet card as outcome). Recently, they enacted stricter licensing and mandatory registration for all long guns.

Is crime involving guns on the decline now? Of course not. Do the criminals in Canada not have guns now? Of course they do. Regulation and registration don't matter to people intent on committing crime.

Despite these bold attempts to curtail gun ownership, Canada is not safer.

If you take guns away from honest people, only criminals will have guns.

uh oh, a canadian about to lose their citizenship for going against the status quo.

[nowhereman 1]

I don't have a problem with people having guns, as long as there is a thorough background check. I also like the idea of mandatory training for gun owners, similar to say open water training for divers (certain people, like military & law enforcement, would be exempt from this requirement). The last thing we need is a criminal or untrained individual with a gun.

care to define "thorough background check" for me? there's already in place a name check on the buyer.

and this mandatory training - is that a pass/fail class or what?

National background check... pretty simple. As for the test it would be standardized, just like the open water diver example or a driving test.

I don't have a problem with people having guns, as long as there is a thorough background check. I also like the idea of mandatory training for gun owners, similar to say open water training for divers (certain people, like military & law enforcement, would be exempt from this requirement). The last thing we need is a criminal or untrained individual with a gun.

care to define "thorough background check" for me? there's already in place a name check on the buyer.

and this mandatory training - is that a pass/fail class or what?

I'll call the part in bold part B.S. I've witnessed too many people with this type of "training" as dangerous in their firearm handling skills and/or proficiency with a firearm.

That's not due to lack of knowledge, it's due to being careless. There isn't a way that I know of to eliminate stupidity... as long as people exist stupidity will exist.

in part a lack of knowledge, part careless, and also a big part pure arrogance. Geez ... can't tell you how many times I've heard "I once fired a weapon in basic some odd years ago" or "please work with me, I need to re-qualify".

the stupidity part ... no amount of legislation will correct this as the world will simply produce a better quality of stupid idiots.

Well when I meant military I meant active duty and drilling reservists... sorry for the confusion. As for stupidity we agree on that, but take driving for example. To get a drivers license you need to pass a test, but we all know there are lots of bad drivers out there. Just imagine how much worse it would be if there was no test at all!

[natty bumppo 297]

I don't have a problem with people having guns, as long as there is a thorough background check. I also like the idea of mandatory training for gun owners, similar to say open water training for divers (certain people, like military & law enforcement, would be exempt from this requirement). The last thing we need is a criminal or untrained individual with a gun.

care to define "thorough background check" for me? there's already in place a name check on the buyer.

and this mandatory training - is that a pass/fail class or what?

National background check... pretty simple. As for the test it would be standardized, just like the open water diver example or a driving test.

I don't have a problem with people having guns, as long as there is a thorough background check. I also like the idea of mandatory training for gun owners, similar to say open water training for divers (certain people, like military & law enforcement, would be exempt from this requirement). The last thing we need is a criminal or untrained individual with a gun.

care to define "thorough background check" for me? there's already in place a name check on the buyer.

and this mandatory training - is that a pass/fail class or what?

I'll call the part in bold part B.S. I've witnessed too many people with this type of "training" as dangerous in their firearm handling skills and/or proficiency with a firearm.

That's not due to lack of knowledge, it's due to being careless. There isn't a way that I know of to eliminate stupidity... as long as people exist stupidity will exist.

in part a lack of knowledge, part careless, and also a big part pure arrogance. Geez ... can't tell you how many times I've heard "I once fired a weapon in basic some odd years ago" or "please work with me, I need to re-qualify".

the stupidity part ... no amount of legislation will correct this as the world will simply produce a better quality of stupid idiots.

Well when I meant military I meant active duty and drilling reservists... sorry for the confusion. As for stupidity we agree on that, but take driving for example. To get a drivers license you need to pass a test, but we all know there are lots of bad drivers out there. Just imagine how much worse it would be if there was no test at all!

:

does being active military equate to proficiency with handling a firearm?

[Niels Bohr 72]

It's time to pull out the big guns!

[Ban Hammer 14,569]

Well when I meant military I meant active duty and drilling reservists... sorry for the confusion. As for stupidity we agree on that, but take driving for example. To get a drivers license you need to pass a test, but we all know there are lots of bad drivers out there. Just imagine how much worse it would be if there was no test at all!

just those two categories?

does being active military equate to proficiency with handling a firearm?

as long as they are army or marines

It's time to pull out the big guns!

5.56 mm isn't big.

[natty bumppo 297]

Well when I meant military I meant active duty and drilling reservists... sorry for the confusion. As for stupidity we agree on that, but take driving for example. To get a drivers license you need to pass a test, but we all know there are lots of bad drivers out there. Just imagine how much worse it would be if there was no test at all!

just those two categories?

does being active military equate to proficiency with handling a firearm?

as long as they are army or marines

It's time to pull out the big guns!

5.56 mm isn't big.

wonder how much range time the support folks get? administrative types, mechanics, medical, logistics, etc? After all, they can also be considered active duty

Edited November 10, 2008 by Natty Bumppo

[nowhereman 1]

Well when I meant military I meant active duty and drilling reservists... sorry for the confusion. As for stupidity we agree on that, but take driving for example. To get a drivers license you need to pass a test, but we all know there are lots of bad drivers out there. Just imagine how much worse it would be if there was no test at all!

just those two categories?

does being active military equate to proficiency with handling a firearm?

as long as they are army or marines

It's time to pull out the big guns!

5.56 mm isn't big.

wonder how much range time the support folks get? administrative types, mechanics, medical, logistics, etc? After all, they can also be considered active duty

Everyone in the Army has to qualify twice a year; I can't speak for the other armed services. Sure a ranger is a lot better trained & experienced than a REMF, but the REMF still has the basics to qualify with his/her assigned weapon. You can apply the basic safety measures and techniques learned in the military to any firearm, so that's why I argued they should get an exemption. I imagine the Air Force & Navy fire their assigned weapon less than the Army or Marines, but I don't know that to be fact.

[natty bumppo 297]

Well when I meant military I meant active duty and drilling reservists... sorry for the confusion. As for stupidity we agree on that, but take driving for example. To get a drivers license you need to pass a test, but we all know there are lots of bad drivers out there. Just imagine how much worse it would be if there was no test at all!

just those two categories?

does being active military equate to proficiency with handling a firearm?

as long as they are army or marines

It's time to pull out the big guns!

5.56 mm isn't big.

wonder how much range time the support folks get? administrative types, mechanics, medical, logistics, etc? After all, they can also be considered active duty

Ever. You can apply the basic safety measures and techniques learned in the yone in the Army has to qualify twice a year; I can't speak for the other armed services. Sure a ranger is a lot better trained & experienced than a REMF, but the REMF still has the basics to qualify with his/her assigned weaponmilitary to any firearm, so that's why I argued they should get an exemption. I imagine the Air Force & Navy fire their assigned weapon less than the Army or Marines, but I don't know that to be fact.

highly controlled range time 2x per year with an assigned weapon instills basics and proficiency for any firearm?

Edited November 10, 2008 by Natty Bumppo

[nowhereman 1]

Well when I meant military I meant active duty and drilling reservists... sorry for the confusion. As for stupidity we agree on that, but take driving for example. To get a drivers license you need to pass a test, but we all know there are lots of bad drivers out there. Just imagine how much worse it would be if there was no test at all!

just those two categories?

does being active military equate to proficiency with handling a firearm?

as long as they are army or marines

It's time to pull out the big guns!

5.56 mm isn't big.

wonder how much range time the support folks get? administrative types, mechanics, medical, logistics, etc? After all, they can also be considered active duty

Ever. You can apply the basic safety measures and techniques learned in the yone in the Army has to qualify twice a year; I can't speak for the other armed services. Sure a ranger is a lot better trained & experienced than a REMF, but the REMF still has the basics to qualify with his/her assigned weaponmilitary to any firearm, so that's why I argued they should get an exemption. I imagine the Air Force & Navy fire their assigned weapon less than the Army or Marines, but I don't know that to be fact.

highly controlled range time 2x per year with an assigned weapon instills basics and proficiency for any firearm?

You didn't get my point... read it again. The basics & safety measures can be applied... of course each firearm is somewhat different. I guarantee if given a 5 minute block of instruction on an AK47 I could qualify with it.

[natty bumppo 297]

Well when I meant military I meant active duty and drilling reservists... sorry for the confusion. As for stupidity we agree on that, but take driving for example. To get a drivers license you need to pass a test, but we all know there are lots of bad drivers out there. Just imagine how much worse it would be if there was no test at all!

just those two categories?

does being active military equate to proficiency with handling a firearm?

as long as they are army or marines

It's time to pull out the big guns!

5.56 mm isn't big.

wonder how much range time the support folks get? administrative types, mechanics, medical, logistics, etc? After all, they can also be considered active duty

Ever. You can apply the basic safety measures and techniques learned in the yone in the Army has to qualify twice a year; I can't speak for the other armed services. Sure a ranger is a lot better trained & experienced than a REMF, but the REMF still has the basics to qualify with his/her assigned weaponmilitary to any firearm, so that's why I argued they should get an exemption. I imagine the Air Force & Navy fire their assigned weapon less than the Army or Marines, but I don't know that to be fact.

highly controlled range time 2x per year with an assigned weapon instills basics and proficiency for any firearm?

You didn't get my point... read it again. The basics & safety measures can be applied... of course each firearm is somewhat different. I guarantee if given a 5 minute block of instruction on an AK47 I could qualify with it.

I get it ... you don't.

Unless basics & safety measures are practiced with some degree of regularity (2x per year on a highly controlled range ain't it ..) people can quickly forget and get sloppy.

[Ban Hammer 14,569]

Everyone in the Army has to qualify twice a year; I can't speak for the other armed services. Sure a ranger is a lot better trained & experienced than a REMF, but the REMF still has the basics to qualify with his/her assigned weapon. You can apply the basic safety measures and techniques learned in the military to any firearm, so that's why I argued they should get an exemption. I imagine the Air Force & Navy fire their assigned weapon less than the Army or Marines, but I don't know that to be fact.

i've run into air force personnel that haven't fired since they was in basic.

You didn't get my point... read it again. The basics & safety measures can be applied... of course each firearm is somewhat different. I guarantee if given a 5 minute block of instruction on an AK47 I could qualify with it.

food for thought on this topic of military being exempt - i saw a senior nco that couldn't qualify in 1995.

[nowhereman 1]

Well when I meant military I meant active duty and drilling reservists... sorry for the confusion. As for stupidity we agree on that, but take driving for example. To get a drivers license you need to pass a test, but we all know there are lots of bad drivers out there. Just imagine how much worse it would be if there was no test at all!

just those two categories?

does being active military equate to proficiency with handling a firearm?

as long as they are army or marines

It's time to pull out the big guns!

5.56 mm isn't big.

wonder how much range time the support folks get? administrative types, mechanics, medical, logistics, etc? After all, they can also be considered active duty

Ever. You can apply the basic safety measures and techniques learned in the yone in the Army has to qualify twice a year; I can't speak for the other armed services. Sure a ranger is a lot better trained & experienced than a REMF, but the REMF still has the basics to qualify with his/her assigned weaponmilitary to any firearm, so that's why I argued they should get an exemption. I imagine the Air Force & Navy fire their assigned weapon less than the Army or Marines, but I don't know that to be fact.

highly controlled range time 2x per year with an assigned weapon instills basics and proficiency for any firearm?

You didn't get my point... read it again. The basics & safety measures can be applied... of course each firearm is somewhat different. I guarantee if given a 5 minute block of instruction on an AK47 I could qualify with it.

I get it ... you don't.

Unless basics & safety measures are practiced with some degree of regularity (2x per year on a highly controlled range ain't it ..) people can quickly forget and get sloppy.

I think you are reading what you want to read... we are essentially agreeing that no matter how well trained someone is they can be dangerous if they don't adhere to their training. I qualify twice a year but if I went 5 years without handling a weapon I would still remember basic safety, so it's an individual thing. Like I said all you can do is take reasonable precautions & no matter what you do a certain percentage of people will get hurt... it's basically risk management.

[alienlovechild 75]

I think you are reading what you want to read... we are essentially agreeing that no matter how well trained someone is they can be dangerous if they don't adhere to their training. I qualify twice a year but if I went 5 years without handling a weapon I would still remember basic safety, so it's an individual thing. Like I said all you can do is take reasonable precautions & no matter what you do a certain percentage of people will get hurt... it's basically risk management.

I concur. I didn't have a combat MOS in the Army but after 9 years out of the Army I think could still handle an M-16A2 and qualify (maybe not on the first try). For safety, how hard is it to not have a magazine in the weapon, clear the chamber, safety on and keep it downrange. . . ? There were basics to markmanship- breathing, site picture, posture, trigger squeeze.