GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-23-2013, 20:06   #126
John Rambo
Raven
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tampa, Fl.
Posts: 8,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by jame View Post
I hate to be indelicate, because we're all "2nd Amendment, HELL YEAH!" around here, but is anyone mildly concerned about some of the new gun owners that have zero experience with firearms?

I've talked a bit with some of the guys at my local place of business, and they say they do. My concern is that the new guy is going to come home from work and throw his loaded G26 in his sock drawer when he gets home, without a second thought that his 6 year old will get his hands on it.

Has anyone else had the same thoughts?

I'm a little concerned about half this site's userbase every time I see them post, but they manage to get by.
John Rambo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2013, 21:48   #127
PhotoFeller
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Midwest and south
Posts: 2,681
Blog Entries: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs.Cicero View Post
Some of you seem to think that "training" will be a magic fix for the stupid herd of morons utterly lacking in common sense who, without any experience with firearms, go out and buy one and think that alone solves all their problems. Training will not fix stupid. Training WILL fix ignorant, but more gov't regulation won't make that happen any more than it already does. The newbs in your classes are ALREADY GETTING TRAINING, or they wouldn't be in your classes, because they recognize their own ignorance.

Just because you cannot think of a better solution, doesn't mean gov't involvement is the right solution, or even a helpful solution. Stop looking for Nanny Gov't to wave her wand and fix your issues, because that wand is a whip, and it will eventually become the rod she uses to beat you to death, after she has decided that you, too, shouldn't own a gun.
I agree that a day of training likely won't fix pure stupid. But if Mr. Stupid fails a safe handling review, with or without instruction, he wouldn't get the CC license. He must repeat the competency review until he passes. Failure to pass repeatedly because of stupidity or mental deficiency would mean no ticket to the dance. It's kinda like our kids having to meet academic standards. (Gosh, maybe we should eliminate "Nanny Government" requirements for our kids to be educated to meet a minimum standard.)

During a lengthy thread in recent days about C1 vs. C3, the one area of universal agreement was that training and experience are necessary for safe handling of a chambered SD handgun. I believe its fair to say everyone agreed that training and experience are even more important where Glock pistols are involved. Its interesting that one would say training is essential in one discussion and insist that it shouldn't be required in another.

On a fundamental level, public safety is an area where well-crafted government regulations serve a useful purpose. The intent of such regulations is to prevent people who are stupid, careless, under the influence, not of sound mind or able body, anti-social, anti-government, angry, unscrupulous in selling services without being qualified, and unwilling to become certified for activities that can be harmful to the public from doing whatever they please without being held to a reasonable standard. Carrying deadly firearms in public might be said to have public safety implications.

I agree that government is already too big, too expensive, too wasteful and too intrusive. Generally speaking, we don't need more government involvement in our lives. On the other hand, most will agree that there is always room for improvement; sometimes that involves putting new words into the law books to adjust to our constantly changing environment.

Last edited by PhotoFeller; 03-23-2013 at 23:53..
PhotoFeller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2013, 22:12   #128
Desert Duck
Senior Member
 
Desert Duck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Front range in the mountains!
Posts: 330
Blog Entries: 1
Back to the OP... I was the newb four years ago....

After Front Sight, Hickok45 and 130+ hours as an NRA RO, I am getting closer to where I want to be with my skill at arms. But there is no finish line to respecting firearms and safety awareness. It is never "No Risk." It is always, "Know Risk." Always and in all ways.
__________________
G26, G22 w/LWD 40 to 9 conversion barrel, G30!
---------------------------------------------------------
Prepared. For life.
Desert Duck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2013, 22:13   #129
PhotoFeller
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Midwest and south
Posts: 2,681
Blog Entries: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Glock View Post
My son, at 4 years old, knew better than to touch. I never put them up, I never left them unloaded. He is awesome at gun safety. Teach them while they are young and they will grow up with respect for the firearm.

Educating little children to understand that guns are dangerous is necessary, without a doubt.

Expecting a child to apply "gun will hurt you" training to the complete exclusion of his/her overpowering curiosity is not a good thing.

Leaving firearms within reach of small children, no matter how well you think they are trained, is a risk that should never taken, in my opinion.

Last edited by PhotoFeller; 03-24-2013 at 01:34..
PhotoFeller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2013, 22:26   #130
jame
mange takk
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Central Iowa
Posts: 5,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desert Duck View Post
Back to the OP... I was the newb four years ago....

After Front Sight, Hickok45 and 130+ hours as an NRA RO, I am getting closer to where I want to be with my skill at arms. But there is no finish line to respecting firearms and safety awareness. It is never "No Risk." It is always, "Know Risk." Always and in all ways.
Awesome. Way to go, Desert duck!

You, sir, are to be held up as a shining example.
jame is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2013, 22:29   #131
jame
mange takk
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Central Iowa
Posts: 5,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhotoFeller View Post
I really try to be a gentleman in posting on this board, and I will be as genteel as I can in response to this statement.

Educating little children to understand that guns are dangerous is necessary, without a doubt.

Expecting a child to apply "gun will hurt you" training to the complete exclusion of his/her overpowering curiosity is seriously negligent behavior, in my opinion.

I urge anyone who reads Lady Glock's advice about leaving firearms within reach of children, no matter how well you think they are trained, to reject it out of hand.
I wholeheartedly agree. Kids aren't just little humans. They have intellects completely different than that of an adult. To expect a child to behave as an adult in way off the mark, imho.
jame is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 04:18   #132
SandP04
Member
 
SandP04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: The Great PNW
Posts: 30
They're HELLA scary! I'm a new "owner" but I've been around and used pistols/rifles/shotguns/muzzle loaders all my life and was taught how to respect and handle a weapon.

When I was picking up my g30 from my FFL, there was another guy getting his first pistol too; I'll call him Bob. Bob is handed his cased pistol to inspect... Straight outta the case he was pointing and waiving it around w finger on the trigger! (Bob NEVER did a chamber check, released the mag or anything!) Bob made the FFL so nervous he took the pistol from Bob to check it for himself.

I hate to even think of the countless "what ifs" in Bob's household...
SandP04 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 05:24   #133
Lady Glock
Senior Member
 
Lady Glock's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: GA
Posts: 3,494
Send a message via ICQ to Lady Glock
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhotoFeller View Post
Educating little children to understand that guns are dangerous is necessary, without a doubt.

Expecting a child to apply "gun will hurt you" training to the complete exclusion of his/her overpowering curiosity is not a good thing.

Leaving firearms within reach of small children, no matter how well you think they are trained, is a risk that should never taken, in my opinion.
Well that 4 year old has grown up to be 13 now, and his sister is 18. They both survived living around handguns that were ALWAYS loaded and always within arms reach of ME. I bought my first one after taking my CCW class. I had a good reason, my attacker was nearing being eligible to see the parole board. When my daughter turned 10, I enrolled her in the Junior NRA program and she learned gun safety, though I had already been working with BOTH children by getting the eddie eagle materials. The company even sent me the video they usually sell, but decided to throw it in for free with the coloring books, stickers, etc...

I took them to the range (yes, I took a 4 year old to the range) and helped him learn how to shoot my .44 special and .45 Ruger. We shot at a watermelon they had drawn faces on. In 2 shots, the watermelon was obliterated! I told them "that is what can happen to a person's head if you shoot them". It was very dramatic. If they wanted to TOUCH or HOLD the guns out of childlike curiosity, they would ask me first...I would unload and triple check that it was safely unloaded...I would hand it to them and tell them to be careful where they pointed it. I taught them to NEVER point it at something they were not willing to destroy. They never had to worry about being curious...they were rarely denied when they wanted time to hold it. If they wanted to shoot it, we would head for the range and they were taught the difference between a hot and cold range...and about keeping the firearm pointed safely downrange. On a cold range, they were taught to point it downrange with the action open.

My daughter was head of the class with knowlege of the terms in the NRA...what is a bullet compared to a cartridge. They asked the class to identify the bullet, many of the class held up the entire cartridge, she said outloud that a bullet is the piece that comes out of the cartridge when the trigger is pulled on a loaded gun. (that dang kid came home with so much candy from giving the right answers).

It should not be the governments job to teach our children gunsafety...it is the parents responsibility to do so. I voluntarily attended free classes on self defense, timed and graded by accuracy. I have a need to know that I can defend myself and my children if my attacker is released from prison and comes after me as he promised he would. I've also taught my daughter that if I am disabled and can't shoot, she may have to be the one to "shoot to stop", which could mean killing someone. She knows she may have to, she doesn't want to have to, same as me...but she is prepared if the need comes up. My son has disabilities that affect his hands and wrists as well as his lower extrimities. I will get him a 9MM before he leaves home, my daughter is getting my .45 Ruger when she moves out. She has shot it many times.

So, to answer your post...leaving my guns out around my children was never an issue concerning "overpowering curiosity...if they were THAT curious, they were not denied the chance to handle it. If they wanted to shoot it, we went to the range and they shot it (or any combination of the guns I had/have). As their mother, it was my choice to leave them down and trust that I had trained them well enough to not have to worry. That's the way it SHOULD be...not getting the government involved in ordering people to get training before they can get a gun. Parental responsibility is lacking because of people who want to rely on the government for "birth to grave" regulations.
__________________
This is ok, right? I'm not breaking any rules or making anyone mad at me for this comment, Right?

Trust in God...Everyone else keep your hands where I can see them!
Lady Glock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 05:35   #134
Lady Glock
Senior Member
 
Lady Glock's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: GA
Posts: 3,494
Send a message via ICQ to Lady Glock
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhotoFeller

I really try to be a gentleman in posting on this board, and I will be as genteel as I can in response to this statement.

Educating little children to understand that guns are dangerous is necessary, without a doubt.

Expecting a child to apply "gun will hurt you" training to the complete exclusion of his/her overpowering curiosity is seriously negligent behavior, in my opinion.

I urge anyone who reads Lady Glock's advice about leaving firearms within reach of children, no matter how well you think they are trained, to reject it out of hand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jame View Post
I wholeheartedly agree. Kids aren't just little humans. They have intellects completely different than that of an adult. To expect a child to behave as an adult in way off the mark, imho.
Read my last comment and then figure out that as parents (or grandparents) it is up to the family of the children to make the decisions regarding training their children...and then worry about your own home decisions and let the rest of us worry about our own. I get really tired of people who seem to think they know how to raise my children better than I do. Mine survived their childhood it seems maybe I didn't do so bad in how I chose to teach them.
__________________
This is ok, right? I'm not breaking any rules or making anyone mad at me for this comment, Right?

Trust in God...Everyone else keep your hands where I can see them!
Lady Glock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 05:37   #135
Lady Glock
Senior Member
 
Lady Glock's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: GA
Posts: 3,494
Send a message via ICQ to Lady Glock
Quote:
Originally Posted by jame View Post
I wholeheartedly agree. Kids aren't just little humans. They have intellects completely different than that of an adult. To expect a child to behave as an adult in way off the mark, imho.
Thank you for quoting this post in whole...I would not have known how much I was being judged had you not quoted it seeing as how the other poster changed the post before I could read it.
__________________
This is ok, right? I'm not breaking any rules or making anyone mad at me for this comment, Right?

Trust in God...Everyone else keep your hands where I can see them!
Lady Glock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 07:17   #136
Peace Warrior
CLM Number 221
Am Yisrael Chai
 
Peace Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: With the other 7,999,999
Posts: 26,172
Blog Entries: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Glock View Post
My son, at 4 years old, knew better than to touch. I never put them up, I never left them unloaded. He is awesome at gun safety. Teach them while they are young and they will grow up with respect for the firearm.
I knew several families like that growing up, and the only time the gun rack's long guns were unloaded by the parent(s) was when their children's friends were visiting.

ETA: I hurt myself with a knife too many times growing up, but never once had any mishaps with a gun. I didn't know the "Knife Safety Rules."

In an SD situation, unloaded guns are about as valuable useless as rocks (sidearms) or sticks (long guns).
__________________
“After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it.” - William S. Burroughs
"Nothing we're gonna do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that [our gun ban legislation] will bring gun deaths down..." - VPOTUS Joe Biden
"Love 'Em All!!! Let Jehovah sort 'em out." - The Holy Bible
"You gonna pull those pistols or whistle Dixie?" - Josey Wales

Last edited by Peace Warrior; 03-24-2013 at 07:20..
Peace Warrior is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 07:23   #137
jim goose
"The Goose"
 
jim goose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: STL, MO.
Posts: 680
Quote:
Originally Posted by ithaca_deerslayer View Post
Well said.

It is time we Americans start repealing a lot of bad laws, instead of passing more of them.

___________
I joined the NRA, have you yet?

The only way we preserve our rights to own whatever we want, and carry where ever we want to, is to set our own expectations of what responsible gun ownership is, and sensible gun laws are, and not leave it to the politicians and people who do not know one end of a gun form the other. Those gun owners in the camp that no restrictions are constitutional are the reason we have people writing laws for us that make no sense, 10 round mag bans, non detachable mags, pistol grip nonsense etc.. and why when their is a tragedy gun ownership as a whole is held responsible vs. the individual. That may have worked ok so far, but sooner or later, our rights will take a much bigger hit than a 10+ round mag ban. I believe we (NRA) have to make our own requirements for training, safety, and gun storage that places blame squarely on the individual in an accident, or crime, to preserve our long term rights. For the same reason hunters safety classes were created, and why its worked to help preserve those rights. Going to a weekend class, once, 20 yrs ago, was not aksing me to collect garbage or something.
jim goose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 07:30   #138
Peace Warrior
CLM Number 221
Am Yisrael Chai
 
Peace Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: With the other 7,999,999
Posts: 26,172
Blog Entries: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Glock View Post
Well that 4 year old has grown up to be 13 now, and his sister is 18. They both survived living around handguns that were ALWAYS loaded and always within arms reach of ME. I bought my first one after taking my CCW class. I had a good reason, my attacker was nearing being eligible to see the parole board. When my daughter turned 10, I enrolled her in the Junior NRA program and she learned gun safety, though I had already been working with BOTH children by getting the eddie eagle materials. The company even sent me the video they usually sell, but decided to throw it in for free with the coloring books, stickers, etc...

I took them to the range (yes, I took a 4 year old to the range) and helped him learn how to shoot my .44 special and .45 Ruger. We shot at a watermelon they had drawn faces on. In 2 shots, the watermelon was obliterated! I told them "that is what can happen to a person's head if you shoot them". It was very dramatic. If they wanted to TOUCH or HOLD the guns out of childlike curiosity, they would ask me first...I would unload and triple check that it was safely unloaded...I would hand it to them and tell them to be careful where they pointed it. I taught them to NEVER point it at something they were not willing to destroy. They never had to worry about being curious...they were rarely denied when they wanted time to hold it. If they wanted to shoot it, we would head for the range and they were taught the difference between a hot and cold range...and about keeping the firearm pointed safely downrange. On a cold range, they were taught to point it downrange with the action open.

My daughter was head of the class with knowlege of the terms in the NRA...what is a bullet compared to a cartridge. They asked the class to identify the bullet, many of the class held up the entire cartridge, she said outloud that a bullet is the piece that comes out of the cartridge when the trigger is pulled on a loaded gun. (that dang kid came home with so much candy from giving the right answers).

It should not be the governments job to teach our children gunsafety...it is the parents responsibility to do so. I voluntarily attended free classes on self defense, timed and graded by accuracy. I have a need to know that I can defend myself and my children if my attacker is released from prison and comes after me as he promised he would. I've also taught my daughter that if I am disabled and can't shoot, she may have to be the one to "shoot to stop", which could mean killing someone. She knows she may have to, she doesn't want to have to, same as me...but she is prepared if the need comes up. My son has disabilities that affect his hands and wrists as well as his lower extrimities. I will get him a 9MM before he leaves home, my daughter is getting my .45 Ruger when she moves out. She has shot it many times.

So, to answer your post...leaving my guns out around my children was never an issue concerning "overpowering curiosity...if they were THAT curious, they were not denied the chance to handle it. If they wanted to shoot it, we went to the range and they shot it (or any combination of the guns I had/have). As their mother, it was my choice to leave them down and trust that I had trained them well enough to not have to worry. That's the way it SHOULD be...not getting the government involved in ordering people to get training before they can get a gun. Parental responsibility is lacking because of people who want to rely on the government for "birth to grave" regulations.
QFT! (emphases mine)
__________________
“After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it.” - William S. Burroughs
"Nothing we're gonna do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that [our gun ban legislation] will bring gun deaths down..." - VPOTUS Joe Biden
"Love 'Em All!!! Let Jehovah sort 'em out." - The Holy Bible
"You gonna pull those pistols or whistle Dixie?" - Josey Wales

Last edited by Peace Warrior; 03-24-2013 at 07:31..
Peace Warrior is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 07:50   #139
ithaca_deerslayer
Senior Member
 
ithaca_deerslayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Upstate NY, USA
Posts: 18,603
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim goose View Post
The only way we preserve our rights to own whatever we want, and carry where ever we want to, is to set our own expectations of what responsible gun ownership is, and sensible gun laws are, and not leave it to the politicians and people who do not know one end of a gun form the other. Those gun owners in the camp that no restrictions are constitutional are the reason we have people writing laws for us that make no sense, 10 round mag bans, non detachable mags, pistol grip nonsense etc.. and why when their is a tragedy gun ownership as a whole is held responsible vs. the individual. That may have worked ok so far, but sooner or later, our rights will take a much bigger hit than a 10+ round mag ban. I believe we (NRA) have to make our own requirements for training, safety, and gun storage that places blame squarely on the individual in an accident, or crime, to preserve our long term rights. For the same reason hunters safety classes were created, and why its worked to help preserve those rights. Going to a weekend class, once, 20 yrs ago, was not aksing me to collect garbage or something.
Not sure of your position here.

As far as accidents, the NRA is all about training and safety. We write manuals, train instructors, offer courses, encourage gun owners to be safe. I favor all of that, and encourage people to join and to take safety courses. However I do not favor any laws requiring the passing of some test before being allowed a constitutional right.

As to being blamed for what murderers do, that has no relationship to any of us. Holding legal gun owners responsible for what criminals do is just plain wrong. Let's work on keeping robbers, rapists, and murderers in jail. Less repeat offenders will reduce the rate of violent crime dramatically.

As to 10 round magazines, there is no reason to accept such limits. Everytime the anti-gunners ask for "compromise", it is gun owners who are being asked to give up something. It is like we have a pie and they say, "come on, compromise and give me half." And we give them half. The next day they come back and say, "come on, compromise and give me half of what you have left." And so on, they keep asking us to compromise on what we have left. Now is the time to say NO, YOU CAN'T TAKE ANYMORE OF OUR GUN RIGHTS AWAY!

___________
I joined the NRA, have you yet?
ithaca_deerslayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 08:41   #140
PhotoFeller
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Midwest and south
Posts: 2,681
Blog Entries: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Glock View Post
Thank you for quoting this post in whole...I would not have known how much I was being judged had you not quoted it seeing as how the other poster changed the post before I could read it.
I changed the post because the original version was judgmental. I have no right to do that, and I apologize.
PhotoFeller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 09:44   #141
PhotoFeller
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Midwest and south
Posts: 2,681
Blog Entries: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by ithaca_deerslayer View Post
Not sure of your position here.

... I do not favor any laws requiring the passing of some test before being allowed a constitutional right.

... they keep asking us to compromise on what we have left. Now is the time to say NO, YOU CAN'T TAKE ANYMORE OF OUR GUN RIGHTS AWAY!

___________
I joined the NRA, have you yet?
As I understand your point, a right granted by [memorialized in] the Constitution cannot be interfered with in any way even though the associated behavior of an individual may pose a risk to public safety. Even if that interpretation is well established in case law, it doesn't make sense to me.

I am not a lawyer, nor am I an authority on the Constitution. Delving into this area is beyond the scope of my knowledge, but it does seem that:

1. We have the right to speak freely, yet we cannot shout "FIRE" in a theatre or joke about bombs on a commercial flight preparing to take off.

2. Citizens have the right to gather in their homes or in public places, but such right does not include the ability to engage in behavior that might be detrimental to public safety or interfere with the free movement of others in the community. To stage a demonstration requires a permit in many places, for example.

What I'm trying to say so awkwardly is there does seem to be a test of reasonableness under the law regarding whether or not pursuit of a free act may cause harm to others or otherwise negatively affect the general citizenry.

If someone carries a concealed, deadly weapon in public without proper training in its safe operation, that strikes me as being detrimental to public safety. Does the Constitutional right of any person carrying a firearm supersede the right of other citizens to live without being endangered? I ask because I don't know.

Last edited by PhotoFeller; 03-24-2013 at 12:24..
PhotoFeller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 10:08   #142
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,702


Quote:
Originally Posted by PhotoFeller View Post
As I understand your point, a right granted by the Constitution cannot be interfered with in any way even though the associated behavior of an individual may pose a risk to public safety. Even if that interpretation is well established in case law, it doesn't make sense to me.

I am not a lawyer, nor am I an authority on the Constitution. Delving into this area is beyond the scope of my knowledge, but it does seem that:

1. We have the right to speak freely, yet we cannot shout "FIRE" in a theatre or joke about bombs on a commercial flight preparing to take off.

2. Citizens have the right to gather in their homes or in public places, but such right does not include the ability to engage in behavior that might be detrimental to public safety or interfere with the free movement of others in the community. To stage a demonstration requires a permit in many places, for example.

What I'm trying to say so awkwardly is there does seem to be a test of reasonableness under the law regarding whether or not pursuit of a free act may cause harm to others or otherwise negatively affect the general citizenry.

If someone carries a concealed, deadly weapon in public without proper training in its safe operation, that strikes me as being detrimental to public safety. Does the Constitutional right of any person carrying a firearm supersede the right of other citizens to live without being endangered? I ask because I don't know.
Rights aren't granted by the COTUS. You were born with them.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 10:28   #143
TheJ
Lifetime Membership
NRA Life Member
 
TheJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: GA
Posts: 1,478
Blog Entries: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhotoFeller View Post
As I understand your point, a right granted by the Constitution cannot be interfered with in any way even though the associated behavior of an individual may pose a risk to public safety. Even if that interpretation is well established in case law, it doesn't make sense to me.

I am not a lawyer, nor am I an authority on the Constitution. Delving into this area is beyond the scope of my knowledge, but it does seem that:

1. We have the right to speak freely, yet we cannot shout "FIRE" in a theatre or joke about bombs on a commercial flight preparing to take off.

2. Citizens have the right to gather in their homes or in public places, but such right does not include the ability to engage in behavior that might be detrimental to public safety or interfere with the free movement of others in the community. To stage a demonstration requires a permit in many places, for example.

What I'm trying to say so awkwardly is there does seem to be a test of reasonableness under the law regarding whether or not pursuit of a free act may cause harm to others or otherwise negatively affect the general citizenry.

If someone carries a concealed, deadly weapon in public without proper training in its safe operation, that strikes me as being detrimental to public safety. Does the Constitutional right of any person carrying a firearm supersede the right of other citizens to live without being endangered? I ask because I don't know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
Rights aren't granted by the COTUS. You were born with them.
This..

But also Photo you are correct that you can not shout fire in a crowded theater but that is an overt unsafe act. Nobody would argue that using/firing a gun in public into a crowd to cause harm isn't an unsafe act or that doing that should not be outlawed.
However, not allowing folks to even possess a firearm in public would be like not allowing them to go into a crowded theater unless they a gagged and muzzled. Requiring a permit to simply posses a gun in public is like requiring a permit to not be gagged and muzzled in a theater. To use your analogy.
__________________
Jay

The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function. -F. Scott Fitzgerald

Last edited by TheJ; 03-24-2013 at 10:46..
TheJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 10:32   #144
PhotoFeller
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Midwest and south
Posts: 2,681
Blog Entries: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Glock View Post
Well that 4 year old has grown up to be 13 now, and his sister is 18. They both survived living around handguns that were ALWAYS loaded and always within arms reach of ME. I bought my first one after taking my CCW class. I had a good reason, my attacker was nearing being eligible to see the parole board. When my daughter turned 10, I enrolled her in the Junior NRA program and she learned gun safety, though I had already been working with BOTH children by getting the eddie eagle materials. The company even sent me the video they usually sell, but decided to throw it in for free with the coloring books, stickers, etc...

I took them to the range (yes, I took a 4 year old to the range) and helped him learn how to shoot my .44 special and .45 Ruger. We shot at a watermelon they had drawn faces on. In 2 shots, the watermelon was obliterated! I told them "that is what can happen to a person's head if you shoot them". It was very dramatic. If they wanted to TOUCH or HOLD the guns out of childlike curiosity, they would ask me first...I would unload and triple check that it was safely unloaded...I would hand it to them and tell them to be careful where they pointed it. I taught them to NEVER point it at something they were not willing to destroy. They never had to worry about being curious...they were rarely denied when they wanted time to hold it. If they wanted to shoot it, we would head for the range and they were taught the difference between a hot and cold range...and about keeping the firearm pointed safely downrange. On a cold range, they were taught to point it downrange with the action open.

My daughter was head of the class with knowlege of the terms in the NRA...what is a bullet compared to a cartridge. They asked the class to identify the bullet, many of the class held up the entire cartridge, she said outloud that a bullet is the piece that comes out of the cartridge when the trigger is pulled on a loaded gun. (that dang kid came home with so much candy from giving the right answers).

It should not be the governments job to teach our children gunsafety...it is the parents responsibility to do so. I voluntarily attended free classes on self defense, timed and graded by accuracy. I have a need to know that I can defend myself and my children if my attacker is released from prison and comes after me as he promised he would. I've also taught my daughter that if I am disabled and can't shoot, she may have to be the one to "shoot to stop", which could mean killing someone. She knows she may have to, she doesn't want to have to, same as me...but she is prepared if the need comes up. My son has disabilities that affect his hands and wrists as well as his lower extrimities. I will get him a 9MM before he leaves home, my daughter is getting my .45 Ruger when she moves out. She has shot it many times.

So, to answer your post...leaving my guns out around my children was never an issue concerning "overpowering curiosity...if they were THAT curious, they were not denied the chance to handle it. If they wanted to shoot it, we went to the range and they shot it (or any combination of the guns I had/have). As their mother, it was my choice to leave them down and trust that I had trained them well enough to not have to worry. That's the way it SHOULD be...not getting the government involved in ordering people to get training before they can get a gun. Parental responsibility is lacking because of people who want to rely on the government for "birth to grave" regulations.
Your home, your kids, your guns, your call on how gun safety and all other conduct is managed. What goes on within the limits of your kingdom is subject to your jurisdiction, providing activities aren't illegal. As long as bullets don't cross the property line, public safety isn't affected.

You clearly believe the "Nanny government" should stay out of your life with respect to guns because the Constitution provides rights which must not be infringed. All things about gun training, you say, are within the realm of parental responsibility.

Given the general population rate of divorce and the number of single parent (or grandparent led) families in areas plagued by poverty and crime, who do you think will be responsible for teaching kids about firearm responsibility and using proper safety measures?

I'm not advocating more government or enactment of unnecessary laws, but common sense has to prevail at some point. Adhering to Constitutional principles to the maximum extent practicable has to come first. Figuring out how to apply Constitutional principles with reasonableness and fairness in our diverse society of 300+ million people is not as straightforward as it once was.
PhotoFeller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 11:01   #145
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
[QUOTE=PhotoFeller;20118624]

If someone carries a concealed, deadly weapon in public without proper training in its safe operation, that strikes me as being detrimental to public safety. [QUOTE]


Right there you smack into a brick wall that you created.

First of all define "Proper training" and come up with a definition of it that will stand as long ,legally as other phrases such as "Not be infringed". Who gets to define and apply the definitions?

Second, even if you could give a definition of "proper training" suitable for the ages and not subject to misuse for the purpose of denying the right, you still are going to be faced with the fact that people can be effective and safe WITHOUT having your mandated "proper training".

Third I would question the implication that carrying weapon without your definition of proper training is automatically detrimental to public safety. I would challenge you to prove, statistically, just how many incidents are caused per how many carry without having your "Proper training"

In other words "show me the numbers to prove your fears are, in fact, based on a significant problem and that your solution will have any effect."

Show me the accident rate is increasing dramatically and that you have the solution.

Show me that since "Shall Issue" became common a problem exists as result . Show me the facts not your fears
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 11:02   #146
PhotoFeller
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Midwest and south
Posts: 2,681
Blog Entries: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
Rights aren't granted by the COTUS. You were born with them.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
I understand. But our God given rights were set forth in and memorialized by our forefathers in the Constitution. Without the 'official' written words, we would only have informal rights established in tradition and folklore.

To say our basic rights are God given rather than 'established' in our founding documents is a legal device used to protect the inalienability of our founding principles, in my humble opinion.
PhotoFeller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 11:05   #147
Lady Glock
Senior Member
 
Lady Glock's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: GA
Posts: 3,494
Send a message via ICQ to Lady Glock
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhotoFeller View Post
Your home, your kids, your guns, your call on how gun safety and all other conduct is managed. What goes on within the limits of your kingdom is subject to your jurisdiction, providing activities aren't illegal. As long as bullets don't cross the property line, public safety isn't affected.

You clearly believe the "Nanny government" should stay out of your life with respect to guns because the Constitution provides rights which must not be infringed. All things about gun training, you say, are within the realm of parental responsibility.

Given the general population rate of divorce and the number of single parent (or grandparent led) families in areas plagued by poverty and crime, who do you think will be responsible for teaching kids about firearm responsibility and using proper safety measures?

I'm not advocating more government or enactment of unnecessary laws, but common sense has to prevail at some point. Adhering to Constitutional principles to the maximum extent practicable has to come first. Figuring out how to apply Constitutional principles with reasonableness and fairness in our diverse society of 300+ million people is not as straightforward as it once was.
It wasn't until my unstable ex husband left that I got my first gun. I refused to have one around while he was there because he wasn't responsible enough to be trusted with one around me and the kids...at least in my opinion. So for the safety of my home and family, I waited. It was a few years later when I heard my attacker was going before the board that I finally got off my backside and did something to protect us from a threat I knew was meant. As a SINGLE MOM (gasp), I taught my children how to respect guns and the power they had to cause pain and death. As a single mom, I brought up 2 children to respect my chosen form of self-defense / home-defense.

Now, if my ex decides to buy his own, it's nobody's business than his whether he gets training...it only becomes somebody's elses business if he goes out into public and does something stupid with that gun...then it's time for the police to step in and stop him. Hopefully getting him registered as mentally unstable and therefore *unfit* to carry. In my opinion, the remaining parent should be responsible for teaching gun safety to the child(ren). If that doesn't happen, darwin often wins..unfortunately, freewill also means sometimes innocents are affected too.

I still don't want anything in the way of mandatory training...and yes, I want the "nanny state government" to stay out of my business!
__________________
This is ok, right? I'm not breaking any rules or making anyone mad at me for this comment, Right?

Trust in God...Everyone else keep your hands where I can see them!
Lady Glock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 11:28   #148
PhotoFeller
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Midwest and south
Posts: 2,681
Blog Entries: 2
[quote=countrygun;20118886][QUOTE=PhotoFeller;20118624]

If someone carries a concealed, deadly weapon in public without proper training in its safe operation, that strikes me as being detrimental to public safety.
Quote:


Right there you smack into a brick wall that you created.

First of all define "Proper training" and come up with a definition of it that will stand as long ,legally as other phrases such as "Not be infringed". Who gets to define and apply the definitions?

Second, even if you could give a definition of "proper training" suitable for the ages and not subject to misuse for the purpose of denying the right, you still are going to be faced with the fact that people can be effective and safe WITHOUT having your mandated "proper training".

Third I would question the implication that carrying weapon without your definition of proper training is automatically detrimental to public safety. I would challenge you to prove, statistically, just how many incidents are caused per how many carry without having your "Proper training"

In other words "show me the numbers to prove your fears are, in fact, based on a significant problem and that your solution will have any effect."

Show me the accident rate is increasing dramatically and that you have the solution.

Show me that since "Shall Issue" became common a problem exists as result . Show me the facts not your fears
First, all laws and regulations include definitions crafted by their authors that are subject to court rulings and challenges, and are subject to change and/or elimination over time. Every law or reg has to start somewhere, but permanence is never a given.

I don't have facts, figures or data of any description to support my concern that unqualified gun owners pose a risk to public safety. My claim of need for competency verification stems from very extensive discussions in the C1 vs.C3 debate wherein the need for training was a point of universal agreement, and from my observations plus comments of others that public ranges are dangerous because of careless gun handling.

Inasmuch as I always ask for facts to support important arguments, your query substantially nails me to the wall. I can't cite ND rates or set forth specific evidence that says untrained people carrying guns in public are dangerous. If we can't agree that the need for proof of competence is intuitively obvious, I am done.

Last edited by PhotoFeller; 03-24-2013 at 11:29..
PhotoFeller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 11:31   #149
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhotoFeller View Post
I understand. But our God given rights were set forth in and memorialized by our forefathers in the Constitution. Without the 'official' written words, we would only have informal rights established in tradition and folklore.

I suppose Magna Carta was also folklore?


To say our basic rights are God given rather than 'established' in our founding documents is a legal device used to protect the inalienability of our founding principles, in my humble opinion.


What's your point, that our rights being inalienable is "bad"

Since the Constitution is the basis for our "legal documents" it is wrong that it contains "legal devices"


I am sensing that you have a bigger problem with out Constitution than with just the Second Amendment and the free exercise there of.

Last edited by countrygun; 03-24-2013 at 13:20..
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 11:38   #150
Lady Glock
Senior Member
 
Lady Glock's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: GA
Posts: 3,494
Send a message via ICQ to Lady Glock
[quote=PhotoFeller;20118962][quote=countrygun;20118886]
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhotoFeller View Post

If someone carries a concealed, deadly weapon in public without proper training in its safe operation, that strikes me as being detrimental to public safety.

First, all laws and regulations include definitions crafted by their authors that are subject to court rulings and challenges, and are subject to change and/or elimination over time. Every law or reg has to start somewhere, but permanence is never a given.

I don't have facts, figures or data of any description to support my concern that unqualified gun owners pose a risk to public safety. My claim of need for competency verification stems from very extensive discussions in the C1 vs.C3 debate wherein the need for training was a point of universal agreement, and from my observations plus comments of others that public ranges are dangerous because of careless gun handling.

Inasmuch as I always ask for facts to support important arguments, your query substantially nails me to the wall. I can't cite ND rates or set forth specific evidence that says untrained people carrying guns in public are dangerous. If we can't agree that the need for proof of competence is intuitively obvious, I am done.
I was one of the people who argued that "train, train, train" was the best option for getting comfortable with C1 and therefore being best prepared for a SHTF scenario. But my suggestion to "train, train, train" didn't include the need for regulation or required training...it was a suggestion that the OP of the C1 / C3 thread should seek out additional training on his own and get comfortable enough to carry in C1
__________________
This is ok, right? I'm not breaking any rules or making anyone mad at me for this comment, Right?

Trust in God...Everyone else keep your hands where I can see them!
Lady Glock is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 21:53.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,345
412 Members
933 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42