22 ms·

Anyone who is diehard anti-gun for personal use, I recommend taking a pistol class from a reputable organization, and keep an open mind. No one is telling you t

Anyone who is diehard anti-gun for personal use, I recommend taking a pistol class from a reputable organization, and keep an open mind. No one is telling you to get a license or buy a gun, just go take a class. They will teach you all about safety, how to shoot, gun cleaning and maintenance, and all of the basic skills needed to properly own a gun. Then if you are still diehard anti-gun, great! But if you have no experience, then taking a day to learn more might help you understand how the other side thinks.

uberchet 9y ago
This is good advice. I grew up hunting and shooting, but in adulthood have come to agree that reasonable gun control is really something we have to do. However, the gun vs. anti-gun divide in the US is as pure a split as exists on any policy position. Few on one side know or understand the thinking or positions of any on the other. People who don't shoot often don't know even the most basic things, like what differentiates a rifle from a shotgun, or what happens when a modern pistol runs out of bullets. They don't get the vast difference between a .22 and a 9mm on any level (size of projectile, powder load, etc.). And they certainly don't understand why pursuing something like a quote-unquote assault weapon ban is legislatively and logically difficult.
- hansthehorse 9y ago
  I believe this pure split you refer to is the fault of the gun control advocates. In the mind of the 2nd amendment folks every compromise they have made has led to that being the new normal to build the next compromise, thus sliding down the slope. Both political parties would do well to soften their purity tests.
  - ythn 9y ago
    Well if one side only ever pushes in one direction and the other side only ever "compromises" to keep from being pushed too far, eventually the one side has everything they want (total gun control) and the other side has nothing. I'd like to see some compromise in the other direction too. Like "Ok, we'll relax CCP regulations or 'assault weapons' regulations so that normal citizens can have them, but in return we need to ramp up background checks in X and Y ways". That's how compromise should work, but instead with gun control it's very one-sided compromise.
    - InitialLastName 9y ago
      I think you'll find that both sides in this particular debate see the other in that way. At times it seems like the pro-gun folks will take nothing less than civilian access to the nuclear launch codes, and that any restriction or hindrance of access to any weapon is an attempt to overthrow the rule of law. It turns out the loudest (read: most visible) people on both sides of any given debate are the least likely to compromise.
    - maxerickson 9y ago
      We are starting from a compromise. A reasonable thing would be to almost totally restrict pistols, but the Constitution hasn't been amended on the matter since the days when a rifled barrel on a long gun was cutting edge technology, so we have people walking around with highly dangerous concealable weapons. I mean, I wouldn't want to face someone wielding a machete anymore than I'd want to face someone wielding a bag of revolvers, but at least with the machete they are going to have to physically work quite a bit to kill each person they want to kill.
      - mirimir 9y ago
        Have you ever worked with machetes?
        maxerickson 9y ago
        I've only used a lightweight one to cut long grass.
        mirimir 9y ago
        I have an 18" military issue machete. It takes and holds a razor edge. I can sever 4-5 cm saplings with one angled cut.
        maxerickson 9y ago
        From several feet? While the sapling runs away? I'm also not real sure what your point is. I said I wouldn't want to face someone wielding a machete anymore than. I was acknowledging that a malicious person can be plenty dangerous with weapons that basically can't be restricted (a machete can be improvised much more easily than a repeating firearm or ammunition for said firearm).
  - microcolonel 9y ago
    > In the mind of the 2nd amendment folks every compromise they have made has led to that being the new normal to build the next compromise, thus sliding down the slope. Given that this is exactly the strategy of the opposing actors, I can see why 2nd amendment advocates take this stance. If you look at basically any other country where there's still a debate open on this topic, you'll note that it is indeed a slippery slope. Here in Canada, the RCMP (equiv. FBI) can arbitrarily reclassify any firearm and demand that it be confiscated and destroyed (not sold). For example, the other year they reclassified the Ruger 10/22 (IIRC the most popular target shooting rifle in Canada) as a "restricted weapon", requiring an RPAL instead of a PAL. Funny thing about the Restricted Possession and Acquisition License is that if you have one, you forfeit your chartered protection against unwarranted search and seizure. The government can literally search your home and take your things at any time for any reason without providing justification to a court or record. In fact, they often do. Let's say the nice lady down the way purchased a 10/22 to do target shooting, and didn't get the memo from the RCMP (10+ years later). Now, she either contravenes the law (most long guns still do not require registration, just license) and lives in fear that the authorities might find that she has a 10/22; or she finds an RFSC to get her RPAL, and the RCMP decides arbitrarily that she should be allowed to have an RPAL (because they have no obligation to issue one, even if they have no reason not to), and now she has no protection against search and seizure in her home. I might also add that firearms laws in California are basically the same as they are in Canada in many practical senses, except the classification and search and seizure stuff (which would be even more obviously unconstitutional). Most of the firearms used in crimes here in Canada are smuggled or illegally manufactured. Nonetheless, Californians kill each other far more regularly. It's almost as though the argument for gun control is thin and questionable, and the only way to prop it up is through deliberate dishonesty or accidental ignorance.
    - simonh 9y ago
      So are gun ownership rates and the types of weapons owned in California similar to that in Canada as well then? If they are, ok you might have a point, although I'm not quite sure what you think the reason for the difference in outcome in Canada and California might be.
  - Clubber 9y ago
    Imagine if we had such a staunch advocate for other constitutional rights, like privacy and right to protest?
    - TallGuyShort 9y ago
      The ACLU tends to be pretty good. I'd argue that per-dollar, they're probably more effective than the NRA, since they focus on direct court battles (and do so smartly) than lobbying.
      - Bartweiss 9y ago
        But don't they pretty consistently pass on Second Amendment cases? I know they argue that it's a collective right, not an individual one, but I'm not making a moral or legal claim. All that seems relevant is "the ACLU does not litigate cases to expand legal gun ownership". So now it's chicken-and-egg. Is the ACLU better than the NRA, but uninterested? Or are their different tactics and results a product of the different topics they deal with?
        TallGuyShort 9y ago
        Oh I was just highlighting them as staunch advocates for the 1st and 4th amendments. If one is looking for a staunch advocate of all those rights, I'd suggest the Libertarian Party but they haven't been able to gain that much traction in elections and consequently haven't been as effective as they could be, IMO. edit: as an aside, I'm big on the second amendment but stopped contributing to the NRA precisely because, among other things, they're clearly not big fans of other civil liberties. Their magazines contain (or used to, anyway) a lot of bias against anyone who didn't support a heavily militarized police force, or was against torture for suspected terrorists, etc. It also wasn't clear to me how all the money they solicited was being tracked for efficacy.
        Bartweiss 9y ago
        Yep, agreed on all counts. I was mostly just curious about whether the NRA is worse than it needs to be, or whether 2nd Amendment issues are so warped and conflicted in the US that any group entering that space will become something ugly. The ACLU has a great record on 1 and 4, as do several of the groups they work with. "Restore the Fourth" is fantastic, and you can guess which amendment they care about. The NRA is strange and uncomfortable to a lot of people, I think. I share your complaint, but they have strong stances on so many different issues that I've met people who object to them for half a dozen different reasons.
  - Karunamon 9y ago
    Is that statement about "in the mind of the 2nd Amendment folks" in any way even sort of incorrect? It's almost a rule that regulation always increases.
    - adamsea 9y ago
      > It's almost a rule that regulation always increases. This in and of itself is not a sufficient reason not to pass a particular piece of regulation.
      - Karunamon 9y ago
        That is not an answer to the plain and direct question that was asked.
  - iamatworknow 9y ago
    >I believe this pure split you refer to is the fault of the gun control advocates. In my experience it's been the other way around. I'm a gun owner and gun control advocate; a seemingly impossible combination in the eyes of most gun rights advocates. When I've said to other gun owners in the past that common sense regulations make sense, not only have I been told that opinion means I don't deserve the guns I legally own now, it also means that if I were in danger and a gun owner was around who could stop it they should let me die because I'm not on really on their side. That's right -- gun owners should not help me in a life or death situation because I think there should be some limits to gun ownership, despite being an owner myself who would also be subject to those limitations.
    - angersock 9y ago
      > common sense regulations make sense See, and like that you've lost me. That's exactly the sort of politicized weasel-wording that has been used repeatedly to pick away at gun owners. State what precise regulations you mean, and then we can have a productive discussion.
      - iamatworknow 9y ago
        You're not off to a good start in a debate when your opening salvo includes the phrase "politicized weasel-wording". I'm not a politician. I'm a gun owner who thinks it's okay for there to be some restrictions on gun ownership that I would also have to abide by because I genuinely believe it would make things safer. Think for a second about why you chose those words instead of simply asking, "what do you consider to be 'common sense regulations'?" Are you subconsciously (or perhaps intentionally) trying to antagonize me by being pre-emptively dismissive of whatever I have to say next? That's usually the case in these discussions, in my experience, and if so, there's no point in continuing at all, because you've already made up your mind to disagree with whatever I have to say. But in case I'm reading too far into that remark, I will share what I consider to be "common sense regulations": I think a permitting process should be required for all gun ownership that involves a thorough background investigation. That's for all firearms -- long guns, pistols, all of them. You should need to present this permit when making all further firearm and ammunition transactions, including private party transfer and at gun shows. Usually the immediate rebuttal to this is "well the Constitution says I have a right to guns!" Setting aside the semantics of the second amendment and our interpretation of what the authors meant by it, the end result of this proposed permitting process is not actually much different from the way things are setup today. Currently if you're a convicted felon you can't own a gun. The only difference is that for things like rifles and shotguns, law enforcement today doesn't know you own one since there is no permitting or registration process. The only difference is that instead of taking away the gun when you're a felon caught with one, you just aren't able to get it in the first place. The next rebuttal is that now the government has a list of gun owners with this system that they'll use for whatever nefarious purposes you can imagine, but you're a fool if you think they don't already have this information. Your identity is sent to NICS currently when you buy a gun, and there's no way they aren't logging this information already. The only difference under my plan is that this registration would be more transparent, and you get an ID card proving you're fit to own a firearm. And hell, we're all tech minded people here. There's no reason why this whole system can't anonymized in a blockchain or something like that. Private party transfer and gun shows would be a bit trickier to regulate, but if the plan is universal among all states, then you can simply say that if you are the registered owner of a gun and it's used in a crime, even if you didn't fire the gun, unless you processed the transfer you're personally liable. And really, that's all I mean by "common sense regulations". As I said, I'm a gun owner and I would be happy to live with this system. That is, knowing that everyone else is subject to it as well. The problem is that such a plan would need to be instituted nationwide, otherwise it's pointless since you can just drive to another state and bypass the whole thing. In the minds of most gun control advocates registration = loss of freedom, as opposed to the minor inconvenience it would be for law abiding citizens, so I doubt it would ever be possible.
  - brianpgordon 9y ago
    If public opinion continues to move in that direction then sure, regulation will get stricter. That's the way it should be. Europeans are largely happy with their higher level of gun control. Imagine if 100 years ago some Englishman proposed to make pistols easily obtainable for the rest of time- would that be fair to the current batch of Britons who wouldn't approve of that policy? And nobody is promising "if you agree to this restriction then we won't push gun control any farther." It's always "we think this restriction makes sense and we'll see where it goes from here." By the way, this is the story of every regulated industry as it starts to fall under the specter of regulation. Everyone says "Who are you to tell me what I can do? Where will it end?" The answer is that laws will stop changing when public opinion stops changing. I'm sure that those getting rich at the teat of Carnegie, Rockefeller, et al were none too pleased about increasing antitrust regulation in their era. It went against everything they had built their empires upon. That's too bad. It had to be done to address an urgent threat to American way of life. Gun control advocates see mass shootings in the news and see such a threat.
    - Pinckney 9y ago
      >If public opinion continues to move in that direction then sure, regulation will get stricter. That's the way it should be. To many of us, that's akin to suggesting that freedom of speech should be curtailed if public sentiment is against it. We really do see arms as a basic human right, right up there with speech and religion and assembly.
  - uberchet 9y ago
    I don't think it's a thing we can blame one side or the other for. In the last 2-3 generations, the US has experienced a pretty huge shift from rural to urban. The difference in life experience between those two environments is pretty stark. Someone whose family has always (let's say 2-3 generations) lived in, say, rural or suburban Mississippi is going to have exposure to and basic knowledge of firearms. Someone whose family has always lived in LA, or New York, or Chicago, probably won't. As with many things, group A has little interest in the lives of group B, and vice versa, and so you get enormous gulfs of understanding. Firearms isn't the only one.
- MrFantastic 9y ago
  It's sad that wanting background checks is seen as anti-gun. The Conservatives think that HRC was going to their house and take all their guns. That wasn't her position at all. I agree that everyone should familiarize themselves with guns but for practical self defense purposes a shotgun and a rifle are not that different. A shotgun only spreads about 8inches at a self defense range ( 10m or so ). If the range is longer than that it's more a skirmish that Self Defense. .22LR is the most common caliber in homicides. I'd rather have a 9mm, but the best gun is the one you can access when you need it.
  - bmelton 9y ago
    I personally don't see it as anti-gun, but I do see it as anti-civil liberties. It is for the same reasons I oppose voter ID, or any other hoops at discouraging the opportunity to exercise the right to vote that I oppose universal background checks. As background checks discourage the opportunity to exercise a civil right, I believe it should be viewed with the same degree of judicial scrutiny that voting should be. An imposition of fees or taxes on the right disenfranchises the poor, just as a poll tax does. An imposition of mandatory registration or waiting periods is an imposition of delayed exercise of the right, and I believe Martin Luther King, Jr. had the right of it when he proclaimed that "A right delayed is a right denied". The imposition of any sort of vetting or background checking process seems to me to be a violation of the presumption of innocence, which in turn diminishes the effectiveness of the first and fourth amendments, and seems ripe for opening the door towards warrantless searches, stop and frisk, etc. I personally could give two shits about guns, but because I'm a fan of the rights we're afforded as American citizens, I respect the second amendment. Failing to do so diminishes all of the other rights, as they're all subject to high-water mark interpretations of judicial scrutiny, and the lower the bar goes for bypassing scrutiny on one right, the bar is lowered for all our rights.
basseq 9y ago
I second this, if only for personal safety. If you ever find yourself in a situation where you're unexpectedly responsible for a firearm, you should know how to engage the safety, eject the magazine, clear the chamber, and ensure the safety of those around you. If you happen to find a handgun, or take one away from a child, knowledge is a virtue.
- Zak 9y ago
  > you should know how to engage the safety, eject the magazine, clear the chamber, and ensure the safety of those around you Note that if you try to do it in this order, you will fail with some firearms because the safety locks the slide.
- OliverJones 9y ago
  All of those things. And, point it at the ground, OK?
- ethanhunt_ 9y ago
  Really is a waste of time in my opinion. Despite appearances from the media, if someone in the US does not want to see firearms in their life, it is very very unlikely that they will ever see firearms (besides police officers') and even more unlikely that they would see a loose one that they should pick up to clear. It's advice on par with telling someone to set aside money in their retirement for a nuclear bunker.
  - bmelton 9y ago
    I think your analogy oversteps -- it's really more akin to teaching people how to use a fire extinguisher, even though they're unlikely to ever encounter a fire. According to the ATF[1], there are more firearms in America than people. The idea that you might live your whole life and never see one is far from a given, though rurality vs. urbanality almost certainly affects this, as well as the carry laws in the area you live. The statement is almost certainly more true in somewhere like California than it is in Alaska, but in my experience, definitely doesn't hold true for "America" on the whole.
forkandwait 9y ago
Are there any organizations you would recommend for such a class?
- microcolonel 9y ago
  I know lots of people aren't going to like this answer, but the NRA probably has the information you're looking for. There's a search page to help you find a course near you (by zip code)[0]. If you scroll down to the bottom of the table, there's the "NRA Home Firearm Safety Course" which goes over basic handling procedures for various types of firearm. It also goes over some topics more specific to storing firearms in the home, but is mostly a general safety course as far as I understand. [0]: http://www.nrainstructors.org/search.aspx http://www.nrainstructors.org/search.aspx
- turnip123942 9y ago
  I have to respectfully disagree with microcolonel in the context of trying to educate more politically progressive people about firearms. I cannot recommend the NRA as many people (former members, including myself) feel they have gone from being an advocate for the 2nd Amendment in the United States to being a mouthpiece for the Republican Party and it tends to come up with their instructors, classes, and other students and would probably put most progressives off. I would do research to see if your state offers any sort of Hunter Education programs instead as they tend to focus less on the politics (IMO) are more comprehensive multi-week classes. Plus some of these classes are available for no charge or help the state with preserving vs having to pay for the NRA courses. https://www.hunter-ed.com/ https://www.hunter-ed.com/ might be a good place to start.
rhcom2 9y ago
I couldn't agree more with this. As a liberal gun owner I've often thought that some sort of class for other progressives on gun safety, gun history and gun culture would lead to better and effective gun laws. Yeah 50 caliber sniper rifles, fully auto machine guns and AR-15s look and sound scary... but when it comes to gun crime in this country they're a drop in the bucket compared to hand guns.
- mi100hael 9y ago
  > Yeah 50 caliber sniper rifles, fully auto machine guns and AR-15s look and sound scary... The word you are looking for is "awesome"
  - cmyr 9y ago
    I'm curious about how you think about your feelings here. What do you think makes these things seem 'awesome', to you? When I was a kid, I definitely thought that guns were 'cool', in some sense. I thought about them, I read about them, and I desired access to them. As I grew up and came to understand that (in the general case, and certainly for hand guns and the stuff mentioned above) guns are tools designed to end human lives, it became very hard for me to see them as anything more than a tragic symbol of human littleness. What does 'awesome' mean, to you? Does it mean that they are symbols of power? Something else?
    - cgmg 9y ago
      Awesome: extremely impressive or daunting; inspiring great admiration, apprehension, or fear. It's the same feeling you get when you watch explosions on MythBusters and such. Do explosions kill people? Yes. But they're pretty damn awesome when they don't.
    - madengr 9y ago
      Awesome = fun to shoot. I have a 50 BMG and multiple black rifles. The only reason I don't have full auto is they are too expensive, but I have shot them many times.
KozmoNau7 9y ago
I used to shoot rifles when I was a kid, I even won prizes. Winning a beer mug as an 11yo kid is the height of country living, and I still use it proudly to this day. Guns definitely have their uses, for instance hunting. Target shooting is also quite fun, but these guns are rather different from the ones most gun enthusiasts like to own. I think personal ownership of guns should be restricted, thought I will not make myself an expert as to how much. Certainly I think it's much more important to manage the access to ammunition. After all, a gun is only actually dangerous when it's loaded. Sure, a gun that isn't loaded can still be used to threaten people (because even then it demands attention and the utmost respect) or even pistol-whip them. But it is very unlikely to be used to kill anyone or anything. Personally, I think guns belong on shooting ranges, and nowhere else, unless used for a practical purpose, such as hunting. I live in Denmark. Firearm ownership is very restricted, you have to have a very good justification to own anything that isn't a hunting rifle, and there are very strict storage safety and handling laws in place. Maybe a lot of people think we are too restrictive, but as a counterpoint, we do have extremely low levels of gun violence. Another example could be Switzerland. You can own guns and buy ammo, but there are much tighter background checks in place compared to the US. In addition to this, they have a much more developed culture for gun safety and respect for firearms, so their rates of gun violence are extremely low. If you're not willing to go all the way restricted, as in most EU countries, I think the Swiss model is the best.
- microcolonel 9y ago
  Comparing levels of gun violence is fallacious, though. The real question is: do guns affect the overall rate of violent crime? If guns are available, it is obvious that violent crime will more often involve them instead of knives, rope, and explosives (the other three big weapons in many places); but that alone is a neutral outcome. It is not a problem, in itself, that violent criminals use firearms to commit crimes. The problem arises when firearms enhance criminals' violent outcomes when committing violent crimes. That outcome is harder to measure and build a political campaign on, but it is infinitely more honest and productive.
- Pinckney 9y ago
  >I think it's much more important to manage the access to ammunition. After all, a gun is only actually dangerous when it's loaded. Sure, a gun that isn't loaded can still be used to threaten people (because even then it demands attention and the utmost respect) or even pistol-whip them. But it is very unlikely to be used to kill anyone or anything. This isn't really workable. One of the primary ways criminal gangs acquire firearms here in the US is through "straw purchases", where they have someone with a clean record go purchase a gun for them. This works fairly well for them, but has its limits: if guns you've purchased later turn up in crimes, you're likely to face pointed questions. You can't do this too often without putting yourself at serious risk. But straw purchases of ammunition are almost impossible to track. If the buyer is asked to account for their ammunition, they can simply claim to have shot it all already. Meanwhile, it adds great expense to ammunition (My local stores mark up their ammo nearly 100% already, and it will become worse next January once it's illegal for me to order ammunition online). And because criminals actually use very little ammunition, this cost falls almost entirely on legitimate target shooters and hunters, who are the ones shooting tens of thousands of rounds a year.
sergiotapia 9y ago
I'm a strong second amendment supporter but I will probably never own a gun. I know accidents happen, and an accident with a gun scares the shit out of me. I have kids, and the risk is too great.
- escherize 9y ago
  You don't have a pool do you?
  - gkya 9y ago
    Once the kid learns to swim you're done.But there is no way to teach a kid tonot to die from a random bullet.
    - thatwebdude 9y ago
      Because people who know how to swim don't drown? Like, ever?
    - 15155 9y ago
      > But there is no way to teach a kid tonot to die from a random bullet. How is basic/safe operation, safe handling procedures (call an adult!) not effective teaching?
      - gkya 9y ago
        I've known many casesof guns accidentally firing when being cleaned and causing deaths. Usually a child or a spouse.
        sergiotapia 9y ago
        You hear accidents happening to people with thousands of hours handling weapons. No mistakes on their part, just the gun going off. I can't risk the biscuit.
        wyager 9y ago
daleharvey 9y ago
(a die hard anti gun brit) As a Scout we were taught to shoot various things (rifle's, bow and arrow etc). I dont see what it does anything to help introduce sane gun laws?
- simonh 9y ago
  I think the idea is people who use guns will love them and think how great they are. I'm a Brit and we have next to no gun ownership culture here, but I was in the TA for 4 years and got extensive firearms experience. I don't want a gun ownership culture anywhere near me or my family. I just don't see how it could ever be worth the human and social cost.
  - oh_sigh 9y ago
    How many people did you kill?
plazmatic 9y ago
What a ridiculous article to have here. Go find yourself a gun lovers blog to discuss your completely off topic hobby. Buh bye.
- viggity 9y ago
  ermagerd, how dare someone talk about something extremely technical that involves math and geometry on this site.
arethuza 9y ago
Out of interest, do high schools in the US teach this kind of stuff? The reason I ask is that my son was taught to shoot, gun maintenance etc. at his high school in the UK and we're usually regarded as "anti-gun" as a country!
- wcarron 9y ago
  That would be a very firm "no". Guns are verboten in the education system, at least where I grew up and went to school. Even talking about guns was a huge "no". Of course, this was only 20 minutes from Sandy Hook, so perhaps not an unreasonable reaction. But still, the fear culture around guns is making it harder and harder to have reasonable discourse about them.
- InitialLastName 9y ago
  Anecdotal but related: My grandfather shot competitively and as a hobby for most of his life (mostly skeet, occasional trap and pistols). Until the 90's he also taught gun safety and competitive marksmanship at a (comparatively very wealthy) area high school. He was dropped from that role as a knee-jerk reaction to the Columbine shooting, as it was deemed "too dangerous" to allow guns, even well controlled and in professional hands and for the purpose of teaching safety and responsibility, on the school property. I don't know how this played out in the rest of the US, but I have a feeling that there aren't many (if any schools) that allow guns on their campuses, even if for the sake of education.
  - itbeho 9y ago
    I grew up in a small town in central California. High School in the early 80's - lots of kids from ag/ranching backgrounds would park their trucks in the school parking lot with a rifle or shotgun hanging in a rack in the back window. I don't recall anyone being particularly bothered by that practice or any problems relating to it. Same town, different era: My 12 year old nephew received a poor grade and "this is terrible!" written on his essay by his teacher because "What I did last weekend" recapped target shooting with his dad and grandpa at the range.
- cafard 9y ago
anologwintermut 9y ago
I happen to like guns and shooting. It's a good point to understand the appeal of guns and also "the other side." But there is a point you are leaving out that comes up if you talk to anyone who does treat firearms seriously: many people do not take those classes and/or do not treat guns safely. Go to a range on Sunday and that will be really clear. Or read the comment history by people who bring this up whenever guns come up in a general forum. Often they rightly end up complaining about safety of other gun owners in posts in more topic specific forums. But somehow, when it comes to a general audience, those issues get omitted. Taking the class would give you a distinctly wrong impression about the responsibility of all gun owners. As does the suggestion to take the class. Sorry, not to single you out specifically, it really is a good suggestion. But the net rhetorical effect of people making points like this is (and I think it's intentional) to skew the framing of the issue. Yes, you may be responsible, but with the exception of some people who would never heed your advice, people who want more regulation of firearms aren't worried about you. Guns don't kill people, some people with guns kill people.
- mowenz 9y ago
  I mean, isn't all this debate kind of moot drama in 2017? If guns were meant to protect us from our government--well we already have an overtly anti-constitutional, criminal government with disproportionate powers residing in unelected individuals. Oh but if we make guns illegal--well there already are too many unregistered that it would empower criminal interests, both economically from a black market, and from having relatively more firepower. Ah but you just want to "save lives?" Well if you want to save people's lives isn't it easier to ignore all this bullshit and do something like go supply clean drinking water to an undeveloped part of the world?
  - ethanhunt_ 9y ago
    > If guns were meant to protect us from our government--well we already have an overtly anti-constitutional, criminal government with disproportionate powers residing in unelected individuals. You don't really believe that otherwise you would've left to one of the other hundreds of countries in the world, unless you believe all governments are criminal. > Ah but you just want to "save lives?" I'm interested in saving my own life if I'm ever in danger. I already have a brita filter.
tomgp 9y ago
I suggest the same of people who are rabidly against drugs; set aside a day of your weekend to take some LSD. If you have no experience, then taking a day to learn more might help you understand how the other side thinks.
Zenst 9y ago
Should be a prerequisite to owning a gun, after all we allow people to drive a car only after they have passed a test, why not also with guns.
- x3n0ph3n3 9y ago
  Because the constitution.
  - Zenst 9y ago
    Same constitution that does not say anything about bullets, so technically could insist people pass a test before they are allowed to own bullets. Because that is how that particular constitution is worded. So still doable, and would not impact the gun fans about owning guns, many of which would of already done lessons. Just protects people from those, accidents with guns, as we do with cars by insisting they own pass a test.
    - 15155 9y ago
      > Same constitution that does not say anything about bullets, so technically could insist people pass a test before they are allowed to own bullets. Courts are built on the shoulders of reasonable individuals (judges). The law, especially as it relates to something as complicated as the Constitution, isn't a computer system with blind "gotchas" and logical loopholes. There is no reasonable person that would, after jurisprudence established in Heller and McDonald, argue that firearms and their ammunition are exclusive of one another for purposes of legislation (and rights infringement).
  - toomanybeersies 9y ago
    The American constitution is not a single source of truth. The same goes for arguing that morality is based on the law. The men who wrote the bill of rights were not infallible. Sure, it's entirely possible to argue that from a technical or legal standpoint, it wouldn't be possible to require a firearms handling test. But as far as principle goes, I don't think that the constitution is a valid reasoning.
- 9y ago
rdl 9y ago
Anyone from the tech or startup community who is willing to be in Las Vegas area for 2-4 days and is reasonable sane/not a criminal/etc, I'd be happy to help to a class at Front Sight for free (you'd need to pay for ammo, about $100-200, and rent a car/accomodations/etc)
dgfgfdagasdfgfa 9y ago
What exactly do you think this will help with? It's not hard to understand why people use/buy guns. People are just terrible at evaluating risk; not much to it.
rflrob 9y ago
Agree here, but I'd also be in favor of some method of requiring gun owners to undergo this kind of course as well. While accidents are a small fraction of total gun deaths [1], they seem especially preventable by creating a well-regulated militia[2] and ensuring that armed citizens are required to at least be trained in the proper storage of their weapons. [1] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/ [2] I'm not sure I agree with the interpretation that the "militia" in the second amendment consists of potentially all citizens, but IANAL and SCOTUS seems to disagree, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- tahabi 9y ago
  10 USC 311 states that the militia of the United States is composed of all able-bodied male citizens between the ages of 17-45, among others.[0] [0]: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title10/html/USCODE-2011-title10-subtitleA-partI-chap13-sec311.htm https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title10/html/USCOD...
ENTP 9y ago
Once, when visiting the states, i had the opportunity to take such a course and it did change my opinion (very anti before course). I got a buzz out of it and am thoroughly glad i did it. That being said, the reality is that it ultimately relies on the owner being of sound mind at all times, which is not guaranteed. So whilst i agree that it really is a good thing to do and would even recommend it, i'm glad i live in a society where 99.9% of the time I don't need to worry about getting shot because the other person is having a bad day.

uberchet 9y ago

This is good advice. I grew up hunting and shooting, but in adulthood have come to agree that reasonable gun control is really something we have to do. However, the gun vs. anti-gun divide in the US is as pure a split as exists on any policy position. Few on one side know or understand the thinking or positions of any on the other. People who don't shoot often don't know even the most basic things, like what differentiates a rifle from a shotgun, or what happens when a modern pistol runs out of bullets. They don't get the vast difference between a .22 and a 9mm on any level (size of projectile, powder load, etc.). And they certainly don't understand why pursuing something like a quote-unquote assault weapon ban is legislatively and logically difficult.

hansthehorse 9y ago
I believe this pure split you refer to is the fault of the gun control advocates. In the mind of the 2nd amendment folks every compromise they have made has led to that being the new normal to build the next compromise, thus sliding down the slope. Both political parties would do well to soften their purity tests.
- ythn 9y ago
  Well if one side only ever pushes in one direction and the other side only ever "compromises" to keep from being pushed too far, eventually the one side has everything they want (total gun control) and the other side has nothing. I'd like to see some compromise in the other direction too. Like "Ok, we'll relax CCP regulations or 'assault weapons' regulations so that normal citizens can have them, but in return we need to ramp up background checks in X and Y ways". That's how compromise should work, but instead with gun control it's very one-sided compromise.
  - InitialLastName 9y ago
    I think you'll find that both sides in this particular debate see the other in that way. At times it seems like the pro-gun folks will take nothing less than civilian access to the nuclear launch codes, and that any restriction or hindrance of access to any weapon is an attempt to overthrow the rule of law. It turns out the loudest (read: most visible) people on both sides of any given debate are the least likely to compromise.
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    We are starting from a compromise. A reasonable thing would be to almost totally restrict pistols, but the Constitution hasn't been amended on the matter since the days when a rifled barrel on a long gun was cutting edge technology, so we have people walking around with highly dangerous concealable weapons. I mean, I wouldn't want to face someone wielding a machete anymore than I'd want to face someone wielding a bag of revolvers, but at least with the machete they are going to have to physically work quite a bit to kill each person they want to kill.
    - mirimir 9y ago
      Have you ever worked with machetes?
      - maxerickson 9y ago
        I've only used a lightweight one to cut long grass.
        mirimir 9y ago
        I have an 18" military issue machete. It takes and holds a razor edge. I can sever 4-5 cm saplings with one angled cut.
        maxerickson 9y ago
        From several feet? While the sapling runs away? I'm also not real sure what your point is. I said I wouldn't want to face someone wielding a machete anymore than. I was acknowledging that a malicious person can be plenty dangerous with weapons that basically can't be restricted (a machete can be improvised much more easily than a repeating firearm or ammunition for said firearm).
- microcolonel 9y ago
  > In the mind of the 2nd amendment folks every compromise they have made has led to that being the new normal to build the next compromise, thus sliding down the slope. Given that this is exactly the strategy of the opposing actors, I can see why 2nd amendment advocates take this stance. If you look at basically any other country where there's still a debate open on this topic, you'll note that it is indeed a slippery slope. Here in Canada, the RCMP (equiv. FBI) can arbitrarily reclassify any firearm and demand that it be confiscated and destroyed (not sold). For example, the other year they reclassified the Ruger 10/22 (IIRC the most popular target shooting rifle in Canada) as a "restricted weapon", requiring an RPAL instead of a PAL. Funny thing about the Restricted Possession and Acquisition License is that if you have one, you forfeit your chartered protection against unwarranted search and seizure. The government can literally search your home and take your things at any time for any reason without providing justification to a court or record. In fact, they often do. Let's say the nice lady down the way purchased a 10/22 to do target shooting, and didn't get the memo from the RCMP (10+ years later). Now, she either contravenes the law (most long guns still do not require registration, just license) and lives in fear that the authorities might find that she has a 10/22; or she finds an RFSC to get her RPAL, and the RCMP decides arbitrarily that she should be allowed to have an RPAL (because they have no obligation to issue one, even if they have no reason not to), and now she has no protection against search and seizure in her home. I might also add that firearms laws in California are basically the same as they are in Canada in many practical senses, except the classification and search and seizure stuff (which would be even more obviously unconstitutional). Most of the firearms used in crimes here in Canada are smuggled or illegally manufactured. Nonetheless, Californians kill each other far more regularly. It's almost as though the argument for gun control is thin and questionable, and the only way to prop it up is through deliberate dishonesty or accidental ignorance.
  - simonh 9y ago
    So are gun ownership rates and the types of weapons owned in California similar to that in Canada as well then? If they are, ok you might have a point, although I'm not quite sure what you think the reason for the difference in outcome in Canada and California might be.
- Clubber 9y ago
  Imagine if we had such a staunch advocate for other constitutional rights, like privacy and right to protest?
  - TallGuyShort 9y ago
    The ACLU tends to be pretty good. I'd argue that per-dollar, they're probably more effective than the NRA, since they focus on direct court battles (and do so smartly) than lobbying.
    - Bartweiss 9y ago
      But don't they pretty consistently pass on Second Amendment cases? I know they argue that it's a collective right, not an individual one, but I'm not making a moral or legal claim. All that seems relevant is "the ACLU does not litigate cases to expand legal gun ownership". So now it's chicken-and-egg. Is the ACLU better than the NRA, but uninterested? Or are their different tactics and results a product of the different topics they deal with?
      - TallGuyShort 9y ago
        Oh I was just highlighting them as staunch advocates for the 1st and 4th amendments. If one is looking for a staunch advocate of all those rights, I'd suggest the Libertarian Party but they haven't been able to gain that much traction in elections and consequently haven't been as effective as they could be, IMO. edit: as an aside, I'm big on the second amendment but stopped contributing to the NRA precisely because, among other things, they're clearly not big fans of other civil liberties. Their magazines contain (or used to, anyway) a lot of bias against anyone who didn't support a heavily militarized police force, or was against torture for suspected terrorists, etc. It also wasn't clear to me how all the money they solicited was being tracked for efficacy.
        Bartweiss 9y ago
        Yep, agreed on all counts. I was mostly just curious about whether the NRA is worse than it needs to be, or whether 2nd Amendment issues are so warped and conflicted in the US that any group entering that space will become something ugly. The ACLU has a great record on 1 and 4, as do several of the groups they work with. "Restore the Fourth" is fantastic, and you can guess which amendment they care about. The NRA is strange and uncomfortable to a lot of people, I think. I share your complaint, but they have strong stances on so many different issues that I've met people who object to them for half a dozen different reasons.
- Karunamon 9y ago
  Is that statement about "in the mind of the 2nd Amendment folks" in any way even sort of incorrect? It's almost a rule that regulation always increases.
  - adamsea 9y ago
    > It's almost a rule that regulation always increases. This in and of itself is not a sufficient reason not to pass a particular piece of regulation.
    - Karunamon 9y ago
      That is not an answer to the plain and direct question that was asked.
- iamatworknow 9y ago
  >I believe this pure split you refer to is the fault of the gun control advocates. In my experience it's been the other way around. I'm a gun owner and gun control advocate; a seemingly impossible combination in the eyes of most gun rights advocates. When I've said to other gun owners in the past that common sense regulations make sense, not only have I been told that opinion means I don't deserve the guns I legally own now, it also means that if I were in danger and a gun owner was around who could stop it they should let me die because I'm not on really on their side. That's right -- gun owners should not help me in a life or death situation because I think there should be some limits to gun ownership, despite being an owner myself who would also be subject to those limitations.
  - angersock 9y ago
    > common sense regulations make sense See, and like that you've lost me. That's exactly the sort of politicized weasel-wording that has been used repeatedly to pick away at gun owners. State what precise regulations you mean, and then we can have a productive discussion.
    - iamatworknow 9y ago
      You're not off to a good start in a debate when your opening salvo includes the phrase "politicized weasel-wording". I'm not a politician. I'm a gun owner who thinks it's okay for there to be some restrictions on gun ownership that I would also have to abide by because I genuinely believe it would make things safer. Think for a second about why you chose those words instead of simply asking, "what do you consider to be 'common sense regulations'?" Are you subconsciously (or perhaps intentionally) trying to antagonize me by being pre-emptively dismissive of whatever I have to say next? That's usually the case in these discussions, in my experience, and if so, there's no point in continuing at all, because you've already made up your mind to disagree with whatever I have to say. But in case I'm reading too far into that remark, I will share what I consider to be "common sense regulations": I think a permitting process should be required for all gun ownership that involves a thorough background investigation. That's for all firearms -- long guns, pistols, all of them. You should need to present this permit when making all further firearm and ammunition transactions, including private party transfer and at gun shows. Usually the immediate rebuttal to this is "well the Constitution says I have a right to guns!" Setting aside the semantics of the second amendment and our interpretation of what the authors meant by it, the end result of this proposed permitting process is not actually much different from the way things are setup today. Currently if you're a convicted felon you can't own a gun. The only difference is that for things like rifles and shotguns, law enforcement today doesn't know you own one since there is no permitting or registration process. The only difference is that instead of taking away the gun when you're a felon caught with one, you just aren't able to get it in the first place. The next rebuttal is that now the government has a list of gun owners with this system that they'll use for whatever nefarious purposes you can imagine, but you're a fool if you think they don't already have this information. Your identity is sent to NICS currently when you buy a gun, and there's no way they aren't logging this information already. The only difference under my plan is that this registration would be more transparent, and you get an ID card proving you're fit to own a firearm. And hell, we're all tech minded people here. There's no reason why this whole system can't anonymized in a blockchain or something like that. Private party transfer and gun shows would be a bit trickier to regulate, but if the plan is universal among all states, then you can simply say that if you are the registered owner of a gun and it's used in a crime, even if you didn't fire the gun, unless you processed the transfer you're personally liable. And really, that's all I mean by "common sense regulations". As I said, I'm a gun owner and I would be happy to live with this system. That is, knowing that everyone else is subject to it as well. The problem is that such a plan would need to be instituted nationwide, otherwise it's pointless since you can just drive to another state and bypass the whole thing. In the minds of most gun control advocates registration = loss of freedom, as opposed to the minor inconvenience it would be for law abiding citizens, so I doubt it would ever be possible.
- brianpgordon 9y ago
  If public opinion continues to move in that direction then sure, regulation will get stricter. That's the way it should be. Europeans are largely happy with their higher level of gun control. Imagine if 100 years ago some Englishman proposed to make pistols easily obtainable for the rest of time- would that be fair to the current batch of Britons who wouldn't approve of that policy? And nobody is promising "if you agree to this restriction then we won't push gun control any farther." It's always "we think this restriction makes sense and we'll see where it goes from here." By the way, this is the story of every regulated industry as it starts to fall under the specter of regulation. Everyone says "Who are you to tell me what I can do? Where will it end?" The answer is that laws will stop changing when public opinion stops changing. I'm sure that those getting rich at the teat of Carnegie, Rockefeller, et al were none too pleased about increasing antitrust regulation in their era. It went against everything they had built their empires upon. That's too bad. It had to be done to address an urgent threat to American way of life. Gun control advocates see mass shootings in the news and see such a threat.
  - Pinckney 9y ago
    >If public opinion continues to move in that direction then sure, regulation will get stricter. That's the way it should be. To many of us, that's akin to suggesting that freedom of speech should be curtailed if public sentiment is against it. We really do see arms as a basic human right, right up there with speech and religion and assembly.
- uberchet 9y ago
  I don't think it's a thing we can blame one side or the other for. In the last 2-3 generations, the US has experienced a pretty huge shift from rural to urban. The difference in life experience between those two environments is pretty stark. Someone whose family has always (let's say 2-3 generations) lived in, say, rural or suburban Mississippi is going to have exposure to and basic knowledge of firearms. Someone whose family has always lived in LA, or New York, or Chicago, probably won't. As with many things, group A has little interest in the lives of group B, and vice versa, and so you get enormous gulfs of understanding. Firearms isn't the only one.
MrFantastic 9y ago
It's sad that wanting background checks is seen as anti-gun. The Conservatives think that HRC was going to their house and take all their guns. That wasn't her position at all. I agree that everyone should familiarize themselves with guns but for practical self defense purposes a shotgun and a rifle are not that different. A shotgun only spreads about 8inches at a self defense range ( 10m or so ). If the range is longer than that it's more a skirmish that Self Defense. .22LR is the most common caliber in homicides. I'd rather have a 9mm, but the best gun is the one you can access when you need it.
- bmelton 9y ago
  I personally don't see it as anti-gun, but I do see it as anti-civil liberties. It is for the same reasons I oppose voter ID, or any other hoops at discouraging the opportunity to exercise the right to vote that I oppose universal background checks. As background checks discourage the opportunity to exercise a civil right, I believe it should be viewed with the same degree of judicial scrutiny that voting should be. An imposition of fees or taxes on the right disenfranchises the poor, just as a poll tax does. An imposition of mandatory registration or waiting periods is an imposition of delayed exercise of the right, and I believe Martin Luther King, Jr. had the right of it when he proclaimed that "A right delayed is a right denied". The imposition of any sort of vetting or background checking process seems to me to be a violation of the presumption of innocence, which in turn diminishes the effectiveness of the first and fourth amendments, and seems ripe for opening the door towards warrantless searches, stop and frisk, etc. I personally could give two shits about guns, but because I'm a fan of the rights we're afforded as American citizens, I respect the second amendment. Failing to do so diminishes all of the other rights, as they're all subject to high-water mark interpretations of judicial scrutiny, and the lower the bar goes for bypassing scrutiny on one right, the bar is lowered for all our rights.

basseq 9y ago

I second this, if only for personal safety. If you ever find yourself in a situation where you're unexpectedly responsible for a firearm, you should know how to engage the safety, eject the magazine, clear the chamber, and ensure the safety of those around you. If you happen to find a handgun, or take one away from a child, knowledge is a virtue.

Zak 9y ago
> you should know how to engage the safety, eject the magazine, clear the chamber, and ensure the safety of those around you Note that if you try to do it in this order, you will fail with some firearms because the safety locks the slide.
OliverJones 9y ago
All of those things. And, point it at the ground, OK?
ethanhunt_ 9y ago
Really is a waste of time in my opinion. Despite appearances from the media, if someone in the US does not want to see firearms in their life, it is very very unlikely that they will ever see firearms (besides police officers') and even more unlikely that they would see a loose one that they should pick up to clear. It's advice on par with telling someone to set aside money in their retirement for a nuclear bunker.
- bmelton 9y ago
  I think your analogy oversteps -- it's really more akin to teaching people how to use a fire extinguisher, even though they're unlikely to ever encounter a fire. According to the ATF[1], there are more firearms in America than people. The idea that you might live your whole life and never see one is far from a given, though rurality vs. urbanality almost certainly affects this, as well as the carry laws in the area you live. The statement is almost certainly more true in somewhere like California than it is in Alaska, but in my experience, definitely doesn't hold true for "America" on the whole.

forkandwait 9y ago

Are there any organizations you would recommend for such a class?

microcolonel 9y ago
I know lots of people aren't going to like this answer, but the NRA probably has the information you're looking for. There's a search page to help you find a course near you (by zip code)[0]. If you scroll down to the bottom of the table, there's the "NRA Home Firearm Safety Course" which goes over basic handling procedures for various types of firearm. It also goes over some topics more specific to storing firearms in the home, but is mostly a general safety course as far as I understand. [0]: http://www.nrainstructors.org/search.aspx http://www.nrainstructors.org/search.aspx
turnip123942 9y ago
I have to respectfully disagree with microcolonel in the context of trying to educate more politically progressive people about firearms. I cannot recommend the NRA as many people (former members, including myself) feel they have gone from being an advocate for the 2nd Amendment in the United States to being a mouthpiece for the Republican Party and it tends to come up with their instructors, classes, and other students and would probably put most progressives off. I would do research to see if your state offers any sort of Hunter Education programs instead as they tend to focus less on the politics (IMO) are more comprehensive multi-week classes. Plus some of these classes are available for no charge or help the state with preserving vs having to pay for the NRA courses. https://www.hunter-ed.com/ https://www.hunter-ed.com/ might be a good place to start.

rhcom2 9y ago

I couldn't agree more with this. As a liberal gun owner I've often thought that some sort of class for other progressives on gun safety, gun history and gun culture would lead to better and effective gun laws. Yeah 50 caliber sniper rifles, fully auto machine guns and AR-15s look and sound scary... but when it comes to gun crime in this country they're a drop in the bucket compared to hand guns.

mi100hael 9y ago
> Yeah 50 caliber sniper rifles, fully auto machine guns and AR-15s look and sound scary... The word you are looking for is "awesome"
- cmyr 9y ago
  I'm curious about how you think about your feelings here. What do you think makes these things seem 'awesome', to you? When I was a kid, I definitely thought that guns were 'cool', in some sense. I thought about them, I read about them, and I desired access to them. As I grew up and came to understand that (in the general case, and certainly for hand guns and the stuff mentioned above) guns are tools designed to end human lives, it became very hard for me to see them as anything more than a tragic symbol of human littleness. What does 'awesome' mean, to you? Does it mean that they are symbols of power? Something else?
  - cgmg 9y ago
    Awesome: extremely impressive or daunting; inspiring great admiration, apprehension, or fear. It's the same feeling you get when you watch explosions on MythBusters and such. Do explosions kill people? Yes. But they're pretty damn awesome when they don't.
  - madengr 9y ago
    Awesome = fun to shoot. I have a 50 BMG and multiple black rifles. The only reason I don't have full auto is they are too expensive, but I have shot them many times.

KozmoNau7 9y ago

I used to shoot rifles when I was a kid, I even won prizes. Winning a beer mug as an 11yo kid is the height of country living, and I still use it proudly to this day. Guns definitely have their uses, for instance hunting. Target shooting is also quite fun, but these guns are rather different from the ones most gun enthusiasts like to own. I think personal ownership of guns should be restricted, thought I will not make myself an expert as to how much. Certainly I think it's much more important to manage the access to ammunition. After all, a gun is only actually dangerous when it's loaded. Sure, a gun that isn't loaded can still be used to threaten people (because even then it demands attention and the utmost respect) or even pistol-whip them. But it is very unlikely to be used to kill anyone or anything. Personally, I think guns belong on shooting ranges, and nowhere else, unless used for a practical purpose, such as hunting. I live in Denmark. Firearm ownership is very restricted, you have to have a very good justification to own anything that isn't a hunting rifle, and there are very strict storage safety and handling laws in place. Maybe a lot of people think we are too restrictive, but as a counterpoint, we do have extremely low levels of gun violence. Another example could be Switzerland. You can own guns and buy ammo, but there are much tighter background checks in place compared to the US. In addition to this, they have a much more developed culture for gun safety and respect for firearms, so their rates of gun violence are extremely low. If you're not willing to go all the way restricted, as in most EU countries, I think the Swiss model is the best.

microcolonel 9y ago
Comparing levels of gun violence is fallacious, though. The real question is: do guns affect the overall rate of violent crime? If guns are available, it is obvious that violent crime will more often involve them instead of knives, rope, and explosives (the other three big weapons in many places); but that alone is a neutral outcome. It is not a problem, in itself, that violent criminals use firearms to commit crimes. The problem arises when firearms enhance criminals' violent outcomes when committing violent crimes. That outcome is harder to measure and build a political campaign on, but it is infinitely more honest and productive.
Pinckney 9y ago
>I think it's much more important to manage the access to ammunition. After all, a gun is only actually dangerous when it's loaded. Sure, a gun that isn't loaded can still be used to threaten people (because even then it demands attention and the utmost respect) or even pistol-whip them. But it is very unlikely to be used to kill anyone or anything. This isn't really workable. One of the primary ways criminal gangs acquire firearms here in the US is through "straw purchases", where they have someone with a clean record go purchase a gun for them. This works fairly well for them, but has its limits: if guns you've purchased later turn up in crimes, you're likely to face pointed questions. You can't do this too often without putting yourself at serious risk. But straw purchases of ammunition are almost impossible to track. If the buyer is asked to account for their ammunition, they can simply claim to have shot it all already. Meanwhile, it adds great expense to ammunition (My local stores mark up their ammo nearly 100% already, and it will become worse next January once it's illegal for me to order ammunition online). And because criminals actually use very little ammunition, this cost falls almost entirely on legitimate target shooters and hunters, who are the ones shooting tens of thousands of rounds a year.

sergiotapia 9y ago

I'm a strong second amendment supporter but I will probably never own a gun. I know accidents happen, and an accident with a gun scares the shit out of me. I have kids, and the risk is too great.

escherize 9y ago
You don't have a pool do you?
- gkya 9y ago
  Once the kid learns to swim you're done.But there is no way to teach a kid tonot to die from a random bullet.
  - thatwebdude 9y ago
    Because people who know how to swim don't drown? Like, ever?
  - 15155 9y ago
    > But there is no way to teach a kid tonot to die from a random bullet. How is basic/safe operation, safe handling procedures (call an adult!) not effective teaching?
    - gkya 9y ago
      I've known many casesof guns accidentally firing when being cleaned and causing deaths. Usually a child or a spouse.
      - sergiotapia 9y ago
        You hear accidents happening to people with thousands of hours handling weapons. No mistakes on their part, just the gun going off. I can't risk the biscuit.
      - wyager 9y ago

daleharvey 9y ago

(a die hard anti gun brit) As a Scout we were taught to shoot various things (rifle's, bow and arrow etc). I dont see what it does anything to help introduce sane gun laws?

simonh 9y ago
I think the idea is people who use guns will love them and think how great they are. I'm a Brit and we have next to no gun ownership culture here, but I was in the TA for 4 years and got extensive firearms experience. I don't want a gun ownership culture anywhere near me or my family. I just don't see how it could ever be worth the human and social cost.
- oh_sigh 9y ago
  How many people did you kill?

plazmatic 9y ago

What a ridiculous article to have here. Go find yourself a gun lovers blog to discuss your completely off topic hobby. Buh bye.

viggity 9y ago
ermagerd, how dare someone talk about something extremely technical that involves math and geometry on this site.

arethuza 9y ago

Out of interest, do high schools in the US teach this kind of stuff? The reason I ask is that my son was taught to shoot, gun maintenance etc. at his high school in the UK and we're usually regarded as "anti-gun" as a country!

wcarron 9y ago
That would be a very firm "no". Guns are verboten in the education system, at least where I grew up and went to school. Even talking about guns was a huge "no". Of course, this was only 20 minutes from Sandy Hook, so perhaps not an unreasonable reaction. But still, the fear culture around guns is making it harder and harder to have reasonable discourse about them.
InitialLastName 9y ago
Anecdotal but related: My grandfather shot competitively and as a hobby for most of his life (mostly skeet, occasional trap and pistols). Until the 90's he also taught gun safety and competitive marksmanship at a (comparatively very wealthy) area high school. He was dropped from that role as a knee-jerk reaction to the Columbine shooting, as it was deemed "too dangerous" to allow guns, even well controlled and in professional hands and for the purpose of teaching safety and responsibility, on the school property. I don't know how this played out in the rest of the US, but I have a feeling that there aren't many (if any schools) that allow guns on their campuses, even if for the sake of education.
- itbeho 9y ago
  I grew up in a small town in central California. High School in the early 80's - lots of kids from ag/ranching backgrounds would park their trucks in the school parking lot with a rifle or shotgun hanging in a rack in the back window. I don't recall anyone being particularly bothered by that practice or any problems relating to it. Same town, different era: My 12 year old nephew received a poor grade and "this is terrible!" written on his essay by his teacher because "What I did last weekend" recapped target shooting with his dad and grandpa at the range.
cafard 9y ago

anologwintermut 9y ago

I happen to like guns and shooting. It's a good point to understand the appeal of guns and also "the other side." But there is a point you are leaving out that comes up if you talk to anyone who does treat firearms seriously: many people do not take those classes and/or do not treat guns safely. Go to a range on Sunday and that will be really clear. Or read the comment history by people who bring this up whenever guns come up in a general forum. Often they rightly end up complaining about safety of other gun owners in posts in more topic specific forums. But somehow, when it comes to a general audience, those issues get omitted. Taking the class would give you a distinctly wrong impression about the responsibility of all gun owners. As does the suggestion to take the class. Sorry, not to single you out specifically, it really is a good suggestion. But the net rhetorical effect of people making points like this is (and I think it's intentional) to skew the framing of the issue. Yes, you may be responsible, but with the exception of some people who would never heed your advice, people who want more regulation of firearms aren't worried about you. Guns don't kill people, some people with guns kill people.

mowenz 9y ago
I mean, isn't all this debate kind of moot drama in 2017? If guns were meant to protect us from our government--well we already have an overtly anti-constitutional, criminal government with disproportionate powers residing in unelected individuals. Oh but if we make guns illegal--well there already are too many unregistered that it would empower criminal interests, both economically from a black market, and from having relatively more firepower. Ah but you just want to "save lives?" Well if you want to save people's lives isn't it easier to ignore all this bullshit and do something like go supply clean drinking water to an undeveloped part of the world?
- ethanhunt_ 9y ago
  > If guns were meant to protect us from our government--well we already have an overtly anti-constitutional, criminal government with disproportionate powers residing in unelected individuals. You don't really believe that otherwise you would've left to one of the other hundreds of countries in the world, unless you believe all governments are criminal. > Ah but you just want to "save lives?" I'm interested in saving my own life if I'm ever in danger. I already have a brita filter.

tomgp 9y ago

I suggest the same of people who are rabidly against drugs; set aside a day of your weekend to take some LSD. If you have no experience, then taking a day to learn more might help you understand how the other side thinks.

Zenst 9y ago

Should be a prerequisite to owning a gun, after all we allow people to drive a car only after they have passed a test, why not also with guns.

x3n0ph3n3 9y ago
Because the constitution.
- Zenst 9y ago
  Same constitution that does not say anything about bullets, so technically could insist people pass a test before they are allowed to own bullets. Because that is how that particular constitution is worded. So still doable, and would not impact the gun fans about owning guns, many of which would of already done lessons. Just protects people from those, accidents with guns, as we do with cars by insisting they own pass a test.
  - 15155 9y ago
    > Same constitution that does not say anything about bullets, so technically could insist people pass a test before they are allowed to own bullets. Courts are built on the shoulders of reasonable individuals (judges). The law, especially as it relates to something as complicated as the Constitution, isn't a computer system with blind "gotchas" and logical loopholes. There is no reasonable person that would, after jurisprudence established in Heller and McDonald, argue that firearms and their ammunition are exclusive of one another for purposes of legislation (and rights infringement).
- toomanybeersies 9y ago
  The American constitution is not a single source of truth. The same goes for arguing that morality is based on the law. The men who wrote the bill of rights were not infallible. Sure, it's entirely possible to argue that from a technical or legal standpoint, it wouldn't be possible to require a firearms handling test. But as far as principle goes, I don't think that the constitution is a valid reasoning.
9y ago

rdl 9y ago

Anyone from the tech or startup community who is willing to be in Las Vegas area for 2-4 days and is reasonable sane/not a criminal/etc, I'd be happy to help to a class at Front Sight for free (you'd need to pay for ammo, about $100-200, and rent a car/accomodations/etc)

dgfgfdagasdfgfa 9y ago

What exactly do you think this will help with? It's not hard to understand why people use/buy guns. People are just terrible at evaluating risk; not much to it.

rflrob 9y ago

Agree here, but I'd also be in favor of some method of requiring gun owners to undergo this kind of course as well. While accidents are a small fraction of total gun deaths [1], they seem especially preventable by creating a well-regulated militia[2] and ensuring that armed citizens are required to at least be trained in the proper storage of their weapons. [1] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/ [2] I'm not sure I agree with the interpretation that the "militia" in the second amendment consists of potentially all citizens, but IANAL and SCOTUS seems to disagree, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

tahabi 9y ago
10 USC 311 states that the militia of the United States is composed of all able-bodied male citizens between the ages of 17-45, among others.[0] [0]: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title10/html/USCODE-2011-title10-subtitleA-partI-chap13-sec311.htm https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title10/html/USCOD...

ENTP 9y ago

Once, when visiting the states, i had the opportunity to take such a course and it did change my opinion (very anti before course). I got a buzz out of it and am thoroughly glad i did it. That being said, the reality is that it ultimately relies on the owner being of sound mind at all times, which is not guaranteed. So whilst i agree that it really is a good thing to do and would even recommend it, i'm glad i live in a society where 99.9% of the time I don't need to worry about getting shot because the other person is having a bad day.