NationStates Jolt Archive

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2007-04-17T192809Z_01_N17445050_RTRUKOC_0_US-WHITEHOUSE-INCIDENT.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

Yeah. Right. "Highly trained".

I've handled a lot of firearms, almost on a daily basis, shot tens of thousands of rounds per year, and not once - NOT ONCE - ever had a weapon discharge when I did not intend to discharge it.

It's more properly called a "negligent discharge" - not an "accidental discharge".

The weapon was an MP-5.

SS procedure is to never use the safety, the weapon is kept with a full mag with bolt down and hammer dropped on an empty chamber off safe (they call this "Gun Boxed" as in "Gun Box the weapon"), well the person finished the detail, and in "gun Boxing" was supposed to remove the magazine, dump the chambered round, reload the unchambered round into the mag, then drop the bolt then dryfire the weapon, reinsert the magazine into the weapon, weapon is off safe, ready to be racked to fire.

the guy didn't remove the mag, racked out the chambered round, dropped the hammer, BANG!!!!

The next time you post that "only highly trained personnel should be allowed to carry weapons" just remember this little act of stupidity.

Dang, so close to a Darwin Award.

I smell a Cheney cover-up.

http://www.lowculture.com/archives/images/cheney_lurking.jpg

Cheney is always looking for prey.

The next time you post that "only highly trained personnel should be allowed to carry weapons" just remember this little act of stupidity.
I wouldn't make this argument personally, but it seems to me that if this story has a lesson at all, it's that if even highly trained personnel can do something dumb like this, why in the hell would you want any yahoo off the street to be allowed to carry a weapon?

I wouldn't make this argument personally, but it seems to me that if this story has a lesson at all, it's that if even highly trained personnel can do something dumb like this, why in the hell would you want any yahoo off the street to be allowed to carry a weapon?

Maybe he's not as highly trained as you might believe. Maybe some "yahoos" have had far, far more training than any Secret Service agent.

Maybe he's not as highly trained as you might believe. Maybe some "yahoos" have had far, far more training than any Secret Service agent.

Don't be fatuous. If he's Secret Service, he's had at least the same training as any other law enforcement group has had. My point is that it takes absolutely no training to be allowed to purchase a firearm--I could go buy one this afternoon if I wanted, and I've never had a moment's training with one. The fact that "some 'yahoos'" might have had more training with a gun than some law enforcement types means jack shit in the larger scheme.

Maybe he's not as highly trained as you might believe. Maybe some "yahoos" have had far, far more training than any Secret Service agent.

Sure, let's play that game.

I'll put a notice in the paper for everyone wishing to purchase an MP-5. We'll check for convicted felons at the door, but everyone else entering this large warehouse room will be handed a gun boxed MP-5. We'll put... hmmmm... let's say 100 random people wishing to procure an MP-5 in the room with you in the middle.

Now if you claim you'd feel comfortable with 100 random people handling loaded and chambered MP-5s in a room you're standing in the middle of, then I'm calling BS.

EDIT: By the way, I agree that this was a negligent discharge and that it's much harder to "accidently" discharge most weapons than people think. The only accidental discharges I've ever seen were from weapons getting too hot during firing excercises, and it's not particularly dangerous since by the time you've gotten it that hot, you're usually nearly out of rounds and you just have to wait them out. I have never seen anyone accidentally discharge a weapon (as in dropping it or something similar).

I once had an ND while i was in cadets, I wasn't paying attention and fired on the 'Make Ready' command rather than on the 'Fire' command.

It cost me a £60 fine and a hell of alot of embarassment but at least no one was injured.

I have been well trained in the use of various firearms ranging from 9mm pistols up to 105 light field guns and Javelin anti-air craft missiles and agree wholeheartedly that the general populus is way too daft to be allowed to own firearms without some mandatory training. I think this story shows nicely that even with training people screw up, untrained gunowners would be a nightmare.

I once had an ND while i was in cadets, I wasn't paying attention and fired on the 'Make Ready' command rather than on the 'Fire' command.

It cost me a £60 fine and a hell of alot of embarassment but at least no one was injured.

I have been well trained in the use of various firearms ranging from 9mm pistols up to 105 light field guns and Javelin anti-air craft missiles and agree wholeheartedly that the general populus is way too daft to be allowed to own firearms without some mandatory training. I think this story shows nicely that even with training people screw up, untrained gunowners would be a nightmare.

I think it's no different than operating a car or a forklift or anything else with the a potential danger in untrained hands. You absolutely should be required to be trained in the safe operation of this equipment.

I think it's no different than operating a car or a forklift or anything else with the a potential danger in untrained hands.

My wife said the same thing.

In talking with her last night, here's how it went down though:

Me -Were you confident the first time you drove a car?
Her - Not really.
Me - Kinda scary wasn't it? All that mechanism and potentialy destructive power at your hands yeah?
Her - Yeah.
Me - But after a few weeks, once you got to know how it handled, what levers and buttons did what, you were zipping around the streets like Tony Stewart right? And now you can steer with one knee, while putting on mascara with one hand, and talking in a cell phone using the Bluetooth, while changing radio stations with the voice activation and yelling at the kids in the back seat, and sipping your Starbuck's Venti Sugar-Free Vanilla Late all at the same time.
Her - *silence* *crickets* Yeah, I see your point.

I think it's no different than operating a car or a forklift or anything else with the a potential danger in untrained hands. You absolutely should be required to be trained in the safe operation of this equipment.

So someone explain to me why you have to pass both a written and practical exam and insure yourself to drive a car, but you can buy a handgun at a gun show as long as you have the cash?

So someone explain to me why you have to pass both a written and practical exam and insure yourself to drive a car, but you can buy a handgun at a gun show as long as you have the cash?

Ah, but to do concealed carry legally, you have to:

1. Attend and pass a class not only on how to shoot, and some safety issues, but on the legality of concealed carry and your obligations under the law concerning any shooting.
2. Pass a NCIC background check.

Ah, but to do concealed carry legally, you have to:

1. Attend and pass a class not only on how to shoot, and some safety issues, but on the legality of concealed carry and your obligations under the law concerning any shooting.
2. Pass a NCIC background check.

This only applies if a concealed carry permit is required to purchase a gun at a show.

My wife said the same thing.

In talking with her last night, here's how it went down though:

Me -Were you confident the first time you drove a car?
Her - Not really.
Me - Kinda scary wasn't it? All that mechanism and potentialy destructive power at your hands yeah?
Her - Yeah.
Me - But after a few weeks, once you got to know how it handled, what levers and buttons did what, you were zipping around the streets like Tony Stewart right? And now you can steer with one knee, while putting on mascara with one hand, and talking in a cell phone using the Bluetooth, while changing radio stations with the voice activation and yelling at the kids in the back seat, and sipping your Starbuck's Venti Sugar-Free Vanilla Late all at the same time.
Her - *silence* *crickets* Yeah, I see your point.


Yeah, and was she legally allowed to handle that car, by herself, without supervision, without having demonstrated a proficiency in it to the state and received a state certified license?

No?

Then I guess you proved her point.

Ah, but to do concealed carry

Which is irrelevant as this was not what he was talking about.

Yeah, and was she legally allowed to handle that car, by herself, without supervision, without having demonstrated a proficiency in it to the state and received a state certified license?

No?

Then I guess you proved her point.

Can't do concealed carry without demonstrating a proficiency with a firearm to the state, with a background check (no background check for drivers), and a two week class, and a state license.

You were saying?

Ah, but to do concealed carry legally, you have to:

1. Attend and pass a class not only on how to shoot, and some safety issues, but on the legality of concealed carry and your obligations under the law concerning any shooting.
2. Pass a NCIC background check.

Big fucking deal. It's not like weapons covered by a concealed carry permit are more lethal than the others. And it's not like some nutbag who's decided it's time to take out everyone who has ever mocked him is going to worry about whether he's got a permit to stuff a gun in his shorts as opposed to carrying it in the open.

Big fucking deal. It's not like weapons covered by a concealed carry permit are more lethal than the others. And it's not like some nutbag who's decided it's time to take out everyone who has ever mocked him is going to worry about whether he's got a permit to stuff a gun in his shorts as opposed to carrying it in the open.

Or whether he has a license to drive the car into a crowd of people or whether he has a license to carry a butcher knife or whether or not he can legally wield that truck full of explosives. Using the odd and rare event as an argument regarding gun control is of little value, because they are precisely that.

Big fucking deal. It's not like weapons covered by a concealed carry permit are more lethal than the others. And it's not like some nutbag who's decided it's time to take out everyone who has ever mocked him is going to worry about whether he's got a permit to stuff a gun in his shorts as opposed to carrying it in the open.

Big fucking deal. It's illegal to carry concealed without a permit.

It's also illegal to commit murder. Usually a life sentence or death sentence if you do it. That doesn't stop a nutbag either.

I'll give you an example. It's illegal to buy or own a pistol in the UK. But they are available (it's not like illegality stops a nutbag from buying one illegally).

Anyone with the cash could get one, and massacre people anyway.

Can't do concealed carry without demonstrating a proficiency with a firearm to the state, with a background check (no background check for drivers), and a two week class, and a state license.

You were saying?

I'm saying that not having a concealed carry permit doesn't magically make the gun you just bought with no training or licensing what so ever less lethal, or less likely to go off due to stupidity.

I'm not talking about concealed carry, and the fact that you brought it up, twice, means you have no argument.

I do believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the VAST majority of gun accidents occur in the home, is that correct?

No need for concealed carry then, is there?

So someone explain to me why you have to pass both a written and practical exam and insure yourself to drive a car, but you can buy a handgun at a gun show as long as you have the cash?

I'm not the one to ask. My point was that anyone purchasing, in possession of, or operating dangerous equipment should be required to prove they have the education to operate that equipment safely.

Incidentally, you're not required to show a license in order to purchase a car either. It's only required to operate one and that's a bit like closing the gate after the cows escape.

I'm saying that not having a concealed carry permit doesn't magically make the gun you just bought with no training or licensing what so ever less lethal, or less likely to go off due to stupidity.


You WERE saying that licensing is required for cars and somehow implying that legal carry outside of the home required NO permit (only in Vermont and Arizona, I'm afraid).

You WERE implying that legal carry required NO training.

I've never said that it magically stops accidents - I was saying that just because people are police doesn't mean they should be considered somehow magically better at using firearms than civilians.

Can't do concealed carry without demonstrating a proficiency with a firearm to the state, with a background check (no background check for drivers), and a two week class, and a state license.

You were saying?


You can't?

There was me thinking you just had to stick a gun in your pocket and it was a concealed carry weapon, I guess you learn something everyday.

Anyone who buy a gun should have to have to have passed mandatory weapons handling training.

Big fucking deal. It's illegal to carry concealed without a permit.

It's also illegal to commit murder. Usually a life sentence or death sentence if you do it. That doesn't stop a nutbag either.

I'll give you an example. It's illegal to buy or own a pistol in the UK. But they are available (it's not like illegality stops a nutbag from buying one illegally).

Anyone with the cash could get one, and massacre people anyway.

God, you're worse than some of my students when it comes to making unrelated arguments. My original point was that in the US, in order to legally operate a motor vehicle at the most basic level, you have to pass both a written and practical test and insure yourself. In order to own a firearm at the most basic level, you have to do none of that.

But you bring up concealed carry laws. Well great. Concealed carry permit holders make up a tiny fraction of firearm owners. That's like comparing CDL licensees to regular drivers--they're a small fraction of people on the roads, and they have to show a higher level of proficiency in order to have those licenses.

But what does that have to do with the fact that I can, with absolutely no training, walk into a Wal-Mart and buy a shotgun and ammunition as long as I have the money with little or nothing to stop me? And I can do that legally--no written or practical examination necessary, no insurance necessary, nothing. So what we're saying, as a society, is that we're more worried about putting people on the roads than we are allowing them to legally own firearms. Now, if you're cool with that, fine. I think it's a little fucked up, myself.

Big fucking deal. It's illegal to carry concealed without a permit.

It's also illegal to commit murder. Usually a life sentence or death sentence if you do it. That doesn't stop a nutbag either.

I'll give you an example. It's illegal to buy or own a pistol in the UK. But they are available (it's not like illegality stops a nutbag from buying one illegally).

Anyone with the cash could get one, and massacre people anyway.

Yes, guns CAN be bought, however their illegality cuts gun crime down DRAMATICALLY

Compared to other industrialized nations, the United States has a higher per capita rate of fatalities due to firearm violence. In 2000, firearms killed 8,493 Americans, out of a population of over 270 million. By comparison, Great Britain, which has a population of 59.5 million has averaged fiftytwo firearms-related homicides per year since 1997

Great Britain averages less than one fire arm death per million. America averages about THIRTY TIMES that.

30 times. So stop the "oh you can still get a fire arm in britain" if fire arms were even REMOTELY as available as here you wouldn't see a firearm fatality rate 30 times higher.

If you really want to carry out that comparison, here is a true story -

I have a relative (distant) that is an alcoholic and keeps on driving even though he's been repeatedly caught driving without a license and while drunk several of those times. He can even be in a car with a licensed driver but he still drives because he believes that is what men do.

Now how did he get the vehicle? He purchased it legally. There is no requirement that you be able to legally operate a vehicle in order to purchase one. No requirement for training. So much so that even if you've demonstrated you cannot safely operate one, you may still purchase and own a vehicle.

The equivalent to what is being called for here is for it to be illegal to purchase a car without demonstrating that you have a license and thus training. And that there be consequences for say me buying a car and allowing this relative to drive it. While I agree with regulations of this type, despite the number of deaths caused each year by unlicensed drivers, I don't see really anyone except very select groups advocating these kinds of measures. Fairly inconsistent, really.

But what does that have to do with the fact that I can, with absolutely no training, walk into a Wal-Mart and buy a shotgun and ammunition as long as I have the money with little or nothing to stop me? And I can do that legally--no written or practical examination necessary, no insurance necessary, nothing. So what we're saying, as a society, is that we're more worried about putting people on the roads than we are allowing them to legally own firearms. Now, if you're cool with that, fine. I think it's a little fucked up, myself.

But what does that have to do with the fact that I can, with absolutely no training, walk into a Car-Mart and buy a Cadillac and gas as as I have the money with little or nothing to stop me? And I can do that legally -- no written or practical examination necessary, no insurance necessary, nothing. So what we're saying, as a society, it that we're more worried about giving people guns than we are allowing them to legally own vehicles. Now, if you're cool with that, fine. I think that's a little fucked up.

You do realize that you're comparing apples and oranges, since you're talking about legal operation of the vehicle and not legal purchase, no? You also realize that you're far more likely to be killed by a vehicle than by a gun.

But what does that have to do with the fact that I can, with absolutely no training, walk into a Car-Mart and buy a Cadillac and gas as as I have the money with little or nothing to stop me? And I can do that legally -- no written or practical examination necessary, no insurance necessary, nothing. So what we're saying, as a society, it that we're more worried about giving people guns than we are allowing them to legally own vehicles. Now, if you're cool with that, fine. I think that's a little fucked up.

You do realize that you're comparing apples and oranges, since you're talking about legal operation of the vehicle and not legal purchase, no? You also realize that you're far more likely to be killed by a vehicle than by a gun.

Actually, you can't buy a vehicle from a dealership without proving that you have both insurance and a license. They won't let you take it off the lot because they'll still be liable in case you wrap it around a tree on your way home. You can work something out with a private owner, perhaps, but that owner is taking a chance and is still at least partially liable. So no, I don't think my analogy is very far off.

Actually, you can't buy a vehicle from a dealership without proving that you have both insurance and a license. They won't let you take it off the lot because they'll still be liable in case you wrap it around a tree on your way home. You can work something out with a private owner, perhaps, but that owner is taking a chance and is still at least partially liable. So no, I don't think my analogy is very far off.

I happen to know that's not true. My relative has been buying cars and taking them home for about 10 years with no license and certainly no insurance. And as long as it's legal to sell I doubt a law exists that says that a person is liable for legally selling something to someone and not going out of their way to prevent them from taking possession of it and doing as they please with it.

Can you link me to a lawsuit that expresses this liability or a law that requires that insurance and license be shown before taking a car from a retailer's lot?

Meanwhile, again, that's still about operation of the vehicle not purchase and possession of the vehicle. If I showed up with a tow truck would they prevent me from taking the vehicle without a license and insurance? Because that would be the equivalent of purchasing a gun. Driving a vehicle off a lot is operating the vehicle, not purchasing it.

EDIT: Actually, even a civil suit isn't enough. We're talking about legality. I challenge you to show that I cannot LEGALLY purchase a vehicle without insurance and license. If I can, then it is EXACTLY equivelent to gun ownership. And vehicles cause WAAAAAAAY more deaths in the US than firearms do by a far sight.

In CT, you can't even legally BUY a handgun unless you have a pistol permit, which requires taking and passing a class (like the NRA Basic Pistol course), filling out the forms, and submitting to a local, state, and federal background check.

I happen to know that's not true. My relative has been buying cars and taking them home for about 10 years with no license and certainly no insurance. And as long as it's legal to sell I doubt a law exists that says that a person is liable for legally selling something to someone and not going out of their way to prevent them from taking possession of it and doing as they please with it.

Can you link me to a lawsuit that expresses this liability or a law that requires that insurance and license be shown before taking a car from a retailer's lot?

Meanwhile, again, that's still about operation of the vehicle not purchase and possession of the vehicle. If I showed up with a tow truck would they prevent me from taking the vehicle without a license and insurance? Because that would be the equivalent of purchasing a gun. Driving a vehicle off a lot is operating the vehicle, not purchasing it.

EDIT: Actually, even a civil suit isn't enough. We're talking about legality. I challenge you to show that I cannot LEGALLY purchase a vehicle without insurance and license. If I can, then it is EXACTLY equivelent to gun ownership. And vehicles cause WAAAAAAAY more deaths in the US than firearms do by a far sight.
I can only give you anecdotal evidence. In Louisiana, liability insurance is mandatory, and if you're caught driving without it, your car is confiscated by the state and held until you do have it. You also can't get a driver's license without car insurance, and no auto dealer will allow a car off the lot without a binder, because they can't issue a temporary tag without it. Now, I realize this will vary from state to state, but that was the case when I lived there.

In Florida, when I bought my car from a private owner, I had to go change the title and pay the sales tax and registration fee right before the owner would sign the title over to me. In order to do that, I had to have insurance, and in order to get insurance, I had to show I had a license. Without that, I wouldn't have had the tag or the car. Again--only this state, and it may vary. But I would be very surprised if the variations were that great from state to state.

You can't?

There was me thinking you just had to stick a gun in your pocket and it was a concealed carry weapon, I guess you learn something everyday.

Legally, only in Vermont and Arizona.

Anyone who buy a gun should have to have to have passed mandatory weapons handling training.
I've had more training than most police will ever accrue over their lifetime.
I've been an instructor on many occasions.
I train more than most police do over the course of a year, and fire more rounds over more courses of fire than all but a handful of police do.
And yet, at this time, I am a civilian.

So, you would let me buy a gun, based on your "mandatory training"?

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2007-04-17T192809Z_01_N17445050_RTRUKOC_0_US-WHITEHOUSE-INCIDENT.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

Yeah. Right. "Highly trained".

The next time you post that "only highly trained personnel should be allowed to carry weapons" just remember this little act of stupidity.

City that I work near, the SWAT team was doing training at the firing range. Like you said, these are "highly trained personnel". Well, as they were clearing the firing lines, one officer failed to remember his fire lane safety. He had the weapon aimed low at the ground and did not check for an empty chamber. Result was that he fired his assault weapon and struck the foot of the officer next to him.

But they are better trained that I am, and I have yet had any of my firearms "discharge" unless I pulled the trigger.

Vic

City that I work near, the SWAT team was doing training at the firing range. Like you said, these are "highly trained personnel". Well, as they were clearing the firing lines, one officer failed to remember his fire lane safety. He had the weapon aimed low at the ground and did not check for an empty chamber. Result was that he fired his assault weapon and struck the foot of the officer next to him.

But they are better trained that I am, and I have yet had any of my firearms "discharge" unless I pulled the trigger.

Vic

What I like is when I shoot long range with some of the Maryland State Police Tactical Team, and when they have a new guy with them, I always get asked, "who in the fuck is that?!" because I'm hitting targets twice as far away as their snipers using a bolt action rifle at twice the rate that several of them combined are getting with semiautomatic rifles.

They assume, because of my appearance and haircut, that I'm somehow in law enforcement. I am not.

:Yes because everything works perfectly, all the time, and because of this guns can never break or not work properly. :rolleyes:

I smell something, don't you?

:Yes because everything works perfectly, all the time, and because of this guns can never break or not work properly. :rolleyes:

I smell something, don't you?


Sorry, I just farted. :eek:




:D

:Yes because everything works perfectly, all the time, and because of this guns can never break or not work properly. :rolleyes:

I smell something, don't you?

In court cases, so-called "accidental" discharges are investigated by engineers who analyze the weapon in question.

The number of such cases, where the weapon has been proved to be at fault, are so few as to be countable on one hand.

Negligence is by far the primary source of unintentional firearm discharges.

Most modern weapons are designed in such a way that it must be intentionally fired - and most pistols (especially those chosen by police and military, and those popular for sale with the general public) have to pass drop tests - to show that they can't go off accidentally.

A good example of such a firearm is the P7. It is physically impossible to fire the weapon if you aren't gripping it and using the trigger - if it is not in good physical condition, it won't work at all.

The number of such cases, where the weapon has been proved to be at fault, are so few as to be countable on one hand.


Oh I see, so it has been proved to be at fault before. Thanks for your help.

Oh I see, so it has been proved to be at fault before. Thanks for your help.

So few times as to be inconsequential.

Most firearms experts who testify at trial will testify that it's the shooter's fault, unless you can prove the firearm was at fault - and that likelihood is so small as to be impossible.

I can only give you anecdotal evidence. In Louisiana, liability insurance is mandatory, and if you're caught driving without it, your car is confiscated by the state and held until you do have it. You also can't get a driver's license without car insurance, and no auto dealer will allow a car off the lot without a binder, because they can't issue a temporary tag without it. Now, I realize this will vary from state to state, but that was the case when I lived there.

In Florida, when I bought my car from a private owner, I had to go change the title and pay the sales tax and registration fee right before the owner would sign the title over to me. In order to do that, I had to have insurance, and in order to get insurance, I had to show I had a license. Without that, I wouldn't have had the tag or the car. Again--only this state, and it may vary. But I would be very surprised if the variations were that great from state to state.

Again, you've pointed on the first part how I'm required to have insurance to OPERATE a vehicle. That's not related to your claims about purchase.

You can get a license without insurance. I think you meant to say you can't insurance without a license. If not for that several consultants I work with would not have a driver's license because they own no car.

Meanwhile, very few seller's require you to transfer the title right there. Most simply sign it and hand it over. I've almost never bought a car from a dealership, so I'm quite certain. Meanwhile, it is not required by law that a seller walk over and transfer the title with you. The burden of getting it transferred is on the purchaser and in many states you can be fined if you don't transfer the title within 30 days. In other words, I don't have to do it immediately.

So once again the law doesn't prevent me from legally purchasing a vehicle with no knowledge of how to use it and it doesn't prevent me from legally obtaining a vehicle for illegal use.

The equivalent, and I think this should be the law, would be to require a license to be shown in order to purchase a vehicle, any vehicle, even on that is not operational. This should be the minimum since vehicles kill more people than guns ever will.

Oh I see, so it has been proved to be at fault before. Thanks for your help.

Which is only relevant if in those rare cases it was the same type of weapon in the same type of condition. The likelihood of that being the case with SS is less than unlikely. It's more likely that you've had sex with a dragon.

So few times as to be inconsequential.

Most firearms experts who testify at trial will testify that it's the shooter's fault, unless you can prove the firearm was at fault - and that likelihood is so small as to be impossible.

But not impossible, so there is absolutely no reason to rule it out. I'm not buying your "it's impossible for guns to discharge" anyway, got any thing to back up your claim?

But not impossible, so there is absolutely no reason to rule it out. I'm not buying your "it's impossible for guns to discharge" anyway, got any thing to back up your claim?

You want me to show how few cases there are where an accidental discharge is supported? That's absurd. I'd have to prove a lack, which would mean present all of the cases in history.

All you have to do to prove me wrong is show ONE case of the same weapon in good condition being shown by engineers to have been an accidental discharge.

Hell, I'll settle for a similar weapon.

Trust me, if you're calling this like it is, you'd called it as a ND until you had other proof. And if you did, you'd be right 99999 times out of 100000.

I can't speak much for other states, but I do know that in order to purchase a gun in California, aside from the 10 day DOJ background check, you need to have either a hunting license (which means you took a class that included gun safety and handling as part of the cirriculum) or a BFSC card (which means you passed an admittedly very easy and common sensical test after studying firearm safety and handling on your own). I don't necessarily agree that it's enough training, but it's not nothing at all.

Legally, only in Vermont and Arizona.

So a gun in your pocket is only concealed if you are in Vermont or Arizona?

I've had more training than most police will ever accrue over their lifetime.
I've been an instructor on many occasions.
I train more than most police do over the course of a year, and fire more rounds over more courses of fire than all but a handful of police do.
And yet, at this time, I am a civilian.

So, you would let me buy a gun, based on your "mandatory training"?

Not unless you had passed the state weapons handling course I think should be required. I'd prefer it if guns weren't in the hands of civilians at all but since that'll probably never happen in the US at least you could stop them being in the hands of civilians with no idea how to use them.

The next time you post that "only highly trained personnel should be allowed to carry weapons" just remember this little act of stupidity.
So any idiot should be allowed to carry a weapon?

So any idiot should be allowed to carry a weapon?

The point is that "highly-trained personnel" are often not as trained as "any idiot on the street". RO is basically saying that it should be about your training with weapons not your role in a job that determines whether or not you may carry a weapon.

People tend to assume that training and jobs go together.

The point is that "highly-trained personnel" are often not as trained as "any idiot on the street". RO is basically saying that it should be about your training with weapons not your role in a job that determines whether or not you may carry a weapon.

People tend to assume that training and jobs go together.

Yet RO seems to have an issue with legally required training for gun owners.

I don't really get his position on this one.

Legally, only in Vermont and Arizona.



Where did you hear you can carry without a CCW in Arizona? You need a CCW to carry LEGALLY in AZ and one of the requirements for the permit is an 8 hour course that has to be approved of the DPS. The only state that you can carry concealed without a permit as far as I know is Alaska.

Yet RO seems to have an issue with legally required training for gun owners.

I don't really get his position on this one.

No, I don't have a problem with the training. In fact, I point out that to legally carry in most states, you need the training.

What I object to is the idea that somehow, since I am now a civilian, people on this forum think that I am somehow "less trained" than police - when in fact through my previous career and my current sideline, I am far, far more trained than the vast majority of policemen.

Yet RO seems to have an issue with legally required training for gun owners.

I don't really get his position on this one.

If that's his position, I'm not aware of it. And if it is, it's pretty ludicrous. We require training to operate other dangerous equipment.

I personally believe that guns are no more dangerous than a vehicle. However, I would never put a vehicle in the hands of someone untrained and I certainly think we should take them out of the hands of many who operate them now. Guns are no different.

In addition to type of weapon and how you carry it (much like a CDL), there should be laws requiring you to get adequate training on how to handle a weapon as well as greater restrictions on when you use the right to have weapons, particularly in the event you do something like, say, accidentally shoot someone in the face.

No, I don't have a problem with the training. In fact, I point out that to legally carry in most states, you need the training.

What I object to is the idea that somehow, since I am now a civilian, people on this forum think that I am somehow "less trained" than police - when in fact through my previous career and my current sideline, I am far, far more trained than the vast majority of policemen.

Whats your position on a license being required to own a gun in the first place?

Whats your position on a license being required to own a gun in the first place?

I don't have a problem with that, either. In fact, I believe that some sort of liability and theft insurance should be obtained.

Funny, the NRA sells this sort of insurance. Responsible, no?

the guy didn't remove the mag, racked out the chambered round, dropped the hammer, BANG!!!!

I've never fired a gun before, and even I know not to do that. Doesn't unloading the chambered round with the loaded mag just... chamber the next round from the mag?

Idiots...

I've never fired a gun before, and even I know not to do that. Doesn't unloading the chambered round with the loaded mag just... chamber the next round from the mag?

Idiots...

It's called a brainfart for a reason.

Perhaps, I'd be curious what percentage of NRA members actually take it up though and to be honest, no amount of money is going to make up for that loved one the responsible NRA member just accidentally shot.

True, but it's better than nothing. I feel it's as irresponsible as driving without insurance.

And in lethal car accidents, survivors of the dead get paid.

I don't have a problem with that, either. In fact, I believe that some sort of liability and theft insurance should be obtained.

Funny, the NRA sells this sort of insurance. Responsible, no?

Perhaps, I'd be curious what percentage of NRA members actually take it up though and to be honest, no amount of money is going to make up for that loved one the responsible NRA member just accidentally shot.